Skip to content

Barresi, Pellicano and Michael Jackson ‘FBI’ files. Part 2

April 13, 2014

This is part 2 of the post about Michael Jackson so-called secret FBI files. The subject of the discussion is 6 pages disclosed in June 2013 by some UK tabloids and a certain Barresi who claims that the papers come from Pellicano and that Barresi once worked for him.

To see that the papers are not FBI and are no secret, and to learn who Barresi is, you need to go to the first part of this post.

And over here we will focus on Barresi having no right to speak on behalf of Pellicano at all, and on Barresi’s story about MJ being the opposite of Pellicano’s, and the fact that even today Pellicano insists that there was not a single shred of evidence against Michael Jackson in 1993 or ever.

This post will also look into the 6 documents presented by UK tabloids as some kind of a sensation which they are not –  except the sensation, of course, that some of them are fake.


The Sunday People article of June 30, 2011 speaks of Barresi as Pellicano’s “senior snoop”. From the way they present Barresi here it looks like he is Pellicano’s right hand who is fully entitled to speak on his behalf:

Pellicano is now behind bars serving a 15-year jail sentence for racketeering and wire-tapping. But one of his senior snoops – who worked extensively on the Jackson case – has broken his silence to speak exclusively to the Sunday People.

Barresi is Pellicano’s “senior” snoop? So every story told by Barresi now should be regarded as first-hand information direct from the investigator who looked into the scandal around Michael Jackson in 1993?

Noooo, guys. Of all lies told by Barresi this will be one of the biggest ones. Barresi wasn’t Pellicano’s investigator, senior or any other, and he had no access to any of Pellicano’s files – firstly, because Pellicano was not in the habit of sharing his secrets with anyone and secondly, because he didn’t regard Barresi as a credible source.

To describe Pellicano’s secrecy and unwillingness to let anyone into his investigative work Barresi himself said that even Pellicano’s direct employer Bert Fields did not know a thing about the way Pellicano was going about his business. And this is the exact reason why Bert Fields didn’t have to answer for Pellicano’s methods for which he is now serving a term in prison.

Barresi said about it:

“He had a lot of extraordinary trade secrets, and for Pellicano to share with his long-term clients — Mr. Fields was a long-term client — would be like a magician telling the audience how he did his tricks,” said Paul Barresi, a former legman for Mr. Pellicano.  Mr. Barresi has been aiding the defense team for Mr. Fields in hopes of a later payday.

When Pellicano was arrested Barresi was arrested too, but was set free, and from this fact alone we know that the magician did not share his trade secrets with Barresi either.

The above piece is also a tacit explanation of the role played by Barresi in all those investigations  - he volunteered his services, most probably by offering dirt on someone, and this dirt could then be paid or unpaid depending on the situation. So his style was closer to that of a blackmailer than an investigator, especially since the dirt was not necessarily to be true.

This voluntary informant’s work is actually what Barrisi did for Pellicano. The field he was working in was the one he knew best – it was gay sex industry.

Barresi also regularly freelanced for Pellicano. “Whenever there was a damaging story involving a celebrity client that involved sex, then I was involved,” Barresi said

The difference of an informant is that he brings in any dirt he is able to dig up, whether true or not. He doesn’t check up the veracity of the story and doesn’t analyze things in order to arrive at the truth which is the job of an investigator proper. “Legman” is exactly the right word for Barresi.

But the most important proof that Barresi wasn’t Pellicano’s investigator, especially the one entitled to speak on his behalf, is the fact that Pellicano was asked a direct question about his cooperation with Barresi and Pellicano said “No”.

The question was asked in October 2006 by Martin Lasden, a journalist working for the California Lawyer Daily Journal who approached Steven Gruel, Pellicano’s attorney with this and other questions.

And what answer did he get? Pellicano fully disavowed Barresi and said that he never hired Barresi to do any investigative work for him. The word “any” was put in italics by Martin Lasden himself.

Martin Lasden’s account about Barresi is very detailed and I couldn’t resist making a long quote from it because it was only here that I realized one other important thing about Barresi. Back in 1993 he not only worked both sides of the street – with LAPD (prosecution) and Pellicano (defense) over the Lemarques’ tapes, but he used them to a threefold advantage for himself. To LAPD and Pellicano he told the true story of Lemarques, but to two tabloids he sold the false version of the same.

Do you think Pellicano could regard a person like that as a credible source and trust him with his own findings? Absolutely not! Barresi would have sold Pellicano’s secrets at the first corner had he had known any of them.

Here is Martin Lasden’s story:

      Of all the people I interviewed about Anthony Pellicano, Paul Barresi had the most-vivid stories to tell. A former porn star who quit the business in 1989 because he was afraid of getting AIDS, Barresi worked for a while as a sales rep for a courier service. He also capitalized on his Hollywood contacts by occasionally selling information to the tabloids, and later he got back into the porn business as a producer. He met Pellicano in 1993.

“I found out about Pellicano through what I read in the media,” he says. “I knew he was Michael Jackson’s PI. I also knew that we had certain things in common. For one thing, we were both Sicilian. And when I saw him on TV, he acted a lot like the kids I grew up with. I said to myself, ‘I should get along with this guy.’ So I called him up and said, ‘Look, I can’t discuss this over the phone, but I got something that will be useful to you in the Michael Jackson case.’ “

The next day, Barresi sat on a black leather sofa in Pellicano’s office, describing the contents of two surreptitiously recorded conversations he had had with one of Jackson’s cooks, Philip LeMarque, and his wife, Stella. The LeMarques, Barresi says, claimed they observed Jackson molesting child actor Macaulay Culkin. They also told him they wanted to sell their story to the tabloids.

Barresi agreed to act as their broker, and he quickly secured a $150,000 offer from the National Enquirer, with the understanding that he would get a 15 percent cut. The deal turned sour, though, when the LeMarques hired an attorney who promised to get them half a million dollars instead. Naturally, Barresi was upset, and he wanted to get back at them if he could. This was where the tapes came in.

When the LeMarques first told Barresi their story, they said they saw Jackson’s hand over Culkin’s pants. But as time passed, their narrative evolved and had Jackson’s hand inside the boy’s pants. Barresi had this discrepancy on tape, and now he was alerting Pellicano.

“He was very attentive,” Barresi says of that first meeting. “He looked at the transcripts, evaluated what I had to say about the inconsistencies between one transcript and another. … I could tell he liked my handiwork. That is how the relationship started.”

For the next ten years, Pellicano hired Barresi from time to time to dig up dirt on famous people. Barresi says he was always paid in crisp $100 bills and was never told the reason for a particular assignment.

And here comes a piece about Pellicano denying that he ever hired Barresi:

      “ I inform him of Pellicano’s latest denial, which is that he never hired Barresi to do any investigative work for him. My source on this is Steven Gruel, Pellicano’s attorney. But, as I say to Barresi, it’s not a claim I take seriously. Not with the emails and faxes Barresi has shared with me that document the relationship. And then there are all the other people I’ve talked to who vouch for Pellicano and Barresi’s association. Yet Barresi is still upset. And so the next day he sits down and writes Pellicano a letter.

“Look, I got proof I worked for you,” Barresi writes. “Proof positive. You paid one of my sources in cash yourself. You mailed him money, $200 cash, in an envelope. … How about that male hustler who said he was with Tom Cruise? I brought him to your office on your instruction. You said you needed to interrogate him. I still get e-mails from that cocksucker, all pissed off at me. Also, several of your secretaries, who John Connolly spoke with, and other people associated with you confirmed I did jobs for you. “Reflect on this, please. Be honest. Write me back.”

Raymond Strait, Barresi’s unsuccessful book partner described the situation with the male hustler in the opposite way – Pellicano didn’t give him any assignments in respect of this man. On the contrary, when the hustler approached Barresi with his story and requested him to get a movie deal based on it, Barresi started thinking of how to “spin the story into a small fortune” with a 15% commission for himself. The first call was to the National Enquirer, but when that deal went sour the second call was to Pellicano who asked (or agreed) to interrogate the hustler to check his credibility. In the end Barresi got $5,000, the hustler got nothing and had to flee the country.  Now Barresi is saying that he has done “investigative work on behalf of Cruise”.

This is the usual routine with Barresi. He learns of some dirt about someone (fictional or real) and offers it to all interested parties expecting a lavish pay for it, and when things don’t go his way he favors those who pay most. No wonder Pellicano said he never hired Barresi – a style like Barresi’s can compromise any true investigation.

But what worries me most about Barresi’s letter is its last sentence –  “Reflect on this, please”. To me it sounds like a threat. It sounds like if Pellicano doesn’t reflect on it the right way Barresi will make Pellicano regret it.

Pellicano is in prison now and will stay there for long, and won’t be able to defend himself or anyone from behind prison bars. In circumstances like these Barresi can easily take his little revenge on Pellicano. For example, by distorting his words. For example, about the person whom Pellicano fiercely supported. Someone like Michael Jackson, for example. Especially if he is paid good money for it.

The big difference between Barresi and Pellicano is that Barresi can say anything about Michael depending on the sum, while Pellicano is an investigator who cherishes his reputation of a man-who-knows-all and who, once he learned the truth, will stick to it no matter what.

And Pellicano always spoke of Michael’s innocence. And he did not just say it – he was adamant about it. He said it at all times while he worked for Michael Jackson and after the work was over too, when he quit the job in solidarity with his employer Bert Fields who was fired in December 1993.

But the most interesting point in Pellicano’s story is that recently, in August 2011 he spoke in the defense of Michael’s Jackson again. It was in an interview he gave from behind prison bars to a journalist of the Daily Beast. The majority of people think that in that interview Pellicano recanted on his words.

No, he didn’t. He was simply talking about a different thing.


The story told by the Daily Beast on August 7, 2011 was only structured in a way to produce the effect that Pellicano knew some unwelcome truth about MJ. In reality the same Daily Beast provided irrefutable proof that in his interview Pellicano was speaking about Michael’s innocence and the dark secret found during his 1993 investigation was about someone else.

Since there is a very big danger that in the wake of Wade Robson’s case someone will be tempted to replace Pellicano’s views on Michael Jackson by those of Barresi (opposite to Pellicano’s), I need to describe here how the Daily Beast did their best to mask the fact that in his prison interview Pellicano supported Michael again.

The trick was simple but practically unnoticeable.

In the Daily Beast article of August 7, 2011 called Hollywood Hacker Breaks His Silence  Pellicano was quoted saying that he quit the Chandler case because he had found out some truths. Then he allegedly dropped an ambiguous phrase saying that MJ ‘did something much worse than molestation’.

Pellicano's reach was published by the Daily Beast the same day as the article

“Pellicano’s reach” was published by the Daily Beast the same day as the article

And in the chart published the same day by the same Daily Beast but only on a different page called Pellicano’s Reach, Pellicano was saying that he had indeed found some damning evidence, only it was not about MJ – it was about the accuser’s family.

This way those who read the article knew one thing, and those who saw the chart knew another thing. And it never occurred to anyone to bring the two pieces of  information together.

If they did bring them together the true message from Pellicano would read as follows:

  • Pellicano did find some truths … and it was damning information about the accuser’s family.

The way the whole thing was done makes me think that it was a deliberate lie told by the Daily Beast journalist who snatched Pellicano’s words from the context and all those ambiguous phrases dropped by her were meant to mask the truth who Pellicano was really talking about.

Please reread the respective piece from the article again and please first take note of the fact that Pellicano warned Jackson that he had better not be guilty or Pellicano would be the first person Michael to “fuck him over”. Knowing Pellicano’s Cicilian temper I easily believe that he would have done it had he really found anything bad about MJ, especially since Pellicano himself is a father of nine children.

Also please take note of the dots in the Daily Beast article which can easily stand for a gap in the journalist’s narration:

“Later in the interview, Pellicano reveals that when he agreed to work for Jackson during the star’s 1993 child-molestation case, he warned Jackson that he’d better not be guilty. “I said, ‘You don’t have to worry about cops or lawyers. If I find out anything, I will f–k you over.’ ” The detective took the assignment, but says, “I quit because I found out some truths . . .  He did something far worse to young boys than molest them.”

But he refuses to say anything more about it. It’s as if Pellicano wants to send Hollywood a reminder: I know which closets hold the skeletons.

And here is information from the “Pellicano reach” chart published the same day on the Daily Beast parallel page which contained the actual truth found by Pellicano. The text accompanying point 7 of the chart says:

“Facing molestation charges, Michael Jackson reportedly used Pellicano, who claims he found damning information about the accuser’s family”

Pellicano found damning information about the accuser's family

Pellicano found damning information about the accuser’s family

To hide the fact that the article about Pellicano’s interview and chart of his clients were published on one and the same day (August 7, 2011) the Daily Beast did not place the date on the chart at all. The date of the chart could be found only in its URL and this is what made all this masquarade all the more intriguing:

  • Note: I am now told that the link to “Pellicano’s reach” is no longer working. Well, this means that my diagnosis of the plans of Michael’s adversaries is absolutely correct. They are erasing all traces of Pellicano’s support for Michael Jackson and want to replace him with Barresi who will sing a tune exactly the opposite to that of Pellicano.
  • April 14, 2013. The Pellicano Reach page was there but is no longer available now

    April 14, 2013. Pellicano Reach  chart WAS there but is no longer available now

    As a proof that only recently the Pellicano’s reach chart was there I’m posting here a screenshot of today’s Google search for it which says that the page is no longer available. I’ve tried to open it and it says that it was blocked.

As to things “far worse than molestation” any normal person will tell you that nothing can be worse than child molestation (except murder, of course).

So it was either a joke of Pellicano’s or he was speaking about those families around Michael who were initially inspired into thinking that once they made friends with the famous Michael Jackson they would roll in gold ever since but later found all their hopes shattered into pieces.

When it turned out that MJ couldn’t sustain them for the rest of their lives and instead of fame their children were doomed to carry the label of Michael’s “boys” forever after, this could indeed be a backbreaking experience for many of them. The children had to grow up in the ruthless atmosphere of media ridicule and harassment from their classmates and intrusive public, and this way Michael’s desire to help or just be a good friend of the family could indeed turn into their worst nightmare, and this experience was probably far more horrible than any molestation.

Other explanations of Pellicano’s words are also possible but all of them will amount to one and the same thing – Pellicano was surely not talking about molestation and this way even from behind bars Pellicano sent us a clear message of Michael’s innocence. 


Pellicano said he quit the 1993 case as he had found the truth – Michael was innocent, the investigation was complete and everything was now in the hands of his lawyers, but the real reason for his leave was of course his disagreement with the new team of MJ’s attorneys who wanted a settlement while Pellicano fiercely insisted on a fight.

Here is what Pellicano said about Michael Jackson throughout all times (it is interesting to see how we came a full circle and what Pellicano said at the beginning was repeated at the end).

On August 7, 2011, the Daily Beast article said:

“He warned Jackson that he’d better not be guilty. “I said, ‘You don’t have to worry about cops or lawyers. If I find out anything, I will f–k you over.’ ”

And the same was said 20 years ago, on August 31, 1993:

Of the molestation charges, the investigator said: “If this was a true and legitimate claim, why didn’t this guy go to law enforcement right off the bat? If you molested my kid, it would take an act of God to keep me from ripping your heart out of your frigging chest.”

August 24, 1993:

“People are always trying to extort him for all kinds of reasons because he’s a superstar,” Pellicano said. “I have worked for Michael Jackson for many years and have gone through many of these. “This one just happened to have gone too far. Michael is probably one of the most kind and decent men I’ve ever met, and this is horrible”.

January 25, 1994 (prior to the settlement):

Amid signs that a lawsuit accusing Michael Jackson of sexually molesting a young boy may soon be settled, prosecutors announced Monday that they will not bring charges against the boy’s father, whom Jackson and his advisers claimed tried to extort money from the entertainer.

Pellicano–who no longer works for Jackson but who still fiercely proclaims the entertainer’s innocence and opposes any effort to settle the civil case–scoffed at that and suggested that prosecutors and lawyers in the civil case are orchestrating an effort to dismiss all the cases.

January 26, 1994 (the day of the settlement):

In no way, shape or form does (my resignation) indicate that Michael Jackson is guilty,” Pellicano said. “Michael Jackson is not guilty, and all the things I said in the past I reaffirm.”  

Pellicano insisted that he pulled out of the case because it was taking too much of his time and because his investigation was essentially complete. “The investigation has all been done and is now in the hands of the lawyers,” he said. Anthony Pellicano, an outspoken private investigator who worked for Jackson until resigning last month, said the settlement merely reaffirmed his belief that the boy and his family were after the singer’s money. “I have maintained Michael Jackson’s innocence from the very start, and I still maintain that he is innocent,” Pellicano said. “Obviously, there has been an exchange of money to settle this case. It all boils down to money.”

January 1994 about the events on July 12, 1993:

After listening to the tape with the mother and stepfather, Fields and Pellicano believed that the father had Jackson spend time at his house only so that he could bug the room the star and Jamie shared….Fields raised that possibility with Jackson. “Michael’s response was completely inconsistent with guilt. When I told him what he said, he was completely unafraid of any tape that might have been made during that week. It was not the attitude of somebody who was worried about what was on the tape.”

Anthony Pellicano decided to go right over to Jackson’s condo and question Jamie [Jordan]. “I went in there with an attitude that I was not going to prove that Michael was innocent. I was going to prove that Michael was guilty.

According to Pellicano, Jamie told him a lot in 45 minutes. “He’s a very bright, articulate, intelligent, manipulative boy.” Pellicano, who has fathered nine children by two wives, says he asked Jamie many sexually specific questions. “And I’m looking dead into his eyes. And I’m watching in his eyes for any sign of fear or anticipation—anything. And I see none,” Pellicano says. “And I keep asking him, ‘Did Michael ever touch you?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did you ever see Michael nude?’ ‘No.’ He laughed about it. He giggled a lot, like it was a funny thing. Michael would never be nude… . ‘Did you and Michael ever masturbate?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did Michael ever masturbate in front of you?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did you guys ever talk about masturbation?’ ‘No.’

“‘So you never saw Michael’s body?’ ‘One time, he lifted up his shirt and he showed me those blotches.’” Then Pellicano asked Jackson to come downstairs. “And I sit Michael next to him and go through exactly the same thing,” he says. Pellicano claims they both maintained that nothing happened, and Jamie began to disparage his father. “He’s talking to me about his father never wanting to let him be a boy and never wanting to let him do the things he wants to do. ‘He wants me to stay in the house and write these screenplays.’ … And he said to me several times during this conversation, ‘He just wants money.’ I said, ‘What are you talking about?’”

Then, Pellicano claims, Jamie told him the story, confirmed by Michael, that when Michael was over at his father’s house his father told Michael he really didn’t have the room for him to stay there. “Why don’t you build me an addition?” Then he went and checked with the zoning board, and he couldn’t put the addition on, “so he asked Michael just to build him a whole new house.” Larry Feldman, Jamie’s attorney, calls this story “ludicrous and factually incorrect. I checked with the zoning board, and there are no such restrictions.” Pellicano says he also learned that the dentist wanted to close down his practice and get involved in screenplays with Michael.

The GQ article by Mary Fischer, 1994:

Remember, this case was always about money,” Pellicano says, “and Evan Chandler wound up getting what he wanted.”

Was Michael Jackson Framed? by Mary A. Fisсher GQ magazine 1994

And on September 1994 Pellicano spoke with tabloid reporter Jim Mitteager (friend of Barresi).

The tape of this conversation has a story of its own. It was first passed over to Barresi by Mitteager’s widow together with all other tapes in Mitteager’s file, then Barresi gave it to Aphrodite Jones who placed it on her website, but after Aphrodite Jones fell into Barresi’s disfavor (didn’t pay for it?) she had to pull it down from her site. I made a copy of its cashed variant:

PELLICANO: You have to understand something. I have nine kids. Michael [Jackson] plays with my baby. They crawl all over him. They pull his hair. They pull his nose. Sometimes he wears a bandage across his face. If I let my own kids (unintelligible) do you think there’s a chance?

MITTEAGER: Well, all things being equal, I would say, no.

PELLICANO: Not only that. If you sat this kid [Jordie Chandler] down like I did, as a matter of fact, he couldn’t wait to get up and go play video games. I said, “you don’t understand how serious this is. Your dad [Evan Chandler] is going to accuse Michael of sexual molestation. He going to say all kinds of stuff.”

He [Jordie] says, “Yeah, my dad’s trying to get money.” As a matter of fact, I (unintelligible) for 45 minutes. Then I tried tricking him. I mean, I want you to know, I’m a vegetarian. I picked this kid with a fine tooth comb. So we’re there (unintelligible) with this kid… and if you sat down and talked to this kid, there wouldn’t be any doubt in your mind either. And I said Michael is all upset. We went over and over.

I tried to get him to sit down and he wants to play video games while I’m sitting there. I’m sitting there with the kid’s mother [June Chandler] and David Swartrz walks in and (unintelligible) what’s this all about? And [Barry] Rothman (unintelligible) asking questions. There is no question that Rothman (unintelligible) what this is all about.”

What’s absolutely invaluable about this piece is that Pellicano doesn’t know that he is being recorded. He is speaking not for the sake of impressing the public but is just telling things the way he really knows them.

The moral of this chapter is that Pellicano first made sure of Michael’s innocence and only then started defending him. And once he made sure of it he stuck to his words and supported Michael till the end.

And therefore any attempt to present Barresi’s stories about Jackson as Pellicano’s views is the most horrible, insolent and unconscionable LIE.  Barresi is absolutely no substitute for Pellicano.


Sunday People Front Page, June 30, 2013

Sunday People Front Page, June 30, 2013

The headline of the June 30, 2013 UK tabloid and the last quote from its article about the so-called ‘FBI’ files dwell on the number of kids allegedly abused by “Jacko”.

The headline gives one number, the quote gives another one, however none of them matter as any number of “victims” is actually a lie.

But our James Desborough (author of this piece) doesn’t care. He is so carried away by his story that takes it so far as to claim that MJ was fixated with “child porn”.

In this respect let us state it once and for all - there was no child porn found in Neverland. 

If it had been found Michael Jackson would have been put into prison long time ago on this charge alone.

I will make a special post about it but now let’s proceed to the most outrageous part of Desborough’s article as after that I would like to ask some questions:

“The paedophile allegations – sandwiched between thousands of pages of information about Jackson, his career and his accusers – include interviews with ex-aides who claim their boss was fixated with child porn.

The files name 17 boys – including five child actors and two dancers – Jacko singled out for abuse. Other kids the singer preyed on include a European boy and the sons of a screenwriter.

At least three boys got hush-money, the investigator said, with the family of one well-known young film actor ­being given £392,000 “to refrain from any and all contact with media and communications, newspapers, television, radio, film and books”.

The gagging order also insisted there would not be any attempt now or in the future to “extort, intimidate, harass or impede” the Jackson organisation.

A maid who worked for the singer at Neverland was said to have been paid off with about £1.3million after complaining her son had been abused by her employer. And the investigator told of one shocking case of a mother who knew her young son was being molested by Jackson “but turned a blind eye to it because if it didn’t bother him, it didn’t bother her”.

Many of the files on the victims – whose names are not being published for legal reasons – were originally pulled together by lawyers drawing up a list of potential threats to Jackson’s paedophile secret in the early 1990s.

The legal team was scrambled after the dentist dad of 13-year-old Jordan Chandler went public with claims his son had been abused – opening the door to a string of accusations involving other kids.

Whether 24 boys according to the headline or 17 boys according to the article, where does this crazy number come from? The only source it can come from is Gutierrez’s list of “victims” which he presented to Diane Dimond and sent to the Los Angeles Police Department in 1993.

Let me remind those who have forgotten about it that the police took the matter of Chandler’s allegation so seriously that when the news broke out they interviewed Gutierrez for two days running, but then let him go as this clown had absolutely no proof for his stories. The policemen were evidently so disgusted with his lies that they never even mentioned his name ever since (though all of them read his book, according to Tom Sneddon).

Gutierrez told us about his fiasco himself in the British GQ magazine of October 2006.  He complained that he had sent his findings to LAPD, but they didn’t pay attention, as he was “a nobody for them, just a Latino reporter”….

Victor Gutierrez about LAPD: "I was a nobody for them. Just a poor Latino"

Victor Gutierrez about LAPD: “I was a nobody for them. Just a Latino reporter in L.A.”

But how did Gutierrez come to the list of 17 boys? Easily. He simply made rounds of all parents of boys in Michael’s vicinity and told them his crazy stories about Michael – just as he explained it in his book. Remember the way he “interviewed” Joy Robson?

By the way Joy Robson is the mother whom Desborough describes as the one knew that her son was molested but “turned a blind eye to it, because if it didn’t bother him, it didn’t bother her”.

This great statement enables us to make a couple of interesting conclusions.

If Joy Robson knew all about it and it didn’t bother her because it didn’t bother her son, it means that Wade Robson also knew everything, and his story about ‘amnesia’ or whatever new version he is voicing now is complete BS.

If you recall Gutierrez’s book you will remember that Gutierrez also made it clear that Wade Robson was present when Gutierrez was talking to his mother.

From all of the above some more questions arise – how could the boy “never know” what was being done to him (if this was of course ever done to him) and how could he ever “forget” what happened to him (if it of course happened to him), especially if his mother was always there to remind him of it?

And why did all of them lie at the 2005 trial (if their testimony about Michael’s innocence was a lie of course)? And if they told a lie under oath then, but now it turns out that she knew it all along and just “turned a blind eye to it”, shouldn’t the mother be the first to go to prison for perjury and for pimping her son?

Joy Robson, I demand answers to these questions.


Now finally let us have a look at those 6 pages which Desborough and his followers gave a bold name of  ‘FBI’ files.

The ‘files’ may be found on the Daily Mirror site (of course):


Document 1

Document 1

The first piece is the receipt given to Barresi for passing over the tape with Lemarque’s revelations to the LAPD on August 30, 1993.

This document actually enabled us to establish Barresi’s identity and proved to us that back in 1993 the authorities were well aware of the Lemarques interview which James Desborough attemps to present now as something novel, sensational and top secret.


The second piece is the receipt given to somebody (Barresi?) in return for 3 more tapes about Jackson recorded on  September 9, 1993; December 21, 1993 and January 1-13, 1994.

The interviewees are evidently the same Lemarques as the article told us about “hours and hours of interviews with ex-aides”, but some tapes may also be the recordings of Jim Mitteager’s conversations with Pellicano and the Newt family.

Document 2

Document 2

You don’t remember the story of the Newts?

The Fox News article has an excellent material about that family and the conversation Jim Mitteager had with them. In that conversation the tabloid journalist implored the boy and his father to accuse Michael of molestation for the sum of $200,000.

However nothing came of it. Initially the father was tempted by the money but finally tore up the agreement. But though the story went nowhere the tape of Jim Matteager talking to Newts still remained – first in Pellicano’s and then FBI’s possession, and the second receipt must be covering that tape too.

Here are some details about Jim Mitteager speaking to one of the Newt brothers:

“He didn’t care! He was like, ‘Just say it and we’ll give you the money.’ And I was like, ‘He [Jackson] never touched me!” Newt said. “He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, ‘We’ll give you this money,’ even [if it's not true]. And they’d take it.”

Bobby Newt recalled more details of the 30-minute meeting with The National Enquirer’s reporter:

“He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said ‘You know, it’s going to be a huge scandal. You’ll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You’re going to be famous!’ But to me, you’d be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn’t do anything even close to trying to molest us.”,2933,152708,00.html

The 30 minute tape of Newt’s conversation with Jim Mitteager must be part of Document 2 by all means. I wish the Sunday People had published the transcript of that conversation instead of Lemarques.


The next document is a sort of a report addressed to Pellicano. It is dated July 26, 1993.

Document 3

Document 3

I’ve retyped it so that any interested party can translate this great document into their own language:

FAX: July 26, 1993


FROM: [ blacked out]

Jackson’s former lawyer, …… who specializes in corporate law stated money was paid to ……. No money was paid to…….. According to source, Jackson has paid off child victim’s parents dating back to the summer of 1992. Jackson settled with the mother of child actor/dancer wantobe…., AKA …. I was unable to obtain copy of said settlement worked out by lawyer named Howard Weitzman reads as follows:

1. On this seventh day of July 1992 by and between the Michael Jackson organization, herein referred to as the “organization” and ….. herein referred to as “claimaint”. Witnesses said, in consideration of the mutual covenant and agreements to be kept and performed on the part of set parties hereto, respectively as here and stated said party of the first part, the organization does hereby covenants and agree that it shall, 1. Have no contact of any sort, written verbal or telephonic with claimant and claimants minor child, …. Furthermore, the sum of six hundered thousand dollars ($600,000) shall be paid to claimant upon execution of this agreement. In addition, the organization shall make no attempt to extort, intimidate, harass, impede or liable in any way claimant, either now or in the future. In said party of the second part claimant convenants and agreements that it shall, in

2. In consideration of receipt of above stated monies, in the amount of six hundred thousand dollars, ($600,000) refrain from any and all contact with media and communications, newspapers, television, radio, film, books. Furthermore, claimant shall make no attempt to extort, intimidate, harass, impede or liable in any way the organization, either now or in the future. This agreement shall be binding upon the parties by their successors assigned the personal representatives. This agreement shall be enforced according to the laws of the state of California, County of Los Angeles. Seventh day of July 1992

In the end, Jackson allegedly paid off the following victims:

[17 blacked out names]

A detailed analysis of the above manuscript was made by this blog:, so I won’t repeat what was said there and will just express my own opinion about this paper.

And everything in it makes me wonder. Why was it made on July 26, 1993? It was a moment when the Chandlers hadn’t yet come up with their allegations. So the paper must be referring to the time when Pellicano was investigating Victor Gutierrez and his activity. And the names at the end of the text must also be coming from Gutierrez’s list.

If this is more or less clear the next paragraph makes me wonder all the more so. To play the devil’s advocate let us suppose that a certain civil settlement was worked out, but why by Howard Weitzman? Weitzman is a criminal lawyer, not a civil one. And he started working for Michael in 1993 only, and not 1992 which is when the settlement was allegedly made.

Below is an article which explains that Pellicano enlisted Howard Weitzman’s services only on August 21, 1993 when he learned that the police had raided Michael’s property. The raid was a complete surprise for Pellicano. He was on a tour together with Michael Jackson and learned of it by telephone and it was only after that that he hired Howard Wietzman.

Gloves Come Off in Damage Control by Jackson Camp


The instant the phone call arrived, Anthony Pellicano knew there was trouble–possibly big trouble. The caller told him there had been a raid. Police had confiscated photos and videotapes from the homes of the private investigator’s top client, pop superstar Michael Jackson.

For Pellicano, who was accompanying the singer on the Asian leg of a world concert tour, the bombshell was sufficiently jarring to prompt his own phone call moments later to Los Angeles, where it was not yet dawn.

Wake up,” Pellicano told an old ally, criminal attorney Howard Weitzman, whose high-profile legal battles have been waged on behalf of former auto maker John DeLorean, actress Kim Basinger and, most recently, a Columbia Studios executive rumored to have crossed paths with alleged Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss. This time, it was Jackson who needed him, Pellicano said to Weitzman.

As the Aug. 21 police raid threatened to spill the accusations into the public realm, Pellicano sought to act quickly, enlisting Weitzman’s services before flying from Bangkok, Thailand, to Los Angeles.

Strategy for Jackson’s defense, Weitzman said, is being mapped out through constant communication among Weitzman, Pellicano and Jackson’s entertainment attorney, Bertram Fields. “Michael is kept regularly advised,” Weitzman said. “I talk to him almost daily. I know that Anthony and Bert talk to him almost daily.”

So how could Wietzman take care of any settlements for MJ in July of 1992 if he was hired only a year later? And what could Wietzman have to do with this alleged civil settlement if he was a criminal lawyer and Michael at the time had his own civil lawyer – Bert Fields for whom Pellicano was actually working? And if there had been some settlement it would have been handled by Bert Fields?

No, the further you go the more you realize how crazy the paper is. For example, if the author of this document was unable to obtain a copy of “said settlement” how on earth could he quote from it?

If he didn’t have the original and quoted from the copy, all that legalish wording would be understandable, but if he didn’t have even the copy how could he quote phrases like “mutual covenants and agreements to be kept and performed on the part of set parties hereto” – see my point?

In fact the paper doesn’t even sound as proper English – can anyone explain to me the grammar in this sentence please?

  • In said party of the second part claimant convenants and agreements that it shall.

Or this gibberish:

  • “Witnesses said, in consideration of the mutual covenants and  agreements to be kept and performed on the part of set parties hereto respectively as here and stated said party of the first part, the organization does hereby covenants and agree that is shall…”

The above is simply a totally meaningless and random choice of words! It probably produces the impression of a legal document but it is absolutely not. It is simply illiterate. And someone is telling us that this paper was written by Howard Weitzman? And this Howard Weitzman supposedly didn’t even know the name of Michael Jackson’s “organization”?

No, a mere suggestion that the above may be a sort of an “agreement” with MJ or anyone is simply preposterous!

And how do the 17 names listed in the end come into all this? What do these “victims” have to do with $600,000 allegedly paid to someone whose name is blacked out? If the sum was paid to one person why in the end were 17 victims allegedly paid?

In my humble opinion the people who produced this paper were simply laughing at its readers. It is so big a fake that it can’t be real…


Document 4

Document 4

If sorted out by the date the next paper will be the Lemarques’ transcript dated August 28, 1993 about a theatre in Neverland where MJ and children allegedly watched “porn movies”.

Over here I have only one comment. The Lemarques forgot that the movies were shown by MJ’s special staff and that they were not a simple video which could be handled by MJ all by himself – so as the very least there must have been a witness and an accomplice to this outrageous activity.

However the witness is exactly the one who is missing here. No wonder the police disregarded the Lemarques’ stories. They wanted to embellish them as much as they could, but overdid their lies to the extent that all these embellishments debunked the whole of their lie.


The next paper is dated December 10, 1993 and is called “Excerpt of conversation Globe Bureau Chief Jim Mitteager and Anthony Pellicano December 10, 1993”. The conversation was recorded secretely as was the habit with Jim Mitteager.

Document 5

Document 5

Pellicano is talking of the need to have every story come out before the trial so that nothing takes them by surprise later. This means that he is extremely interested in pulling into light every single story and every single claimant that can claim that he is a victim.

The time of the discussion is December 10th 1993. By now the investigation has been going on for several months, but even at this late stage of the investigation Pellicano keeps repeating again and again that “there is no other kid”. He says, “They keep looking and looking and calling and calling, and there is no other kid”.

Jim Mitteager asks him (with some hope): “What about Wade Robson?”

Pellicano suggests: “Call her” (evidently meaning Joy Robson)

Jim is in doubt: “Well, she is not going to talk to me”

Pellicano replies: “Well, call her and see what happens”

Jim: Well, we talked about you smoothing the way.

Pellicano: Yeah, I know but…

Isn’t it interesting that Pellicano was so sure of Joy Robson’s good opinion about Michael, that he shrugged his shoulders and actually insisted that the tabloid reporter from the Globe should talk to her?

The text may possibly suggest that Pellicano “smoothed the way” for Joy Robson to support Michael Jackson, but from another source we find out that he didn’t have to as she was speaking in support of Michael Jackson from the very start of it.  She was actually the first to defend Michael from any insinuations and take the matter of his defence into her own hands.

The confirmation of this comes from no other but Victor Gutierrez who in his book describes his conversation with Joy Robson in the summer of 1992 after which she complained to Norma Stakos, Michael’s manager and Norma evidently brought the issue to Pellicano’s attention. So Pellicano didn’t have to “smooth” Joy Robson – it was she who was the first to voice her protest against Victor Gutierrez’s activities.

The disappointed Gutierrez called Joy Robson an “opportunist”:

Joy turned out to be something of an opportunist. She tried to use my interview as a means of making good Jackson’s promise of the “good life.” The next day, Joy called the manager at Neverland Ranch, Norma Staikos… Joy told Norma that a journalist had an abudance of information and was asking questions about the relationship between Jackson, her son and other boys.  She explained that the journalist was writing a book about Jackson on the subject of his being a pedophile.

Joy told her that the journalist knew where Wade was and he would return to continue with the conversation.”

After reading texts like these it would be all the more interesting to talk to Joy Robson. Where is this esteemed lady now and why is she keeping silence?


Now comes the last document out of the great Sunday People file. It is called an “investigative report” sent by someone to Pellicano.  And if all the previous documents could simply surprise you this one will simply knock you off your feet.


Document 6

Document 6

Let’s have a look at the dates here.

The paper is about a parent who got $20,000 for her Hard Copy interview and who was escorted by detectives on March 2nd . This clearly refers to Blanca Francia as she was the one who spoke to Hard Copy (in November 1993).

On March 2, 1994 she could be escorted only by her lawyers who were starting to prepare a civil suit against Jackson. After learning of the Chandlers’ success in January that year Blanca Franca decided to step on the money extortion road too and actually got what she wanted.

The November 1993 date is okay as at that time Anthony Pellicano was still investigating the case. But the paper is written the next day after March 2, 1994 when Pellicano had already stopped working for the case by several months, so how can it be addressed to Pellicano if he quit his job so long ago?

This means that either the paper is a complete fake or Pellicano went on sleuthing on Michael after he stopped working for him.

If it is a fake let’s throw it away without spending a single more minute on it. But if Pellicano continued sleuthing on Michael even after he quit the job let us focus on this point as it produces all the more proof that Pellicano was very thorough in his job and wanted to know the truth just for himself.

To learn what Pellicano found out as a result of all his spying on Jackson all you need to do now is compare this “investigative report” of March 1994 with the transcript of Pellicano’s conversation with Jim Mitteager half a year later - the one that was dated September 1994 and provided by Barresi to Aphrodite Jones (see above please).

This small comparison will tell you all you need to know about Pellicano’s final conclusion about Michael as a result of spying on him for another 9 months after he officially stopped working for him (if we are to believe this document of course).

And from this second Pellicano’s conversation secretely recorded by Jim Mitteager in September 1994 we learn that after a whole year of investigating Michael, Pellicano still didn’t have a single shred of evidence against MJ.

This will automatically nullify all those 17 “victims” in the first paper and the story about Blanca Francia allegedly “eye-witnessing” some children molested in her presence – because all those things were mentioned in some dubious documents before Pellicano spoke to Jim Mitteager in September 1994.

And all the “facts” stated in those earlier documents had already been looked into by the time Pellicano had a frank conversation with Mitteager and made it clear to him that he had absolutely nothing against Jackson.

And by the way how on earth could anyone ever believe this “investigative report” which claims that Blanca Francia “eye-witnessed” some children being molested in her presence if in her 2005 testimony she said that she never saw MJ have any sexual contact with any child at all? 

Here is just one quote from her testimony (of which we have a lot) where she repeats her “No” twice:

27 Q. But you did say under oath that you had
28 never saw Mr. Jackson have sexual contact with
1 anyone, right?
2 A. No. No.

Will there be any more questions about these ‘FBI’ files, guys?

Barresi and Michael Jackson ‘FBI’ Files. Part 1

April 12, 2014
Strange pairing: Dr. Conrad Murray met up with Janet Jackson's ex-husband James DeBarge on Tuesday for a lunch in Beverly Hills, California. Daily Mirror, March 27, 2104

Strange pairing: Dr. Conrad Murray met up with Janet Jackson’s ex-husband James DeBarge on Tuesday for a lunch in Beverly Hills, California. Daily Mirror, March 27, 2104

What is there in common between Conrad Murray seen together with Janet Jackson’s former husband, questions about FBI files and Michael Jackson’s “victims being afraid of speaking out”, and a certain Paul Barresi recently calling Michael a “serial molester” in a comment in this blog?

The correct answer is that all these factors point to a new thunderous lie to be soon told about Michael Jackson.

The lie will be about his “victims” who were previously unwilling to speak out but have suddenly “remembered it all” and are not longer afraid to tell the “truth”.

You will ask how Conrad Murray seen in the company of Janet Jackson’s ex-husband comes into all this? Well, this is easy – Murray was apparently interviewing him about Michael’s child friends and their parents.

These plans of Michael’s vilifiers are the reason why I took the vicious remark made in this blog on April 1st by someone called Paul Barresi quite seriously.

It doesn’t matter whether the commentator was indeed Paul Barresi or someone who only used his name in order to spread heinous lies about MJ – the point is that these people are already probing ground for their lie and even put their finger on a person who may be one of the key players in the game.


For technical reasons Pellicano will not be able to tell the truth in the near future, and this is playing into the hands of Michael’s adversaries as they are going to introduce to the public a fake “long-time associate” of Pellicano who will “tell it all” in the name of Pellicano.

His version will actually be the opposite of Pellicano’s opinion about Michael Jackson but in the absence of real Pellicano no one will be able to check up. The impostor will claim that he is using Pellicano’s secret files which he supposedly had access to.

The above outlines the main disposition of forces in the new scheme against Jackson. The main players will be the private investigator speaking on behalf of Pellicano, Conrad Murray now collecting “evidence” against Michael and Wade Robson who will be presented as one of the million boys molested by Jackson. The scheme was already started in the summer of 2013.

One of the central figures is the private eye who was allegedly Pellicano’s associate. The basis for his lies is the so-called Pellicano’s file seized by the FBI in 2002 when they were probing him for illegal possession of weapons.

The unscrupulous journalists have already called these papers FBI files and secret ones at that – and this for the sole reason that as a result of the 2002 Pellicano operation the papers fell into the FBI hands but were not published by them together with the 330 pages disclosed in 2010. Those 330 pages showed extensive operations conducted by the FBI to investigate Michael which nevertheless brought not a single proof of MJ’s guilt.

Pellicano’s papers were not published, but not because the FBI was covering up for the criminal (MJ) but because there was simply nothing to publish. Everyone who was investigating Michael’s case in 1993 saw those papers long time ago.

The papers are the transcripts of interviews of Stella and Philip Lemarque (former Michael Jackson’s employees) recorded by a certain Paul Barresi in 1993 who – attention please – first took them to the Los Angeles Police Department and only then decided to present them to Pellicano in a hope that he would take him into his employment as a private investigator.

Pellicano studied the tapes, had them transcribed and the transcripts were held in his office until 2002 when they were finally taken over by the FBI.

This way the FBI “seized” in 2002 what the Los Angeles Police Department had had for almost 10 years prior to that. The Lemarques’ revelations were surely presented to the Grand jury in 1994 when more than 400 witnesses testified before the two Grand juries in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, but neither of them found anything to indict Michael Jackson for.

For those who don’t know that the Grand jury procedure is much more favorable for the prosecution than taking the documents to the judge let me explain that the Grand Jury hearings take place behind closed doors, in the presence of prosecutors only, in the absence of defendant’s attorneys  thus ruling out the possibility of cross-examinions and even allowing for some misrepresentation of facts on the part of the prosecution as there is no one to control them there.

However despite all that both Grand jury teams which looked into the Michael Jackson case in 1994 didn’t indict him and the prosecution had to close the case without bringing any charges. So this is how weak the prosecution case against Michael Jackson was! It was actually weaker than the Arvizo case as in 2004 Tom Sneddon did manage to get an indictment.

The 2005 trial was when the Lemarque’s hour of shine finally arrived.  Tom Sneddon, Santa Barbara District Attorney had Philip Lemarque testify and he repeated everything they had previously said on the tapes (the ones in the FBI possession) and again the jury didn’t regard him as anyone close to being credible.

So any claims like the ones made by Diane Dimond now that the tapes “have remained in FBI storage and—unbelievably—never offered to prosecutors in Santa Barbara who conducted the unsuccessful criminal case against Jackson in 2005” have no leg to stand on.

The Santa Barbara prosecution had a chance to listen not only to some witnesses’ tapes, but to the witnesses live, and these witnesses could repeat to him anything they were willing to, only their stories looked so horrible that even the Smoking Gun was disgusted with them and thought that they did more harm to the prosecution than good.


Stella and Philip Lemarque worked for MJ (she as a chef, he as a “major d’homo in charge of organizing Michael’s entertainment activities”) for an unclear amount of time – their initial version was 2 years, then it turned into 10 months and finally they settled on 9 months.

After their dismissal from Neverland they opened a restaurant which went bust and they found themselves $450,000 in debt. Later their finances improved. This was when Philip Lemarque started a highly lucrative porn site which he proudly named the “most sinful site on the Internet”.

The Smoking gun tells the story:

Jackson Case: D.A.’s Sleazy Witness

Former Neverland employee turned porno “authority” to testify that he saw Michael Jackson molest Macaulay Culkin at ranch

Philippe Lamarque, a potential witness who ultimately did not testify, was the host of a porn site called "Virtual Sin". Tapes of a conversation he had with Paul Baressi showed that for $100,000, Lamarque would say he saw Jackson touch Macaulay Culkin's crotch outside of his shorts, but for $500,000, the hand would go inside the shorts. Journalist Matt Taibbi wrote: "the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case...the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles."

Journalist Matt Taibbi about witnesses like Philip Lemarque: “The chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles.”

In a 1993 “Frontline” documentary about the media frenzy surrounding the original Jackson probe, Barresi said that as the Lemarque asking price spiraled into the mid-six figures, Phillip tweaked his account of the Culkin incident. While Lemarque initially reported that Jackson’s hand was outside Culkin’s clothing, Barresi told “Frontline,” his tabloid asking price rose when his story shifted to claim that the entertainer actually had his hand inside the young actor’s pants.

While it is unclear if the Lemarques ever consummated a tabloid deal, Barresi himself pulled an end-around on the couple, selling their story to the Globe after surreptitiously taping a meeting during which the pair laid out their charges against Jackson (the resulting piece was headlined “We Saw Michael Molesting Child Star”). Barresi made sure to have a photographer secretly memorialize an August 1993 chat with the Lemarques at an outdoor café (he is pictured at left with the couple).

According to published reports, the couple actually first reached out to a supermarket tabloid in 1991 with their Jackson molestation tales, though no story was ever published. While this contact came before the 1993 tabloid feeding frenzy, Lemarque was peddling a Jackson story at the same time he was enmeshed in a personal bankruptcy proceeding. According to court records, Lemarque reported debts of $455,000, which he amassed through his operation of Bourbon Street, an Encino restaurant

Stella Microft (wife of Philip Lemarque) knew Paul Barresi from her previous experience

Stella Microft, wife of Philip Lemarque knew Paul Barresi from her previous experience

In 1997, Lemarque launched Virtual Sin, a web site he operated until last year. Billed as “the most sinful site on the internet,” Lemarque’s flagship porn offered explicit photos and videos and greeted web surfers with the words, “Welcome Beaver Hunters.” With photo galleries devoted to “Blowjobs” and “ANAL,” Lemarque’s hardcore site was loaded with the kind of photos and pronouncements (“Ass fuckin’ is lickin’ gooood!!” and “We will give you a big lick on your big or small one”) that would certainly make Sneddon, a respectable father of nine, blanche.

In addition to Virtual Sin, Lemarque also operated Galaxy 2001, a how-to site for wannabe online porn operators. “Selling SEX is not difficult if you know how to manage your boat through the intricacies of the Internet,” noted Lemarque. He claimed that Galaxy 2001 doubled as a web host and housed “hundred of adult web site” on its servers. Among the porn tutorials sold by Lemarque was one offering instruction on how to shoot your own sex videos. The site also contained a flashing link with the words “TEENS TEENS TEENS” that went to another Lemarque site where the X-rated photos featured women clearly beyond 19.”

The above is very well-known information but I couldn’t resist reminding everyone that these owners of “TEENS TEENS TEENS” porn site had the audacity to tell dirty stories about young and innocent Macaulay Culkin and were actually the ones who ruined his career.

When Macaulay Culkin was testifying at the trial he was absolutely disgusted by their lies and spoke of Michael’s complete innocence. But the biggest shock for him was not even the lies of these sleazebags, but the fact that the police had never taken the trouble to check them up with him.

These people were telling lies about Culkin for so many years and no one ever bothered to check them up with the person they were so openly slandering? It is indeed incredible to say the very least.


Diane Dimond has already been mentioned here, so let her be the first to present the story of the “private investigator” central to our discussion today. I’ve chosen this piece from Diane Dimond not because it is necessarily true (you know Diane Dimond) but because she placed the events in their chronology and this way they are easier to understand.

Of course she calls the Lemarque tapes ‘FBI’ files and of course she says that they are secret. Both are untrue but I won’t argue. In this article she is masterfully balancing between blatant lies (about poor Sneddon not knowing of Lemarques stories) and telling half truths (everything else). The result is this:

Here’s what I know. The FBI files are still secret. The documents and cassette tapes reviewed by Sunday People were offered by a private detective who has been knocking around Hollywood with them for a long time. He remained unnamed in the U.K. paper and will remain so here, but he’s hardly a shadowy figure. I have known him personally for many years.

Here’s the backstory: This detective used to work for Jackson’s high-profile private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, in the days immediately following the first child sex-abuse allegations against Jackson in 1993. The pair was tasked with identifying possible trouble for the accused entertainer, and in doing so this Pellicano associate called upon a dogged tabloid reporter named Jim Mitteager to see what information he might have developed. At Mitteager’s home he learned that the National Enquirer reporter had died. His widow gave the private eye a box full of tapes marked “JACKSON” that her husband had been working on.

Included among the hours of salacious interviews was a long discussion with a live-in domestic couple named Stella and Philip LeMarque which was generously quoted by the Sunday People in a companion article. The couple told a story of boys being shown pornography and sexually molested in the Jackson house, the theater area, and in teepees pitched on the landscaped grounds. Among the alleged victims were five child actors, two dancers, and at least 10 other young Jackson admirers dating back to 1989. The children were isolated from their parents, according to the couple, who were housed a quarter mile away in guest quarters while the young boys slept with Jackson.

(Much of what the LeMarques said on the Mitteager tapes—and to me in 1994—was similar to stories told by other Jackson employees. But the couple’s veracity has been questioned, because they repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to sell their version of events to the media.)

Once in the detective’s possession, all the Mitteager audio tapes were turned into printed reports for Pellicano and filed among his vast cabinets full of Hollywood secrets.

In 2002, when Pellicano was arrested on weapons charges, the FBI scooped up all of the gumshoe’s files.  They have remained in FBI storage and—unbelievably—never offered to prosecutors in Santa Barbara who conducted the unsuccessful criminal case against Jackson in 2005. Jackson was acquitted of all molestation charges and denied all the accusations up until his 2009 death.

I hope you see the true worth of Diane Dimond’s lamentations about her poor friend Tom Sneddon not having access to Pellicano’s tapes and therefore “not knowing” about this abundance of MJ’s “victims”.

Beginning with 1993 Tom Sneddon had access to the Lemarques live and he actually examined them at the 2005 trial, and the result was a huge fiasco, so what’s the point in lamenting now about him not listening to their tapes? Especially since even this may not be true and LAPD surely shared with Sneddon everything they had back in 1993.

Now that we know the Lemarques-private eye-Pellicano- Jim Mitteager back story it will be easier for us to look into the new allegations made against Jackson in the series of articles Diane Dimond is referring to. These were published in the summer of 2013 by freelance journalist James Desborough, former US editor of News of the World. He was the one who compiled some Pellicano tapes and presented them to the public with hysterical headlines claiming that “two dozens of victims were paid off by Michael Jackson.”


The Wiki article on James Desborough covers all periods of his career, including his work for the News of the World, his involvement in the phone hacking scandal, arrest in August 2011, release from bail in March 2012, his life as freelancer since then in the capacity of “Hollywood correspondent/consultant”– yes, it covers it all except his recent scandalous articles in British tabloids claiming that MJ spent $30 mln. to pay off his “victims”.

This wasn’t the only time James Desborough meddled with the good name of Michael Jackson. When the AEG trial was over one British TV channel made a documentary about Michael Jackson’s autopsy and over there James Desborough was again one of the key talking heads, and again his Wiki biography does not say a single word about this episode in Desborough’s career.

This notable silence about selected James Desborough’s activities makes me think that their veracity is such that he is simply too shy to mention them. And since he doesn’t talk of it himself let me make up for this deficiency and place the picture of our hero beside the headline where he is telling his blatant lie.

James Desborough lies about MJ

The author of this BS is James Desborough, former US editor of the News of the World, now freelancer who is “looking forward to resuming his career”


The first lie was dangled to the public on June 29, 2013 when James Desborough and David Gardner published an article in the Daily Mirror alerting its readers to the news that ‘can be revealed” by their Sunday People edition the next day.

Below is their masterpiece provided here in full for the sake of the record. Please take note of Desborough’s style which all tabloid journalists habitually fall into whenever they start throwing dirt at Jackson – I mean standard words like ‘sordid’, ‘chilling’, ‘shocking’, ‘sick’, ‘twisted’, ‘prey” and the like which simply abound in this article:

Michael Jackson enticed “lost boys” into sordid fantasy world hidden from their parents

By James Desborough, David Gardner

29 Jun 2013 22:02

The “lost boys” lured to Michael Jackson’s Neverland ranch were enticed into a sordid fantasy world hidden from their parents, the Sunday People can reveal.

Shocking audio tapes from the singer’s secret FBI file offer a chilling insight into the superstar’s depravity. They reveal how groups of kids would be invited to Jackson’s estate, where he would then isolate his prey. The twisted star would sleep with children in a tepee as well as his bed and was even seen groping two boys.

Jackson’s sick secrets were exposed in a recorded interview with his ex-butler Philip LeMarque and wife Stella, taped on August 28, 1993 – 12 years before the star stood trial accused of molesting children. The charges followed a TV documentary showing the singer holding hands with 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo in 2003. Jacko was acquitted of seven child abuse charges in June 2005.

The couple said Jackson – who used the code name Blue Fox – would watch porn films with young boys in his private bedroom behind a secret wall in a 70-seat Neverland cinema. They claimed the ONLY adult who ever complained about Jackson’s disappearing acts with young boys was screen legend Marlon Brando.

Stella said: “He’d come to the ranch and always see Michael playing, disappear with the children. Michael would never spend time with the adults at the ranch. “He said, ‘What the hell is Michael doing with those kids!’’’ She said another famous guest, the late Elizabeth Taylor, “never” complained. French-born Philip and Stella worked at Neverland in Santa Clara, California, for nine months and were the only live-in staff. The other staff were sent home at 4pm.

They were interviewed by a private investigator working for Hollywood sleuth Anthony Pellicano. The tape was among material seized by FBI agents probing Pellicano – who was employed by Jackson to uncover the skeletons in his closet.

The following are excerpts from a copy he made of the recording:

PHILIP: The theatre is like a regular theatre. He’s got 70 seats.

STELLA: And behind the wall, he has two bedrooms. Sometimes he’d be there with the kids. I wanted to take a picture of the bedroom but couldn’t.

PHILIP: He could watch porn.

STELLA: He’d stay with the kids all night long. All night long!

PHILIP: From 7pm until eight the next morning… nine in the morning, they are still up playing around.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR: Where are the adults?

PHILIP: The adults are in separate buildings.

STELLA: Boy A came to see Michael… The parents were in the room smoking pot with a five-month-old baby. At the time, he was crazy about Boy A and his little brother. [about Macaulay Culkin’s parents]

PHILIP: Michael likes them young. Boy A was getting too old. The first time when Michael saw Boy A in the movie, XXXX XXXX, he told Boy A he wanted to meet him.

PI: Wait a minute. She (a former member of Jackson’s staff) makes deals with the parents?

PHILIP: She makes the deals with the parents to bring everybody… the parents with the kids to the ranch. If there are five kids, then Michael will take the one he wants.

PI: You’re saying (the Jackson staffer) brings a selection of kids for Michael to choose from? Like a pimp?


STELLA: If you really like children, you like all of them, boy or girl. Not only one while the others run around.

PHILIP: We saw a little boy and girl running around the ranch at 3am. We were the ones who found them.

PI: Michael gave no attention to those he had no interest in?

PHILIP: Yes, they didn’t know where to go. The ranch is very large. The arcade… Michael invites a whole bunch of kids, boys and girls so it doesn’t sound to be unnatural. Everyone is playing and doing things. This gives Michael the chance to break one of the children away from the rest.

PI: Sounds like he has a plan that he puts in to motion, in stages.

PHILIP: First the children just go on the amusements.

PI: You mean they just play? It’s innocent?

PHILIP: Yes, but as time progresses, the next time, (the staffer) invites only the kids Michael is interested in. The activity goes on mostly in the night.

PI: Where are the damn parents! Jesus Christ!

PHILIP: The parents do their own thing. Michael and the kids sleep in the tepee.

STELLA: And Michael sleeps in the bedroom with the children he loves. That’s true.

PHILIP: There is a stairway inside Michael’s room. It leads to the guest room…no other access …where he says the children sleep, but they never do. The bedroom upstairs …the bedroom is never undone. When Boy A came, Michael told his parents, “Boy A will stay with me.” Michael has warning alarms that go off when someone is walking close to the bedroom.

PI: I want to know about the other kids. I imagine there were a few.

PHILIP: More than a few.

PI: OK, we’ll get to them but tell me what you know about Michael and Boy A.

PHILIP: (Michael) called me at 2am that night to say, “Philip, would you please bring me some French fries?” OK, I get up and I go make him some French fries. So, then I take the two-way radio and you call security and you ask, ‘Where is Blue Fox?’ They say, ‘Oh, he’s in the arcade.’ … I went around the other entrance and entered through there and that’s when I saw Michael groping the kid.

PI: Michael had his hand touching his private parts over the pants?

PHILIP: No, no, no… In the pants.

STELLA: Boy C in the cinema, Michael did the same thing with him… and the mother was two or three rows in the front.

PI: They weren’t watching porn?

STELLA: No but they were kissing.

PI: Like a peck on the cheek?

STELLA: No, like lovers. I saw them. That’s not normal.

PI: And Boy A’s father… You said he didn’t know what was going on?

STELLA: The father is an ***hole. He is only interested in the money.

PHILIP: The father did ask me one time what was happening with Michael and Boy A. Why they were with each other all the time.

STELLA: Michael took an apartment back near the studio. Michael would pick him up in the limo and they would always be together.

PHILIP: He would keep the parents busy doing things around the house. Michael would give the parents things to do and he would treat them like kings! He (a Jackson staffer) would give them whatever they wanted.

STELLA: Well, the mother of the boy from Switzerland was crying and saying, “Why does Michael always want to be with my son to sleep? Why is it I have four other children and why doesn’t he want to spend time with them, if he loves all children?”

PI: What was the mother from Switzerland doing there?

STELLA: Michael sent them tickets.

PHILIP: Michael liked variety. (laughing)

STELLA: Yes. Boy B was there very often, but then he got too old and stopped coming to the ranch.

PHILIP: He would call all the time, but Michael would say, “Tell him I’m not here.” Then he’d smile about it.

PI: A sinister reaction. That’s dark and cold.

PHILIP: Michael and Boy B watched porn together. The boy didn’t want to touch himself and Michael told him he would do it for him.

PI: Did any adults witness this?

STELLA: Yes, (Jackson staffer) saw everything. She told us… Michael always thought everybody was stealing from him.

PI: Maybe it stems from his own guilt… from stealing young boys’ ­childhoods. Any other weird behaviour or something you want to mention?

PHILIP: Michael would never let the kids look at clocks or know what day it was. He didn’t want anybody to worry about the time because it was never bedtime. Sometimes he’d be up all night with the kids.

The investigator, speaking now, said: “I don’t believe the world understood how much power and influence Jackson wielded. He could spend millions to silence anyone – and he did that with Jordie (Chandler). Back then the victims couldn’t speak for themselves. I understand some of their parents were paid money and the kids didn’t know. Now the kids are grown up, they have the chance to speak. I feel that Wade is now taking his chance to speak up.

“I hope it helps his other victims. It might even give them the courage to make a complaint to the police.”

The main message of the story is in its ending of course. The private investigator claims that “back then the silenced victims” could not talk, and now he suggests that they should please speak up and the first he expects to do so is Wade Robson of course.

Actually the invitation is not needed as Wade Robson already made his first try several months prior to that – at the end of April when the AEG trial was just starting.

I mention the AEG trial as this way the timeline of allegations about Michael is easier to remember – the day before the trial opened Wade Robson broke his story, the day before the first AEG witness started his testimony the J.Desborough tabloid series began to unfold, and several days after the trial the UK channel showed a Jackson autopsy program where the same characters (Desborough, Conrad Murray) were also taking part.

Now a word about the article and some of its details.

Among the many lies told the lie about Macaulay’s parents “smoking pot with in a room a five-month old baby” offended me most for some reason. It is the worst black humor joke I’ve ever heard, especially after reading the book by Kit Culkin which made it clear from chapter one what a bore and unbearable disciplinarian he was.

By the time the Lemarques were telling their dirt Kit Culkin had not written his book yet. If they had had a chance to read it in advance they would have never dared to tell this lie as it so terrribly goes against Kit Culkin’s character that it immediately betrays them the horrendous liars they are.

It is almost like saying that Katherine Jackson likes smoking pot while reading the bible. Sorry guys, but this is the only comparison I could think of to show you how preposterous Lemarque’s lies are – this and all the rest of them.

When you have so flashy a story like the one about smoking pot, small but significant lies may go absolutely unnoticed. And this is what indeed happens with a statement that the private eye interviewed the French couple when he was working for Pellicano. No, he wasn’t. The recording was made well before the private eye came into contact with Pellicano and the tapes were actually a sort of a gift to Pellicano with the intention to get a job with him and assure him of the applicant’s skills.

Pellicano did get interested and used this guy for some specific tasks but despite occasional jobs done for him still thought it necessary to recently communicate to the general public that this person had never been in Pellicano’s employment and had never done any real investigative work for him (more about it in the 2nd half of the post).

As to Pellicano’s own services for Michael, he was indeed employed by Michael’s lawyer Bert Fields, for whom Pellicano was working as a private investigator, and the apparent reason for this hire was not “to uncover the skeletons in his closet” as the article alleges, but most probably for investigating Victor Gutierrez who was dogging Michael’s friends.

Gutierrez was interviewing the parents of children around Michael and spreading heinous lies about him and at some point Pellicano approached him as he wanted to know why.


We know of this fact from Gutierrez’s book where he says that in 1992 he “interviewed” Joy Robson. The word interview is in quotes as Gutierrez’s interviewing was actually spreading nasty lies about Jackson.

Here is the description of how he talked to Joy Robson in the middle of 1992:

On a summer’s day in June 1992, I went with a friend to Venice Beach, California… I realized that it was Wade Robson…I couldn’t believe it, I had been looking for this boy and his mother for more than five months [since approx. Dec.1991] without any luck and here, by chance, I found both of them…. I introduced myself to the mother saying that I was a journalist and that I was writing a book about Jackson which concerned his relationship with minors, including his being a pedophile….I asked her to at least let me explain what I had found out up until now, and then ask her if there was anything that she wanted to add.”

And then Gutierrez told Joy Robson his story about Michael including all his own pedophilia fantasies about him (by his own admission Gutierrez is an attendee of NABLA conferences, you know). When he finished his story Joy Robson exclaimed: “It is not true!”:

When I finished speaking, Joy exclaimed “It’s not true!” I told her that the truth was going to come out one day.

Let us also note that according to Gutierrez Wade Robson was present at least at a part of their conversation:

“Now that she knew the details of my investigation, Joy sat down on the grass and began to confide in me. Wade was reading a magazine, but was close enough to hear his mother’s story.”

Joy Robson complained about that conversation to Norma Stakos (MJ’s manager) and two months later Pellicano arose at Guterrez’s door and asked him why he was telling stories about Michael. Gutierrez said he was writing a book. The conversation ended on a threatening note, however obviously not threatening enough as three years later, in 1995 Gutierrez did publish his monstrosity and never stopped vilifying Michael Jackson until the end of his life.

Considering that Pellicano was arrested in 2002 and full ten years passed since he allegedly threatened Gutierrez with taking his life and all this time Gutierrez was alive and kicking, and worked for Diane Dimond, and had to flee the country only when he let her down by claiming that he had a video of MJ molesting a boy, and she trumpted it all over the media, and it turned out to be a lie, and Michael Jackson sued both of them, and Gutierrez lost and was court ordered to pay $2,7 million to MJ, but never did as he declared bankruptcy and fled to his native Chile to hide from the authorities only to return to the US some time later – no, considering all this I think that the danger of Pellicano to Gutierrez (or to anyone at all) is highly overestimated.

And this overestimation of Pellicano’s might surely goes for MJ’s so-called “victims” who were allegedly too afraid to speak up. At the trial in 2005 they had every opportunity to make their presence and if they, the grown-up people 23-25 years old,  did not do it then and even vehemently spoke in Michael’s defense (as Wade Robsons did),  let them shut up now please as otherwise they will look like complete clowns who are in this business for money extortion only.


The next day after the Daily Mirror teaser was published on June 29, 2013,  James Desborough presented to the public his main story in the Sunday edition of their paper called People.

In that article he finally disclosed what ‘FBI’ files the fuss was all about. These turned out to be 6 pages – 1 page of the Lemarques’ transcripts, 1 page of a transcript of Pellicano’s talk with a tabloid journalist Jim Mitteager (mentioned by Diane Dimond), 2 messages addressed to Pellicano which looked like some “investigative reports” and 2 receipts from the Los Angleles Police Department testifying to the fact that their bereau of investigations received the Lemarques’ tapes.

None of these papers confirmed the bold statement made in the headline which claimed that Michael Jackson had spent $30 mln (£23million) to silence some boys.

No matter how thoroughly you read the articles and scrutinize the 6 papers attached to them you will not find a single shred of evidence to support this outrageous lie.

However our friend James Desborough can’t care less:

Michael Jackson paid £23MILLION buying silence of at least TWO DOZEN young boys he abused over 15 years

By James Desborough, David Gardner

30 Jun 2013 11:21

Secret FBI files exclusively seen by the Sunday People reveal Michael Jackson spent £23million buying the silence of at least two dozen young boys he abused over 15 years.

The documents – case numbers CADCE MJ-02463 and CR 01046 – were not passed on to prosecutors in the King of Pop’s 2005 trial, when he was cleared of molesting a child.

But they throw a disturbing new light on the megastar’s insistence he never laid a finger on any of the scores of kids he invited to his home for unsupervised sleep-overs.

Agents have thousands of pages of evidence dating back to 1989 indicating Jacko groomed and molested children – sometimes right under the noses of their starstruck parents. The FBI files include private investigators’ reports, phone transcripts and hours of audio tapes. [the link takes you to article #1 of June 29, 2013]

They describe how the Thriller hit-maker was once caught by a member of his household staff groping a world-famous child star, watching porn films while molesting another boy and fondling the genitals of a third in his private cinema.The mother of one of the youngsters was sitting two or three rows in front of them at the time – unaware of the vile abuse her son was suffering.

Ironically, many of the damning reports in the FBI collection had been commissioned by Jacko himself.

Terrified the parents of boys who spent nights with him at his Neverland ranch might go to the cops or expose him in the media, the desperate singer hired “private eye to the stars” Anthony Pellicano to target potential skeletons in his closet – and make sure they stayed out of the limelight.

But when Pellicano was investigated himself in 2002 for bugging Hollywood stars such as Sylvester Stallone, the FBI seized all his files – including many about Jackson. It is copies of these to which the Sunday People has had exclusive access.

The latest revelations about Jacko’s lurid past come as his private life is once again in the spotlight – even though four years have passed since he died from heart failure aged 50.

His family are currently suing gig promoters AEG Live for £26billion, claiming they hired Dr Conrad Murray, who gave Jacko the dose of the anaesthetic propofol that killed him. AEG deny employing Murray, now serving a four-year jail term for involuntary manslaughter.

The files will also dismay Jacko’s kids Prince, 16, Paris, 15, and 11-year-old Blanket, who have not yet come to terms with losing their father. In fact, Paris tried to kill herself by slashing her wrists just three weeks ago and is still in hospital. But there is yet more shocking news for the singer’s family – Jackson’s former child pal Wade Robson, a dancer and once one of his most stalwart defenders, has just launched a major lawsuit against his estate.

Robson, now 30, claims he was often molested at Neverland during his regular visits to the infamous ranch during the 1990s. The Aussie-born choreographer for pop stars such as Britney Spears and Demi Lovato claims the abuse started when he was only seven and continued until he was 14.

The files seen by this newspaper appear to confirm Robson’s claim to be one of many child victims who were invited to fulfil Jackson’s sick fantasies at his isolated playground in the Californian countryside.

Pellicano is now behind bars serving a 15-year jail sentence for racketeering and wire-tapping. But one of his senior snoops – who worked extensively on the Jackson case – has broken his silence to speak exclusively to the Sunday People. The investigator, whose name we are withholding, said he was among those quizzed by FBI agents probing his old boss. And he kept copies of many of the Jackson documents now held in the bureau’s archives.

The paedophile allegations – sandwiched between thousands of pages of information about Jackson, his career and his accusers – include interviews with ex-aides [Lemarques]who claim their boss was fixated with child porn. The files name 17 boys – including five child actors and two dancers – Jacko singled out for abuse.Other kids the singer preyed on include a European boy and the sons of a screenwriter.

At least three boys got hush-money, the investigator said, with the family of one well-known young film actor ­being given £392,000 “to refrain from any and all contact with media and communications, newspapers, television, radio, film and books”. The gagging order also insisted there would not be any attempt now or in the future to “extort, intimidate, harass or impede” the Jackson organisation.

A maid who worked for the singer at Neverland was said to have been paid off with about £1.3million after complaining her son had been abused by her employer. And the investigator told of one shocking case of a mother who knew her young son was being molested by Jackson “but turned a blind eye to it because if it didn’t bother him, it didn’t bother her”. Many of the files on the victims – whose names are not being published for legal reasons – were originally pulled together by lawyers drawing up a list of a potential threats to Jackson’s paedophile secret in the early 1990s.

The legal team was scrambled after the dentist dad of 13-year-old Jordan Chandler went public with claims his son had been abused – opening the door to a string of accusations involving other kids.

The sleuth who worked for Pellicano said: “Around 1993 things were really heating up. The suggestions were Jordie was not the only victim. The momentum became so great Jackson needed a private investigator to go straight for the jugular and produce results.

“His actress friend Elizabeth Taylor encouraged him to hire Pellicano ­because she had used him to stop dirt on her drug problems being released in the media – Pellicano was a master of negotiation and keeping stars’ ­reputations clean.

“I was hired by him to find out where the fires needed putting out and, in this case, where allegations would be coming from.”  “But I have never worked on a case with as many potential claimants as the Jackson case.”

The investigator, who spent two years on the case, saw Pellicano’s ruthless methods first-hand in the frantic bid to salvage Jackson’s Mr Clean image. He said his boss encouraged his extensive contacts in the media to call the singer’s victims after he paid them off so they could publicly deny he ever touched them. It was part of a relentless campaign to clear the megastar’s name.

The investigator said: “There was a mountain of allegations levelled at Jackson and Pellicano was determined to prove his client innocent. “He promised Jackson, ‘I can make this go away’ and he wanted me to dig up everything that was around on him and then began smoothing it over.

“Pellicano had links to key figures in the US media and made them dance to his tune. He was very good at starting fires – but also at putting them out. By the end we had at least 10 boxes of documents about Jackson.” He went on: “The FBI had all that information long before Jackson’s 2005 trial. I’m surprised this evidence never came to light.

“Then again, if the pay-offs were successfully executed, no one would have spoken. “At the time, Jackson was on a world tour, battling drug addiction and planning his next CD and future. “If these files had been released then, Jackson’s career would have been over. But he was the King of Pop and spending the equivalent of a year’s royalties was worth it to keep him on his throne. With the help of people like Pellicano, the world and his fans never heard what took place at Neverland over 15 years.”

At his 2005 trial, Jackson was acquitted of abusing and feeding ­alcohol to a 13-year-old boy who had survived cancer. But the private eye said: “Our reports painted the picture that Jackson was a serial child predator. “It showed at least two dozen children were given money to stay quiet – which came to around ­$35million (£23million).

“Wade Robson was one of the kids identified as a victim while our reports show many others were paid off before their names even emerged.”

Two dozen of children! Wade Robson among them! See where the article is taking us? It takes us in the direction of a huge scandal where Pellicano’s alleged “right hand” will open the eyes of the public to MJ being a “serial child predator” and this is supposed to be established on the basis of some of “their” (his and Pellicano’s) reports.

In view of the looming danger of these terrible disclosures to be made I think it is high time for us to find out who the mysterious private eye is.


As you guessed long ago his name is Paul Barresi and it is only the proof that the incongito private eye and Barresi is one and the same person is what’s is still missing. This proof has been provided by two blogs who looked into the matter well before me.

They are: mjjustice4some and MichaelJacksonallegations

Both compared the invoice Barresi showed in the Frontline 1994 documentary and the so-called ‘FBI’ file presented in the 2013 People article. The paper turned out to be one and same document – same handwriting, same serial number, same everything.


baressi proof final

On the left you see the so-called ‘FBI’ file from the recent British tabloids collection and on the right you see the screenshot from the Frontline documentary made by journalist Richard Ben Cramer in 1994.

The paper is actually nothing else but an official receipt given by the Los Angeles District Attorney Bureau of Investigation to Barresi in return for his passing to them a 60-minute long tape of Lemarques’ interview recorded on August 28, 1993.

So while the 2013 People’s version is claiming that the receipt is supposed to prove that FBI was hiding some important evidence from the unsuspecting public, the receipt shown by Barresi on Frontline is proof of exactly the opposite – the fact that this evidence was passed over to the authorities on August 30, 1993 just two days after the recording was made.

To prove that the receipt comes from Barresi and the private eye we are talking of now is actually him (and not someone else) here is the original Frontline documentary made by Richard Cramer in 1994 where Barresi shows the receipt and explains what his interest in the whole things was. It was strictly money, of course.

32:05 Another couple, Stella and Philippe LeMarque, would emerge as key witnesses in the Jackson investigation. Their stories of child abuse reached the cops by happenestance – as a spinoff to a tabloid story. This French couple worked for Jackson for two years, until 1991. When the scandal broke, they turned to their friend, Paul Barresi, a former porn star who claimed he’d once made a hundred-grand selling a story to The Enquirer.

32:35 Barresi: “My interest in helping them was that they promised me a percentage of what they got. I was not on any kind of crusade to bring anyone to justice; and whether Michael was guilty or innocent at that point was inconsequential. My interest was strictly for the money. As was their interest too, I might add. ”

34:30 Splash News: “Originally it was $100,000 and they said, “Okay, let’s go with it”. I think they might have though – well, if it’s so easy, let’s try a bit more, and then they kept going like this until they got half a million dollars.

34:47 Barresi: “We met –  Stella and myself and this correspondent from Inside Edition. By then I heard the story probably half a dozen times and the only difference is that this time I had a tape recorder in my belt. I wanted to seize an opportunity to sell their story myself. Monday morning I got up and I realized what I wanted to do with the tape – I wanted to take it to the District Attorney’s office and turn it over to them as evidence. I knew that the DA would be happy to receive the information with open arms and, two, I knew how to play the tabloids like a harp.

35:30 Narrator: If Barresi brought the tape to the DA he had nothing to fear for his illegal tape recording. Besides it would juice up the story. If the DA is working on the story that’s action, that’s “inside information”.

Barresi: “That was the edge that worked well. If my story appeared in the slightest innoculous they would throw it out of the window. So that was one way to do it in a grand style. So I called the editor at The Globe and I said, ‘I have a tape, I’m on the way down town to hand it to the District Attorney.’ And his words were, ‘let us come with you.’ And then I knew I had him. The next thought in my mind was I’m going to ask for $30,000. You always ask for twice as much as what you hope to get. He put me on hold, and within less than a minute he came back and he said ‘well, we can’t give you thirty, we’ll give you ten.’ I said ‘make if fifteen,’ he said ‘you have a deal.’

36:40 Narrator: Barresi did not stop with the Globe. When Splash News retell this story to Sunday Mirror Barresi showed up at their office with a gun. Splash quickly arranged for him a thousand dollar check.  “This is the $1,000 check I received from the Mirror group”.

The full transcript of the video is here:

Barresi in Frontline: "Oh, come on..."

Barresi in Frontline: “Oh, come on…”

At one point of the documentary Barresi is shown speaking on the phone and ridiculing Lemarques for asking $100,000 for the story about a hand outside the boy’s pants and $500,000 for the hand inside the boy’s pants.

When saying all this he is rolling his eyes and ends it with “Oh, come on…”. The screenshot from the documentary shows him at exactly that very moment.

Barresi as a private eye in the Daily Mirror, June 2013

Barresi as THE private eye speaking in the Sunday People in June 2013

Now that we know that the “private eye” is actually Barresi you will also recognize him in the blurred picture posted in James Desborough’s article of June 29, 2013.


But how did it happen that Barresi turned on Lemarques? He and the French couple were so happily starting on the project together…

The truth  about that relationship is told by author Raymond Strait, who agreed to work on Barresi’s book but the project went nowhere as according to some hearsay Strait was arrested in April 2009 for drugs.

Here is Strait’s beautiful story:

In the early ’90s, Barresi [ ] became an unlicensed private eye and a retailer of tabloid news. In 1994, he got involved in the Michael Jackson child-molestation scandal when he was approached by two of Jackson’s servants who claimed they’d seen the performer rubbing a young boy’s thighs in an inappropriate way. The couple wanted Barresi’s help in selling their story to the tabloids, and Barresi says he obtained a $150,000 offer from the Enquirer. He was to receive a 10 percent commission.

But the servants, Barresi says, screwed him by hiring a Beverly Hills lawyer who promised he could get them much more tabloid cash, as well as book and movie deals. Angry at being cut out of the action, Barresi decided to sell the couple’s story without them. He taped them several times as they related their tale of supposed celebrity perversion.

Two of the tapes were made surreptitiously, with Barresi slipping a recorder into his pocket before joining the Jackson hirelings at their lawyer’s office. But with each retelling, Barresi says, the details of the alleged molestation grew more lurid. “Every time they told the story, they would add a little more,” he says. “Jackson’s hand went from outside the kid’s pants to inside the kid’s pants. It was outside the kid’s pants when they were offered fifty grand, and inside the kid’s pants when they were offered a hundred thousand.”

Most journalists would shy away from basing a news story on taped voices that couldn’t be positively identified. But the tabs were in frenzied pursuit of Jacko, and Barresi figured out a clever way to assuage any qualms they might have about the recordings. He called the Globe and said he was going to present the tapes as evidence to the L.A. County district attorney’s office. Did the paper want copies? Did it want to assign a reporter to accompany him downtown when he delivered the tapes? It sure as hell did.

On the day the Globe story came out, Barresi met again with the servants and their lawyer, his recorder again whirring quietly in his pocket. The woman retainer angrily confronted him, demanding to know if he was the source of the Globe story. Barresi smoothly lied through his teeth. “I already got fifteen grand in my pocket from selling the story, but I say, ‘Of course not,’” he recalls happily. “The attorney jumps in, saying ‘Of course not, he wouldn’t be sitting here right now if he did.’ And I’m so calm. I’m just sitting there. I go, ‘Search me.’ And I had the recorder going.

Meanwhile, Barresi contacted noted Beverly Hills private investigator Anthony Pellicano, who was working for Jackson to try to quash the scandal. Barresi told Pellicano about the tapes, saying they contained inconsistencies that would help undercut the servants’ allegations. “It was great because after that I took all the information to Pellicano and just discredited the shit outta them. They didn’t make a dime.”

Working both sides of the street proved highly lucrative for Barresi. By first spreading ugly rumors about Jackson and then casting doubt on them, he pocketed nearly $60,000. He got a sweet bonus, too: revenge on two people who’d dissed him.

“It’s very simple,” says the Sicilian welder’s son. “If someone’s not gonna give me respect, I’m not gonna respect them.

Oh Lord, your works are full of wonders indeed.

So the truth about these sleazebags became known only because they were too greedy and turned to another agent who promised them much more and it hurt Paul Barresi’s feelings? And this is why he decided to have his vendetta on them and took the tape not only to LAPD but to a fellow Cicilian Pellicano? To whom he specially explained the inconsistency in the witnesses’ testimonies and this is why the sleazebags didn’t make a dime?

Of course they still had to testify at the 2005 trial, but you understand that it is absolutely not the same as selling the story to a tabloid for half a million dollars.


The above shows Paul Barresi to be a somewhat unconventional villain. He seems almost like a sort of Robin Hood who does rob on the high road but for noble reasons too.

Another possible explanation is that he is looking down on all people around him as the scum of the earth as he himself has a higher moral code. He, for example, doesn’t approve of incest which (what a revelation!!) turns out to be nothing unusual in gay porn films.

This article of 2000 for example, shows Barresi resentful of the fact that in gay porn movies it is common to show a father having sex with a son but violence on the other hand is not much welcome (and Barresi is very much into violence). When telling this story its author remarks that Barresi fails to mention that he himself took part in porn films of “incest” type:

One of the reasons for the animosity between Barresi and the gay porn industry, revolves around, it seems, Barresi’s moral code, which, according to him, is quite a few notches higher than the others. Barresi expounds expansively on the low moral standards in the industry, mentioning names of directors and producers that, according to him, are guilty of pedophilia, prostitution and all around sleazy scum behavior.

<Barresi is well-known for his egocentric arrogance and profane tirades, which was in true form in 1999 when he responded to a ‘gay porn forum’ where he was the focus of the discussion... see> [link not working]

Aside from that, Barresi also has a problem with the subject matter of some gay videos. “In the gay genre whenever you come up with a movie that suggests you’re having sex with your son, or your father or relative, I mean the fucking video is a sell out, and the <gay porn> critics don’t criticize it. But if you co-mingle some good straight man-to-man sex with scenes that have some violence…. for example, I did a movie called “The Underboss’ and I got so much fucking criticism for that. The righteous gay-porn world put that and me down, and it really pisses me off…. They don’t condone that, but they condone and support incest. Now explain that to me, buddy.”

<Barresi fails to mention that theme of many of the gay porn videos in which he starred placed him as the daddy or authority figure engaging in sex with young men in the 18-20′s crowd.>

“I’m talking to you because I want to set the record straight about these people,” says Barresi. “Why should I be the only one that always gets criticized and ridiculed? I’m not recognized by my peers in the porn industry. I’m discriminated against – maybe because I live my life as a straight man.”

<It should be noted that 25% of those models that appear in gay porn videos claim, like Barresi, to be straight “gay-for-pay” persons.>!topic/

The same article points to Barresi’s huge vindictiveness as a reason why he turns on most of his friends. One of the examples is John Travolta:

“It was not out of jealousy and it was not out of revenge,” explains Barresi at first, but after a few seconds he recants. “Well maybe, there was some kind of a vendetta. Let me give it to you straight. In late 1983  when I was working with John Travolta on the film “Perfect,” he promised me that I would be his new personal fitness trainer once his present trainer – Dan Isaacson – leaves. So, in 1990, I went to see John in Bel Air – he was staying in a hotel <Hotel Bel Air according to an earlier bio> and he introduced me to a gentleman that was in his suite and said, “This is my new trainer.” I said, “Really? Nice to meet you,” but that pissed me off.”

Outspoken, opinionated, rebel, snitch…or is he just misunderstood? Porn actor-director Paul Barresi is one angry man. With 52 films under his belt and a career that has endured 30 years, Barresi maintains a quirky love-hate relationship with the adult film industry, the gay community and Hollywood in general.”

In his anger Barresi had his revenge on Michael Jackson too when Michael didn’t pay him for a tip that his videographer Schaffel used to be a porn director. Michael simply fired Schaffel without paying Barresi – and had to pay a dear price for it because in return Barresi sold the secret to tabloids. It was evidently then that Michael’s new video “What more can I give” was ruined – it couldn’t be afforded to be shot by a former porn director, especially in a situation when every tabloid was talking about it.

This episode is mentioned in the comments on a book about Hollywood morals:

Barresi went on to warn Michael Jackson that his latest videographer was also a gay porn director. But when Jackson wouldn’t pay for the information, Barresi leaked the story to the tabloids. Instead of calling Barresi a blackmailer, the authors announce that “he has a code of ethics emphasizing loyalty and respect.”

Other sources describe the big U-turns Barresi is capable of when good money is at stake. Indeed, the easiness and readiness with which he changes his story depending on the amount of money offered seems to be one of his most remarkable features:

Barresi is a hypocrite! He constantly changes his stories (and there are many!) for the convenience of instant gratification – - he has changed stories on Michael Jackson, TC, Travolta, Paul Lynde, Pellicano  and etc. to fit whatever is going on in the current press.

I know Paul Baressi, personally, and have friends that used to do porn videos & they all have very bad things to say about Barresi’s abusive & violent nature.. and the stories are horrific.

If you Google Barresi & his history, you will see he has long been a flagrant opportunist who will say or do anything to make him a profit and he often misconstrues the facts in his videos.

Fact: Barresi was paid $100,000 by the National Enquirer to talk about his “long time love affair” with Travolta. Later, he was paid $25,000 by a Scientology attorney to retract the article, going so far as to claim that the editors at the Enquirer made up much of the story, which the Enquirer was quick to deny. In the retraction, he apologizes to Travolta, but then later tried to sell personal correspondence sent to him from Travolta (when he was in Asia shooting a movie) for $250,000, saying that Travolta ended his with “Love, John” inferring this proved Travolta’s homosexuality. No one took Barresi up on his offer, not only because of his controversial reputation but a reporter learned that Travolta signs all his letters with “Love, John.”

Aside from a stint in the Air Force, appearing in Playgirl 3-4 times in the 80′s, Barresi’s main career was performing in & later directing gay & bisexual porn videos. He has made numerous claims which all panned out to be false. Now he claims to be a licensed PI, a check with the state licensing board does not show this to be true.$lcev2.startup?p_qte_code=PI&p_qte_pgm_code=2420

I did check it up and indeed there is no private investigator named Paul Barresi. So most of the time when he presented himself as a private eye he went about as an unlicensed investigator or to be more exact, as an informant who just used his ties in porn business to obtain all sort of dirt about people.

In 2009 he did obtain a license but soon lost it due to fabricating the evidence.

This CNN article talks about Barresi in connection with the fake FBI file and says that he had to file for bankruptcy in 2010:

Tabloid report on Michael Jackson ‘FBI files’ questioned

By Alan Duke, CNN

Thu July 4, 2013

Los Angeles (CNN) – A London tabloid declared Sunday that “secret FBI files” reveal Michael Jackson paid millions to silence dozens of boys he abused.

‘Recycled tabloid reports’

None of this is new — zero — and there was no FBI involvement,” said CNN Special Investigations reporter Drew Griffin. “It just sounds like recycled tabloid reports from 20 years ago.”

Griffin saw and reported on the same material more than a decade ago as a local Los Angeles reporter.

“The bottom line is this stuff was not in the FBI files,” said Tom Mesereau, the lawyer who successfully defended Jackson against child molestation charges in a lengthy trial in 2005. “The FBI closed the investigation. It sounds like a bunch of utter nonsense.”

Journalist Diane Dimond, who is no defender of the pop icon, also attacked the Sunday People article.

“It is obvious the paper took this old story and proceeded to make it seem new by adding numbers to it — 24 boys paid off $35 million by Michael Jackson,” Dimond said. “The problem is there’s no evidence to back up the claim that Jackson made that many payoffs.”

Griffin, Dimond and Mesereau each point to Paul Barresi, a former porn actor who lost his private investigator’s license for fabricating evidence, as the person who possessed the material published Sunday.

Porn star turned P.I.

“Since Barresi has fairly recently been stripped of his P.I.’s license, I can imagine that money has been tight for him,” Dimond said. “My best guess is that the UK paper offered Mr. Barresi several thousand dollars for his copies of the old Pellicano files.”

Barresi’s films, with titles such as “Married Men with Men on the Side” and “Leather Bears and Smooth Chested Huskies,” won him the X-Rated Critics’ award for best “group grope scene” in 1985 and he was inducted into the GayVN’s Hall of Fame in 2008.

Barresi, now 60, retired from the porn business to focus more on his investigative work, but court records suggest he was not as successful in that work.

He obtained a California private investigator’s license in 2009, but lost it three years later. He signed a “stipulated settlement” with the state admitting that he faked a report about an ex-girlfriend’s drug use to get her fired from her hospital job as a nurse in 2011.

Federal court records also show Barresi and his wife filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2010.

Full story:

Out of everything I’ve read about Barresi it seems that Raymond Strait (the author who started writing a book but was arrested for drugs) captured his style and character best of all. He portrayed Barresi as almost cheerfully amoral and this is probably indeed the most precise way to describe him:

“Barresi is a classic Tinseltown hustler. Like more than a few actor wannabes, he dreamed of becoming a star but wound up in a genre in which his best performances were delivered without benefit of clothes. Besides making numerous porn movies, he’s earned his daily bread as a fitness trainer, debt collector, tabloid gossip broker and self-styled private eye. Now 52, handsome and still buff, he lands occasional bit parts in mainstream TV shows. Hardened by years in the porn business, Barresi is smoothly cunning and almost cheerfully amoral. He’s of Sicilian descent and craves respect the way most people crave oxygen, which is perhaps understandable given his background.”

This happy and open amorality is indeed a totally outstanding feature of Barresi and in a way is even attractive. When people are so openly corrupt and make no bones about it you at least know what to expect of them – today they will say that Michael Jackson is a saint, and tomorrow they will claim that he was a “serial molester”.

It all depends on how much money you pay him and it is nothing personal, understand?

This is what Barresi actually said to Maureen Orth to whom he explained some details of his adventure with the Lemarque tapes. I’m sorry that I’m telling this story again and again, but firstly, each time we learn something new about it and secondly, this alone should tell the reader how stale the story is and what an incredible lie was told by James Desborough when he published it in 2013 as if for the first time.

Through Barresi, the Lemarques had tried to sell their story a few years ago to the National Enquirer for $100,000, but were told that it would take too much investigation to prove and was therefore legally tricky. But now that [Jordan’s] charges had broken, they were out hawking again, and they had upped their price to $500,000.

Barresi told me he thought the Lemarques were being greedy—they could easily get $100,000 now, and he would take 10 percent. Barresi had contacted the Globe in London and was on hold for $15,000 from them for a few days when he got impatient and went to Kevin Smith [of Splash]. He faxed Smith his story, and Smith placed it for $2,400 with the London Mirror.

Then Barresi heard from the Globe that it was a go, so he told Smith to stop the deal with the Mirror. Smith’s failure to prevent the Mirror (“JACKO’S NEW HOME ALONE SLUR”) from scooping the Globe (“PETER PAN OR PERVERT—WE CAUGHT JACKSON ABUSING CHILD STAR”) enraged Barresi. The Globe still paid him, but the Mirror didn’t.

The Mirror’s recalcitrance prompted Barresi to arrive at the Splash office, Smith says, with a gun and a huge bodyguard. Smith hastily placed a call to the Mirror and assured Barresi he would be paid $1,000.

Barresi, who eventually made $23,500 off the story, gave me transcripts of the tapes he had also given to the police and the D.A. The transcripts were carefully annotated as to “inconsistency”: for example, when the Lemarques were asking $100,000, according to Barresi, Jackson’s hand was on the outside of Macaulay Culkin’s pants; when the price rose to $500,000, the hand was inside.

A few weeks later, Barresi called to say that he had decided to pass on his information to Anthony Pellicano. As a fellow Sicilian, Barresi said, he felt simpatico with Pellicano and admired his handiwork. “What he’s doing is painting a clear picture of a dysfunctional family.” Barresi wanted to make one thing clear, however: “I take no sides. I’m in this strictly for the money.”

He takes no sides. He is in this strictly for the money.

The reason why I’m focusing on Barresi’s character so much is because his nature is a key for understanding the story about the “two dozens boys molested by MJ”.

This big number of victims has a price, and I think that the sum paid to Barresi during the AEG trial was not bad. Not bad at all.

Another sum like that and he will put up  for us an unforgettable show. Working both sides of the street is absolutely no problem for Barresi – it is as easy for him as breathing the air. His problem, which is actually more of our problem now, is that truth is inconsequential to him in principle. It is pure business, you know.

It is also highly unfortunate for us (and Michael Jackson) that these days Barresi is apparently in dire straits and will make any kind of a somersault in order to earn an extra thousand dollars. He is a father of three and we need to understand.

He has lost his license and according to some sources is working as a driver now. Not just anybody’s driver – in 2012 he was the driver for Ron Tutor, the new head of Miramax – but still a driver, and Barresi wants fame and respect as you remember. In 2008 he was inducted into the GayVN’s Hall of Fame …

In addition to all that Barresi has lots of personal troubles. He is so much resented by his own family that he was banned by his mother and brothers from attending his father’s funeral and had to follow it by means of binoculars from the bushes:

“This was the most painful experience of my life,” Barresi tells FishbowlLA via telephone. “One of my brothers was too sick to attend, but the other two–Matthew and Mark—finally spotted me about halfway through the burial service. They squinted and looked at me with such anger and disdain. I didn’t care that they spotted me. At that point, I came out of the bushes, about 100 yards away.” He had been warned that if he tried to enter the church, he would be thrown out by an off-duty cop in attendance who is also a close friend of his mother.

In short, Barresi’s life is not easy.

This is why I sincerely hope that his situation will improve and that he will come into really good money, as otherwise we will surely be in for a big pile of new lies about Michael Jackson.

So let us wish Barresi all the best. After all he sometimes acted as Robin Hood and will probably not rob people of their reputations if he has a chance to make money in some other way.


I was asked whether I was kidding when I wished Barresi an improved financial situation hoping that will keep him from dissing Michael Jackson yet again. Yes, I was kidding – but only partially.  I believe that all people are capable of change. Of course in this case there is very little hope, but you never know.

Please see the 2nd part of this post for the analysis of each “FBI” paper.


ABC Facts of Michael Jackson’s INNOCENCE

February 21, 2014

The boys from a certain MJ haters’  site are on a march against Michael Jackson again. Judging by the number of readers’ questions about their lies disproved by us years ago these boys are quite successful in brainwashing the public and there is a need to start educating people about the most basic facts of Michael’s innocence all over again.

This education process seems to be endless as it has to be renewed with each new generation of readers, and starting everything anew is the last thing I would want to do, however  it looks like at the moment I have no choice.

This is why I’m making this post which is intended to answer the very basic questions about the Jordan Chandler case again.

But first here is a couple of words about those who keep spreading lies about Michael Jackson’s despite a mountain of true facts testifying to his innocence.  Read more…

Woody Allen vs. Michael Jackson. IS THERE A WAY TO LEARN THE TRUTH?

February 13, 2014

I’ve been closely following the Dylan Farrow story in order to equip myself with knowledge in case something of the kind arises in the MJ field and that Wade Robson beast raises his ugly head again.

If God wanted to educate us on the subject he is actually doing it now, well in advance, so I recommend each and everybody to familiarize oneself with the way to tell a true child molestation story from a fake one.

Woody Allen - I once stole a pornographic book

“I once stole a pornographic book that was printed in Braille. I used to rub the dirty parts” . Quote from Woody Allen’s “Bananas” (1971)

The majority of people are now saying that we will never know the truth of what happened between Woody Allen and his 7-year old adopted daughter which is a view I totally disagree with.

As someone who regards truth to be absolute like light, I think that truth is attainable in all cases, only you need to work hard enough for bringing out its light.

Some will say that a huge cloud of indecision still lingering over Woody Allen’s story is only for the better and if the public reacted in the same reserved manner to Wade Robson’s allegations against Michael it wouldn’t be that bad as it would give MJ at least the benefit of the doubt.

Michael Jackson and Dave Dave, a burn victim

Michael Jackson with  Dave Dave, a burn victim

However Michael Jackson doesn’t belong among those whose innocence should be doubted and this is why I’ll go into Woody Allen’s case to show that it is still possible to reach for the truth even without us being ‘in the same room’ and will point to the glaring differences between Allen and Jackson though the accusations against them look similar.

These two people only seem to be sitting in one boat while they are absolutely not. Read more…

DYLAN FARROW’S OPEN LETTER ABOUT WOODY ALLEN Reveals the Twenty Years of Media Double Standards

February 3, 2014

The second part of the post on Demerol will have to wait as very, very interesting news has come from Dylan Farrow about her stepfather Woody Allen. The 28 year-old Dylan says she was sexually assaulted by her stepfather almost twenty years ago when she was 7 years old.

Considering that a similar allegation is probably awaiting us in June this year (when Wade Robson’s lies about Michael Jackson may be resumed) it will be interesting to look into Dylan’s story to educate ourselves a bit on the subject before the Wade Robson wave comes upon us again.

Making judgment on Woody Allen even on the basis of a powerful letter like Dylan’s will contradict the basic law principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, so the only thing we can really do is tell the girl’s story and focus on the reaction to it from the media which, especially in comparison with what they did to Michael Jackson, will strike you by its incredibly considerate attitude towards Woody Allen as one of the Hollywood pillars.

The comparison of the manner in which the similar stories of Michael Jackson and Woody Allen were handled by the media will be all the more easier as the seven-year-old Dylan accused her stepfather of abuse right at the time when Jordan Chandler accused Michael Jackson of the same.

Dylan’s story started in 1992 and was over in February 1994 when the investigation against Woody Allen was closed without bringing criminal charges, and Michael’s case started in 1993 and the police investigation ended in September 1994 without bringing criminal charges against him too.

However this is where the similarity between the two cases ends as all the rest was completely different.  Read more…


January 29, 2014

It always surprised me how quick and easy it is to tell a lie and how laborious it is to refute it. Look at this piece from the recent autopsy program on Channel 5 of British television, for example, and see how three big lies are crammed into so little a space:

- How did a 50-year old man with osteoarthritis, lupus, scarred lungs and an addiction to Demerol manage to turn it around? The clue is lying in Jackson’s body. He gets another narcotic.
- Extensive toxicological testing was performed on numerous samples taken from Jackson’s body. In the urine sample it was noted that a drug called ephedrine was present.

See how easy it is? People are told a pack of lies about Michael though he didn’t have an addiction to Demerol, Ephedrine is not a narcotic and Michael didn’t “get” but was given Ephedrine by another. However to prove all of it you need to do a long research and write a detailed post in several parts.

There wouldn’t be even a need for these posts if it weren’t for this autopsy program. But some people are absolutely adamant that Michael Jackson should never be left alone and this makes us do what they invite us to do – discuss Demerol (and Ephedrine), Dr. Klein’s medical records and whether MJ did or didn’t have any withdrawal symptoms from the Demerol injected by Klein during his cosmetic procedures.  Read more…

AUTOPSY: MICHAEL JACKSON’S LAST HOURS. Transcript of the false show on British TV

January 14, 2014

Friends, below is the transcript of the false autopsy show from British TV on which Susannerb and me have painstakingly worked for the past few days.

I added to the transcript the description of background pictures to give you a better idea of what it’s like. Almost every sentence here requires a comment but I’ve tried to limit myself to a complete minimum which is still a lot, I’m afraid.

The comments come in the form of side notes. The notes for the second part of the transcript will be added later as the potential for them is infinite and I am struggling to choose.

Dr.Richard Shepherd is not as bad as the other participants but there are a couple of questions to him too.

At the end of the text there is a link to the video in case the transcript hasn’t been enough for you.  Read more…


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 982 other followers

%d bloggers like this: