Michael Jackson is immortalized. LET’S JAM!
Here is a link to the Michael Jackson Hand & Footprint Ceremony held in Hollywood at the Grauman’s Chinese Theatre on January 26, 2012: http://www.chinesetheatres.com/red-carpet-live.html
I know that I am dreaming of the impossible, but I wish Michael Jackson had been there. His presence was very much missing and this was probably the mood which prevailed almost throughout the event – until the actual procedure of pressing Michael’s sequin glove and shoes into cement started and until Cirque du Soleil took over.
The Cirque performance was absolutely smashing and this was what really brought back the atmosphere of Michael’s fun, energy, spirit and perfection.
Apart from that, the ceremony was a little sad. There were other good episodes besides the Cirque – the dancers of Debbie Allen’s Dance Academy featuring an amazing child star, the warm and funny words of Chris Tucker and a very sincere tribute from Justin Bieber, as well as of course everything Michael’s children and mother said and did there. But in the background of all that there was still some diffused sadness – a sort of bitter happiness – a mixed feeling that it is good that we are celebrating, but we would prefer it under different circumstances if we could…
Quincy Jones is making a speech
There was also a slightly dissonant note about the event. The host looked to me a little too formal and some famous producers and composers who tend to talk about themselves only were invited there as usual.
I don’t have anything against these renowned people who, probably due to their age, are living somewhat in the past, but Michael was all about the future – and this is all the difference in the world between them which the producers of the ceremony should have taken into account.
This contrasted very much with the spirit of the man they were commemorating and forgot that where there is Michael Jackson, there is no room for formalism or lack of harmony. He was all about joy, fun, innovation, game and perfection at that.
Watching the ceremony I suddenly realized that a crowd of children would have belonged on that stage much better than some of those renowned grown-up and serious people. They never understood Michael and never will, so what were they doing there? Cirque du Soleil is different – people who have created the show have caught up with Michael in their pursuit of fun, excellence and perfection and from what I could see turned their tribute to him into a fantastic show worthy of the grand master.
Listening to the speech
Another discovery I made during the ceremony was that Michael’s music sounds today as fresh as ever – considering that some of the songs were composed and sung more than 20 years ago this is a totally amazing fact. Some songs are even growing on me only now – like Jam or Scream, for example. Michael’s music definitely belongs to the future…
At some point of the ceremony I couldn’t resist the temptation to make a few screen shots, so here is my collection with a very short comment:
still listening to the speech (please excuse me!)
"Thank you for being here..." Blanket is showing a V-sign to someone
Katherine Jackson takes the microphone at 48:30 (what a beautiful woman she is!) and thanks everyone, especially Michael’s fans, for celebrating this occasion with the family:
“I’d like to say thank you for being here for this very, very solemn occasion for myself, and I know if Michael was here he would agree…”
If Michael could only see her!
Then Paris Jackson comes on the stage. If Michael could only see her now and what a beauty she is turning into! I think he would cry…
Paris introduces Justin Bieber. Is the shadow of her father present too?
She introduces Justin Bieber. There is a poster on her left which shows the profile of her father.
It looks like the shadow of him standing by her side and this is how I took the picture.
Justin Bieber says at 50:20 -
- “I don’t usually get nervous but I’m a little nervous right now. He meant so much to me. He was more than an entertainer. He was an inspiration.
People are going to remember for his dancing and singing, but people gotta remember him for the man he was....
I want to be the best I can be. That’s what Michael did. He was always dancing. He was always practicing.”
"People got to remember Michael for the man he was"
Debby Allen says at 57:40 – “Michael Jackson was an explorer, an inventor, an engineer, an architect, a Genius…and he was my friend. He was my friend because of one thing, one thing – dance.
Dance is all we talked about. He practiced for hours, for hours every day. Music may have been his muse, but it was dance which was his mistress. He had an insatiable appetite to continue to expand his language of dance – a language he spoke like no other.
So here, in tribute to the Great one, the young men of the Allen Dance Academy are doing what Michael Jackson inspires them and millions like them to do every day. They JAM.”
Is the father's shadow looking at them again?
Prince Jackson says at 01:03:50
“”My dad won the lifetime achievement award. It was an award he strived and worked the hardest to get.
But for me, and I think for him as well, this right here is his lifetime achievement award. This is what he strived to get and this is what we are giving him now today.”
Paris writes her father's name and adds a heart to it
Jan 26, 2012
She presses the sequin glove into concrete
(LOS ANGELES) — Michael Jackson’s musical legacy was remembered at the first annual “Michael Jackson Immortalized Day.” Jackson’s children attended the star-studded event at Grauman’s Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles.
It suddenly seems to be a reassuring gesture of a daughter tenderly touching her father's hand....
this is where his foot was meant to be
Jackson’s son, Prince, who has always been quiet in public, spoke: “This was my dad’s lifetime achievement award… this is what he strived to get and this is what we’re giving him today.”
The boys had to redo the shoe prints and move them to the left
The King of Pop’s three children pressed his famous moonwalk shoes, sequined glove, and their hands into cement outside the theatre. Paris, Jackson’s daughter and a budding actress, wrote her dad’s name in the cement.
“It meant a lot because my dad always wanted to have his name here at the Chinese theatre and I just feel like he is a legacy,” she said.
Paris then introduced a performance by Justin Bieber, a star who found fame at an early age like Jackson.
“I don’t usually get nervous but I’m a little nervous right now,” Bieber said. “He was more than an entertainer. He was an inspiration. People are going to remember for his dancing and singing, but people gotta remember him for the man he was….I want to be the best I can be. That’s what Michael did. He was always dancing. He was always practicing.”
Jackson’s mother, Katherine Jackson, got choked up a few times at the ceremony.
He probably moonwalked in them
All people watching the ceremony have one and the same expression on their face. Smokey Robinson. Tears?
People watching the ceremony. Chris Tucker. A faint smile over sadness?
People watching the ceremony. Justin Bieber, Katherine and the Jacksons. Sad joy?
“I’d like to say thank you for being here for this very, very solemn occasion for myself, and I know if Michael was here he would agree,” she said.
The show closed with the premiere of Cirque de Soleil’s Immortal World Tour.
The show, filled with sequins and dancing, is one that likely would have made Jackson proud.
And this article tells us of the Cirque du Soleil show:
Michael Jackson THE IMMORTAL World Tour performs in Los Angeles at Staples Center January 27-29, 2012.
The production is a riveting fusion of visuals, dance, music and fantasy that immerses audiences in Michael’s creative world.
The show literally turns his signature moves upside down, unfolding his artistry before the eyes of the audience.
The children left the prints of their palms
USA Today called it “A Thriller of a show!” and Rolling Stone raved about ‘the hit-packed King of Pop spectacle.”
Commenting on IMMORTAL’s success, Forbes noted “That should come as no surprise, given the extraordinary spectacle that audiences witness with each performance” while Entertainment Weekly said that, “Even the most casual of Jackson followers will be entertained, and Jackson acolytes will revel in every glittering, peculiar moment.”
Aimed at lifelong fans as well as those experiencing Michael’s creative genius for the first time, the show captures the essence, soul and inspiration of the King of Pop, celebrating a legacy that continues to transcend generations.
“His legend lives on,” wrote US Weekly. The album, IMMORTAL, available on Epic Records, is the soundtrack for Michael Jackson THE IMMORTAL World Tour.
Michael Jackson is one of the most beloved entertainers and profoundly influential artists of all-time. To date Jackson has sold an estimated 1 billion records worldwide, released 13 No.1 singles and became one of a handful of artists to be inducted twice into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
The Guinness Book of World Records recognized Jackson as the Most Successful Entertainer of All Time and “Thriller” as the Biggest Selling Album of All Time. Jackson won 17 Grammy Awards including 8 in one year, a record in itself, and received 26 American Music Awards, including the Artist of the Century Award.
After the ceremony
Jackson defined the art form of music video with such ground-breaking short films as “Billie Jean,” “Beat It” and the classic “Thriller,” which in 2009 became the first and only music video inducted into the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress. Jackson’s sound, style and dance moves continue to inspire today’s performers and new generations of fans worldwide continue to discover his artistry.
Cirque du Soleil quickly took the sad spell away
At Grauman’s Michael Jackson’s legacy will be enshrined alongside such entertainment icons as Fred Astaire, Elizabeth Taylor, Judy Garland, Marilyn Monroe, Sidney Poitier, Clark Gable, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks. Michael Jackson’s Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame is located on the sidewalk in front of the theatre.
There was so much movement on stage that this is the only other picture I could catch
The Grauman’s Chinese Theatre forecourt is one of the most photographed tourist sites in the world, annually attracting as many visitors as the Taj Mahal in India and the Prado Museum in Madrid. Grauman’s Chinese Theatre hands and footprints ceremony is rich in tradition and provides the four million plus people a year who visit the site an up close look at the hand and footprints of Hollywood’s most notable talents.
after the ceremony
Movie exhibitor Sid Grauman, one of Hollywood’s most creative showmen, opened The Chinese in 1927 and launched the handprints-footprints ceremony a year later. The event is one of the most selective in the world, and very few are chosen to be honored.
Also present at the ceremony was actor Harry Shum Jr. of Glee, who took part in the show’s Michael Jackson’s tribute episode that airs next week. Here is an article about it:
Michael Jackson getting Glee treatment
Dec 08, 2011 11:06 AM by Castina Watson
MUSICAL-COMEDY PLANNING MJ TRIBUTE
The music of the late pop king Michael Jackson will be featured in an episode of Gleeairing next month, FOX said Wednesday.
A Michael Jackson-themed episode of Glee will premiere next month.
A full-on MJ-themed show is being hustled into production on the heels of this week’s episode, which featured a trifecta of Jackson family songs — one from The Jackson 5, one from Janet and one from Michael. Glee bosses have fast-tracked the long-proposed tribute show so it will be ready to air Jan. 24 on FOX.
Producers of the Emmy Award-winning series plan to feature 10 to 12 of the “Thriller” icon’s most popular songs in a 90-minute special, TV Guide reports.
Michael Jackson’s ”Thriller” featured on Glee Super Bowl episode >>
The first scenes will be filmed just before Christmas. The second half of the show will be completed when the actors return from their winter break in early January.
Glee creator Ryan Murphy says excited cast members are already “flooding him with requests to sing their favorite Jackson numbers.”
The King of Pop is the latest music legend to inspire a tribute from the Gleekster of McKinley High. Pop divas Madonna, Lady Gaga and Britney Spears have all provided the soundtrack for their own musical spectaculars since the show’s premiere in 2009.
But, as The Hollywood Reporter points out, the tribute specials don’t always reasonate well with Glee’s core audience:
“Glee‘s tribute episodes have had mixed results for the series, with its Spears in November 2010 scoring a series high at the time and besting the show’s Madonna effort, while its Gaga special didn’t fare as well, registering a season low in viewership and the key adults 18-49 demographic for the season to date.”
Michael’s tunes have turned out to be a huge profit generator for the estate of the late singer, who died of a propofol overdose in June 2009. Jackson’s estate and Cirque du Soleil are splitting the costs and profits of the hit stage production Michael Jackson: The Immortal World Tour.
Michael’s family has given “their enthusiastic support” for the Glee project.
the Dance academy
I’ve almost forgotten to post a picture of the Dance Academy performance which featured a very talented child dancer. You fill find their dance at 59:00 in the video.
Taking this opportunity let me repeat what Debbie Allen said about Michael Jackson before her dancers came onto the stage. I find her words very insightful and inspiring:
"Music may have been his Muse, but it was the Dance that was his Mistress." LET'S JAM!
Debby Allen at 57:40
“Michael Jackson was an explorer, an inventor, an engineer, an architect, a Genius…and he was my friend. He was my friend because of one thing, one thing – Dance.
Dance is all we talked about. He practiced for hours, for hours every day. Music may have been his Muse, but it was Dance which was his Mistress. He had an insatiable appetite to continue to expand his language of dance – a language he spoke like no other.
So here, in tribute to the Great one, the young men of the Allen Dance Academy are doing what Michael Jackson inspires them and millions like them to do every day. They JAM.”
And though I don’t know what exactly the word “Jam” means, for some reason I also feel very much like saying - LET’S JAM!
Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 4 of 6: So-Called “Christians” Who Have LIED Against Michael!
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Exodus 20:16
This post will focus on the “faith” of the people who have lied about Michael Jackson throughout the years. These people include “investigative reporters” Maureen Orth and Diane Dimond, MJ’s accusers Gavin and Star Arvizo, Martin Bashir, and former family friend Stacy Brown, just to name a few.
However, the bulk of my analysis will be dedicated to Jason Francia, the son of a former maid who was fired from Neverland (but lied and said she quit), and who was coerced by police into accusing MJ of molestation. The reason I want to focus so heavily on his testimony is because he was a former YOUTH MINISTER at his church! If there is anyone who should have confessed to lying, you would think it would have been him, right? I was going to include him in this post, but instead I will debunk his lies in Part 5!
First, let’s look at Diane Dimond! She is a former reporter of the now defunct celebrity tabloid gossip show “Hard Copy”. Here’s an overview of the show, and you can clearly see that they abandoned the good intentions that the show started with once they realized that sensationalized, tabloid reporting is where the ratings are at!
Overview
In the late 1980s, as investigative news shows and daytime talk shows were changing their formats and style, Hard Copy was created by Metromedia Television veterans Mark Monsky and John Parsons Peditto, who told original staffers that the idea was to “combine the stories of 20/20 with the production techniques of MTV.”[citation needed] This would be the show’s format at launch, but it was quickly abandoned due to ratings concerns. Monsky and Parsons Peditto would leave the series within the first season, and the show took on a hard tabloid format after their departure, with stories featuring outrageous content or titillation being featured much more than serious topics, along with graphics in bold and large fonts, and MTV-style camera work.
From 1990 through 1993, in its second, third and fourth seasons, the show was under the direction of executive producer and A Current Affair creator Peter Brennan and a team of Fox Television tabloid veterans that included producers Burt Kearns and Neal Travis and reporter Rafael Abramovitz. Under their control, Hard Copy evolved into the apotheosis of smart, witty and outrageous tabloid reporting. Hard Copy became such a staple of popular culture it was parodied on The Simpsons in the episode “Homer Badman” as Rock Bottom, a show which clearly misrepresents facts in order to create scandal. Meanwhile, the team broke news in the Cheyenne Brando, the Menendez Brothers, William Kennedy Smith, Clarence Thomas and the British Royal Family sagas, while pioneering the “mini movie” long-form story techniques in multi-episode reports on the Chappaquiddick incident, Elvis Presley, and the death of Marilyn Monroe.
1996 celebrity boycott
In 1996, actor George Clooney began a public boycott of Hard Copy and its sister show Entertainment Tonight (both were produced by Paramount Television) after Hard Copy violated a six-month agreement not to air segments about Clooney by airing footage of Clooney and then-girlfriend Celine Balitran on the set of his film Batman & Robin. Other celebrities supported the boycott including Whoopi Goldberg, Madonna, and Steven Spielberg.[2]
Paramount Television eventually agreed to change the way both shows obtained their news.[3] They also agreed not to air “unauthorized footage” of celebrities or “footage that is known to have been obtained illegally.”[2
Diane Dimond was one of the first reporters to break the 1993 child molestation case against MJ, and she has allowed the case to define her career ever since. She and her employers at Hard Copy were a literal thorn in MJ’s side during his darkest hour, as they repeatedly aired unsubstantiated stories from unreliable sources in order to convict MJ in the court of public opinion (and thus increase ratings), and they even paid former employees to lie on camera! (This will be discussed in more detail later on in this post.)
Although Hard Copy was cancelled in 1999, Dimond didn’t change her ways! She kept in touch with Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney of Santa Barbara (where MJ resided), numerous former employees of Neverland who lied and said they saw MJ abusing children, and many others who were connected to the case, and as a result she was tipped off that Neverland would be raided again in November 2003, and she was the ONLY reporter at Neverland during the raid! She was subsequently hired by Court TV, and she helped transform it from a respectable legal news outlet to just another celebrity tabloid show!
I cannot possibly document in this post each and every single devious lie that Dimond has peddled throughout the years, but I’ll gladly summarize a list of posts that go into her background in more detail (which will help those of you reading this who aren’t familiar with her):
1. Fact Checking Diane Dimond’s Lies from TruTV’s “In Session”: On September 16th, 2011 Dimond participated in a roundtable discussion with two of MJ’s closest confidants, and her lies were so outrageous that they warranted an immediate rebuttal! For example, she claimed to have interviewed with “many” families who were too afraid to press charges against MJ! (I recorded the entire program, and I’m in the process of getting it uploaded to YouTube!)
2. Fans United For Michael Jackson’s Legacy did a recent post titled “Turn Off, Tune Out, Shut Off Diane Dimond”
3. A two-part dossier from MJJ-777 which compiles all of her dirty work. Here is part one and part two; part three is on the way!
4. The section of the Veritas Project aptly titled “Diane Dimond: Paragon of Deceit”.
5. MJJJustice Project’s post “Dimond – Duplicity is Thy Name”. Another excellent analysis of her clever, yet deceitful spin of the facts. In this post, they analyze her 1995 radio interview on “The Ken and Barkley Show”, which was transcribed in MJ’s lawsuit against Paramount Pictures Corporation (the company behind “Hard Copy”.)
6. Filthy Tabloid Trash’s Open Letter to TruTV, respectfully asking them to reconsider their decision to hire Diane Dimond to cover the upcoming trial. Obviously this letter fell on deaf ears!
7. The Edgy Matters blog post from June 25th, 2004, titled “C-O-N-SPIRACY”” where Dimond was sarcastically “charged” as the #1 co-conspirator in helping Sneddon violate the gag order by planting stories in the media to taint the jury pool and convict MJ in the court of public opinion! And let’s not forget their June 23rd, 2005 post titled “Diane Dimond vs. Journalism Code of Ethics”, a must read!!
8. And of course, we here at Vindicate MJ blasted Dimond in this overview of MJ’s 1995 Lawsuit against her and Victor Gutierrez, and in Jacques Peretti’s “What Really Happened” crockumentary!
Now that we have a good idea of Dimond’s dishonest background, let’s look at who she claims is her moral compass! On July 8th, 2009 she published a post on her blog titled “A Word About Sources”, and a reader left the following comment, and try to keep a straight face as you read Dimond’s response!
Think of that comment as you watch this compilation of Dimond’s “greatest hits”!!
For those of you who were able to stomach all 1 hour and 7 minutes of Dimond’s endless spinning and slanting of the facts, pat yourself on the back!
Now, unto Maureen Orth, the investigative journalist for Vanity Fair who wrote five scathing, vicious, and dishonest tabloid articles on MJ that only had credibility because they were printed in Vanity Fair, when in actuality they belonged in The Sun or The National Enquirer! Here is her bio:
Maureen Orth has been a special correspondent for Vanity Fair since 1993. She started writing for the magazine in 1988 and became a contributing editor in 1989. Orth has interviewed Russian president Vladimir Putin and British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, among other heads of state. She has written investigative pieces regarding the allegations of sexual abuse by Michael Jackson and child abuse by Woody Allen and profiled other controversial figures such as Denise and Marc Rich, Harrod’s Mohamed Al Fayed, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Gerry Adams, Karl Lagerfeld, and Madonna. Orth began her journalism career in 1973 at Newsweek, where she was the entertainment editor and the lifestyle editor and wrote seven cover stories. She went on to become a contributing editor at Vogue, a columnist for New York Woman, a network correspondent for NBC News, and a senior editor at New York and New West magazines. Orth was nominated for a National Magazine Award for Reporting for her article on Michael and Arianna Huffington, which appeared in the November 1994 issue of Vanity Fair. She is the author of Vulgar Favors (Delacorte Press, 1999), a book about murder suspect Andrew Cunanan, and The Importance of Being Famous (Henry Holt, 2002), a collection of her Vanity Fair articles with updates and commentary.
Orth graduated from college in 1964, and moved to Colombia to serve in the Peace Corps until 1966. While there, she founded the Marina Orth Foundation, and has since opened three schools that serve more than a thousand students. As a devout Roman Catholic, she and her late husband Tim Russert (who hosted NBC’s “Meet The Press”) have given generously to numerous causes and charities.
Ok, having said all of that, it makes you wonder how on earth she could write such vicious lies about MJ, who you would think would be a role model to her for all of the work he has done for underprivileged children! Let’s look at the some of the trash that she has written about MJ:
David Geffen, be gone! Steven Spielberg, be gone!” The witch doctor cursing Michael Jackson’s enemies and blessing the tarnished King of Pop himself in a voodoo ritual in Switzerland in the summer of 2000 had promised that the 25 people on Jackson’s enemies list, some of whom had worked with him for years, would soon expire. The voodoo man later assured one close observer of the scene that David Geffen, who headed the list, would die within the week. But Geffen’s demise did not come cheap. Jackson had ordered his then business adviser, Myung-Ho Lee, a U.S.-educated Korean lawyer based in Seoul, to wire $150,000 to a bank in Mali for a voodoo chief named Baba, who then had 42 cows ritually sacrificed for the ceremony.
Jackson had already undergone a blood bath. The pop star, who is said to be $240 million in debt, had paid six figures for a ritual cleansing using sheep blood to another voodoo doctor and a mysterious Egyptian woman named Samia, who came to him with a letter of greeting from a high-ranking Saudi prince, purportedly Nawaf Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, now the chief of intelligence of Saudi Arabia. She had taken an eager Jackson to her basement in Geneva, where, he later told associates, he saw with his own eyes piles of $100 bills which Samia said totaled $300 million. It was “free money,” she said; he could have it, and she could also get him a villa and a yacht. She arranged to have three men fly from Switzerland, at Jackson’s expense, to Neverland, his luxurious California ranch, to discuss further deals. When the hex delegation arrived at Neverland, Jackson asked Lee to authorize $1 million in cash to be brought to the ranch. Lee refused, but Jackson obtained the money by other means. Lee found out about it only when a $20,000 bill came for an armored truck.
Jackson, in turn, sent Lee to Geneva to check out yet another voodoo doctor, whose specialty was pulling money out of thin air. At the Hôtel d’Angleterre, the voodoo man produced a show of sound, lights, and pigeons before leading his visitors one at a time into the bathroom, where the tub was full of cash amounting, he claimed, to $50 million. When they asked where it had come from, he said, “The U.S. Federal Reserve.” There was just one catch: all this money would disappear unless Michael Jackson paid thousands of dollars for the blood of a number of fowl and small animals for yet another ritual. The sacrificial animals were already assembled at a location on the French-Swiss border, waiting to die to make Jackson’s wishes come true. Lee was horrified and left in disgust.
And she didn’t stop there! Here’s another excerpt:
Just the week before, Jackson had testified in a civil suit in a court in Santa Maria, California, near Neverland. He was monosyllabic, dazed, and disheveled, and the tip of his nose seemed to be missing, owing to exaggerated amounts of plastic surgery.
And now do you see why I said earlier that Orth’s brand of yellow journalism belongs in The Sun or National Enquirer? For her to rely solely on the uncorroborated word of a former business associate of MJ with an axe to grind (he was involved in a frivolous civil lawsuit at that time) is indicative of her style of journalism! Let’s contrast Orth to the late, great Ed Bradley, a real journalist who always put honesty, integrity, and objectivity into his work. In this interview with Larry King on February 2nd, 2004, he describes how he could not use unsubstantiated rumors or unreliable sources as a correspondent on 60 Minutes while lambasting the New York Times for printing a false story about him (something that MJ was all too familiar with!).
What’s absolutely ridiculous about Orth’s claim that MJ bathed in a bathtub filled with the blood of 42 dead cows is that a typical bathtub only holds 75 liters of water, while the typical cow has as much as 40 liters of blood! So when you multiply 42 cows by 40 liters of blood each, you get 420 liters, which is equivalent to 110.95 gallons of blood! That couldn’t possibly fit in ANY bathtub! Hell, MJ could take several SHOWERS with that much blood! (Thank you Helena for this information!)
Here’s the scoop on Orth’s source for that story, Myung-Ho Lee: he was one of MJ’s former managers, and in April 2002 he sued MJ for breach of contract for allegedly failing to pay him $13 million dollars. He claimed that MJ signed an IOU (which is a legally binding promise to pay) on September 14th, 2001 in Los Angeles. But MJ wasn’t even in Los Angeles on September 14th, 2001!
He was still on the road with his family, trying to get back to Los Angeles after being trapped in New York City, which was hit with the 9/11 terrorist attacks only three days prior! Here is an excerpt from an article on the lawsuit: (and please ignore the nonsense rumor that MJ, Elizabeth Taylor, and Marlon Brando rode together in a rented car! MJ and his entire family rode chartered buses back to L.A. Here is a story proving that it didn’t happen!)
According to court documents obtained by FoxNews.com, Lee’s suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges that Jackson agreed to pay the fee at a Sept. 14 meeting in L.A. Jackson, however, has filed a sworn affidavit saying that the signature on the IOU is not his, and that he was en route from New York to Los Angeles that day. (Having just performed his 30th anniversary self-tribute concerts in New York a few days before, he fled the city in a rented vehicle on Sept. 11, with pals Marlon Brando and Elizabeth Taylor reportedly along for the drive.) Two others in Jackson’s camp also signed statements backing up his assertion that he was out of town, and that the signature in question does not resemble Jackson’s.
”I specifically looked at the signature that appears at the end of this document above my typed name,” Jackson’s statement read. ”This is not my signature. I did not sign this document and have never seen [it] until a few weeks ago. I would never knowingly sign a document that expressly required me to pay over $13 million to Mr. Lee or anyone else, alone in a room and without review and counsel by one or more of my attorneys.”
MJ countersued Lee and complained that Lee breached contracts and did not act in good faith while giving him bad advice.
Michael Jackson faces more legal woes
February 20 2003
The besieged King of Pop, Michael Jackson, yesterday faced fresh legal woes as he battled a $US13 million ($A22.1 million) lawsuit filed by a former business manager who claims he is owed massive back pay.
A judge in Los Angeles gave the pop icon a little good news yesterday, ruling that Jackson could pursue two complaints responding to the suit filed by his former manager, South Korean-born Myung-Ho Lee.
Jackson alleges Lee breached contracts and did not act in good faith in giving the singer business advice, while Lee claims that Jackson owes him millions in back pay.
Judge Andria Richey rejected Lee’s request to dismiss the 44-year-old entertainer’s claims, saying the allegations were strong enough for him to pursue them.
Lee and his Union Finance and Investment Corporation sued Jackson last April, alleging that the entertainer had reneged on a September 2001 promise to pay him more than $US13 million ($A22.1 million) in back wages.
But Jackson, in court papers filed on December 20, denied he owed the money, claiming that someone had forged his name on an agreement to repay Lee for business advice.
“I did not sign this document,” stated an affidavit from Jackson, currently embroiled in yet another public battle, this time over a television interview in which he revealed that he shared beds with young boys.
According to the suit, Lee began working for Jackson in 1997, giving him business and career advice and arranging loans and setting up investments, after being introduced by another Korean businessman whom Jackson met following a failed charity concert in Seoul.
The lawsuit was settled on June 12th, 2003, and the terms were undisclosed. It was in MJ’s best interest to settle because the civil trial was scheduled to start on June 18th, 2003 and Court TV was trying their hardest to have it televised so that they could sensationalize their coverage for ratings by focusing on MJ’s plastic surgeries instead of the facts of the case!
The “voodoo curse” nonsense was the second worst lie that Lee told to Orth! The biggest lie was that he claimed he witnessed MJ giving alcohol to an then 12 year old boy named Richard Matsuurra in 1998, while MJ was in Japan conducting business with the boy’s father! Orth was so delighted to hear this because it corroborated the Arvizo family’s allegations of MJ plying Gavin and Star Arvizo with “Jesus Juice”, and she printed Lee’s story without even bothering to contact the boy or his father!
The color of my highlight is 100% indicative of the type of journalism this article represents!
However, All references to MJ plying Richard Matsuura with alcohol have been removed from the online version of Orth’s 2004 article “Neverland’s Lost Boys”, but I have ordered from eBay the actual March 2004 issue of Vanity Fair (shown above). The following excerpt is from the online version of the article, which was only recently added to the Vanity Fair website after being taken down in 2009. Notice how the ENTIRE paragraph that I highlighted above is MISSING from the excerpt below!
Michael Jackson refers to white wine as “Jesus juice” and red wine as “Jesus blood.” He prefers the juice and usually drinks it out of soda cans so that nobody will know he is consuming alcohol. In and out of rehab over the years for addictions to Demerol and morphine, the King of Pop also habitually gulped down soda cans of wine, particularly when he was on airplanes. On a flight to Frankfurt in 1999, for example, his former business adviser Myung-Ho Lee, who was accompanying him, had to help the staggering Jackson stand up to get off the plane. “He was lying on the floor by the time we landed,” says Lee. “I told Security, ‘You can’t get drunk like that on white wine,’ and the security people said that it’s not only wine but that he takes pills with it.”
The incident may be telling, because in January, Michael Jackson was arraigned on seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an “intoxicating agent with intent to commit a felony” between February 7 and March 10 of last year at Neverland, his 2,700-acre ranch near Santa Barbara, which he has converted into a mini Disneyland for kids. The boy in question in the case—a cancer victim who was 13 at the time—alleges that Jackson gave him wine in Coke cans on a flight from Florida in February 2003, right under the nose of the boy’s unsuspecting mother. The boy knows Jackson’s names for white and red wine, which Lee says “only his inner people know,” adding that it “tells you that the boy spent ‘quality time’ with Michael.” The boy and his siblings, however, have said that “all the kids around Michael” knew about Jesus juice, and that he told them, “Jesus drank it, so it must be good.”
…
The trip the boy and his family made to Florida coincided with the airing of the British documentary on ABC last year in which Jackson, now 45, told interviewer Martin Bashir that there was nothing wrong with sharing his bed with little boys. It was a very brazen thing for Jackson to admit, given the fact that in Los Angeles in 1994 he had had to pay $25 million to Jordie Chandler and his family in order to settle a civil suit in which Jordie, then 13, charged that Jackson had masturbated and fellated him during their relationship, which ironically also included a trip to Florida. Similarities in Michael Jackson’s modus operandi between the latest bizarre scandal and the one that preceded it abound, right down to the tactics of intimidation and the controversial use of the Nation of Islam for security. In 1993 armed members of tough South-Central L.A. gangs, including the notorious Bloods, were transported to Neverland. The employment of these toughs was said to have sent a strong message to Neverland employees who might have considered cooperating in the Jordie Chandler investigation, not to mention the subliminal message it gave out to other boys and their families who might have been thinking of coming forward.
Here is the interview where Richard Matsuura categorically denied Orth’s and Lee’s allegations! (This debacle is discussed in greater detail in this MJEOL Bullet titled “Irresponsible Journalism Permeates News Coverage”)
So there you have it. That’s the background of Orth’s #1 “source”. The fact that he was “on the record” with his lies is absolutely irrelevant, and adds no credibility to his lies whatsoever, especially now that you know the facts. You know you’re lies are pretty bad and abhorrent when you have to REMOVE THEM after the person you lied about dies!
When you consider the fact that all of the “enemies” on MJ’s “hit list” are still alive, I wonder if MJ was able to get a refund of his money? I sure hope he had a money back guarantee written into his contract! If Orth had any shred of journalistic decency, she wouldn’t have included that voodoo nonsense without first travelling to Africa and contacting each and every voodoo doctor to get THEIR side of the story! That’s journalism 101!
Now let’s look at another one of MJ’s media assassins, Nancy Grace! She is nothing but an entertainer disguised as a legal analyst, and her sloppy trial coverage shows it! Let’s look at this laughable interview from March 2007:
I was so appalled by her false assertions that I wrote a rebuttal to her trash, which is aptly titled “Refuting The Legal Analysts Who Lied About Michael Jackson”. In this video taken after MJ was acquitted, look at what Joe Jackson had to say about her and Diane Dimond, beginning at 3:48:
“Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace were not good to us at all!” – Joe Jackson
In 2010, she practically admitted to being a shady, dishonest, and mean-spirited media hack by admitting that she’s been “pretty mean in the courtroom and out”, and now she’s trying to earn her way into Heaven! She announced on her show (of all places) that she would donate $25,000 dollars to a charity that helps disabled adults. Let’s look closely at her motivation for doing this:
“We all know I’ve been pretty mean in the courtroom and out, so this may be my only ticket to heaven,” she said. “So please, I want you to accept this check. It’s for $25,000, it’s part of my proceeds, and God willing, there’s more coming to Wesley Glen.”
Grace needs to pay more attention in her Sunday School class, because she’s misconstruing one of the foundational tenets of Christianity! You cannot “earn” your way into Heaven by doing good works! Christ paid the price for your sins with his death on the cross! All of our good works and righteousness are like filthy rags!
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Isaiah 64:6
Before I move on, take a look at the way Jon Stewart skewered her for trying to convict the Duke Lacrosse players of rape in the court of public opinion, and then taking the night off like a coward on the day they were declared innocent!
Here is the FB page of Stacey Brown, the author of the tabloid tell-all book “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind The Mask”. I discussed his lies in Part 2 of this series, but take a close look at his religious affiliation, and try to reconcile that with his actions!
Brown and I recently had a heated exchange on Twitter, and as you can see from the screenshots below, he has NO REMOURSE for his actions!
When Martin Bashir left ABC’s Nightline in August 2010, he delivered this final message to his viewers:
Bashir references Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. What a hypocrite! MJ invited him into his home and his life because he thought Bashir was an angel who would be fair to him and shoot his documentary in an objective and honest manner, but instead Bashir lied and didn’t allow MJ to even edit it before he sold it to the highest bidder (ABC News) for $5 million dollars, and a new job! (I truly believe that his job at ABC News was part of a package deal that required him to be hired in order to air the MJ documentary.) MJ unknowingly entertained a DEVIL! Here is a post I did explaining exactly how Bashir was able to con MJ into doing the documentary, here is a fact-checking of Bashir’s SECOND hit-piece documentary of MJ, and here are Part 1 and Part 2 of my analysis of all of his lies from his testimony!
Here is the Facebook page of Adrian McManus, a former employee of Neverland who was fired for theft (among other reasons), sold numerous lies about MJ molesting children to the tabloids, and had to file bankruptcy after losing a frivolous wrongful termination lawsuit against MJ! In fact, in addition to owing MJ $1.4 million dollars in legal fees, she also owes her sister-in-law $30,584.89 dollars for “willfully and maliciously defrauding” her sister-in-law’s children after her husband died! (We discussed her and her cohorts’ laughable testimony in this post.)
Let’s look at some of the religious groups that she is in, according to her Facebook profile! (I highlighted them in yellow.) She’s a member of “Don’t Give Up On God Because He Never Gave Up On You“, “Jesus Christ“, “Godvine“, and “Farmville Needs A Church“!
Here is an excerpt from her testimony where she ADMITS TO LYING TO POLICE IN 1993!
Mesereau: “You’re saying you committed perjury in the Chandler deposition?”
McManus: “The whole time [I lied].”
Mesereau: “Knowing that it was a crime?”
McManus: “I didn’t think of it that way.”
Now let’s get to the Arvizos, the family who falsely accused MJ of child molestation in 2003. They consist of the mother Janet, daughter Davellin, and brothers Gavin (who MJ was accused of molesting) and Star (who MJ was also accused of molesting, but never charged!). I will highlight a few of their lies, despite their professions of having faith in God.
For example, Star Arvizo claimed that MJ showed him the pornographic magazine “Barely Legal” in March 2003, while he was “held hostage” at Neverland. Under direct examination by District Attorney Tom Sneddon, He identified the specific issue that he claimed MJ showed him, but there was one eennie weenie problem: the issue that he claimed that MJ showed him was actually published in August 2003! It wasn’t even in existence during his “kidnapping” at Neverland!
Here is an excerpt of his direct examination:
14 Q. All right. And then what happened.
15 A. Michael just started to show us magazines.
16 Q. You say “show” you. Tell us what he did.
17 A. He handed them to us.
18 Q. All right. And did you look at them.
19 A. Yes, with him.
20 Q. And did you look at them one at a time or
21 did everybody have a different one at a different
22 time. How did it happen. Tell us what happened.
23 A. We all looked at them one at a time.
And later on, he identifies the particular issue that he claimed MJ showed him as “People’s 86”:
26 Q. Do you remember the names of any of the
27 titles of the magazines that you saw.
28 A. “Barely Legal” and “Playboy.” 1156
1 Q. Were there others that you saw besides that,
2 or are those the only ones you saw.
3 A. Those are the only ones I remember.
4 Q. I’m going to show you a photograph marked as
5 People’s 86 for identification purposes.
6 And that’s — first of all, I’m going to
7 move that People’s 470 be admitted into evidence,
8 Your Honor.
9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
10 THE COURT: We’ll take that up separately.
11 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. People’s 86.
12 Do you recognize that.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Is that an accurate depiction of what it
15 represents.
16 A. Yes.
Now let’s watch Star crumble under Mesereau’s cross examination!
25 Q. Before you testified yesterday you looked at
26 that photograph with Prosecutor Sneddon, correct.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. You told Prosecutor Sneddon that those are 1279
1 the magazines you had seen at Neverland, right.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You told Prosecutor Sneddon that Michael
4 Jackson had showed you those magazines, right.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Michael Jackson never showed you that
7 magazine, “Barely Legal,” did he.
8 A. What.
9 Q. Michael Jackson never showed you that
10 magazine, “Barely Legal,” did he.
11 A. He did show us.
12 Q. He did.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Well, Star, did you look at the date of the
15 magazine. It’s August of 2003, is it not.
16 A. Well, I never said that was exactly that
17 one.
18 Q. Well, your family had left Neverland many
19 months before, never to return, correct.
20 A. That — I’m telling you that that wasn’t
21 exactly the one he showed us.
22 Q. That’s not what you said yesterday, and it’s
23 not what you said today, right.
Star told another huge lie when he claimed that he witnessed Gavin being molested by MJ after he secretly walked up the stairs to the second story of MJ’s bedroom and witnessed the act without MJ even noticing. But wait a minute! What about those infamous alarms that went off whenever someone approached the front door of his bedroom? According to the prosecution, their purpose was to alert MJ to someone’s presence outside his bedroom so that he would know to stop molesting kids! The prosecution tried to claim that, by sheer coincidence, the alarms were broken during the time period that the Arvizos were being “held hostage”! Here is Star’s description of the alarm:
8 Q. Do you recall the first time that you went
9 to Mr. Jackson’s bedroom.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. When was that.
12 A. That was probably the second visit.
13 Q. And do you recall about what time it was
14 when you went to his bedroom.
15 A. Nighttime.
16 Q. Tell us how you — how you got into the
17 bedroom. Tell us the way it is that you get into
18 Mr. Jackson’s bedroom.
19 A. First you walk through a hallway, and then
20 you come through a door, and then you continue
21 walking. You go through another door and you walk
22 up the stairs.
23 Q. Are there any kinds of alarms or bells or
24 anything that goes off.
25 A. Yes. There’s like a bell that goes off,
26 and — while you’re walking through the hallway.
Here is where Star describes watching MJ masturbate Gavin, who he claimed was passed out from being plied with alcohol by MJ:
6 Now, some night when you were at — at the
7 ranch – all right. – did you go up to Mr. Jackson’s
8 bedroom by yourself.
9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.
10 THE COURT: Overruled.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Where had you been just
13 prior to that.
14 A. I was heading to the theater.
15 Q. Where.
16 A. I was heading to the theater.
17 Q. Why were you going to the theater.
18 A. To get some chocolate.
19 Q. How did you get down there.
20 A. The golf cart.
21 Q. Did you get some chocolate.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And what did you do when you came back.
24 A. I was heading to Michael’s room to go to
25 sleep.
26 Q. All right. Would you tell the ladies and
27 gentlemen of the jury what you did when you got to
28 the house. 1169
1 A. Um, I went through the door.
2 Q. Which door.
3 A. The first door. The first door. And then
4 the second door, it was kind of — I don’t know, it
5 was, like, kind of locked. And so I pushed on it
6 till it opened, and then –
7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection, Your Honor. Could
8 we have a time. Vague as to time.
9 THE COURT: Overruled.
10 Go ahead.
11 THE WITNESS: So I went upstairs, and –
12 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Let’s go back. You were at
13 the door, and the door what.
14 A. The door was kind of locked, so I pushed it,
15 and it opened. So I went halfway to where the
16 computer table used to be, and I saw directly into
17 the bed. And I stopped. And my brother was outside
18 of the covers. And I saw Michael’s left hand in my
19 brother’s underwears and I saw his right hand in his
20 underwears, so — so I –
21 Q. Let’s just stop there for a second -
22 okay. –
23 A. Okay.
24 Q. — and ask you some questions.
25 Why were you coming back to the room that
26 night, after you’d gone down to get the chocolate.
27 A. To go to sleep.
28 Q. When you got to the point on the stairs 1170
1 where you saw your brother and Mr. Jackson on the
2 bed – okay. – when you’re looking at the bed, just
3 like we saw it on the photograph here – what side of
4 the bed was the defendant on.
5 A. Left side.
6 Q. And what side was your brother on.
7 A. Right side.
8 Q. And what position was Mr. Jackson in.
9 A. On his back. On his back.
10 Q. And what position was your brother in.
11 A. He was curled up, looking to the left. He
12 was curled up facing left.
13 Q. Now, would that be looking towards Mr.
14 Jackson or away from Mr. Jackson.
15 A. Away.
16 Q. Now, at that time, could you see what the
17 defendant was wearing.
18 A. Socks, underwears and an undershirt.
19 Q. Now, could you tell what kind of underwear
20 it was.
21 A. No.
22 Q. I mean — I’m sorry.
23 A. No.
24 Q. With regard to your brother, what was he
25 wearing.
26 A. I can’t quite remember what he was wearing.
27 I’m not –
28 Q. Do you remember what you could see of him. 1171
1 Was there part of him that he didn’t have anything
2 on.
3 A. Yeah, I know he had a shirt and — he had
4 his socks. I think he had pants or underwears on.
5 I don’t remember.
6 Q. All right. Now, you said you saw “his
7 hand.” Whose hands are you talking about.
8 A. Michael’s.
9 Q. All right. And where were his hands.
10 A. Left hand was in my brother’s pants and
11 right hand was in his pants.
12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and
13 answered.
14 THE COURT: Overruled. You may proceed.
15 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, when you say “in his
16 pants,” and who are you talking about.
17 A. Michael.
18 Q. All right. When you saw that, did you see
19 what, if anything, he was doing.
20 A. He was masturbating.
21 Q. What do you mean by that.
22 A. He was rubbing himself.
23 Q. And how could you tell that.
24 A. Because he had his hand in his pants. And
25 he was stroking up and down.
26 Q. Did you see anything else about the
27 defendant while he was doing that.
28 A. No. 1172
1 Q. What else did you see.
2 A. That’s all.
3 Q. Could you tell whether Mr. Jackson had his
4 eyes open or closed.
5 A. He had his eyes closed.
6 Q. Could you tell whether or not your brother
7 was asleep or not.
8 A. He was asleep.
9 Q. How do you know that.
10 A. Because he was kind of snoring.
11 Q. I can’t hear you. You’re going to have to
12 talk into that mike.
13 A. He was kind of snoring.
14 Q. Now, on this particular occasion, how long
15 did you stay there watching.
16 A. Couple seconds.
17 Q. Well, how long is that.
18 A. Four.
19 Q. What were the lighting conditions like in
20 the room.
21 A. The stairs were only lit, and the rest
22 was — nothing else was — had lights on. It was
23 just the stairs had lights.
Larry Nimmer, an expert if videography, was hired by the defense to film Neverland and narrate his footage to the jury because Judge Melville denied the defense’s motion that they take a tour of Neverland. During his filming, he conducted a test to disprove Star’s story about walking up the stairs and seeing MJ abuse his brother by filming a demonstration of how loud the alarms sound when they are triggered by someone coming near MJ’s bedroom! This completely blew the roof off of Star’s credibility, and helped sink the prosecution’s case!
Here it is!
And remember, all of this is from someone who says that God is someone who inspires him, according to his Facebook profile!
Look at who "inspires" him!
Let’s look at a huge lie that Gavin told while on the witness stand! During his initial police interviews, he told them that his grandmother taught him that if men don’t masturbate, they may rape a woman”. But during his direct examination, he told Sneddon that MJ told him that as well! Under cross-examination, he told Mesereau that MJ told it to him first, and then by sheer coincidence his grandmother told him the same thing when left Neverland!
1 Q. Okay. And you testified that Mr. Jackson
2 told you what masturbation is, right.
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. Is that true.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you testified to the jury that Mr.
7 Jackson said that if men don’t masturbate, that they
8 can get to a level where they can — might rape a
9 girl. Remember that.
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. Do you remember saying that.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you remember being interviewed by the
14 Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department on a number of
15 occasions.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And do you remember who interviewed you.
18 A. Most likely Steve Robel or Paul Zelis.
19 Q. Do you remember being asked, “Before we get
20 started on the next set of questions, can you
21 describe to us what your opinion is, what you think
22 masturbation is.” Do you remember one of the
23 sheriffs asked you that during an interview.
24 A. I believe so.
25 Q. And you knew those interviews were being
26 recorded, right.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Remember you said, “My grandma explained it 1798
1 to me. She told me that — that your — the only
2 reason is because like if — if men don’t do it, men
3 might get to a point where they might go ahead and
4 rape a woman”. Do you remember saying that to the
5 sheriffs.
6 A. I believe so.
7 Q. Why did your story change between that
8 interview and your testimony last Thursday.
9 A. Well, what do you mean “changed”.
10 Q. Well, you told the police your grandmother
11 made that quote to you, and you came into court
12 under oath and told the jury Mr. Jackson made that
13 quote to you.
14 A. That didn’t change. Because Michael tried
15 to explain to me first. And I — he was more
16 pushing on me that men have to masturbate.
17 Now, later when I came back from Neverland,
18 I guess my grandmother saw that I was very confused
19 about sexuality and things like that. And my
20 grandmother explained to me a lot of things.
21 Q. So it just so happened that after Mr.
22 Jackson told you, “If a man doesn’t do it, they may
23 get to a point where they rape a woman,” your
24 grandmother made the almost identical quote to you.
25 Is that what you’re saying.
26 A. Not really. She didn’t make the same exact
27 thing that Michael said. But I’m not exactly sure
28 what my grandmother said. I know my grandmother 1799
1 explained a lot of things to me.
2 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show
3 you a transcript of your sheriff’s interview.
4 A. Probably.
5 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Yes.
7 MR. MESEREAU: Whoops, I’m sorry.
8 Your Honor, I spilled a little water with my
9 notebook, so –
10 THE BAILIFF: How about you put that over
11 here.
12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Arvizo, have you had a
13 chance to look at that page of transcript.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what
16 you told the sheriffs about what masturbation was.
17 THE COURT: Just a moment, Counsel.
18 THE WITNESS: It refreshes my –
19 THE COURT: Just a moment. Let’s take care
20 of one thing at a time.
21 You may start again on that.
22 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, thank you, Your Honor.
23 Q. Mr. Arvizo, have you had a chance to look at
24 that page of transcript of your sheriff’s interview.
25 A. Uh-huh.
26 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what
27 you told the sheriffs your grandmother said.
28 A. It refreshes — I can recall what my 1800
1 grandmother was telling me. She was — she saw that
2 I was embarrassed about things like masturbation and
3 growing up, and my mother was telling me that it’s
4 okay to do it. And Michael was telling me that you
5 have to do it.
6 Q. Well, Mr. Arvizo, I understand your
7 position. But when the sheriffs asked you what
8 masturbation was, you didn’t say, “Mr. Jackson told
9 me if a man doesn’t do it, he may rape a woman.”
10 You said if — “My grandmother told me that if a man
11 doesn’t do it, he may rape a woman,” correct.
12 A. I believe so. That’s what you showed me.
Let me give you a visual representation of how laughable Gavin’s testimony was! I have his testimony in PDF format (in fact, I have EVERYONE’S testimony), and I did a search of certain phrases, and look what I found!
During his cross-examination, Gavin said “I don’t know” 137 times!
He said “I think” 120 times!
He said “I don’t remember” 52 times!
And he said “I guess” 30 times!
He doesn’t sound like someone who is very sure of himself, huh? By the way, in case anyone doubts the authenticity of those transcripts, I will show you email correspondence between myself and Michele McNeil, the Official Court Reporter who transcribed the testimony and has possession of the transcripts for sale. I bought someone’s testimony last year, and here is the email proof:
Here is her certification of the testimony that she transcribed:
When you look at the testimony of Gavin and Star Arvizo, who were the lynchpin of the prosecution’s case, it is easy to see that they are nothing but a bunch of lying, grifting, con-artists who were exploited by a malicious prosecution with a vendetta to seek a conviction, and not justice, in this ludicrous case! The Arvizo’s falsely accused MJ of abuse for money they falsely accused JC Penney’s security guards of abuse: MONEY!!! For more information on how Janet Arvizo was able to shakedown JC Penney, please read this post! And for more excerpts of Gavin and Star’s testimony, read this post. I will dedicate an entire series to summarizing and analyzing every single lie told by the Arvizos in the near future, so stay tuned! I cannot do it here because I have to save room for destroying Jason Francia’s testimony, which is coming later in this post!
I know that most of you probably believe in creation, but when you are finished reading my analysis of the Arvizo’s testimony, you’re gonna believe in evolution, because their lies just kept evolving and evolving and evolving!
To further show the hypocrisy of the Arvizo family, let’s read this open letter that was written to them by Azja Pryor, the ex-girlfriend of actor Chris Tucker, who testified for the defense during the trial. This was published on July 4th, 2009, a few weeks after MJ’s untimely death.
OPEN LETTER TO A MICHAEL JACKSON ACCUSER (THE ARVIZO FAMILY)
Subpoenaed by the defense in 2005, Azja Pryor writes open letter to Jacksonʼs 2nd accuser
Dear Gavin, Star, Davellin, and Janet:
After Michaelʼs tragic death last week, I have to say that all the negative feelings Iʼve had towards your family following the outrageous claims made by you Gavin and your mother Janet–against Michael–came back to me tenfold. The pain, disappointment, anger, and betrayal I feel towards you simply cannot be put into words. You have shown me that your greed, lies, and personal gain override any “morals” your family claims to have; and you have proven yourselves to be the kind of people capable of turning your back on the very person who came to your rescue when you were most desperate.
The fact that you falsely accused Michael of the most heinous of acts, and made his life a living hell in what would become his last years is unthinkable; and I am sure some would say, unforgivable. In your attempts to destroy him once again, you, Gavin, accused the man you called your “best friend” of the one thing that you (and everyone else) knew would completely turn his life inside out. You took the one thing we all know that Michael cared about most in life–children, especially children who are suffering, and you tried to turn it into a bad thing. You Janet, as a parent, allowed this, encouraged this, and went forward with the awful lies in an attempt to destroy Michael Jackson and swindle money from him.
Shame on you!
This man did nothing but help your family in their darkest hour. I know Michael was just like my family. We were all pulled into your woeful stories and shared your familyʼs plight as Gavin fought for his life during his battle with cancer. Gavin, you told me that Michaelʼs love helped cure you of cancer. Your entire family praised Michael privately to everyone who would listen, yet turned against him so viciously in public. I have remained silent for many years, but I can no longer do so. Right now I struggle to find the words to adequately write this letter, as I am so filled with anger towards you and pain for the Jackson family.
You call yourself Christians. If this is true I call on you, Gavin, and your mother Janet to finally do the right thing for Michael in death that you never did during his days here on earth. You need to completely exonerate Michaelʼs name and legacy from the awful, disgusting claims you made against him. Claims and allegations that you and I both know are completely false and utterly ridiculous. Whatever your motives at the time to create such accusations are now minute and unimportant.
It is much bigger than you.
We are speaking on this manʼs legacy; a man who positively touched lives around the world. A man who is arguably the greatest entertainer the world will ever know. Michael is someone who shared in your familyʼs pain; opened his home to you and included you in his very own family. He was a human being who never deserved any of this.
Gavin and Janet, you can change your identity and try to hide from the public scrutiny, but ultimately, you cannot hide from the wrath of Godʼs judgment. This is the right thing to do. It is the very least you can do for Michael, his children, and his legacy. Gavin you are now 19 years old, no longer an impressionable young boy under you motherʼs guidance, nor are you a pawn in this grand scheme to assassinate Michaelʼs character. I know your heart, and I know that you are capable of doing what is right. Clear Michaelʼs name of your ugly accusations once and for all. You owe it to him. You owe it to his family. And you owe it to God. Letʼs finally give Michael the ability to completely rest in peace.
Azja Pryor
July 4, 2009
It seems that Gavin has indeed found God in the last few years! Here is an excerpt of Assistant District Attorney Ron Zonen’s speech at the Frozen In Time legal seminar (held in September 2010), where he gives an update on Gavin’s status:
Where is he today? He’s twenty years old. He’s a 3rd year student at a very prominent university on the east coast. I’m not going to mention the name of the school, but anyone who would like to know come see me, I’ll tell you. He’s an Honor student who has a 3.5 GPA, and a double major in Philosophy and History, and he’s planning on going to Law School! Some of you will agree with that, and some of you won’t. He’s a deeply religious young man, in a relationship with a young woman, for about 2 years, the daughter of a minister. He attends church on a regular basis. He doesn’t drink, doesn’t do drugs. He’s delightful in his presentation. I spent time with him only a month ago. And he’s really doing remarkable well. He has never asked for or taken a penny from anybody about any of the activity of this case. Never. There are standing offers from the press for his story for enough money that would cover his tuition, which is considerable, never mind that he’s on a 50% scholarship. But he has never taken a penny from anybody, and no intention of doing so. He’s accruing debt like college kids do today, but he’s doing just fine. I assume that we’ll have more questions coming up about jury selection, and the trial, and I’ll be happy to answer them at that time.
Maybe if he truly is a Man of God now, then he’ll do the right thing and come forward to clear MJ’s name. Only time will tell. For more information on Gavin’s whereabouts, and to see how he and many of MJ’s enemies are literally one big happy family, read this post!
Here is a video of MJ, Gavin, and Star taken at Neverland in 2000. You can clearly see MJ giving a bald-headed Gavin a tour of Neverland, and providing friendship and comfort to him in his time of need. You can also see Star pushing Gavin around in his wheelchair, as Gavin’s health was in decline at that time, and hear him talk about how sad he is that Gavin is sick.
And to think that these two little devils would destroy MJ’s life after all that he did for them! Watching this video makes it even more appalling because you can see MJ’s kindness in action!
In part 5 of this series, I will fully summarize and analyze the ENTIRE testimony of the lies of former Youth Minister Jason Francia! Stay Tuned!
1. Strange attraction
When going to a wordpress page today, the first thing I saw was the screen practically black from the number of sites with the word “censored” running across each of them. My first reaction was the incredulous “Could we have been censored?”, however when I typed in the password the blog did open (UPDATE: Now I know that it was a general black-out in connection with the Bill discussed in the US Congress. They say it is to prevent online piracy, but actually implies that everyone should pay for the articles now obtained free. I hope it NEVER passes).
But initially it looked like another of those strange occurrences which started taking place in connection with our blog. The first was the news that vindicatemj blog was consistently trashed on the Michael Jackson forum of the Topix site. Another strange thing is that we also found ourselves in the center of attention of the “mjfacts” site whose home page made a special tribute to a certain vindication blog claiming that it has a “far more sinister agenda” than other blogs in support of Michael Jackson.
If it is us that they have in mind, let me state that our “agenda” is simple – we dare refute lies about Michael Jackson and have already found overwhelming proof of his innocence, both of which may indeed look sinister to Michael Jackson’s haters.
Now that Topix and mjfacts site have drawn so much attention to themselves, it is no use guys, to ask me stop looking in their direction and simply go on with vindicating Michael. Please excuse me for my stubbornness, but I am just curious to find out why these strange people are so preoccupied with us and what their agenda is.
For a start let me state that there is a close connection between the two sites mentioned above.
The MJ haters' site refers its readers to TOPIX
The MJ haters’ site does not allow any comment on its posts, and its contact page directs all readers straight to Topix for contacting them and asking questions there.
According to MJ’s detractor “there are many knowledgeable people there who can help readers with these issues”. And though the author claims he doesn’t post on Topix, he surely regularly checks up its MJ forum for feedback to his own anti-Michael posts.
His advice to contact him there most probably means that answers to their questions will be provided on his blog. The system of correspondence seems to be complicated of course, but speaks to close interaction between the two sites, which turn into a sort of a single entity this way.
On the other hand the Topix writers continually involved in Michael Jackson’s trashing also recommend the “mjfacts” site as the only “credible” source of information on MJ.
So getting first-hand proof of such interaction between the two sites is an interesting fact in and of itself and is reason enough for us to have a closer look at this phenomenon.
Considering the dispute now going on in the US over free speech on internet and the detractor’s advice to visit Topix as “one of the few uncensored Michael Jackson sites”, I am also curious to check whether there is indeed no censorship on the Topix site and if it really gives equal opportunities to people to express their views on Michael Jackson (and other issues).
Topix claims that free speech is its cornerstone and the very reason for its existence.
I am for free speech with my both hands but for this particular post will set certain limitations for myself. What I am presenting here is not just my opinion – no, it is a collection of materials from those who dealt with Topix and can share with us their first-hand experience. The evidence these people provide is trustworthy enough, as unlike Topix anonymous writers these authors give their true names to the public and do not change their internet location every half an hour not to show the place they are writing from.
2. What Topix CEO Chris Tolles says about his company and its strategy
Based on the number of unique visitors to the Topix site its CEO Chris Tolles says that Topix’s popularity is second only to the New York Times. This sounds true as whenever I google search for the name of Michael Jackson the Topix comments always come one of the first on the list. Their hateful posts practically dominate the internet environment – at least as far as Michael Jackson is concerned.
Explaining the goals and strategy of his company Mr. Tolles says that being a news aggregator is “not interesting” and the future of journalism belongs to local news made by the people themselves. He promises to journalists that the restructuring of the news business will be bloody.
Mr. Tolles himself has made a post on his Topix site which shows that Topix has indeed become the #1 most visited site. It is a sort of a report to the board of the three largest newspaper companies which invested millions in it:
April 21, 2009
Topix becomes #1 news site of Gannett, Tribune & McClatchy Internet Portfolio
by tolles at 7:34 AM
In March of 2005, we received investment from the three largest newspaper companies in the US, Gannett, Tribune and Knight Ridder. Flash forward four years: In March 2009, we edged out USA TODAY to become their #1 media property at 6.5M unique visitors (comScore) with a focus on hyper local participation. Out of US newspaper sites, only the New York Times has more unique visitors.
News Site Unique Visitors (000)
NYTimes.com 10,942
Topix.com 6,495
USA Today Sites 5,960
WashingtonPost.com 5,829
LATimes.com 5,173Source: comScore, Media Metrix, March 2009
The folks I’ve worked with over the past four years are smart, savvy and realize where they stand. They wanted to make sure they had a stake in a news aggregator with Google having just launched Google news.
A little while into their investment, we told them that news aggregation was a great start to a business, but it wasn’t very interesting, from either a traffic or a revenue standpoint. And that doubling down on hyper local news – especially where there currently wasn’t any – was the strategy we were going to pursue.
…While we started out as a broad-based news aggregator, we noticed that what people wanted most was news about their town. So, we moved to augment our news with comments and stories from our visitors. And today it’s great to see that our strategy has paid traffic dividends, and being the #1 site with respect to unique visitors with company like the Miami Herald, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and USA TODAY is something we’re pretty proud of here at Topix.
Despite what journalists think, with the decoupling of classified revenues, there is going to be a huge restructuring in the news business, and it’s going to be bloody. There’s really nothing that would have prevented most of what’s happening here.
Over the past four years, we have grown Topix with its roots in aggregation technology, to the place where people discuss the news and issues important to where the live and work. Embracing audience participation is for us the critical engine for content creation and traffic growth.
There’s still a lot of work to do here, but it feels good to tell my board that we are their #1 most visited site.
In another article Chris Tolles speaks on how to make the internet news profitable. He says that “there is no money in building a news aggregator focused on trust” and that it is “NOT a strategy for direct monetization”.
I didn’t quite get his above idea but from his various statements gather that it is the news built on trust which he thinks not to be profitable business. Does he mean to say that credible sources of information verifying their facts do not give money any longer? And does it also mean that he is suggesting its opposite as a way to make the media profitable – the news built not on trust but on what may be unverified gossip or even shocking lies?
Please check up whether I understood Chris Tolles right:
July 18, 2009
by tolles at 9:08 AM
Sigh.
I guess its time for another crop of news products from journalists. Why is it that when these guys all go onto the field of battle “once more into the breach” style, they don’t understand which side of the Agincourt analogy they are on. They face superior weapons and a difference in culture and ethics. They are the French in this battle. They die.
… AOL annual revenue is $4.2B, Google $21.8B, MSN ~$2B, and Yahoo $7.2B
So, since the grand total is around $36B, Google news is pretty much a non revenue products, and Google was doing just fine with little or no news results in their main index until the last couple of years. Yahoo does put news in a lot of their products, but certainly, nowhere near 50% of their advertising is sold against news, as is the same for AOL and MSN.
(Oh and last time I checked the newspaper industry advertising revenue was $37.85B)
News is a crap search product, and a loss leader, which is a big reason why Google news was in beta for years, and unmonetized, and why many news-centric searches get no ads next to them.
News is an unprofitable search. Since we at Topix are an adsense partner, and I am a downstream beneficiary to what revenues there are here, I know what kind of eCPM news brings and how hard it is to make money on aggregated “news” content.
… I have some experience in running a news site here at Topix. We’ve built a site which is,according to comScore, the #2 “newspaper” site online. We actually had a program for a while where’ we’d give 50% of all ad revenues back to publishers who wanted to syndicate content to us. Didn’t work worth a damn.
…We’ve since moved on to try and create community around our news, which is percolating along, and focus on local — which seems to be an area where we can compete with the lack of anything else out there. The success that we’re having is creating a product where Google (or the newspapers for that matter) can’t, or are unwilling, to compete on even terms.
But Jeez, why is it that all the old newspaper guys think there’s some giant pile of money at the top of the trust pyramid? There isn’t. All the money is at the bottom. In the muck. In the details. Where Gawker plays. Where Techcrunch plays. It’s not aggregating the “top trusted content, it’s owning a category and being the best and, ideally, only ones there.
Journalists don’t win this game. Publishers win this game.
People who care about pageviews and winning, more than they worry about concepts like “trust”.
The “bad guys” win.
…Really, there is no money in building a news aggregator focused on trust. If anything, it can be a start or a loss leader for whatever your real product is. But it is NOT a strategy for direct monetization. Trust me on that one.
Full story: http://blog.topix.com/2009/07/news-flash-the-bad-guys-win.html
Virginia Hoge, a writer from California, is a heroic woman fighting for cleaning Topix forums from libel and trolls
Virginia Olive Hoge, a writer from Pasadena, California http://open.salon.com/search.php?allwords=virginia+hoge also has questions to Chris Tolley about the way he is going about his business.
Her questions are fabulous:
In this post, Chris Tolles spells out his media philosophy, rationale, dislike of journalists, views on profitability in media and reflects in general, on the take-over of print media by internet media. He makes very clear, that he is little interested in “another crop of news products from journalists”, he reflects that they do not understand the “battlefield” which he compares to the Battle of Agincourt where the outnumbered English defeated the French in the 100 years war.
I have a few questions for Chris related to this post:
Is this a battle Chris? If so, who are you trying to kill? You do use the word “die”. Are you trying to kill off newspapers and “old newspaper guys” i.e. journalists?
And what are you proposing to replace them with? Citizen journalists? Trolls? Are you proposing to elevate the comment to the place once held by newspaper editorials? What do you propose to replace reporting with? What do you proposed to replace investigative journalism with? What do you propose to replace fact-checking with?
Do you propose to replace news with opinion, which on Topix many times, means gossip and bullying?
Can you explain this sentence from your article: “They face superior weapons and a difference in culture and ethics.” Do you mean no ethics? Is that the difference?
Are trolls what you mean by “superior weapons”?
Topix has no terms of service for its users, no rules at all to follow, no guiding ethics beyond a request to be “nice”, a request that is routinely ignored by both the trolls and the moderators. Its forums are often mosh-pits loaded with slanderous gossip.
Therefore, if one is to take what you have written here seriously, you are proclaiming the superiority of media without ethics to guide it save those within the posters themselves? A world which, without a verification system of what is true or false, without rules to guide it, places brutality and meanness at the utmost pinnacle of persuasion? A world ruled by moderators that are hardly impartial?
You have clearly advanced your support for this type of persuasion and media, by your statement all of the money [in media] is to be found in the “Muck”.
Money matters more than people??? Not when you are running a people business and promoting citizen journalists as the future of Media.
My question to you is, what about the posters who are guaranteed to be harmed by this climate of brutality? Words are powerful weapons and used as such. Is this the objective?
What about those who never even post on Topix but are having their names dragged through the mud there, since the climate you are advancing here, sets up the perfect stage for slander?
For instance, these mothers in Pikesville KY: Deadbeat Mothers
These doctors in Utica: Worst doctors in Utica
There are threads like these on almost every Topix forum across the Country and World.
What about the truth? Should bottom-feeders be encouraged and supported? What media philosophy, besides yours, supports this and ifAmerica understands that this is the philosophy Topix supports, how well do you think they will tolerate it? Since when does it not matter if people are being defamed?
Since when can media exist without ethics?
How can a company that advertises itself as a media company and all about citizen journalists, be so indifferent to the people who post there?
Tolles is declaring victory in The Bad Guys Lose for the very opposite scenario, a scenario where the bad guys clearly, win.
The full article: http://open.salon.com/blog/virginia888/2011/10/15/speaking_out_to_chris_tolles_ceo_of_topix
3. THE PRICE THEY PAY FOR CHRIS TOLLES’S NEW “NEWS MODEL”
So Chris Tolles does not even pretend that his new business model of “making news” has to do with information per se. Same as with Michael Jackson it is all about MONEY.
In Michael Jackson’s case it was the life and happiness of one person “only” which was sacrificed for the financial benefit of the media and “entertainment” of millions of people, and now it is the life and happiness of many people which are being sacrificed for the financial benefit of some advertisers and those few who gain huge profits from the new business model devised.
The pattern which was once tested on Michael Jackson is now being promoted for a wider audience – anonymous slanderers trash innocent people by spreading wild rumors about them and never answer for what they do, while the profits rise.
Once the virus of profiteering by human suffering was launched, was allowed to break all ethical norms of journalism, and was successfully tested on Michael Jackson’s life, it started spreading. Now many ordinary people will also taste what it feels like when you are slandered and libeled for no reason at all and even law is incapable to help you to wash yourself from this dirt.
The recent New York Times article, dated September 19, 2011, describes in vivid detail the price people are paying for the huge money Topix makes out of their novel “news-making” strategy:
In Small Towns, Gossip Moves to the Web, and Turns Vicious
September 19, 2011
MOUNTAIN GROVE, Mo. — In the small towns nestled throughout the Ozarks, people like to say that everybody knows everybody’s business — and if they do not, they feel free to offer an educated guess.
One of the established places here for trading the gossip of the day is Dee’s Place, a country diner where a dozen longtime residents gather each morning around a table permanently reserved with a members-only sign for the “Old Farts Club,” as they call themselves, to talk about weather, politics and, of course, their neighbors.
But of late, more people in this hardscrabble town of 5,000 have shifted from sharing the latest news and rumors over eggs and coffee to the Mountain Grove Forum on a social media Web site called Topix, where they write and read startlingly negative posts, all cloaked in anonymity, about one another.
And in Dee’s Place, people are not happy. A waitress, Pheobe Best, said that the site had provoked fights and caused divorces. The diner’s owner, Jim Deverell, called Topix a “cesspool of character assassination.” And hearing the conversation, Shane James, the cook, wandered out of the kitchen tense with anger.
His wife, Jennifer, had been the target in a post titled “freak,” he said, which described the mother of two as, among other things, “a methed-out, doped-out whore with AIDS.” Not a word was true, Mr. and Ms. James said, but the consequences were real enough.
Friends and relatives stopped speaking to them. Trips to the grocery store brought a crushing barrage of knowing glances. She wept constantly and even considered suicide. Now, the couple has resolved to move.
“I’ll never come back to this town again,” Ms. James said in an interview at the diner. “I just want to get the hell away from here.”
The same Web sites created as places for candid talk about local news and politics are also hubs of unsubstantiated gossip, stirring widespread resentment in communities where ties run deep, memories run long and anonymity is something of a novel concept.
… Whereas online negativity seems to dissipate naturally in a large city, it often grates like steel wool in a small town where insults are not easily forgotten.
The forums have provoked censure by local governments, a number of lawsuits and, in one case, criticism by relatives after a woman in Austin, Ind., killed herself and her three children this year. Hours earlier she wrote on the Web site where her divorce had been a topic of conversation, “Now it’s time to take the pain away.”
In Hyden, Ky. (population 365), the local forum had 107 visitors at the same time one afternoon this month. They encountered posts about the school system, a new restaurant and local arrests, as well as the news articles and political questions posted by Topix.
But more typical were the unsubstantiated posts that identified by name an employee at a dentist’s office as a home wrecker with herpes, accused a gas station attendant of being a drug dealer, and said a 13-year-old girl was “preggo by her mommy’s man.” Many allegations were followed with promises of retribution to whoever started the post.
“If names had been put on and tied to what has been said, there would have been one killing after another,” said Lonnie Hendrix, Hyden’s mayor.
Topix, based in Palo Alto, Calif., is owned in part by several major newspaper companies — Gannett, Tribune and McClatchy — but has independent editorial control. It was initially envisioned as a hyperlocal news aggregator with separate pages for every community in the country. But most of its growth was in small cities and towns, and local commenters wanted to shift the conversation to more traditional gossip.
Mr. Tolles acknowledged the biggest problem at the site is “keeping the conversation on the rails.” But he defended it on free-speech grounds. He said the comments are funny to read, make private gossip public, provide a platform for “people who have negative things to say” and are better for business.
Topix said it received about 125,000 posts on any given day in forums for about 5,000 cities and towns. Unlike sites like Facebook, which requires users to give their real name, Topix users can pick different names for each post and are identified only by geography. About 9 percent are automatically screened out by software, based on offensive content like racial slurs; another 3 percent — mostly threats and “obvious libel,” Mr. Tolles said — are removed after people complain.
After a challenge from more than 30 state attorneys general, Topix stopped charging for the expedited removal of offensive comments — which Jack Conway, the attorney general for Kentucky, said “smacked of having to pay a fee to get your good name back.”
Despite the screening efforts, the site is full of posts that seem to cross lines. Topix, as an Internet forum, is immune from libel suits under federal law, but those who post could be sued, if they are found.
The company receives about one subpoena a day for the computer addresses of anonymous commenters as part of law enforcement investigations or civil suits, some of which have resulted in cash verdicts or settlements.
But at Dee’s Place, Jennifer James said she did not have enough money to pursue a lawsuit. And even if she did, she said, it would not help.
“In a small town,” Ms. James said, “rumors stay forever.”
A quick internet search has brought me a pile of complaints made by ordinary people against Topix. Some of them approached the state attorneys general:
Attorney General legal definition:
- The chief legal officer of the United States or of a state, who advises the federal or state government on legal matters, represents the federal or state government in litigation, and heads the United States Department of Justice or a state’s legal department. Abbreviated A.G.
Wiki says that it required the involvement of 30 (thirty) states’ attorneys generals for Topix to stop charging money for the removal of negative posts and “getting one’s good name back”:
Initially Topix charged money to people who requested that Topix take expedited removal of negative posts. After thirty states’ attorneys generals protested, Topix stopped charging. Jack Conway, the Kentucky Attorney General, said the charging scheme “smacked of having to pay a fee to get your good name back.“[5]
By 2010 Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal questioned the website’s practice of charging $19.99 for expedited review of slanderous comments in local forums. According to a press release from Conway’s office,[7] the tools provided by Topix.com to remove the abusive posts are ineffective unless consumers agree to pay the fee. Topix CEO Chris Tolles accused the pair of grandstanding and intimidation, insisting the site operates with appropriate and timely oversight.[8]
.. On February 03, 2009, Mark and Rhonda Lesher filed a defamation lawsuit against anonymous posters on Topix.com. According to the Leshers’ petition, over 1,700 defamatory statements were made about them by anonymous posters on Topix.com. Although Topix was not a party to the lawsuit, it was forced to reveal the IP addresses of the posters and the dangers of unmoderated anonymous posting on Topix were brought to light for the first time in the public eye.
Topix has been cited as an example of cyberbullying and a hindrance to efforts to end the practice among minors.[9]
We can imagine how ‘easy’ it is for ordinary people to deal with Topix if this is how the Topix CEO allows himself to talk to two Attorneys General:
Conway criticizes oversight of Topix.com By Cheryl Truman — ctruman@herald-leader.com Posted: 12:00am on Feb 12, 2010; Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal have asked the community news and discussion Web site Topix.com for additional information about a $19.99 fee that consumers pay for “priority review” of inappropriate posts. But Chris Tolles, the CEO of Topix, accused the pair of grandstanding and intimidation and insists that his site operates with appropriate and timely oversight. The two attorneys general complained about “false and defamatory information about children, as well as adults” that has been posted on Topix, available at both Topix.com and Topix.net. In a letter to Tolles dated Thursday, the two wrote that the Web site’s forums “appear to operate without moderators and contain obscene, vulgar and abusive posts, often concerning minors.” Tolles fired back after a reporter contacted him seeking comment and e-mailed him a copy ofConway’s press release along with the letter. “That’s grandstanding, that’s what it is,” Tolles said of the material from Conway and Blumenthal, who is chairman of the National Association of Attorneys General Multistate Task Force on Internet Safety. “This is not a reasonable inquiry for information.” He said the letter and news release angered him because it accused his company “of running a shakedown service.” Tolles said that the vast majority of posts taken down are removed via the standard review process and that consumers have three methods they can use to seek review of a post: flagging a post for abuse; filing feedback with Topix, with specific information about a post’s contents; or paying $19.99 to “jump the queue” for priority processing of a complaint. “This is clearly designed to be intimidation,” he said of the Conway-Blumenthal letter. The McClatchy Company, the parent company of the Herald-Leader, became owner of an 11.25 percent stake in Topix when McClatchy bought Knight Ridder in 2006.Full text: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/02/12/1135370/conway-criticizes-topixcom-whose.html#storylink=cpy
The letter I sent to Topix people is called "For the attention of vindicationfailedforwacko" . Topix immediately shadow banned it
The above sheds some light on the company’s approach to the complaints of citizens insulted on Topix forums. So the letter I’ve sent to them, demanding an apology for unethical behaviour towards the admins of this blog, can now be regarded as a mere souvenir for the Topix people or as a relic of the deep past when ethics and honor were still having some value.
This however does not preclude us from speaking out against the Topix malicious and libellous practices.
4. Methods used by Topix
A special Complaints Board contains a good deal of complaints about Topix.
One of them is a complaint left by a former Topix employee who discloses some of the closely guarded secrets of the company:
Topix.com, Palo Alto, California
Posted: 2010-06-18 by Topix Sux
Topix.com Commits fraud!
I worked with the management team for Palo Alto, California based Topix.com, and wanted to expose some business secrets this company uses to make money off of innocent people.
Topix.com allows online users to post stories and topics in their local communities on its website. However many users use the site to post hateful and defaming remarks about people and businesses, for the fact that the site is not moderated.
Chris Tolles, the company President & CEO, figured his company could make money by allowing users to post negative remarks about others, than charge the attacked entity to remove the remarks in a timely manner. It became a good source of income for Topix, allowing such unethical issues to be posted on their site. They allow the comments to stay on as long as they can, even after numerous complaints are filed to remove them by users who are attacked by others.
They recently removed the payment feature to charge to remove comments, unfortunately so many complaints are coming in, Topix can’t handle the burden. The company still refuses to moderate the postings, which continue to fall into the category on internet defamation, in which Mr. Tolles and company are truly guilty of.
I left the company, after being asked to do other unethical practices by management, and felt I should share my issues with the world!
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/topixcom-california-c404472.html
When you read people’s numerous complaints about the destruction of their lives by Topix anonymous writers, you start realizing that what is being done there has nothing to do with real freedom of speech. It is a sort of a travesty of it – due to full anonymity and a possibility to pour any dirt on anyone it becomes a platform for all sorts of perverts who not only destroy other people’s reputations but also impose their sick views on the public and get away with it at that!
These comments will tell you everything you wanted to know about the Topix “citizen’s journalism” and its specifics:
 Freedom of speech on Topix. First they shadow ban you and then they shout about Freedom of Speech. It is no surprise they have to hide their location after that The comments from a journalists’ site show that journalists are equally appalled by Topix:Topix is even slower than they used to be in removing posts. The forums have gone from bad to worse. Why doesn’t Topix simply require registration, IP banning, and human moderation? They should also delete some of the forums. It would actually help with advertising and reputation and in the long run make them more money. Topix doesn’t want moderation because they are afraid it will hurt their hits. That might happen in the short run but in the long run they will be a stronger company and because of their lack of ethics this is one time the government and Attorney Generals are perfectly justified and actually should do more. Freedom of speech only goes so far and those that don’t understand probably are the ones guilty of libeling and attacking others. Come on Topix! Is Topix referring to me as Helena "the hater" who never sleeps? Must be me as there is really so much work that sleep is a rare occasion. So is it in my name that they are speaking?  First they wonder why anyone would change their location...  ... then they change their location to Russia...  ...and then to North Korea! Indeed, why would they change their location? All of the above and worse. Chris Tolles is an unethical, greedy, SOB who deserves a taste of his own “medicine.” I am one of the few who actually got a court order for internet harassment on a troll named Eric C. Fahrner… It is possible to get harassment injunctions for internet harassment. Harrassment is not protected by the free speech clause. http://www.courantalumni.org/2010/08/09/topix-more-polish-same-crap/comment-page-1/#comment-3416 However it is the comments by writer Virginia Hoge which will be a truly eye-opening experience to us all:19th of Jun, 2010 by Virginia Hoge I have been conducting a 10 month investigation of Topix and what I have found out is horrifying. The management is sponsoring gangs of trolls, plastering their advertising onto their comments, who are beating up commentators across the country. They are practicing censorship, and the persecution of their critics. Here are the articles I have written about my ongoing investigation: http://open.salon.com/search.php?allwords=virginia+hoge 19th of Jun, 2010 by Virginia Hoge “They allow the comments to stay on as long as they can, even after numerous complaints are filed to remove them by users who are attacked by others.” AND they pay the trolls who are doing the attacking. The also use Topix employees – like Selecia Jones – he organizes bands of trolls and direct them to threads where they proceed to stick their fangs into commentators, to try and get more “hits”. AND they plaster advertising into the comment boxes of some of the worse bully-trolls. AND the censor critics of the trolling problem, after they have first attempted to persecute them off threads with their trolls, if the trolls do not work, they censor critics by shadow-banning them. AND a method of persecution of their critics is to allow the trolls to build Topix attack forums, naming their critic by name, on which the trolls will load the forum down with harsh, foul, profane slurs against their victim. 21st of Jun, 2010 by Virginia Hoge The lack of moderation is a cover-up to their facilitation of the trolls, who they pay, organize and send out in organized packs on ‘hot” threads to beat up commentators and make more “hits” for Topix. The fact that these trolls sometimes carry Topix’s advertisers ads right in their comment boxes proves this, and well as what I have learned in my investigation. The general attitude towards trolling – ignore them – has facilitated this master plan Topix has to not only use the trolls, but make them a central part of its income. Topix bans opposition to the trolls, and also had the trolls beat-up on anyone who dares speak out. The huge problem with this is trolls are harming millions of Americans across the country with harassment and vile slander and profanity and debasement, that is causing real psychological damage to hundreds and hundreds of people. Topix is ACCOUNTABLE for the serious harm they are promoting across the country. http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/topixcom-palo-alto-california-c348887.html Posted: 2010-12-28 by Virginia Hoge Topix forums, are the number one internet community forums, linked to newspapers across America.From their website: “Topix is the leading news community on the Web, connecting people to the information and discussions, that matter to them in every U.S. town and city.” The three biggest newspaper corporations in the country, are heavily invested. Based in Palo Alto, Calif., Topix LLC is a privately held company with investment from Gannett Co., Inc. (NYSE: GCI), The McClatchy Company (NYSE: MNI) and Tribune Company. These three corporations invested $15-million dollars in Topix. “November 6, 2006: Topix Receives $15 Million in Additional Funding from Tribune, Gannett, and McClatchy” From Local Media Watch: Indeed, its potential was deemed so great that Gannett, Tribune and Knight Ridder paid $60 million for it in 2005, expecting it to play a key role in the future of local news.Topix and Google Topix is affiliated with Google, whose search engines give Topix, the highest priority. Virginia Hoge Aug 25th, 2010 at 2:38 pm Topix has stuck a pack of troll thugs onto me and my supporters, who are hacking into our computers, posting our personal information like addresses, hacking into our profiles, threatening our bank accounts, and saying this is all information and passwords handed over to them and sanctioned by Topix. This thread is a must-follow: http://www.topix.com/forum/news/topix/TF3D2UNT1MC4J9QB4/p7#c133 “dem: kelly sent me all the passwords you use on your computer. think maybe i’ll make some purchases from artists den today.” Virginia Hoge Aug 18th, 2010 at 9:57 am And this Chris Tolles: “The idea that somehow it is immoral to provide a forum for people is just arrogant and foolish.” It IS immoral to provide a forum without ethics, as Topix is. http://www.courantalumni.org/2010/08/09/topix-more-polish-same-crap/comment-page-1/#comment-3416 5. HATE IS EASY; LOVE TAKES COURAGEA heoric woman like Virginia Hoge deserves great respect. She is doing a fantastic job of cleaning the internet of the mud spilt there by the Topix forums. However at the moment Virginia is going through all circles of the Topix hell. This article of hers shows the extent of monitoring people Topix is capable of and the work those “in the office” do when they handle someone who is not to their liking:
Virginia says about herself:
Source: http://open.salon.com/blog/virginia888/2011/10/23/topix_has_me_wired_lol 6. CENSORSHIP GAMES or the DEMOCRATIC FUN THEY HAVE ON TOPIXAs regards censorship on Topix I have had my own first-hand experience in this respect. Their censorship is a very specific type. In addition to all the troll games you have learned of above, Topix also practices the so-called shadow banning. It is called shadow banning because they do censor you but no one knows about it, so on the surface of it it looks like the best of democracies. You wanted to post and they allowed you to do it. Even if you are speaking up for Michael Jackson. Even if you are from Russia. Even if you the admin of a blog which adheres to the views opposite to those of their favorite “mjfacts” site. However later you find out that it is only a make-belief game as people start asking you where your post is. You tell them that it is there, and they tell you that it is not. You can see it, and they cannot. This is when it begins to dawn on you that you dealing with a special “Topix type” democracy which is not quite what you expected and is definitely not the ideal you’ve always cherished in your dreams. It is the illusion of it. Shadow banning creates the illusion that your voice has been heard, your message posted or your views have been expressed – only you are neither seen, heard nor noticed. And if you were all alone and didn’t have someone to tell you that you are actually invisible in this Topix world of theirs you would never have known of it. This way Topix keeps everyone happy – you are happy that you’ve posted and they are happy that you are happily deceived. This is the type of democracy they are imposing on you on their Topix site. At this stage you begin thinking what wrong you have done to them. If you have posted there some 6000 comments like Virginia Hoge did your banning would be at least understandable from the procedural point of view – they know her, they are afraid of her and don’t want to see her there anymore. But what if you posted there for the first time? How do the Topix people know who I am and what my intentions are if they have not yet even published my letter there?
Trolls will naturally say I was shadow banned because I’d been posting there on numerous occasions – to which I disagree. Firstly, I know that I was writing there for the first time. Secondly, they also know that I know it. And thirdly, even if I try very hard I am totally incapable of masquerading as someone else as my English will always betray me to be a foreigner. In fact I am unable even to understand what they are writing there – not to mention my total inability to imitate their style of writing (and thinking). Since this post is meant to be a well-documented one here is the proof of what I am talking about. Let it be my contribution to the Topix deception portfolio and be another proof that you cannot believe everything you see on the Topix forum of “people’s” journalism. Picture 1 shows you the way I see the main page of the Topix MJ forum. The last line shown here lists my post called “For the attention of “vindicatefailedforwacko”. You see that the post is very much there.  Pic.1 This is the way I see the main page of the Topix forum. The post is there. It was made on Saturday, Jan.14
And picture 2 shows the same page of the Topix MJ forum the way others see it. No matter how you search it for my post you will not find it. It is simply not there. Its place is taken by “MJ photo’s with Young boys vs. Women”.  Pic.2 And this is the way READERS see the same page. The post made on Saturday is missing. Both screen shots were made on January 16, 2012 (or two days after posting). It seems that my personality is also becoming important for Topix. You know what I have learned from one of the Topix threads about the fate of my letter on that forum? I’ve been informed that my letter (the one that was unpublished) was reported to the Topix CEO himself, i.e. Mr. Chris Tolles – so apparently now I will be enjoying all the privileges of the attention they are paying to Ms.Virginia Hoge… And it was reported by the very person whom I expected to apologize for the slander against our blog.  "I sent to ceo your idiotic claims" 7. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?By now we have obtained some clear facts indicating that the authors commenting on the anti-Jackson forum may actually be its moderators. Virginia Hoge and many other people have also noticed a certain correlation between trolls and moderators, and even my first modest experience in dealing with Topix speaks to the same – at least on the Topix Michael Jackson forum. Surprisingly, but the article Topix itself published on April 1, 2007 about the launch of its forums (what a day to select for starting the project! they definitely think us to be Fools!) provides substantial proof for the above point of view. Let us recall the notable April 1, 2007 day in the Topix history:
Wiki said about the Topix newborn baby:
The point about “inviting volunteers to edit the topics of their choice” attracted my attention, so I followed the link to the original article. It is taking us back to how it all started. Is it possible that Topix managers simply forgot what they wrote back in 2007?
Up till now we’ve been somewhat in the dark as to who edits Topix on the Michael Jackson forum. However now we have obtained first-hand evidence from Topix itself that their editors are mostly volunteers who “edit the topic of their choice” and who, according to Topix founders, help edit the news, help moderate their forums, work under the editorial guidelines and even “take over the controls”. Let me translate what the above means for the news about Michael Jackson. All the above “help” in moderating a forum about MJ means that a good deal of Michael’s haters who signed up upon hearing Topix’s call are now “editing” news about Michael, are “helping to moderate” the forum about him, and have been guiding its content ever since its beginning on April 1, 2007. Of course Michael’s supporters probably volunteered too, however if you look at the names and posts of those who started back in 2007 and continue trashing Michael Jackson now you will see the same old familiar faces of Michael’s haters only. Most probably Michael supporters simply did not survive there. I am also a bit wary about the point concerning editorial guidelines. Though generally we understand guidelines as professional journalistic help – on the ethics of journalism and how to actually edit and moderate according to rules – we know how the media people themselves adhered to these principles when it came to Michael Jackson, and this is why the point about the editors’ “guidelines” sounds especially sinister to me. You can have some idea of what guidelines Topix moderators receive from their management by the reply the Topix CEO Christ Tolles gave to some of his fellow journalists . This man makes it clear that what he is waging is a battle. A battle against journalism. A battle against ethics. A battle for a special kind of freedom which should depend “on the context of the day”. He says that the battle is already won and the gate is crashed. Is it?
|
||||||
For the attention of Michael Jackson’s Topix haters
There is one thing I need to announce.
Some of our readers who have been to a Topix forum say to me that our names – VMJ, vindicatemj, sanemjfan, Lynette and Helena - are being used there in various combinations for saying terrible things about Michael or about each of us.
I regard it as a sign of haters’ growing despair and the last straw they are grasping at. Using our names against Michael seems to be the last and only remaining argument they have.
Since words like “vindicate” or “helena” are used as part of some Topix haters’ names (see “vindicationfailedforwacko” or “Helena the hater” for ex.) our readers should also know another thing.
I have NEVER written anything in the Topix forum as speaking to these people is unfortunately useless.
If they show any signs of turning human again I will certainly try to give them a helping hand to get them out of the hell they are living in – but at the moment they seem to feel comfortable enough while residing there.
So needless to say, WHATEVER has been written in the Topix forum in my or my co-admins’ names has absolutely no connection to us and our views.
If readers see anything against Michael Jackson said in the names resembling ours, please immediately inform us about it as we have no time to follow the Topix closely.
However in addition to using our names for trying to compromise us in the eyes of the fan community, the Topix haters are also making outrageously slanderous and even criminal statements against the admins of this blog!
This is what they are currently writing:
Vindicationfailedforwacko
Danbury,CT
One never has to worry about a floon be out in public ever. All one has to do is google them and their they are slobbering on the net 24/7-365 over a dead pedophile junky. Tracking any flunatic is as easy since they never leave the net not even to bathe. Gross. Especially pedo Dave (insanemjfan). He needs to be tracked. Danger to children and/or society in general. Wait, Lynette might be worse. Torn. There’s also a Suzie.. old hag with pig tails. Fashion don’t. That’s her crime besides ignorance. Then there is Hair Helena obsessing about voo doo dolls.
This is who wacko has fans? Nice huh? LMAO Sick like he was.
When haters claim we are fools or fanatics or rabid and so on, I never pay attention because making personal attacks is the weapon of the weak.
But when they start making outrageous innuendos like the above this is becoming really TOO MUCH.
Over here haters have absolutely crossed the line of the acceptable. Making such insinuations is not only inappropriate but it is also totally illegal and even CRIMINAL.
You have also probably noticed that they mentioned Suzy’s name who is currently not an admin, but is also – like all of us – speaking strongly against pedophilia.
Mentioning her name was a strategic mistake the haters made.
The fact that out of all our readers they selected only one reader who is fighting pedophilia as strongly as the admins of this blog do – she has even made two anti-pedophile posts as a guest writer here and here – shows that Michael’s haters are highly selective in their hatred and choose only those who are voicing their protest against pedophiles.
And this makes me wonder about who these people are…
The method the Topix haters have chosen does not surprise me in the least. First they trashed Michael for what he never did, and now they are using absolutely the same method against Michael’s advocates.
A certain “vindicationfailedforwacko” is stepping up his effort in harassing our admin ‘sanemjfan’:
Vindicationfailedforwacko
Danbury, CT
“jim-wrote: <quoted text> Oh there is a video that will surface someday proving MJ was a sick and behaved improperly with young boys! I will say “I TOLD YOU SO !!!”
There already is one. Why do you think pedophile wacko paid? Not that a floon would care. They don’t care about children. They don’t care about themselves. Who you kidding? These floons are insane. Why are you trying to talk sense into the senseless? They excuse away all sick behavior. Makes ya wonder who they are luring into their beds. My research on the floons is revealing some pretty sick behavior they twat about under many accounts. Dave, sanemjfan trying to lure little boys onto his site is very revealing for sure. Aaaaaak! Gunna hurl!
And this is another of this hater’s slanderous statements, which in my opinion calls for really serious action:
Vindicationfailedforwacko
Danbury,CT
hater central…sanemjfan (insane child molester) spammer. Google tells all his foul hate and his love to diddle little boys.
Dear co-eds, you know your legislation better than I do, so whatever legal methods there are we should surely use them to defend our good names.
We never take part in any harassment campaigns – even against Michael’s haters, and you know it very well yourselves, so I am repeating this maxim for our readers only. Harassing is absolutely NOT a method of ours.
But we are the people whose biggest asset is our GOOD REPUTATION and we cannot tolerate our names to be trashed in such an outrageous manner.
Therefore I DEMAND that the hater who calls himself “vindicationfailedforwacko” APOLOGIZES to our sanemjfan and Lynette PUBLICLY and writes a disclaimer on the Topix forum concerning ALL SLANDEROUS statements about my co-eds.
Otherwise we will be compelled to take action to defend our good names.
* * *
I’ve just realized that in order to pass over this statement to the Topix haters I need to go there and inform them of it, thus breaking my own rule never to write at Topix. Hopefully this will be the first and last time I do it.
Here is what I am sending them:
For the attention of “vindicationfailedforwacko”:
I am the admin of vindicatemj.wordpress.com blog and am writing here for the first and hopefully last time.
My readers tell me that you are not only trashing Michael Jackson’s innocent name as your usual fashion is, but you are also splashing dirt in the faces of my co-eds.
The things you are writing about sanemjfan, Lynette and our blog in general are absolutely outrageous.
I am referring to the heavily slanderous statements you’ve made in the followings posts:
http://i.imgur.com/DRxBH.png
http://i.imgur.com/z8ui8.png
http://i.imgur.com/3ceKE.png
You know very well that you are harassing totally innocent people who have never done any harm to you or anyone at all.
The goal of vindicatemj blog is to clean Michael Jackson’s name of the mud haters were pouring on him for too long.
Another goal of the blog is to uncover REAL pedophiles who might be standing behind the life-long harassment of Michael Jackson as some materials we have found are indeed pointing in this direction.
These materials have been published in our blog and are exposing the intentions of pedophile criminals against Michael AND children who are actually the prime target of these people.
We intend to go on with our anti-pedophilia campaign.
Of course we are opponents of Michael Jackson’s haters. But we never take part in any harassment campaigns against you or anyone as it is absolutely not method of ours. Michael has taught us to be different and seek excellence in research as the only method for asserting ourselves.
But we are also people who cannot afford to have our good reputation trashed in so outrageous a manner in which it is being done now by you and other haters in this forum.
You probably understand that by saying all those things in the posts linked above you absolutely crossed the line of the acceptable. The innuendos you are throwing at us are really TOO MUCH for us to put up with and can no longer be tolerated.
Therefore I DEMAND that you apologize to our sanemjfan, Lynette and me PUBLICLY for the terrible things you’ve said about us and write a disclaimer to each of the slanderous statements you’ve made in your posts.
We expect your public apology to the vindication team to be made in the nearest possible time.
Meanwhile we will be looking into the possibility to file a complaint about your posts, should you fail to make a public apology for your slander.
VINDICATEMJ
* * *
Though Topix CEO Chris Tolles claims that their site does not censor anyone and is a platform for free speech, as of Sunday, Jan. 15 my above post ”for the attention of “vindicationfailedforwacko” made on Saturday, Jan.14 has NOT appeared for the public view yet.
It has been shadow banned.
“Shadow” means that I can see it, while you cannot – and both of us are wondering what the hell is going on and who is cheating here.
I am afraid that it is the Topix hosts who are making fun of both of us.
You can make an experiment and check up the link to the post yourself: http://www.topix.com/forum/who/michael-jackson/TT0HL35MEM85U55NT
If you cannot see it, don’t worry about your eye-sight – your eyes are okay, it is simply the post which is invisible.
To prove that it is there, here is its screen shot the way I see it:
And I thought that you in the US had freedom of speech…
* * *
By now I’ve spent some time in the Topix forum in some threads dedicated to us and don’t know whether to cry or laugh.
It seems that they are taking me for ‘sanemjfan’ and now I am not sure who they are insulting in their forum – David or me. Evidently both. As well as Lynette and Suzy.
Though I should feel hurt that they are accusing me of things like “luring little boys” into this blog, I actually feel a little flattered because considering all the mistakes I make in my English I could never dream to be ever taken for an American.
The stories the Topix haters tell about us are absolutely incredible. I’ve learned a lot of interesting things about myself and even made screen shots of them for record-keeping.
It turns out that we are harassing the Arvizos and have been doing it for two years (I wish I had so much free time…). We are following haters we know nothing of all over the internet and leave pages of comments about them (I wonder what we saying there?). As a result of that they want to shoot us between our eyes (or we want to shoot them, I actually didn’t quite get it).
It is surprising, but the haters’ nasty fairy tale about the authors in this blog is continuing the subject I raised in the previous post.
I mean the one where Michael Jackson is quoted saying:
-
“Press coverage of my life is like [watching] a fictitious movie…like watching science fiction. It’s not true.” .
And now we are reading a similar kind of science fiction about ourselves.
Why do I feel honored instead of being hurt?
Here are only some specimen of their science fiction about us – they come from a special “freaks at vindicatemj” thread: http://www.topix.com/forum/who/michael-jackson/TQ0B1BH3L5AOCB9DA/p5
Surprisingly, the hater named “Murray is a hero” (!) lives in the same place as hater “vindicationfailedforwacko”. Could be a coincidence though:
Murray is a hero
Danbury, CT
“mental misfit vindicatemj changed her nic to sanemjfan..as if that is true. Anyone who says they wants to shoot people between their eyes is a sick, sick person. Stalking is a crime. You’re about to learn the hard way… Find the freaks here…
“Press coverage of my life is like [watching] a fictitious movie…like watching science fiction. It’s not true.” ~Michael Jackson (2005)
There is no other word for the media treatment of Michael Jackson but barbaric. Even after Michael’s death journalists allowed themselves to behave towards him like savages and not the homo sapiens they are expected to be.
The article I’ve recently come across is the example of how incredibly low the media people can fall when it comes to Michael Jackson. Actually I remember reading the article before – just after Michael’s death – but its pedophilia allegations looked so horrible then that I said to myself that it could not be possibly true and closed the subject until some other time. A few days ago I stumbled upon it again, in a site which recommended the 6 pages of the article as “fascinating”.
The enthralled reader speaks of a fictional voodoo curse, but the real “fascination” of the story is the alleged MJ’s ”pedophilia obsession” treated by the sorceress. Please don’t be misguided by all this voodoo nonsense - pedophilia allegations are the real and only goal of the “sensation” described:
Part 1. THE STORY
DID VOODOO KILL MICHAEL JACKSON?
Written by Harriet Hall
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
There is a fascinating article in the Phoenix New Times I recommend reading all 6 pages of it to get the full flavor of all the varieties of woo-ness it contains. Sedona healer Reinalda de Souza is claiming that she killed Michael Jackson – with voodoo!
She claims to be trained in just about every kind of alternative medical woo-woo (rhymes with voodoo), including acupuncture, reflexology, aromatherapy, Ayurvedic medicine, dowsing, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, divination, massage, and lithotherapy. She treated Jackson with lithotherapy, having him bathe in tubs filled with agate, garnet, and aventurine. In a further treatment:
De Souza set about curing Jackson of what she called his “unnatural desire” through the use of black onyx and acupuncture applied directly to Jackson’s genitals. Often she would leave Jackson on a massage table, completely nude, with long needles protruding from his privates, while De Souza went grocery shopping. She has photos of Jacksonin this unusual state, which she shared for this report.
For payment, she asked for the skeleton of the “Elephant Man” which Jackson owns, (she loved the movie). When he failed to deliver, she sought revenge:
In front of the photo in a tin ashtray are a lock of jet-black hair, a small mound of nail clippings, and what look like skin shavings, all purportedly fromJackson. On the floor are three wooden bowls from which blood has spilled over. The rotting carcass of a baby Rottweiler lies before the bowls, its throat slit, a bloody knife next to it. In the corner of the room is a plain, white, voodoo-type doll with pins in its chest. Scrawled over the walls in the dog’s dried blood is the phrase “JACKO DIES.”
Apparently Jackson was no stranger to voodoo. In a 2003 Vanity Fair article Maureen Orth said he once paid $150,000 for a Malian witch doctor named Baba to have 42 cows ritually sacrificed as part of a ceremony enacted to kill off ”25 people on Jackson’s enemies list,” including media mogul David Geffen and film director Steven Spielberg.
De Souza has saved various Jackson artifacts, like a cup he drank from that still bears his lipstick on the rim, and she is planning on selling them.
She admits that Jackson died from drugs but implies that her Candomblé curse was what caused people to administer those drugs toJackson. She warns her other customers that they’d better pay her or face similar consequences.
|
Let us make a note that at least one forth of the people who read the original article believed all these lies. The fact that the rest of them more or less doubted it does not mean they didn’t think MJ to be a molester – all it means is that they doubted that the voodoo ritual was the cause of Michael Jackson’s death.
The comments to the article showed that very few people felt sympathy for the deceased man and many said that the article only confirmed what they knew about him all along.
The Phoenix New Times indeed did everything in their power to erase whatever good still remained of Michael’s memory at the time.
The original article (see here) was written by a certain Joseph Rossi and may look to some people a well-researched and even genuine study – especially to foreigners who do not know half the names mentioned there.
Reinalda de Souza
It tells you of a “healer” named Reinalda de Souza and dwells for whole two pages about the extensive education she supposedly received in the science of non-traditional medicine. It marvels at her connections with the world of celebrities and drops a hundred well-known names of her celebrity clients. It gives links to various sources and provides an exclusive photo of the healer herself as well as a rare photo of the Elephant man whose bones Michael Jackson had allegedly bought.
But most of the article is devoted to drawing a vast and detailed picture of Michael Jackson’s “sins” and “bizarre” behavior.
It also delivers Michael’s supporters a sensitive blow by claiming that the editorial staff is in possession of the “documentary evidence” of the “anti-pedophilia” treatment the healer allegedly provided to her patient.
The date of the article is July 2, 2009 or a week after Michael Jackson’s death.
Since there are many quotations, links and lots of Portuguese words, allegedly used by this “Brazilian-born healer”, it must have taken them several days to write it. Judging by the length of the article (6 pages) the Phoenix New Times thought of throwing at the public this horrifying stuff immediately upon hearing the news of Michael’s death.
So their argument that it is a reaction to the “media mania” about the deceased man is only a pretext.
The intention of the publication is clear – it is a sort of a malicious obituary to Michael Jackson. The newspaper wanted to collect all nastiness ever said about him and turn it into a thriller to read with the ultimate goal to label him a “pedophile” and draw a line under the despicable life of a “criminal” whose name is not worthy of respect.
The article was meant to nip in the bud the feeble signs of sympathy for Michael Jackson which the media suddenly registered among their readership – a tendency that could be by no means tolerated.
The style of the narration marvelously suited the purpose of imitating the truth – the journalist is retelling the healer’s words with slighly ironic skepticism as if balancing between disbelief at what he hears and the excitement that he possibly struck at a gold mine of priceless information. Numerous colorful details give the story the so-much valued touch of the “real thing” being described:
The contents of De Souza’s home are like a three-dimensional résumé, of sorts, filled with the tools of her trade, mementos garnered from a lifetime of travel, and gifts from esteemed clients. Part shrine, part clinic, it seems she means to impress upon her visitors and potential patients her powers as a learned healer and sorceress.
Her mantelpiece, her desk, and various bookshelves are arrayed with the autographed photos of celebrities and politicos, but she has asked New Times not to reveal most of them, as many are clients in good standing.”
But what impresses the reader most is the truly encyclopedic knowledge of every lie and innuendo ever told about Jackson which the powerful healer seems to possess. Given that she is supposed to be living in seclusion with no access to TV or computer, her sinister words acquire the force of the “whole truth” finally told about the man. Who are we to doubt the revelations of a voodoo sorceress who is able to see through people?
The narration starts with a lie that Michael Jackson didn’t pay her for the invaluable services she rendered him. The healer is furious over it:
“I am not a woman to be trifled with,” says the short, charismatic woman, slapping the wooden table in the kitchen of her rambling, cliff-side dwelling for emphasis. “I haven’t traveled thousands of miles and studied on four continents just give my expertise away for free.”
“He grew stronger under De Souza’s care, until the doctor asked for the unusual payment Jackson had promised her — the skeleton of Joseph Merrick, the Elephant Man, which Jackson reportedly owned.
“If he’d kept his word to me, he would be alive today,” snorted De Souza, sipping her tea. “The cretin thought he could backstab me after I’d devoted so much energy to curing him.”
So those readers who rightfully think that Michael Jackson never bought the Elephant Man’s bones at all, have now been assured by this newspaper that Michael told the healer himself that he did possess them, only he was fool enough not to keep his word. A sprinkle of a colorful detail and a warm “human” touch are used to bring out the lie to its full advantage:
“She stops for a moment, her long hair thrown back, her face ablaze in the evening sunlight that’s bouncing off the famous red rocks nearby, filling the room with a Martian glow.
“The rich in America,” she scoffs in an odd, foreign accent difficult to place until you know more about her. “They want everything for free. They’d better learn. The arts I employ to heal them can be used as readily to destroy.”
Suddenly, her face softens and she studies her visitor intently. “Would you care for some hot tea, dear?” asks De Souza.
However the Elephant man bones are only the beginning of the huge list of MJ’s “oddities” and ailments which are still to be listed.
The healer opens the list with a possibly true statement that Michael Jackson was suffering from depression. She claims she treated it with “St. John’s wort” (name of herb) and Wiki says that it is indeed widely known as a herbal treatment for depression!
By now I know that the whole thing is a lie and this explains the exclamation mark. To me it shows how well the author prepared himself for doing the nasty job.
"the famous red rocks"
De Souza says that his face was white due to face powder (and not vitiligo) and he wore lipstick, which is why the old witch calls him “a male prostitute” and “a horrible creature”. To prove that she indeed met Michael Jackson she shows the journalist a cup with some lipstick on its rim:
“Would you like to drink out of the cup Jacko used? He preferred St. John’s wort for his depression. I could have cured him of that, too, if he would’ve let me.” She brings forth a set of bone china with a pattern of gold leaf and sets down a cup and saucer. On the rim of the cup, the faded red imprint of someone’s lipstick can clearly be seen. Her visitor looks up.
“Yes, the lipstick,” she sighs. “It belonged to that horrible creature. He wore lipstick all the time. And face powder. Like a male prostitute. I haven’t washed it, for obvious reasons.” The “obvious reasons,” De Souza explains later, are that she plans to cash in and recoup some of her losses in dealing with Jackson by selling artifacts from their encounters — things he touched or was touched by, physically.
Telling only lies would be totally unprofessional for a journalist. It’s weaving lies into a true context which is a mark of real craftsmanship – so here comes a piece about Michael Jackson’s life in Bahrain where the two of them allegedly met. He asked her to cure him of his heart malady, which implies that he had a poor heart, and of another disease which he “confessed” as his “obsession” (you can also easily guess what it is).
The sorceress seemed to be so well informed of Michael Jackson’s ailments that she even mentioned his struggle with lupus:
“In Bahrain to attend an international seminar on the benefits of reiki healing — the Japanese science of “laying on of hands,” which helps direct a person’s “life force energy” — De Souza and Jackson met at a gathering of Bahranian royalty on the island nation. Sensing Jackson was in great pain, she gave him her card with her secluded Sedona address, suggesting that she could be of help to him if he were ever in Arizona. Months later, Jackson appeared at her doorway, asking if she could heal a heart malady, a result of his ongoing battle with lupus. Later, he confessed that he also wanted her to cure him of his obsession with prepubescent boys.”
What’s so horrible about these lies is that the image of the man painted in the article has the well-known and easily recognizable Michael’s features. The article says that he spoke to the healer in a soft voice and often came to de Scouza for treatment disguised in a fat suit, a beard and a wig. She recalls Michael saying that in his younger years he used to go from door to door distributing the Jehovah’s Witness literature. In fact she is even familiar with the speech Michael delivered when he was in Oxford! What a well-informed old witch this de Souza is!
“As he seemed to improve, I asked him if he really had the bones of the Elephant Man. He told me it was true. I told him how much Merrick’s life story had touched me, how much I adored the film.
“That’s when he said to me in his soft, childish voice, ‘If you cure me, you can have them. They’re in a box at Neverland. They’re doing me no good.’” De Souza was ecstatic, and she redoubled her efforts to heal Jackson of his heart condition.
Over a period of several months, Jackson returned to Sedona every other week for De Souza’s therapy. His visits were shrouded in secrecy, with Jackson sometimes donning a fat suit, a wig, and beard to elude newshounds in L.A., who dogged his every move. He had disguised himself (or at least said he did) as a youth when he went door to door as a Jehovah’s Witness, distributing copies of The Watchtower. Jackson described doing this on more than one occasion, the most famous probably being a March 2001 speech at the Oxford Union in England.”
The author does not know yet what Michael really died of, so he advocates the idea that Michael was pumped with Demerol (what else could a “drug-addict” die of?) but Reinalda seemingly disagrees with this popular version promoted under the usual “they think” motto:
“”They think someone pumped him full of Demerol,” she spat, her rage building. “It was a curse I learned long ago in São Paulo [Brazil] that stopped his heart. As soon as your story hits the street, the whole world will know that I — Dr. Reinalda de Souza — killed Jacko!”
Crazy as it sounds the author does not brush off the above revelation easily. He refreshes our memory as regards a certain Vanity Fair article by Maureen Orth where she claimed in full earnest that MJ was not above using voodoo himself. This way he calls for the old lie from Orth to support the new one from the witch and shows off how incredibly “unbiased” and “well-balanced” the author’s approach is:
“Were it not for Jackson’s own history of bizarro-world behavior and his past use of voodoo to curse his enemies, it would be difficult to believe everything De Souza had said at this point — and everything she was about to claim.”
In the meantime the list of lies is being vigorously continued and is crowned with a dense mix of innuendoes miraculously squeezed into one paragraph, so that not a single lie is overlooked. The idea of this piece is that with a history of “bizarre” behavior like Jackson’s you can expect anything – just anything from this “freak”:
”But this was the same entertainer who used to sleep in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber to slow the aging process; the singer who shared his bed with little boys and, at one point, a chimp named Bubbles; the “moonwalker” who underwent a series of plastic surgeries and, possibly, skin-bleaching in order to make himself look more like Elizabeth Taylor; the Citizen Kane-like eccentric whose 2,600-acre Neverland Ranch featured its own Ferris wheel, miniature train, and private zoo worthy of a pasha.
With no irony intended, the Reverend Al Sharpton asserted at the recent BET awards show in Los Angeles, “Michael Jackson was a genius. He wasn’t a freak.” Unfortunately, the evidence doesn’t exactly stack up on the reverend’s side of that argument. Part of the reason Jackson was long derided as the “Wizard of Odd” were his ties to voodoo.”
The totally crazy voodoo piece from Maureen Orth will of course be central to the text that follows suit, but in order to prepare us for believing Orth’s lies the author first provides us with the full assortment of Michael’s unusual friends and the bizarre interests they shared. The author wants to look unbiased again as he mentions Uri Geller’s words who once hypnotized Michael (without him knowing about it) and reported that under hypnosis Michael revealed he was interested in women and not boys.
“Everyone remembers the stink that conservative Jehovah’s Witness elders kicked up in 1983 over the John Landis-directed music video for the single “Thriller,” with its army of the undead, a voiceover from horror icon Vincent Price, and Jackson himself, dancing in zombie mode and scaring the bejesus out of Playboy model Ola Ray. ThoughJackson added a disclaimer, stating that the video “in no way endorses a belief in the occult,” it was widely believed to be the main reason that he ultimately parted ways with the faith he had been raised in as a child.
Throughout Jackson’s life, he maintained an interest in magic, paranormal phenomena, and alternative healing. One of his best friends was illusionist David Copperfield, whom Jackson was planning to use on his abortive world tour, until Copperfield asked for too much money.Jackson was also a fan ofLas Vegas magician Criss Angel, and he was known to employ illusions in his stage performances as well.
Spoon-bending psychic Uri Geller was another pal of Jackson’s, and he’s been on TV a lot since Jackson’s demise, discussing his late friend’s interest in telekinesis. Geller claimed he once hypnotized Jackson and asked him under hypnosis whether he’d ever molested children. According to Geller,Jackson replied that he had not.
Deepak Chopra, a specialist in mind-body medicine and a licensed Western physician, knew and advised Jackson for 20 years. Following Jackson’s death, Chopra’s gone public with his belief that Jackson “was surrounded by enablers, including a shameful plethora of M.D.’s in Los Angeles and elsewhere who supplied him with prescription drugs.” The quote is from a tribute Chopra wrote for the Huffington Post blog. (A toxicology report on Jackson from the L.A. coroner is highly anticipated but will probably take several more weeks.) Chopra’s also mentioned Jackson’s interest in Sufi poetry and the works of Bengali writer Rabindranath Tagore.
But Jackson’s friendships with illusionists, psychics, and healers such as Chopra were tame by comparison to the revelations in a 2003 Vanity Fair exposé by journalist Maureen Orth. Here, the subject of voodoo once again reared its head, like one of the undead in Jackson’s “Thriller” video. In the piece, Orth detailed how Jackson once paid $150,000 for a Malian witch doctor named Baba to have 42 cows ritually sacrificed as part of a ceremony enacted to kill off “25 people on Jackson’s enemies list,” including media mogul David Geffen and film director Steven Spielberg.
Orth also wrote of Jackson’s taking a bath in sheep’s blood for a “ritual cleansing” that cost him six figures. The person pouring the blood was a “voodoo doctor and mysterious Egyptian woman named Samia, who came to him with a letter of greeting from a high-ranking Saudi prince.”
This suddenly made me think of Nicholas Page who is said to be collecting some occult items, only no one cares about it – the most they complacently say is “Everyone wants a little magic in their lives, and Nicolas Cage is no different” (not to mention the horror films he and other numerous actors took part in). So why should Michael Jackson be singled out from the usual Hollywood pack and told these impossible sacrificial cows stories about is totally beyond my comprehension. Everyone who really knew Michael says he was unable to hurt a fly – and they say forty two cows...
a bath tub holds 75 liters of water
However neither Maureen Orth nor the author of this article did an elementary Google search I’ve done and don’t know that a bathtub with a person in it holds 75 litres only, while the amount of blood in one cow is as much as 40 litres - so all the alleged Egyptian voodoo doctor needed was 2 cows at the most.
So shedding the blood of the remaining 40 cows was totally unnecessary, I am afraid.
There are 40 liters of blood in one cow. Maureen, do your arithmetics, dear!
However 2 cows do not sound as impressive as 42 cows, so Maureen Orth allowed herself to get a little carried away with her lies.
I wish someone told her about our simple arithmetics and the terrible way someone pulled her leg if the lie came from one of her “sources”.
The phrase to be pronounced next is another marvelous example of media manipulation and is the absolute classics of the brainwashing genre.
Its beauty is in its brevity:
- “He was not doing drugs like OxyContin while he was visiting me”.
It implies that Michael Jackson did not do drugs like OxyContin (a narcotic pain reliever similar to morphine) when he was visiting the healer, but when he was not visiting her, he did take it.
However saying the above is as absurd as saying, for example:
- “He was not eating chocolate of this brand while he was visiting me”
Same as the above this is a totally meaningless statement – it might equally mean that he never ate chocolate at all...
But all of the above fades in comparison with the revelation the healer makes with regard to MJ’s “dark secret”:
“Jackson eventually told De Souza that there were other, darker problems he needed her to heal.
“He was not doing drugs like OxyContin while he was visiting me,” De Souza insists. “But he did confess to liking little boys. I don’t care what Uri Geller said. He never liked the little girls.”
Disgusted, De Souza set about curing Jacksonof what she called his “unnatural desire” through the use of black onyx and acupuncture applied directly toJackson’s genitals. Often she would leave Jackson on a massage table, completely nude, with long needles protruding from his privates, while De Souza went grocery shopping. She has photos of Jacksonin this unusual state, which she shared for this report. But she refuses to allow them to be reproduced for publication.”
“Grocery shopping” is of course a hint that the whole thing is being a hoax, but in the face of so much serious information this minor detail can be easily overlooked. Indeed, how can you doubt the words of the good old witch from Sedona if she, who has no television or computer, knows such incredible things like the description the first Michael Jackson’s accuser gave to the authorities?
And what a surprise it is for us to learn that she knows of that description in the version voiced by the D.A. Tom Sneddon in his 2005 statement too!
No, she is not repeating the WRONG description made by Jordan Chandler which was the reason why Michael wasn’t arrested then and there – but she is echoing the more or less CORRECT description made in 2005 on the basis of the photos (showing a dark splotch on the light background which was the direct opposite of what Jordan claimed).
And since there was no way the healer could see the photos, what are the readers supposed to think? That she really saw MJ’s genitalia???
What a find, dear author, what a find!
You introduce the description from real photos seen by Tom Sneddon into a fictional story of yours and make your healer repeat the words of Tom Sneddon (who actually corrected Jordan in his statement). This way your healer is uttering the real truth about the matter AND with so much “consistency” in the descriptions some gullible reader can believe that she really saw the genitalia in question!
Bravo, Joseph Rossi, bravo. You are definitely unrivalled in making up stories. Only it wasn’t a “more than $20mln” settlement, but $15,3 mln. all in all – but what does some odd $5mln. matter to us when so Big a lie is at stake?
“I will say this, his genitals looked exactly like the description that came out of that first child-molestation case, the one where he paid off the boy’s family for more than $20 mil,” confides De Souza. “You can barely make it out in the photos, but his genitals were mottled, with brown lesions. I’ve never seen anything like it.
De Souza is referring to the description given in 1993 by then-13-year-old Jordan”Jordie” Chandler, whose family was famously paid off by Jackson. But before the case was settled for more than $20 million,Jackson had to submit to an intimate inspection by police detectives, which he later told the world he found humiliating. “
However even the above is still not enough for the insatiable Phoenix New Times paper. It also adds a spicy note to the strip search scene and claims that Michael Jackson “enjoyed” humiliation, implying this way that he was also a masochist:
“What the world didn’t know, De Souza says, is that the King of Pop enjoyed humiliation.
“He would shiver with delight whenever he remembered it,” says De Souza. “Then he would laugh that high-pitched laugh of his. More like the giggle of an impetuous child. I think he liked being stuck up like a pin cushion and left laying there like that. He would have loved it if someone else could have walked in on him.”
This unbelievable sample of journalism claims that the “genitalia treatment” was successful and showed good results upon making tests:
“At one point during treatment, De Souza wanted to see if her therapy was working. She says she showed Michael Jackson photos of a semi-nude Macaulay Culkin, posed on a bearskin rug. He demonstrated little interest; his heart rate didn’t even increase, according to De Souza. Jackson was beginning to believe that the New Age doctor’s unusual therapy had achieved its desired results, but De Souza warned the singer that he was not out of the woods yet.”
A couple of truthful details cannot spoil the pot already full of lies – so here we go with the well-known fact that Michael often changed his cell phone number, only in the healer’s version he allegedly used the trick to avoid payment to her:
“Plus, there was one other problem. Jackson had never made good on his promise to give her the Elephant Man’s skeleton. .. “He just stopped coming altogether,” gripes De Souza. “He changed his cell phone number constantly, and the last one I had was soon outdated. I called Lou [Ferrigno], who was training Jackson for his upcoming tour [which was supposed to begin this month in London], pleading with him to give me Jackson’s new number, but he told me he couldn’t in that freaky lisp of his.”
Don't worry, guys! The puppy is perfectly okay!
This is when she decided to take revenge on him which unfortunately necessitated shedding some innocent blood:
“Furious, De Souza turned back to her voodoo roots, praying morning, noon, and night to the fearsome Candomblé god of disease, Obaluaiye… As for the dead puppy, De Souza explained that real evil must accompany desired evil, and that she had to sacrifice a life dear to her in order to rob Jacko of his. The dog was hers, a 4½-month-old pup she’d brought home from the pound and dubbed Cerberus, for the canine that guards the gates of Hades in Greek mythology. She sliced his neck and held him as he jerked, allowing his warm blood to spill into the bowls beneath her feet. She drank from one to set the ritual in motion, turning with blood-stained hands to the voodoo doll.
She goes on, cackling, “Even though I’m a murderess, this is a crime they will never be able to charge me with. Imagine [the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office] trying to make a jury believe a sorceress killed Jacko. The DA would be laughed out of office.”
Then, turning as serious as the proverbial heart attack, she states, “But I killed him as sure as you’re sitting here.”
The damning “proof” that the old witch had indeed treated the man were the those very “genitalia” photos she allegedly shared with the newspaper, but “didn’t allow” for publication, and the photo of Michael Jackson with an autograph and a thank you note on the back side of it:
“But what of The Gloved One? Did he leave behind any tokens for De Souza before their falling out? She nods and walks toward a small room the size of a closet, painted over in a sickly hue of brownish yellow.
On the table is a photo of Jacksononstage during a concert that seems, judging by his clothing, from the time of the HIStory album, in the late 1990s. Though the photo has been turned upside down, the inscription is legible, “Thank you for everything, Dr. De Souza. Michael.”
I have omitted at least two pages of Reinalda de Souza’s qualifications of the Doctor of traditional Chinese medicine and her numerous other degrees received in various parts of the world.
They are totally irrelevant because Reinalda se Souza is a FICTIONAL character and was simply INVENTED by the jokers from the Phoenix New Times paper.
Part 2. THE HOAX
Yes, you’ve heard me right.
The good old sorceress NEVER existed, the journalist NEVER visited her and NEVER saw any photos of Michael Jackson or his genitalia.
The whole story is PURE FICTION and is actually the thoughts and ideas of the JOURNALIST himself (or his editorial staff) about the deceased man.
The form of a non-punishable “spoof” was ideal for slandering Michael Jackson. It allowed the newspaper to refresh in people’s memories the nastiest lies about the man and portray a hugely false and totally sick portrait of him. The pretext that it was a hoax “only” enabled them to unleash their dirtiest fantasies about Michael and drown him in the mud of their invention, while taking no responsibility whatsoever for the outrageous lies told.
What they actually did was really taking a voodoo doll of Michael Jackson, and – after covering it with tar, pins and colorful feathers – sending it all over the internet for the public to enjoy the sight, while they themselves sat back in full satisfaction with the nasty job done and got away with.
Now the story is living a life of its own, but they are in no way responsible for it. I gather that no one can even complain about all these lies so freely told about Michael Jackson – it was an innocent joke, guys! Some people simply do not have a sense of humor, you see?
And this was done to Michael Jackson only a week after his death. His children and family were still inconsolable in their grief, while the jokers were having extremely much fun at the expense of the deceased man who cannot say a word in his defense now ….
Part 3. THE JOURNALIST AND HIS READERS
The spoof was admitted by the journalist himself but not before two weeks passed while he was waiting for the responses from his readers and for the story to sink in.
The publication announcing that it was a hoax appeared only on July 16, 2009 or fourteen days after the initial lie was printed. By then the story had made quite a havoc among the public and spread well enough to reach other sources which reprinted the story with no comment on it. Up till now you can find the original lie published without any disclaimer here, here and here.
The disclaimer was called Our Michael Jackson Spoof Is Outed, Plus Connecting the Dots Between Shawna Forde and Her Ideological Confederates and as I said, published two weeks later after 93 comments had been collected. The second article said that that author of it was journalist Stephen Lemons who hid himself behind the fictional name of “Joseph Rossi”.
It is clear that the journalist finds his trick funny and does not see any immorality in publishing outrageous dirt about the innocent victim of his lies. He makes a brief disclaimer that it was a “spoof” but speaks at great length at the way he chose names for himself and his fictional character, Reinalda de Souza.
I’m “Joseph Rossi.” Well, let’s say that I assumed the nom de spoof as a “tell,” meant to signal that what was to follow was satire. Joe Rossi was a scalawag reporter for the fictional Los Angeles Tribune on the old TV series Lou Grant and was played by character actor Robert Walden.
Originally, I wanted the pseudonym to be Jack McGee, the tabloid reporter who pursues Dr. David Banner in The Incredible Hulk. I always loved the line that Bill Bixby delivered as Banner in the show’s intro: “Mr. McGee, don’t make me angry. You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.”
But Jack McGee probably would’ve been a bit too obvious. At least one commenter picked up on Rossi’s name, though he was mistaken in one respect. He assumed that I modeled Reinalda de Souza’s name on real-life Brazilian soccer player Reinaldo De Souza. Actually, that’s just a coincidence. I consulted lists of Brazilian first and last names and put together one I liked. I don’t know anything about soccer. Much less Brazilian soccer.
So, of course, Dr. De Souza doesn’t exist any more than does her Rottweiler puppy. She was played to great effect by New Times security guard Natalia Perkins in the story’s photos. I actually wrote the spoof with Natalia in mind, as I’ve always thought she (though a nice lady) had a sorceress-like look.
Pretending it was innocent fun this joker says that he wanted to make just a “satirical” article and “made the whole thing up to poke fun at the media mania over Michael Jackson’s demise”.
Do you believe this guy that this was an innocent 6-page joke? I absolutely don’t.
What really “pissed off” this Michael Jackson’s hater and his editor-in-chief (the journalist couldn’t do it without his approval) was a hardly noticeable but still tangible change in the tone of the media people who suddenly recalled that they were humans after all and there are some decency rules too, and this made them assume a relatively neutral tone when speaking about the decease of Michael Jackson.
It would be a grave exaggeration to say that the media was fair to Michael Jackson when he died – we still remember those crazy Xanax stories in British papers – but even a slight shift towards a more positive note was not to be tolerated by the Phoenix New Times. Hence the mammoth work undertaken by the newspaper staff to refresh the old lies about Jackson and splash a new ton of mud at the man who cannot say a word in reply now.
The readers of this paper should never deviate from the strategy mapped out for them by the hardliners.
The author does not hide his hatred for Michael Jackson thus proving once again that everything he said in the name of “de Souza” were his own views about Michael. The disclaimer totally ignores the torrent of lies poured on the man while the author pretends that it was Michael Jackson himself who was responsible for trashing his own reputation:
Okay, so some of you cared that a Sedona New Age physician named Reinalda de Souza claimed to have killed Michael Jackson with a voodoo curse. And some of you were outraged that she was treatingJackson for pedophilia by using acupuncture and crystal therapy.
Some readers even were enraged that our story insulted the memory of a legendary artist, despite the fact that Wacko Jacko trashed his own rep plenty during his lifetime with his kid-lovin’ antics and excesses….
I’ve seen the readers’ comments and have to say that there were five or six people (out of 93) who were outraged by the way the story insulted the innocent man’s memory. However the rest of the public did not let the journalist down – the overwhelming majority never even mentioned Michael Jackson, as if all the horrifying and slanderous things described were common knowledge and were not to be disputed.
Instead of refuting lies about Jackson, shaming the author and calling to his journalistic ethics or simple human conscience, it turned out that most of the readers were outraged by the fate of the poor dog which was allegedly sacrificed for the voodoo ritual!
The public outcry was so intense that even the author, who cannot be suspected of having any shreds of conscience left, was surprised to see that people were much more prone to sympathize with a puppy than with a dead human being.
This is what he wrote, making fun of the fact how easy it is to fool these people:
But what really got the fanatics revved up full steam in New Times‘ satire “I Killed Jacko!” by Joseph Rossi was the account of Dr. De Souza’s slitting the throat of a 4½-month-old Rottweiler named Cerberus, drinking his blood, and leaving his lifeless carcass as part of some black magic ritual.
Jesus, you people are easy.
Why, I’ll bet I could have had De Souza ripping the heads off baby humans and eating their infant brains, and all you’d have been able to focus on was the pic of the puppy and the account of its untimely demise.
Over here the author is right. The callous joke at the expense of Michael Jackson did show the priorities of the society. The mob doesn’t give a damn if Michael Jackson, a human being, is killed in this or that way – but it goes after the author if he didn’t notify the authorities about the alleged animal cruelty.
Animal lovers were the only ones who gave the author a really hard time – and many of them showed themselves complete imbeciles at that. All they saw was the fate of a puppy while the apparent signs of the story being a hoax went completely unnoticed.
It seems that the experiment the journalist made on his readers provided the answer the media bosses were seeking for – if these people are totally lacking attention, are guided by pictures only and are no longer able to put two and two together, you can tell them ANY lie about Michael Jackson and they will swallow it no matter how crazy it is.
The media has a free hand now as they can no longer fear that the public will ever be able to tell the truth from fiction.
Besides generally admitting that “you guys are easy” the unscrupulous journalist also lashed out his poisonous tongue at the blind and deaf animal lovers who did not notice that it was a hoax even after he disclosed to them that it was:
“Though several commenters spotted the satirical flourishes in the piece and outed the joke online, animal lovers are apparently some of the dimmest bulbs on the planet.
Elizabeth from Scottsdale noted, “She killed a puppy, so I hope that something is done about it, because it is animal cruelty to kill a 4½-month-old puppy.”
Commenter Sveeb offered, “She might not go to jail for killing MJ, but animal cruelty is still illegal in Yavapai County.”
Mesa’s George Watson said, “This article states that this woman, Reinalda de Souza, killed a puppy that she adopted from the pound . . . This is animal cruelty, and satire or not, this needs reported to Animal Control and investigated.
To which SundevilRick101 noted, and I couldn’t have said it better myself, “To George Watson: Really? Are you a full-on moron or just a partial one?”
I’ve gotta wonder whether Watson was one of the people who called the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office to demand an investigation. See, I set Joe Rossi up with a local phone number so he could receive calls. And calls he did receive!
A few days after the spoof ran, Rossi received a call from a Sergeant Scott Potts with the animal-control unit of the YCSO. Potts left a message that his office had received complaints based on Rossi’s feature, and that “there was some interest in the end of the article where she supposedly sacrificed a puppy.” Potts was looking to get in touch with De Souza, you see.
A day or so passed, and another, more insistent call came, this time from an unnamed lieutenant with the YCSO, demanding that Rossi call him back because, “We’re conducting an investigation that you are a witness in.”
As there was no Rossi to call the YCSO back, New Times attorney Steve Suskin phoned the good deputies and informed them that the whole thing was a put-on. They seemed disappointed, but they informed our counselor that as a result of the complaints, De Souza had been placed on a list of people not allowed to adopt pets from the local animal shelter.
I can’t believe it.
The New Times attorney explained to the police or whoever these “deputies” are, that it was a hoax and De Souza was a fictional character and never existed, but they nevertheless put her on the list not allowed to adopt pets!
No, I really can’t believe it. This journalist must be pulling our leg again. But if he is not, now he does have a good reason for making really good fun of his readers:
Still, I count having sparked an official YavapaiCountysheriff’s investigation as a success, and it was certainly a bunch of fun to write. For the record, no animals were harmed in the making of the spoof. And De Souza, since nonexistent, had zero clients — certainly no Amar’e Stoudemire, whom De Souza was treating for his detached retina in the yarn, and certainly no Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whom De Souza had supposedly advised to do sudoku puzzles and load up on the gingko biloba for his dementia.
Not that we know for certain that Joe’s got dementia. But those sudoku puzzles couldn’t hurt, now could they?
Since the wave of outrage over the fate of the poor puppy evidently didn’t subside, the editor – clearly irritated with all this public mess created by the journalist and the imbecile public activity they were facing – published a second disclaimer, this time in much clearer wording. The second article had a subtitle which sounded disrespectable not only to Jackson but also to the “wackos” who were still misinterpreting their hoax.
Feedback from the Issue of Thursday, July 16, 2009
Thursday, Jul 16 2009
WACKOS ON JACKO
Editor’s note: Okay, you’ve figured it out by now, right? Our story on Sedona “healer” Dr. Reinalda de Souza was satirical (see The Bird for full details). De Souza didn’t really ritually sacrifice a Rottweiler puppy to hex the “King of Pop” into suffering a fatal heart attack. She doesn’t even exist. We made the whole thing up to poke fun at the media mania over Michael Jackson’s demise.
The editor annoyed by his readers’ on-going mania over the demise of a non-existent puppy (though why is he complaining? he raised these readers with his own hands!) also provided samplings of readers’ response.
These responses will be suggested for your scrutiny now.
My collection of them will be a little extended and will include some of the original comments (not all 93 of them!). I made this list in order to turn the whole thing into a small sociological study of the Phoenix New Times readership.
The first group of readers is made up of complete imbeciles who fell for the story and didn’t accept reality even when the truth about the hoax was thrust in their faces (“satire or not, this needs reported to Animal Control and investigated”).
Many of them are animal lovers who also make it clear that the life of a human being – who deserves respect at least because he was a great father to his three children, now left orphaned – has for them no value at all. Here are the sample responses:
- As concerned animal lovers of Sedona we wonder the origin of the baby rottweiler, If she got it at the local humane society we would like to know. Animal sacrifice is not an acceptable practice for animals obtained there. We will bring the article to their attention so that they will know the care she gave this victim animal. … We are not letting go of this evil in our community.
- It’s remarkable that within the scope of this woman’s foul perception of what is right and what is wrong, the criminal act of killing an innocent puppy goes unrecognized. She sliced the neck of a 4½-month-old pup she’d brought home from the pound. The horror of her actions should not be described again, except in a courtroom before a judge. Where is the ASPCA in Sedona? I’m outraged at the puppy’s death, not Jacko’.
The huge second group of readers astounded me by the news that they actually met Dr. de Souza.
These are the type of jokers who play up to the author and willingly (or unwittingly) supply fictional “proof” of his slander. This way they are doing no good to anyone, but are making the hateful story about Michael Jackson seem true.
This group of readers is not as harmless as one might initially think. Considering that there is a vast group of real imbeciles, now we can expect those morons to use the jokers’ “evidence” as proof that Michael Jackson was indeed treated for all that ped-lia nonsense by a totally non-existent doctor.
Here are the samples of the jokers’ humor:
- I can attest to meeting Dr. De Souza on several occasions. She not only helped relieve my diabetic neuropathy, but she also helped rid my wife’s body of an ovarian cyst. Whether or not she actually killed Michael Jackson, I cannot say. She is a very kind soul and may have exaggerated things a bit with the writer.
- Dr. De Souza, I cannot thank you enough for what you did for my shortened leg. It’s about time you got some press about your wonderful gift. If not for you, my life would have been hell! Your wonderful combination of chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas (or Yperite) to help extend the molecular structure of my left leg is uncompromised. I can wear sneakers again! You rule, De Souza, you rule! Oh, at least they didn’t ask you about your tetrodotoxin, botulinum toxin, and ricin experiments with that group of retarded children from Kentucky.
- Doc, just keep performing your brand of miraculous medicine; don’t listen to stupid dog lovers. “Stupid hippies,” one and all. It’s not a Saturday night at our house in Bev-er-ly unless we ritually sacrifice a dog or two.
- I highly resent all you poor fools saying that I do not exist. (I asked one of my clients to put this message out in my name, because I don’t know how to operate a computer.) The athlete to whom the reader refers is my nephew, my namesake, dearies! I assure you that I do exist, and am doing quite well with my medical practice. My clients are getting a big laugh out of all the people who think New Times made up this story. I spent days with Mr. Rossi, who didn’t really believe that I had the power to kill. But I finally convinced him that I do by willing my neighbor’s Yorkshire Terrier to jump off a cliff and kill itself in front of our eyes. Quite a mess down below! But, don’t worry, I bought him a new dog the next day — one from the pound who needed a good home. It requires far less magic with an animal than with a human being, you see. The kind of ignorance some of you display is what gives the American Medical Association power over your minds, as well as your bank accounts. I implore you, break free before it is too late! …Dr. Reinalda
- Ignorance, ignorance! Of course, Dr. De Souza is real. I was cured of homosexuality by her. I’m not kidding. And there’s no doubt she is capable of putting a voodoo hex on somebody. She has quite a temper.
The third big group are the people who are made of the same stuff as the journalist himself – utterly cynical and lacking a fraction of conscience or remorse for the unnecessary harm they are doing to the dead man they know nothing of.
They pride themselves on having a “sense of humor” and think it is cool to bash the innocent. They’ve been raised on easy media lies and are full of contempt for those who have the audacity to think on their own. They virtually know nothing of the man they are trashing, but think themselves clever and call their critics ignorant. These are bullies who can assert themselves only at the expense of other people.
The author of the article is winner of many many many awards
The fact that they are at one with the author of the article, Stephen Lemons (who is the winner of many awards!) gives them the impression of following the “right trend” and enables them to assume a superior attitude towards others.
It makes them bold and opens a way to freely unleash their nastiness. But same as their blind guide they don’t know what abyss of immorality and human disgrace all of them are jointly marching into…
Here are the samples of their condescending comment:
- What a piquant antidote to the madness going on [over] Jacko. Bravo to Mr. Rossi for this fine send-up of the “King of Pop.” Granted, Jacko had some good tunes, [but] people need to get a grip.
- I thought [the story] was great satire. A laugh a minute. If it was satire . . . I’m not so sure it wasn’t true. With a nutcase like Michael, anything’s possible. And I’ve heard of this Dr. De Souza.
- Isn’t it ironic that satire on Michael Jackson is more truthful than all the hype we’ve been reading and seeing on this perv? Thank God somebody showed this little freak for what he was.
- Leave it to New Times to make huge fun of all the crap out there, including the BET show. It was like the perv stuff never had happened. New Times is funny as hell in hitting the mark. You made my day!
- As for New Times loosing credibility, are you kidding me? There is a big hint about the validity of the story on the front page for Christsakes! Joe Rossi worked for Lou Grant…You know, the TV SHOW? New Times knows when to look at itself in the mirror and think “oops we are being too serious time to step back.” It is in fun, it doesn’t take the credibility away from a single writer. These are people that have won many many many awards.
Lastly to the morons that are saying Jackson was amazing blah blah blah. I like his music as well but the fact that he touched little boys reserves him a special place in hell. Yes I believe he touched little boys, and I think he paid off the parents to get them to shut up. He was a perv. A very very talented perv but a perv none the less. All the people that think he was amazing, when he was alive would you have left a 6 year old alone with him? I didn’t think so.
- Lauren [critic of this stuff] is the kind of humorless idiot that New Times must count on when it writes a parody like this. Michael Jackson’s whole life has been in poor taste since the success he enjoyed with Thriller. Lauren, please seek out Dr. De Souza and get her to transplant a sense of humor into that stupid brain of yours!
- Chill Lisa [another critic]. You look like an idiot with no sense of humor.
The fourth is a rare group of sensible people who tell the newspaper that it is distracting people from real problems or show the auther they’ve seen through his lies and are disgusted with the sight. These people are full of good intentions and want to help others to see the truth behind the media lies.
Here is their comment after reading the original story:
- Can I have my fifteen minutes back?
- This was obviously satire people. The subject of the story Reinalda de Souza who is from Brazil is obviously a play on the name a Brazilian soccer player. See below
http://www.goal.com/en-us/peop…
Full Name: Reinaldo De Souza
Date of Birth: Jun 8, 1980
Place of Birth: Rio de Janeiro
Nationality: Brazil
As for the author Joe Rossi
Lou Grant worked at the fictitious Los Angeles Tribune daily newspaper as its city editor, a job he took after the WJM television station fired him. (Though Mary Tyler Moore Show viewers were introduced to the character as a television news producer, the character noted many times that he’d begun his career as a print journalist.) The rest of the main cast included Robert Walden and Linda Kelsey, who played general-assignment reporters Joe Rossi and Billie Newman, respectively.
- Here’s the thing: New Times’ spoofs are about as clever and innovative as wedgies and nipple twisters. What do you expect from a company run by dinosaurs and staffed by assclowns and sycophants?
- Mr. Rossi and those who employ you: I implore you to stop writing these types of articles (“I Killed Jacko,” “Joe’s a Nazi”), used solely for the purpose of getting people to read your rag. I read New Times occasionally because, mainly, I’m sick of reading the Republic’s constant reminders of how I’m still not going to have a job next year (I’m a teacher with a master’s degree, currently employed at Circle K). I also like the music section; that’s about it.Can you write something worthwhile that will get shit accomplished, please? Why don’t you use your ability to print whatever the fuck you want and use it for good? How about, let’s say, write a piece that’s worth reading about how teachers are being ass-fucked by the government right now?
And the fifth group is an absolute minority which nevertheless made me feel proud that I see eye to eye with them. This is a small but dignified group of readers whose response is actually the only comment one would expect normal people to make after reading an article like this one.
It is surprising and sad that they are not that many at the moment, but Michael Jackson’s life and death suddenly turned out to be so meaningful to the society that it miraculously started a process of restoring people to their senses.
You can read the comment of these people and see for yourselves that they are they are simply the best from the whole crowd. Simply the best.
| David Billings |
- To All the MJ Haters:
You believe Jackson touched little boys because you WANTED him to touch all little boys. You project all your sick, twisted fantasies on something pure, innocent and platonic. …You people are fastidious scandal whores. Nevermind that he was never convicted of one damn thing and that many of his accusers have since recanted and admitted that they lied, no doubt being put up to it by greedy parents who were just out to bilk a money train.
Michael Jackson transformed the world and it just drives you nuts that someone so eccentric held such an undeniable power over people, so you spew this ignorant drivel. Who’s going to make a fuss over you people when you die? No one, because you’ve never done anything with your life that has mattered and your existence is irrelevant.
| Phoenix Writer |
- I read this yesterday and it was clear, by the end, that it was intended to be satire. Still, I found it in bad taste, disrespectful to the memory of the deceased and to the Jackson family. It’s also rife with racist, hateful imagery and expressions (he blanched, not that you couldt tell; he had brown lesions on his penis, the image of Michael with pins in his penis) that say a whole lot about the writer and his biases. May the same be said, in public, about you when you die…as a joke…
| Lauren |
- Regardless of whether this is satire or partial truth, that doesn’t change the fact that it is in horrible taste.
Not only are you giving a supposed murderer, fake or not, the ability to voice her sickness to the world; you’re also being incredibly disrespectful to the deceased. Michael Jackson died, and maybe he did some regretful things in his lifetime, but there is a certain level of respect that should be granted to the deceased.
On top of human decency, if this were true, I’d hope that this woman gets what is coming to her. Not just for the blatant animal abuse, but the lack of sensibility. You do NOT murder someone because they broke a verbal agreement.
Yet another solid reminder as to why I DON’T read the PHX New Times.
| Jeff |
- The New Times writes fictitious bullshit fairy tales like this because they know their readers are gullible idiots. Just read “Letters to the editor” after they write a horribly biased, slanted article. This is a hoax. The New Times is really struggling for an identity.
You really want us to believe she met Jackson in Bahrain at a gathering for loyalty? And he showed up at her door in Sedona? And anyone who is anybody has been to her for treatment? Shaq went to HER for help on his free throws? Amare went to her to heal his eye? Sheriff Joe sees her for mental issues? Ronald Reagan went to her to heal his alzheimers? And of course there are ties to recent celebs who died, Ed McMahon and Farrah Fawcett.
I would say New Times has lost all credibility, but they’ve never had any to begin with.
Lisa [the one who was called by bullies an idiot lacking a sense of humor]
- What a bunch of crap!!! I can’t believe that the New Times actually spent the time and money on such sh*t! And I’m sure that this is just the beginning of many more made up, outlandish stories we’ll be hearing about… if we want to or not!!!
THE EPILOGUE
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Abraham Lincoln
Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 3 of 6: Refuting A Racist Rabbi!
This guy makes Rabbi Boteach look like a saint!
I know that the title is extremely eye-catching, and is borderline slanderous to some of you, because here in America the term “racist” is so emotionally loaded due to this country’s embarrassing record on civil rights. We’ve made so much progress since the end of the Civil Rights movement in terms of race relations, educational and career opportunities for African-Americans and other minorities, and the election of Barack Obama is seen as the crowning achievement, and a sign that the dream of Martin Luther King has come to fruition.
Having said that, race is still the third most controversial topic that can be discussed (behind religion and politics), and a constant epidemic of people –both minorities and whites – “playing the race card” (which means to make race an issue when it really isn’t one, such as filing frivolous racial discrimination lawsuits) has caused many to simply roll their eyes and dismiss most claims of someone being labeled a “racist”.
As an African-American, I take the word very seriously, and I don’t throw it around at people I don’t like at every chance I get. Thus, if I call someone a racist, it’s because I truly believe it is warranted! And when I call Chaim Ben Pesach a racist, you better believe its 100% justified!
So who is this Chaim Ben Pesach guy?
He is currently the head of the Jewish Task Force, an organization that whose goal is to support and advance Jewish causes around the world. He’s also an unrepentant terrorist! He served time in prison from 1978 through 1983 for bombing Egyptian targets, and in 1986 he was sentenced to 10 years after several arrests for possessing pipe bombs, tear gas grenades, and other deadly weapons.
He now hosts his own radio show, and has posted many videos on YouTube. I stumbled upon his hateful, bigoted comments against Michael Jackson by accident, and I was absolutely riveted by what I heard! The commentary that you are about to hear is by far the most hateful and most despicable and most racist that you’ll ever hear! It’s no wonder that he has been condemned as a racist by the Anti-Defamation League!
There are so many lies that he spit out of his dirty mouth that I decided to refute them all in a single post, as this loser certainly warrants his own post, so I can give him my undivided attention as I rip him to shreds!
Be prepared to pick your jaw up from off the ground when you’re finished listening to him!
I debated about discussing in the beginning of the program also the death of Michael Jackson _________ (says a Jewish phrase) which means “May his name and memory be obliterated, and may the name of the wicked rot!” which is a traditional Jewish curse for evil people. Michael Jackson started out his career as a boy singing with others in his family. They made huge amounts of money, unbelievable amounts of money. In the early 1980s alone, Michael Jackson sold 50 million copies of one album, and 50 million of a second album. The amount of money that he was generating from that, plus the royalties, plus everything else, plus the commercials, and all the companies that used him for their commercial benefit. He should have been worth a billion dollars now. He should have been worth a billion dollars now! Just to give you a comparison, Paul McCartney from the Beatles is a billionaire. He’s a billionaire, Paul McCartney from the Beatles, because he wisely invested and saved his money like a civilized person. I don’t like a lot of the things the Beatles stood for. The Beatles defended drug use, and were anti-American, and socialism, and the song “Imagine” by John Lennon is a song about atheism, and they’re anti-religious, so I’m no fan of the Beatles. But, they were talented musicians, but their political views and their social views were horrific. But at least Paul McCartney put his money in a normal place, and saved his money like a normal human being!
Michael Jackson should have been a billionaire also with all of the money he made over so many decades! He should have also been a billionaire by now! Instead he died in massive debt! He was massively in debt! Where did all the money go? What did he do? Where did everything go? I mean, just disgusting. And the most disgusting thing of course is this was a child molesting rapist! The very first child that Michael Jackson raped was a 14 year old Jewish boy. I don’t know what his name is. But it was a 14 year old Jewish boy that Michael Jackson invited over to his estate. And this was way before he got arrested. This was an earlier case, about 25 years ago, and Michael Jackson raped and attacked this Jewish boy. And the Jewish boy threatened to file charges, and Jackson would have been arrested then, and there would have been all types of publicity then. But Jackson settled out of court with the Jewish boy, I think he bought him off, the estimate was $20 million dollars to shut up, and not to file charges, and that’s what happened.
But because of that, he expressed all types of vicious anti-Semitism, and that’s why he sang the song “Sue me, Jew me”, that he sang in Brazil because he was a vicious anti-Semite, Michael Jackson. He also expressed anti-White views, even though he himself obviously wanted to be white. He became a Muslim of course, in the end, he and his brothers were Muslims. I mean, it’s typical of everything, the sickness, the nauseating sickness of Black America. This is Black America. They can’t handle money! You give them wealth and they lose everything and go deep into debt. They attack children and molest and rape little children. They’re perverted. They engage in the most perverse sex. When they get caught, they play the race card. They do the most insane things!
Look at what he did to his face, and the surgeries! What a sick person this was! And with all of this, this child molesting, rapist, drug addict piece of garbage who looked like a monster after all of his surgeries, is literally being worshipped by the news media and the Hollywood people. And it’s like some big loss to society that this animal finally died, ________ (says a Jewish phrase), Thank God. So, it’s amazing! It’s just absolutely amazing. It’s absolutely incredible.
And make no mistake about it: Michael Jackson represents Black America! Remember, Al Sharpton’s sister had sex with Al Sharpton’s father. Al Sharpton’s father and sister had an incestuous relationship, and Al Sharpton’s sister gave birth to Al Sharpton’s half-brother as a result of that relationship. Al Sharpton has a half-brother that his sister gave birth to. His sister gave birth to a baby after she slept with Al Sharpton’s father. The father and daughter slept with each other in an incestuous relationship in the Sharpton family. Al Sharpton’s father and Al Sharpton’s sister had sex and slept with each other. Al Sharpton’s sister became pregnant and gave birth to Al Sharpton’s half-brother. These are the role models in the black community! These are the role models!
Michael Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson. Look at Jesse Jackson, another role model! He was counseling Bill Clinton on adultery, and Bill Clinton said “Oh yes! He’s my minister!” He was coming to the White House, with his secretary, a black secretary that he came to the White House with, Jesse Jackson came to the White House with his black secretary counsel Bill Clinton, and to pray with him, and to explain to him why he shouldn’t commit adultery. And while Jesse Jackson was counseling him, and ministering to him, and praying for him about the adultery, Jesse Jackson himself was committing adultery with the very black secretary that he was bringing to the White House, and made the black secretary who he was bringing to the White House pregnant, and she had a child with Jesse Jackson. That’s the other role model for the black community. And by the way, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are all deep in debt, and don’t pay their debt, and steal money, and are all corrupt, and their organizations are corrupt, and their organizations get away with never paying their debts, millions of dollars in debts, and white people pay for everything, white people give them everything, and they hate and resent white people.
This is Black America! This is Michael Jackson! This is Jesse Jackson! This is Al Sharpton! This is Louis Farrakahn! This is the black rap pieces of garbage in Hollywood! And this is Barack Hussein Obama! This is the future of America if we don’t wake up!
Ok, once you pick your jaw up from off the ground, get ready for it to drop again! Here are his thoughts on Martin Luther King, taken from a 2000 interview. Pay attention to how he refers to Civil Rights laws as “horrible”!
It’s Black History Month. You’ve been running two series on your site: one disputing Henry Louis Gates’ Wonders of the African World TV show and another linking “black morality” with AIDS. Any thoughts for February?
This is just another example of the new religion in America, which is worshipping blacks. This is the new religion in this country. January is dedicated to Martin Luther King’s birthday. February is Black History Month. April we spend the whole month mourning his assassination. August we spend the whole month reflecting on his “I have a dream” speech in 1963. This is unbelievable. What in the world is so great about Martin Luther King? It’s just a question that I have. Did he really accomplish anything so spectacular? I mean, look at the results of what he accomplished; look at what’s happened to this country. Wasn’t this a better country before we had all these horrible laws that turned our cities into urban jungles, before we had the skyrocketing crime, the decline in morality, the massive drug use? All these things happened after these terrible laws were passed as a result of what he did. I think he had a terrible influence on this country. I believe he was a racist; I believe he was an anti-semite. And the fact that he gets a holiday to himself, while all the presidents of the United States put together get one day called Presidents’ Day, is so obscene there are no words for it.
Not only that: Presidents’ Day is only a day for sales. That’s the purpose of Presidents’ Day. They’d never dare have sales on Martin Luther King Day; it’s so holy, so sacred, we could never have sales. We have to remember the words of Dr. King. It is absolutely obscene. I do not understand why white America feels the need to stick their noses up black behind all the time. I don’t understand this. What are they so intimidated by? What are blacks going to do if whites finally stand up and have some backbone and say, “We’ve had enough of this.”? What are they going to do? Are they going to defeat the whites in a war? That certainly didn’t happen in colonial times. It certainly didn’t happen in South Africa, where 4 million whites held out against hundreds of millions of blacks on the black continent. I mean, this is ridiculous: What are white people so afraid of? Whites have convinced themselves that there’s something to be intimidated about. This is what we desperately want to put an end to. Enough is enough. This is a great country. White people have a lot to be proud of. There is nothing for white people to be ashamed of. We have to stop these guilt trips and stop this apologizing that has been put upon us. Because white people have done nothing wrong and, in fact, have bent over backwards to be nice to people who are destroying the whole country. It’s about time that this ended, and that’s what we would like to do here.
Well, that pretty much sums up the type of person that we’re dealing with here: an unapologetic racist and bigot. If he feels that strongly against Martin Luther King, the most revered and honored civil rights icon who ever lived, then why would he have positive thoughts on Michael Jackson?
Let the fact checking begin!
1. “The very first child that Michael Jackson raped was a 14 year old Jewish boy. I don’t know what his name is.” The fact that Pesach cannot identify Jordan Chandler, and that he thinks his allegation was made 25 years ago, is totally indicative of his lack of knowledge of the facts. The less you know about the allegations, the more likely you are to believe them!
As we’ve learned from my series on how to recognize and refute the fallacies used to smear Michael Jackson, haters love to use ad hominem attacks to get people to make rash, uninformed judgments about MJ, and conclude that he’s guilty based on emotions instead of evidence. Notice how he uses the term “rapist” instead of “molester” in order to appeal to emotions! That word has a more violent connotation, and it evokes an image of a physical overpowering of the victim against his or her will. So let me squash this tactic right here and right now: Michael Jackson was NOT accused of raping Jordan Chandler, or any other child! MJ was accused of kissing Jordan (first on the lips, before gradually leading to tongue kissing), bathing with him, masturbating him, having Jordan suck his nipple as Jordan masturbated him, and performing oral sex on Jordan. That’s it! No penetration whatsoever!
And that’s not an accident either! Anyone can accuse anyone of merely “touching them”, which is essentially what Evan Chandler (Jordan’s father) did. If Jordan had accused MJ of sodomy, then he would have been subjected to a medical exam to determine if he had any internal injuries that corroborated his claims, and Evan’s plan would have been thwarted right then and there.
For those of you who are completely unfamiliar with the 1993 case, here is a quick rundown of the chain of events that occurred before, during, and in the years after the allegations were made public:
1. Michael Jackson met the Chandler family (12 year old Jordan, his divorced parents Evan and June, and his little sister Natalie) in May 1992 when his car broke down in front of a rental car store owned by June’s husband Dave Scwartz. Evan was a dentist and aspiring screenwriter, and he and Jordan wrote the scriptof “Robin Hood: Men in Tights”, a spoof of “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves”.
2. Michael formed a friendship with Jordan, June, and Lily, and during May and June 1993 they travelled around the world with him, and spent a lot of time at Neverland. As Jordan began to spend less and less time with Evan, Evan’s became extremely jealous, and thought that MJ was “breaking up” his family. On top of that, MJ rejected Evan’s desire to allow him to become a 50/50 partner in MJ’s new film company “Lost Boys Productions”.
3. Dave Schwartz and Evan Chandler had a very shaky history, and Schwartz secretly recorded a telephone conversation between himself and Evan because Evan had previously made threats to kill Schwartz and his entire family. During this conversation, Evan discusses his disdain for MJ, and how he will win “big time” if he doesn’t get “what he wants” from MJ. Scwartz is concerned, and gives the tape to Anthony Pellicano, MJ’s private investigator. (MJJ Justice Project did an EXCELLENT analysis of it in their two-part series! Here’s part 1, and part 2.)
4. During July 1993, Evan obtained temporary custody of Jordan that was only supposed to last one week, but he never returned Jordan to June’s custody. Jordan stayed with Evan throughout the month of July, and during this time, he extracted one of Jordan’s teeth, and as soon as the procedure was done (and while Jordan was still under the influence of anesthesia and other drugs), he coerced Jordan to admit to being abused by Michael. Instead of going straight to the police with this bombshell information, Evan instead goes straight to his civil attorney!
5. Evan, his attorney Barry Rothman, and Jordan met with MJ and his private investigator Anthony Pellicano on August 4th, 1993, in order to discuss Evan’s demand for a $20 million dollar for a film deal in lieu of pressing charges against MJ. MJ utterly refuses to pay up, but under the advice of his legal counsel, Pellicano engages in negotiations for a cheaper film deal, which Evan rejects. MJ’s legal counsel felt that it would be best to simply appease Evan and offer him a $350k film deal (which was pocket change to MJ), rather than risk the negative publicity that would come by getting the police involved, especially right before MJ was scheduled to continue his “Dangerous” world tour.
6. On August 16th, 1993 June Chandler filed an Ex Parte motion in order to regain custody of Jordan, who should have been returned to her on July 18th. On August 17th, an Ex Parte Motion hearing was scheduled by the court that day in order to force Evan to return Jordan to June’s custody. Rather than tell the court that he refused to return Jordan due to a suspicion that he would be placed in the vicinity of MJ via June, he instead brings Jordan to see Dr. Mathis Abrams, a psychiatrist. Evan did this so that the psychiatrist could report the alleged abuse, and Evan couldn’t be charged with filing a false claim. This was all a part of his plan!
7. Evan Chandler initially hired Gloria Allred to represent him, but he fired her because of her refusal to sue MJ before criminally prosecuting him, and he replaced her with Larry Feldman, who filed a frivolous civil lawsuit in September 1993. MJ countersued for extortion.
8. Feldman filed a Motion for Trial Preference in order to have the civil trail precede the criminal trial. This is a special request to have the civil trial heard within 120 days after the motion is granted, and is generally given to children under the age of 14 years old, and is designed to allow young victims to have a speedy trial and move on with their lives, as opposed to waiting months or years for their case to get to trial. MJ’s attorneys Bert Fields and Howard Weitzman filed a counter-motion called a Motion for Stay of Discovery and Trial in order to have the civil trial delayed until after the criminal trial. They’re motion was subsequently denied, probably due to the fact that MJ had not been arrested and criminally charged at that point, and there was no guarantee that a criminal prosecution would occur, and Feldman was able to effectively argue that Jordan’s rights as a minor should be honored in order for him to have a chance at winning in court.
9. On December 20th, 1993 MJ was served with a search warrant to identify his penis to see if it corroborated Jordan Chandler’s description, which he had given months earlier. MJ willingly submitted to it, and was not arrested immediately upon the completion of his strip search because the description was a total and absolute mismatch! As a result, Larry Feldman requested to have MJ strip searched again or bar the original photos from court, which only confirms that it wasn’t an accurate match. (For more information on this issue, please read this post.)
10. On January 25th, 1994, the Chandler’s civil lawsuit was settled out of court. The settlement money was not offered or paid by MJ, nor did it prevent the Chandlers from testifying in any subsequent criminal case. After the settlement was announced, the Chandlers refused to cooperate with authorities, and LA District Attorney Gil Garcetti was so desperate to get them to cooperate that he urged state legislators to amend a law that prohibited him from forcing victims to testify. (Read the “Officials Desperate to Nail Jackson” article in that link.)
11. Two different grand juries in two counties (Los Angeles and Santa Barbara) refused to indict MJ on criminal charges, and the investigation concluded on September 22nd, 1994. Also, during this time investigative journalist Mary Fischer published an award winning article for GQ Magazine titled “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” Here is an interview she did with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News in November 2003, shortly after MJ’s arrest in the Arvizo case.
12. In 1993, a former Neverland maid named Blanca Francia was paid $20k by the now defunct tabloid celebrity gossip show “Hard Copy” for an interview, and in it she claimed to have seen MJ showering with young boys. She had been fired from Neverland in 1991, but said she had “quit in disgust” at the inappropriate behavior that she had witnessed between MJ and young boys. Her then 13 year old son Jason was interviewed without her knowledge by police, who were desperately looking for any additional “victims” of MJ to bolster their case, and although Jason initially denied by molested by MJ, the interrogators were able to make him succumb to their demands and claim that MJ touched him inappropriately during several tickling games. Criminal charges were never sought, and in 1995 Blanca’s lawyers threatened a civil lawsuit against MJ over Jason’s claims of abuse, and MJ settled with them out of court in order to avoid the negative publicity and irreparable damage to his career that a civil trial would have brought. The settlement agreement contained a clear and conspicuous statement that it was not to be construed as an admission of guilt on MJ’s part. Jason was subpoenaed to testify against MJ in 2005, and was so thoroughly obliterated under cross-examination that some jurors laughed at his testimony while on a break! (I will thoroughly analyze his testimony in part 4.)
12. In May 1996, Evan filed a $60 million lawsuit against MJ, Lisa Marie Presley, ABC News, and Sony, and he wanted to record and publish a rebuttal album called “EVANstory”. Evan felt that many of the songs on MJ’s 1995 album “HIStory” were aimed directly at him (and they were!), and wanted to seek revenge. The lawsuit was thrown out in 2000, and Evan’s finances were depleted by the legal fees.
13. In September 2004, Ray Chandler successfully quashed Mesereau’s subpoena for him to testify in court about the validity of his book “All That Glitters” (read this series for more info), which was ghostwritten by Evan Chandler, and was originally intended to be released in Spring 1994. Book publisher Judith Regan confirmed this in July 2009. Here is her interview:
14. In August 2005, two months after the trial, Evan tried to murder Jordan by hitting him from behind with a 12.5 pound weight, spraying mace in his face, and choking him. Jordan obtained a permanent restraining order as a result of Evan’s assault.
15. In November 2009, Evan committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. Nobody attended his wake, and he was subsequently cremated. Hopefully they flushed his ashes down the toilet, but unfortunately this information has yet to be confirmed!
16. In December 2009, the FBI released their files on MJ, as a result of requests under the Freedom of Information Act, and they confirm a meeting in September 2004 with Ron Zonen and Jordan Chandler, who threatened legal action if he was subpoenaed to testify because he “had done his part”. What kind of “victim” would threaten legal action to AVOID testifying against his abuser? What kind of “victim” does “his part”? The answer to those two questions is this: a FALSE victim!
2. “But because of that, he expressed all types of vicious anti-Semitism, and that’s why he sang the song “Sue me, Jew me”, that he sang in Brazil because he was a vicious anti-Semite, Michael Jackson.” The lyric that he is referencing is from the song “They Don’t Really Care About Us”, and it is a direct reference not to ALL Jews, but to one particular Jew: Evan Chandler! In response to the anti-Semitism accusations that were thrown at him, MJ issued the following statement:
The idea that these lyrics could be deemed objectionable is extremely hurtful to me, and misleading. The song in fact is about the pain of prejudice and hate and is a way to draw attention to social and political problems. I am the voice of the accused and the attacked. I am the voice of everyone. I am the skinhead, I am the Jew, I am the black man, I am the white man. I am not the one who was attacking. It is about the injustices to young people and how the system can wrongfully accuse them. I am angry and outraged that I could be so misinterpreted.
The offensive lyrics were censored in subsequent pressings of the “HIStory” CD.
3. “He also expressed anti-White views, even though he himself obviously wanted to be white.” Personally, I am so sick and tired of people claiming that MJ “wanted to be white”, as this is THE most ignorant and ludicrous claim that anyone can possibly make about him! We have talked about this subject on this blog so many times already that is has really become redundant to have to constantly repeat ourselves, so I’ll refer you this post on the effects that Vitiligo and Lupus had on MJ, as well as this post that shows the parallels between MJ and another African-American performer who lost all of his pigment due to vitiligo.
One thing I’d like to say is this: for the sake of discussion, let’s say that MJ really did bleach his skin in order to be white. How would that be any different than whites who spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on spray tans, tanning salons, skin darkening creams, travelling to the beach to sit in the sun, etc., in order to darken their skin? Tanning is so glorified in our culture that not only is it acceptable to be tanned, it is EXPECTED that you are tanned at all times to achieve an optimum appearance!
Let’s take a look at some very famous people who are well known for constantly being tanned!
Let’s start with “The Donald”, Donald Trump, who is arguably the most famous entrepreneur in the history of the United States!
This is Speaker of the House John Boehner, one of the most powerful politicians in the country! In fact, he’s the second in the USA presidential line of succession, right after the Vice President (of course!). He is constantly ridiculed by “too much” of a tan, and even President Obama couldn’t resist cracking a joke about it at the 1:16 mark:
In response to this joke, Boehner said the following in an interview with the Wall Street Journal:
Addressing a perennial source of jokes, Mr. Boehner says his dark complexion is natural, similar to that of his mother and four (of 12) siblings. “I have never been in a tanning bed or used a tanning product,” Mr. Boehner said. His staff showed a high school group photo where he has the darkest face in Moeller High’s all-male class.
Whether or not he has used any tanning products isn’t the issue; the issue is the fact that he has never accused of “trying to be black” or “selling out” because of his darker complexion!
Of course, Hollywood and the modeling industry are the top promoters of the benefits of tanning! For example, the cast of the Jersey Shore have actually trademarked the term “GTL”, which stands for “Gym, Tan, Laundry”! (Those are the 3 attributes that they live by.) Many stars are required to have tans before being photographed for the cover of a magazine, or landing a leading role in a movie!
Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino working on his spray tan!
Let’s look at a few comparisons of stars with and without tans (you can see the entire gallery here):
Mary-Kate Olsen
Claire Danes
Molly Sims
Kate Winslet
In each of their situations, it was to their benefit – and not their detriment – to have a tan! Nobody EVER accused them of being “self-hating” white people or wanting to “be black”! Look at this excerpt from a despicable blog post that was written the day after MJ died!
It might be sad to say but I really could not care any less. Michael Jackson was the very worst example of a black person who really hated being black. While most self-hating black people would be content to simply say that they have transcended race, Michael Jackson was the one black person that actually decided to do something about it. Michael Jackson stared at the man in the mirror and decided he didn’t like what he saw enough to buy a new white skin tone, a keen nose that stayed on his face most of the time, thin lips, and a drippy jerry curl to exorcise the kinkiness of his natural hair and eventually just had it permed straight and long. This was not a person happy about being black or who wanted to embrace his blackness. Mr. Jackson ran from being black in front of the entire world to see. Being black was much too painful for him to live with.
The music that made Michael Jackson famous evaporated along with his blackness. The new hybrid Michael Jackson that looked more like a scarecrow from a Japanese anime and his accompanying music could never compete with the older version. And instead of being content to let his greatness lie in the past the King of Pop kept trying to recreate a new phenomenon based on superficial glitz and glamour instead of what really drove his initial success, the raw talent and the music.
And here’s another posted titled “Man in the Mirror: Michael Jackson Died of Self-Hatred”.
He was a joke, an embarrassment, until I saw the 1999 satirical war drama Three Kings. The film, which is set during the 1991 Iraqi uprising against Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War, features a trio of greedy U.S. soldiers who steal Kuwaiti gold. One soldier, Troy Barlow, played by Mark Wahlberg, is caught by Iraqi soldiers and taken into a basement to be tortured. The Iraqi officer asks him coolly, “What is the problem with Michael Jackson?”
The Iraqi holds up his hand as if it’s the glittering glove. “He come to Egypt. Hello I’m Michael Jackson with my chop-up face. Your country make him chop up his face,” he says.
That’s bullshit; he did it to himself,” Wahlberg says. The Iraqi officer slams him. “It is obvious! A black man make the skin white and the hair straight and you know why? Your sick fuckin’ country make the black man hate himself just like you hate the Arab and the children you bomb over here.”
I paused the scene and thought, “Yeah, Michael is a symptom of America. He’s not a joke, but a warning.”
Here is the clip from the movie “Three Kings” that he is referring to. The movie, which was released in 1999, is about a group of soldiers who are stationed in Iraq in 1991 after the end of the first Persian Gulf War. The Iraqi interrogator in this scene is using MJ as a symptom of how America makes people hate themselves, and it’s obvious that the interrogator has been reading too many tabloids!
I also believe that there is a historical inaccuracy regarding the timing of the events in the movie. The Gulf War ended on February 28th, 1991, the Dangerous World Tour started on June 27th, 1992, and the Chandler extortion case didn’t go public until August 17th, 1993! So if this movie takes place following the end of the Gulf War (which would, theoretically, be Spring 1991), and before both the start of the Dangerous World tour, and (more importantly) before the allegations, then how and why would that interpreter become so suspicious of MJ travelling with young boys? Prior to the allegations, nobody was even remotely suspicious of MJ being around children! It seems that the producers and scriptwriters were just trying to take pot shots at MJ for the sake of humor!
4. “He became a Muslim of course, in the end, he and his brothers were Muslims.” This is arguably the most controversial aspect of MJ in his final years, after the trial.
MJ moved to the Arabic nation of Bahrain in 2005 at the request of his brother Jermaine in order to lay low and stay out of the media spotlight, there has been speculation that he converted to Islam. However, this move was met with tremendous skepticism by the media! Many MJ haters in the media, who had already been humiliated months before when he was rightfully acquitted in his criminal trial, insinuated that MJ’s desire to move to Bahrain was motivated by the lack of an extradition treaty with the United States!
Here is a November 2005 interview between two notorious MJ haters, Tucker Carlson and Diane Dimond, where this issue was raised by them (my commentary is in red):
CARLSON: Welcome back.
If pop star Michael Jackson wants to make his new home in Bahrain or the United Arab Emirates, he better tell the men‘s and women‘s rooms apart.
The self-proclaimed King of Pop (Michael did NOT “self-proclaim” anything! This will be refuted in Part 5!) says he didn‘t understand the Arabic sign on the door and walked right into the ladies room at a shopping mall. His girlish looks apparently didn‘t give him any cover. He left the bathroom as soon as he realized his mistake, but according to one witness, not without applying some make-up first.
Diane Diamond is a reporter who‘s followed Michael Jackson‘s legal troubles for more than a decade. She‘s written a new book about the child molestation charges against him, the book released yesterday on her birthday, called, “Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case.”
She joins us now, live from New York.
Diane Diamond, thanks a lot for coming on.
DIANE DIAMOND, AUTHOR, “BE CAREFUL WHO YOU LOVE”: Oh, Tucker, my pleasure. How are you doing?
Carlson: Great. The obvious question first, what did you—I mean, were you shocked by the verdict? Did you expect it?
DIAMOND: No, I wasn‘t shocked. You know, I‘ve been covering Michael Jackson since, what, 1993. I learned to never be shocked about anything that happens with him.
CARLSON: You became part of the story in a way. You were the target of a lot of hostility, break-ins to your house. I think your car was messed up. You had to take out a restraining order. Where did that come from? Who are these people who were targeting you?
DIAMOND: Well, my phones were tapped back in 1993 by Michael Jackson‘s private detective at the time, a man named Anthony Pelacono, who I‘m just sort of glad to say is in jail now.
Anyway, yes, it‘s been a long road since I started to cover the story in 1993 until now, and I thought maybe it would die down when I took the story back up in 2003. But it didn‘t, really.
And there‘s—now we have a thing called the Internet, and the threats and the intimidation and the intrigue. I mean, Tucker, I was covering this trial in little Santa Maria, California, and I had a local law enforcement guy call me over and say, “You know, we know where you go to dinner.”
I said, “How do you know where you go to dinner?”
He said, “It‘s on the Internet.”
I said, “What?”
CARLSON: That‘s creepy.
DIAMOND: Yes, the fans were taking pictures of me and other reporters going to dinner and then suggesting to other fans that maybe they would like to go there and intimidate us.
CARLSON: I know…
DIAMOND: Kind of creepy.
CARLSON: … you‘re a reporter and not a shrink. But maybe you have some insight into the psychology of Michael Jackson fans. (He’s trying to say that anyone who supports him is a “crazy, rabid” fan!) The lady was releasing the doves the night of his acquittal. What is the appeal of Michael Jackson after all we know about him, that‘s not appealing?
DIAMOND: You know, she was so angry at me because I started to tell her a story, and she heard that I was making fun of her. Well, I didn‘t make fun of her. I was simply reporting that she was going to release doves.
You know, I don‘t know. I think they‘re so blinded by their adoration of this man, and it‘s one thing that I learned in writing this book, “Be Careful Who You Love.” And I took the title from the “Billy Jean” lyric, “Be—my mama always told me, be careful who you love,” because I think we‘re kind of blinded by the celebrity that we have now.
CARLSON: Yes.
DIAMOND: They‘re blinded by it. They don‘t know the rules of behavior, and so they behave any way they want. And we‘re blinded by their celebrity, as well, and I think we need to be careful who we love when we love a celebrity like Michael Jackson.
CARLSON: If it‘s Michael Jackson, that‘s for sure. What‘s going to happen to this guy?
DIAMOND: I think he‘ll probably remain overseas, Tucker. Look, he‘s got millions of dollars of lawsuits pending against him here, civil lawsuits.
The Child Protective Services would like to come and see what his children are up to, and if they‘re safe. Debbie Rowe might like to renew the custody battle.
And you know, where the heck does he live that law enforcement is not going to…
CARLSON: That‘s a good point.
DIAMOND: … put him in the crosshairs. They‘re going to be watching him like a hawk.
CARLSON: And he‘s moved to a part of the world that has far, far more lenient attitudes about sexual contact between men and boys. Do you think that is one of the reasons he‘s relocated or seems to have relocated there?
DIAMOND: Maybe you‘re more cynical than I. I just thought maybe he moved there because they don‘t have an extradition treaty with America, and maybe some other victims might come up.
But you‘re right, they do have a much different viewpoint of men with boys and the sheikhs over there have little boy valets with them all the time. Maybe it was a sort of double-edged reason why he moved there.
CARLSON: Oh, yuck. The book, “Be Careful Who You Love,” the reporter Diane Diamond, climbing up the best seller list even as we speak.
DIAMOND: I hope so.
CARLSON: Happy birthday.
DIAMOND: Thank you.
CARLSON: And thanks a lot for coming on.
DIAMOND: My pleasure.
Here’s Nancy Grace raising the issue on her show as well!
Michael’s brother Jermaine (and ONLY Jermaine!) converted to Islam in 1989 after a trip to Bahrain. He explains his conversion process in this interview, beginning at 2:25:
Shortly after his arrest in 2003, Michael hired the Fruit of Islam as bodyguards, following Jermaine’s request. However, they were fired upon Mesereau’s hiring as Michael’s attorney, because he felt that they created a barrier between Michael and his community, and Mesereau felt that Michael needed to be seen as a part of the community in order to “normalize” him and rebut the media’s caricature of him. Here are his comments on this issue from the 2005 Harvard Law seminar:
You may recall that first arraignment. I was not his lawyer then. First of all, Nation of Islam were providing security for Michael. And they were very prominent in Santa Maria at that first arraignment. Now I’ve worked with the Nation of Islam for many years, and I still do. And I’ve agreed to defend their western regional leader if he is charged with assaulting a police officer, which they are threatening to do, but haven’t done yet. And I am well aware of what Nation of Islam does in the inner city, in Los Angeles. The way they fight gang violence. The way they fight drugs. The way they try and teach people responsibility and spirituality, and they do so much in the city that is the gang capitol of America to try to stop this violence. And I had worked with the Nation of Islam on the Patricia Moore case. They had been great supporters of her. But nevertheless, I did not think that having the Nation of Islam in that prominent position as Michael’s security people in Santa Maria was helping him defend. I felt it was separating him more from the community that was going to judge him, rather than making him a part of the community, that he had chosen to live in, that will judge him. And I made that very clear. This is not a good way to start.
Jermaine’s interviews throughout the years of his hope that MJ would convert to Islam, such as this interview with Reuters:
Brother wants Michael Jackson to be a Muslim
LONDON — Jermaine Jackson said on Monday he wants his brother Michael to convert to Islam; and he believes the reclusive superstar has given it serious thought.
“Michael, I feel, needs to become a Muslim because I think it’s a great protection for him from all the things that he’s been attacked with, which are false,” said the former Jackson Five singer who now lives in Bahrain.
“There’s a strength and protection there,” Jackson told BBC Asian Network after finishing runner-up to Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty in the “Celebrity Big Brother” TV reality show that was marred by accusations of racist bullying.
Jackson said he believed his brother had given conversion “serious thought” during long spells in Bahrain.
“I was the reason why he had gone there because I wanted him to get out of America and just go somewhere it’s peaceful and quiet and people pray five times a day which is beautiful.”
Michael Jackson was acquitted of child molestation charges in June 2005.
He has said he plans to move to Europe in a bid to resurrect his musical career as the “King of Pop” and has indicated he will release a new album in 2007.
Jermaine Jackson said his faith helped keep him sane in the enclosed confines of the British reality TV programme where the contestants are kept cooped up under 24-hour surveillance.
“If I didn’t have Allah and my prayer rug, I would not have survived and the reason why is because it kept me focused, it kept me calm,” he said.
As a result of Jermaine’s incessant public statements about his hope that MJ would convert to Islam, it gave the story legs, and, as expected, the tabloid media had a field day! For example, here is a story from The Telegraph tabloid that is definitively titled “Michael Jackson converts to Islam and changes name to Mikaeel”; notice who their “source” is for this story? The Sun, another tabloid newspaper!
Michael Jackson has reportedly become a Muslim and changed his name to Mikaeel.
The singer, who was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness, converted to Islam in a ceremony at a friend’s house in Los Angeles.
He is said to have sat on the floor and worn a small hat while an imam officiated.
According to The Sun, the ceremony took place while Jackson, 50, was recording an album at the home of Steve Porcaro, a keyboard player who composed music on his Thriller album.
The former Jackson 5 star was counselled by David Wharnsby, a Canadian songwriter, and Phillip Bubal, a producer, who have both converted.
A source said Jackson had appeared a “bit down” and added: “They began talking to him about their beliefs, and how they thought they had become better people after they converted. Michael soon began warming to the idea.
“An imam was summoned from the mosque and Michael went through the shahada, which is the Muslim declaration of belief.”
Last year his brother, Jermaine Friday, suggested Jackson would convert having taken an interest in Islam since Friday’s conversion in 1989.
“When I came back from Mecca I got him a lot of books and he asked me lots of things about my religion and I told him that it’s peaceful and beautiful,” said Friday.
“He read everything and he was proud of me that I found something that would give me inner strength and peace.
“I think it is most probable that Michael will convert to Islam.
“He could do so much, just like I am trying to do. Michael and I and the word of God, we could do so much.”
This report was published on November 21st, 2008, and was immediately refuted by Londell McMillan, MJ’s lawyer at that time, in this report about the settlement of a lawsuit between MJ and the Prince of Bahrain about MJ’s refusal to record an album for him. (When it was announced in the press in 2005 that MJ would record an album for him, this also fueled rumors that he had converted to Islam. Some felt that it may be an Islamic album.)
Jackson’s New York lawyer, Londell McMillan, took the opportunity to trash a British press report that Jackson has become a Muslim. “That’s rubbish. It’s completely untrue,” McMillan told reporters.
After Michael’s death was confirmed, Jermaine held a short press conference at the UCLA Medical Center, and at the end he says “May Allah be with you Michael, always”.
Some people took that as a sign that Michael had indeed converted to Islam, but the reality is that Jermaine’s statement was a reflection of his own spirituality, and not Michael’s! It’s analogous to a Christian who is around a Buddhist who sneezes and tells the Buddhist “God bless you” instead of “Buddha bless you”.
In the aftermath of MJ’s death, many religious blogs and websites speculated about MJ’s faith (such as this article titled “Religion Thriller”), while others erroneously reported that MJ had absolutely converted to Islam (such as this one), and their “proof” were some of the same tabloid stories that I just referenced! Additionally, the following Islamic songs titled “Give Thanks To Allah” and “Islam In My Veins” have been falsely credited as Michael Jackson songs on Youtube due to their striking resemblance to MJ’s vocals:
With all of the rumors flying back and forth about whether MJ converted to Islam, even his own father wasn’t spared being asked about it! On the Larry King show in July 2009, he was asked to confirm or deny the rumor, and he seemed very annoyed by the question! He answered “I don’t know that!”, and that is surely an example of how detached he was from MJ in his final years. Good grief! How could a parent NOT know what religion their children practice? And what’s more telling is the fact that Leonard Rowe was the first to answer the question by stating that Joe “doesn’t know that”, which shows that he had a firsthand knowledge of how unaware Joe was about the personal aspects of Michael’s life! He says this beginning at the 3:13 mark:
If Joe had answered “Yes, Michael converted to Islam”, then MJ haters within the Christian community would use it as absolute proof that MJ was a Muslim, and they’d use this information to further discredit, malign, and judge him, and to make Christians feel guilty for mourning him. If Joe had answered “No, Michael was a Christian”, then those same MJ haters within the Christian community would say that they don’t believe it because MJ was so “weird and bizarre”, and God would have made him “normal”, and he wouldn’t have “bleached his skin” or “mutilated his face”.
Now, getting back to those Islamic songs, there are too many people who have been duped into thinking that MJ officially converted to Islam BECAUSE of those two songs, but that couldn’t be further from the truth! He did NOT sing those songs! Here is the proof! The song “Give Thanks To Allah” was recorded by an Islamic artist named Zain Bhikha! He wrote a blog post on his Myspace page in July 2009 to confirm that MJ didn’t sing his song! (It’s too bad he waited until after MJ died to do this!) Here is his statement:
Micheal Jackson & “Give Thanks to Allah”
July 2009
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Local time: 13:19pm
Peace be with you dear friends,
I too, like the rest of the world, was quite shocked to hear of the death of singer and songwriter, Micheal Jackson. During the 80′s and 90′s, my young days are filled with memories of his songs and performances and no doubt, he has influenced me in various ways, especially with the intensity of his tremendous talent. I think what strikes me most was his vocal ability in terms of range, expression, emotion and unique tone.
“To our Lord do we belong and to Him is our return”.
The reason I bring all this up is merely because since before his death and quite amplified now after, I have been inundated with e-mails and calls from people, organisations and the media asking me to clarify whether a song called “Give Thanks to Allah” was sung by Micheal Jackson or myself. This rumour started a while ago and has been circulating on the internet ever since.
So, to clarify, Micheal Jackson never sang this song. I wrote and recorded “Give Thanks to Allah” as a simple childrens song many years ago and it has been released on various independant albums since.
Sincerely,
Zain Bhikha
Here he is singing the song live!
The song “Islam In My Veins” is actually titled “Waiting For The Call”, and it is sung by an Islamic recording artist named Irfan Makki!
It’s amazing the lengths that MJ haters will go to in order to slander him! The fact that so many people clung to those two songs as “proof” of MJ’s conversion, when a simple Google search would have confirmed that he didn’t sing those songs, just shows how desperate some people are to sully his reputation.
And let me be clear about something: personally, I don’t care what religion MJ practiced, or his sexual orientation, or if his kids are biologically his, or whether he and Lisa Marie Presley and Debbie Rowe had sexual intercourse, or how much plastic surgery he had, or how much debt he was in, or any other personal detail of his life! Those details are none of my business!
But I’m not naïve or delusional enough to think that everyone else will feel this way! There are people who would burn all of their MJ CDs and memorabilia in a bonfire if he really was gay, or if he really did convert to Islam! I’m not prejudiced against anyone who is gay or practices Islam, but there are many people who ARE prejudiced, especially here in America!
The reason I say this is because I don’t want anyone to misconstrue this post as being anti-Islamic. I’ve been accused of being homophobic because I have staunchly defended MJ against rumors of homosexuality, which have dogged him throughout his career, and they didn’t start with in the “Thriller” era! They started in the 1970’s when he was still a teenager! (Read this post for more info on how the prosecution and the media use the gay rumors to make MJ look guilty of abusing young boys in the court of public opinion!) So to be clear, this post is strictly to debunk the Islam conversion rumors.
I’ll finish this off with a quote from Jermaine in an interview he conducted in January 2010:
“I believe that Islam would have helped him a lot. Had he converted, he would have been spared all the problems he had been subjected to throughout his life,” he said.
There, that settles it! Hopefully we can bury this rumor once and for all! For more information that debunks this rumor, read this post from WikiIslam.
To be continued………..
DANIEL KAPON’S accusations against MICHAEL JACKSON and the beautiful role the NEWS OF THE WORLD played in it
The story of Daniel Kapon as another phantom “victim” of Michael Jackson has accumulated so much additional information that I’ve decided to turn this collective effort of ours into a separate post. It will include the facts provided by David, Lynette, Rockforeveon, Shelly and others, but will focus on a slightly different aspect of this fictional “molestation” case – the aspect which became apparent only when all facts were grouped together.
You will remember that after the November 19, 2003 press-conference where Sheriff Jim Anderson and District Attorney Tom Sneddon encouraged new MJ’s “victims” to come forward, many enthusiasts answered their call.
Nancy Grace was exhilarated to report that the District Attorney’s office was receiving “many, many dozens of phone calls”. Diane Dimond also said that the “there were literally hundreds of “leads” phoned in” but was disappointed to note that “in the end, most if not all of the complaints went nowhere”.
1. DANIEL KAPON’S CASE EMERGES
One of the most successful applicants for the role of a victim was a certain Daniel Kapon who was 18 years old at the time. The mjjr site says about him:
“in April 2004, news broke that an 18-year-old man named Daniel Kapon had told the Santa Barbara Police Department he’d been molested by Jackson when he was 3 years old. He claimed that he had repressed the memories and as a result, only recently remembered being abused. The SBPD turned him away because they could not determine whether or not the man had even met Michael Jackson. For some reason, however, the SBPD did not file charges against Kapon. Consequently, he took his story to the Los Angeles Police Department who also concluded that his allegations were bogus.
Carole Lieberman
It was later revealed that attorney Gloria Allred and psychiatrist Carole Lieberman were behind the man’s accusations. For those unfamiliar with the names, Lieberman is the self-proclaimed “media” psychiatrist whose official website declares her “the first psychiatrist to have made formal child abuse complaints against Michael Jackson, beginning in November 2002″ and Allred is the Jackson-obsessed attorney who keeps making public requests for the singer’s children to be removed from his custody. Allred also briefly represented Jackson’s first accuser Jordan Chandler in 1993 but was fired [by Jordan’s new lawyer Larry Feldman] after she told the media that the Chandlers were interested in justice. Since then, Allred’s relationship with Jackson has been contentious; in 2002, he publicly told her to “go to hell.”
After Lieberman helped Kapon “remember” the abuse he allegedly suffered 15 years earlier, Allred signed on as his attorney. Their plans to go forward with the case were derailed, however, when the LAPD issued a statement saying they would not press charges. Although Jackson was cleared of any wrongdoing, the news of another accuser had already done significant damage to his image”.
The phrase about the plans being derailed after the LAPD statement is not quite correct, and this will be exactly the topic of today’s post – but first we need to look into the details of the project Daniel Kapon devised for Michael Jackson.
Details of Kapon’s case are provided by no other than Diane Dimond in her book “Be careful who you love”. To preempt your question why it was Diane Dimond who refuted Kapon’s lies let me say that his allegations were so crazy that even Diane Dimond had to distance herself from this “victim” not to lose credibility with her audience.
She refers to Daniel as “Donny” and starts with the memorable press conference of November 19, 2003 (the text is cited by David’s post):
“Standing next to the DA at the news conference that day was the newly installed sheriff of Santa Barbara, Jim Anderson. He made a public appeal for anyone with any other complaints against Michael Jackson to call his office. He gave out a special phone number.
Sources at the sheriff’s office revealed that there were literally hundreds of “leads” phoned in that they were obligated to follow up. Calls came in to the district attorney’s office as well. It took countless man-hours to deal with them all. In the end, most if not all of the complaints went nowhere.
One such cold call was from an L.A.-based psychiatrist whose website says she is “recognized as the preeminent authority on the psychology of showbiz and the psychological influence of the media.”
On a Sunday in late winter 2003, she telephoned authorities in Santa Barbara and dramatically told them they had to come to her Beverly Hills office immediately, as she had with her an eighteen-year-old boy who was claiming to have been repeatedly molested by Michael Jackson. A pair of law enforcement types quickly took the bait – how could they not check it out?”
Let us stop here for a second and make a note of the fact that Daniel Kapon’s case initially arose in December (“late winter of”) 2003 after the November press conference by Jim Anderson and Tom Sneddon and its timing shows that it was an immediate answer to the prosecutors’ call.
The Santa Barbara authorities were the first to examine the case. Then the investigation was taken up by the Los Angeles Police Department. At first it looked like the 18-year old Daniel was suffering from the repressed memory phenomenon, however further questioning proved that both he and his mother were telling blatant lies.
D.Dimond describes the progress of uncovering the truth:
Once in the doctor’s office, they found a small, scared-looking young man I’ll call “Donny”. His story was not only dramatic but graphic. In a nutshell, he told them over the course of several years, when he was between the ages of ten and fourteen, his father had repeatedly driven him to Neverland Ranch and left him there for days at a time. Jackson, he said, had bought his father a new car to make sure he always had a reliable way to get to Neverland from his suburban L.A. home. At first he and Jackson just had fun at the ranch playing with all the games and riding the amusement park rides. But then over time, he said, Jackson gave him alcohol served in soda cans and drugs that made him “zone out”.
Donny told the investigators it got to the point where he didn’t mind because that way he could be “out of his body and not care what was really happening.” Asked to describe exactly what had happened, he told them about various sex acts, including penetration, that were performed upon him by the star. He claimed his mother had pictures of him with Michael Jackson and close-up photos of bite marks left on various parts of his body, inflicted by the King of Pop.
The Santa Barbara investigators listened intently. And then Donny’s mother entered the room. She was reported as having presented herself as confused and barely believable. She told of being attacked in a parking lot by a Jackson goon with a baseball bat who warned her to keep her mouth shut. She was sure they’d been sent by a private investigator Anthony Pellicano, apparently unaware that Pellicano hadn’t word for Jackson for years. She had no photographs of her son and Jackson to show the authorities, and when asked why it had taken her son so long to come forward with is story, the psychiatrist interjected, “Because this is a case of repressed memory.”
In cop shops across America those two words, “repressed memory,” cause eyes to roll. For the Santa Barbara team listening to the doctor, it was no different. Nonetheless, it was decided that Donny would travel back to Santa Barbara to undergo official forensic interrogation the next day. The U.S. Justice Department offers special training to only a handful of child abuse investigators. It’s an intense course on how best to deal with children who have suffered at the hands of deviant adults. Santa Barbara called in one of those specially equipped people to speak to young Donny, and after several hours it was determined that “there is nothing correct about this….it is bogus.”
The interrogator reported that the young man’s story kept changing. His original claim, that he’d been between ten and fourteen years old at the time of the molestation, switched in mid-interview. No, Donny said, he’s actually been three to seven years of age. Then later he reportedly said the sex abuse occurred when he was fifteen years old. There were other discrepancies, too. But Santa Barbara authorities didn’t leave it there. They traced the mother’s claim of being attacked in the parking lot and found it to be nothing more than an altercation between two neighbors, fighting over some perceived slight. They found the boy’s father and learned much more.
Donny’s dad told investigators he had never met Michael Jackson and certainly had never taken his son to Neverland – ever. He called his ex-wife “a certifiable psycho” who’d actually lost custody of Donny when he was just three years old. The father had raised the boy himself and the mother had no contact with him until his eighteenth birthday. She’d apparently hired a private detective to track down her son at his college and reentered his life.
Donny’s tale was described by insiders as “a tragedy, pure and simple.” A lonely, impressionable boy who so longed for motherly love that he allowed himself to be virtually brainwashed into believing an unstable parent’s incredible story.
Asked later what he thought of the Donny story, Santa Barbara district attorney Thomas Sneddon told me, “The story was pure voodoo. But that poor, poor kid.”
In other words the allegations turned out to be either a certifiable psychiatric case or the invention of extremely clever con artists who made up a horrendously graphic story, trying to take advantage of the smear campaign raging against Michael Jackson.
The police investigation found that Daniel had never been to Neverland and that Michael Jackson never met Daniel Kapon in his whole life.
2. CLOSING POLICE INVESTIGATION AND STARTING A MEDIA CAMPAIGN
The MJEOL site has two excellent posts detailing the case , the second of which says that the criminal investigation was closed on Friday, May 28, 2004 and five days later, on Wednesday, June 2nd, 2004 the LAPD released an official statement for the media.
It said as follows:
“Media Relations Section
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASE
Wednesday, June 2, 2004
Los Angeles: On May 28, 2004, Detectives from the Los Angeles Police Department’s Juvenile Division officially concluded their 2-month investigation into allegations of child abuse against Michael Jackson.
The person making the allegations claimed the acts took place in the City of Los Angeles in the late 1980’s. After an extensive investigation, which included hours of interviews with the person making the allegations, Detectives concluded there was no evidence that any crime occurred. No charges will be sought.
This news advisory was prepared by Lieutenant Art Miller, Media Relations Section, at 213-485-3586.
For Release 2:50 pm June 2, 2004″
Since there was no case, no victim, no offender and no charges we could close the subject at that – if only it weren’t for one interesting point.
Two days after the investigation closed, or on May 30, 2004 the Sunday British tabloid “News of the World” announced to the world the breaking news about Daniel Kapon again.
As if having no idea that what they were saying was a complete lie they declared that a second victim was found who claimed that he had been molested as a child. The newspaper told its multi-million audience that it had obtained Daniel Kapon’s videotape as “exclusive material” for which it reportedly paid half a million dollars ($500,000).
In the almost 29 minutes long video the 18 year old teenager was telling in horrible detail the story of his “sickening abuse” by MJ from the tender age of three to the age of nine. According to the paper, the small boy was forced to take part in sexual acts which even now, many years after the “chilling” events, would badly “stick out in his mind”.
“There was nothing the poor boy could do to fight back”. The torturer acted “sadistic” and even filmed him as he carried out “depraved acts”. He “was deriving pleasure from the boy’s pain.” This freak was “charming in public” but ”switched his personality into a demon” once they were alone and in private.
“It was a totally whacked-out demeanour to even consider doing the things he’s done to me”, the poor victim said.
What was the proof that the young man was telling the truth? Of course he was able to describe the molester’s naked body! “His whole body was the same colour, very white, very pale”, according to the victim.
As he spoke of the “grotesque acts” performed to him, the young man grew so emotional that he broke down and asked to stop filming him. In the end he bitterly commented that the only pleasant memory of MJ but “riding the rides outside Neverland”.
The newspaper assured everyone that the “youngster” was no longer in danger as he was currently in a safe house in Los Angeles, and was now represented by “highly respected lawyer” Gloria Adllred. The mother of the poor victim corroborated her son’s story by the chilling details of the four-year old boy crying and kicking at the sound of MJ’s songs to the amazement of the totally unsuspecting mother.
LA District AttorneyTom Sneddon was said to have “quizzed Daniel and passed a file to cops”.
In short the story described by the News of the World was a sheer horror and seemed a damning proof of the suspect being a horrible sadist and predator. The newspaper implied that the police were looking into it and the readers could soon expect more of the new developments in the case….
Let me shake you by your shoulders if you fell under the spell again and awaken you to the fact that the “news” did not have a grain of truth in it and was “broken” to the public two days after the police had closed their several months’ investigation and concluded that the case was completely baseless, bogus and fictitious.
However the people who were reading the story at the time did not know it and we can very well imagine what impression it produced on them and the society in general in the midst of the Arvizo case, before the trial even started. It was just the “evidence” everyone needed to make people sure that the man was a serial molester and should be hung on the first tree without any trial whatsoever.
Good riddance!
Now that the News of the World was closed due to its phone-hacking scandal and its archive is unfortunately gone, we managed to retrieve the original article (thanks to Rockforeveron) from a Hideout Spanish forum where Michael Jackson’s fans had reprinted this slanderous article, horrified by the false news and not knowing how to fight it.
The article is indeed such a glaring and insolent lie that it is worth repeating here it full for the sake of chronicling the worst lies told about Michael Jackson in the course of his life:
Edition 3GXDSUN 30 MAY 2004, Page 19
EXCLUSIVE: Abused for ‘sadistic pleasure. Michael Jackson filmed as he abused me
By Carole Aye Muang in Los Angeles
A SECOND youngster has accused Michael Jackson of sex abuse, alleging the singer FILMED him as he carried out depraved acts.
Daniel Kapon also claims MJ, 45, is a sadist who revelled in inflicting pain.
The teenager, now 18, sets out a catalogue of sickening abuse that started from the age of THREE.
And he makes the detailed accusations in a harrowing 28 minute and 50 second video as his case is studied by Los Angeles police.
Daniel said he was never taken to MJ‘s bedroom to be abused—but to a chilling bare room without an ounce of comfort.
He recalled: “I wouldn’t be in his bedroom. He’d do the sadistic acts, sometimes taping it, in a darkly lit room. He’d just be getting his kicks.
“The room had bare walls and had two camera lights and a chair which he’d make me sit in.
“There might have been a bed too. It was dark.
“I recall a director-type, an older guy with white hair. He would be holding the video camera and directing, telling Jackson what to do and sometimes they’d collaborate.”Daniel also alleged Jackson:
DRUGGED him in order to carry out depraved acts.
SWITCHED personality the second he was in private, changing from a charming companion to a “demon”.
And ABUSED him for a total of six years at the star’s two palatial homes, leaving him in turmoil.
The video recording Daniel’s claims begins with his chilling words: “I was abused by Michael Jackson.”
The singer already faces trial, possibly in September, accused of abusing cancer sufferer xxxxxx Arvizo when the lad was 12. MJ, who denies all charges, could be jailed for 74 years on nine charges. Second accuser Daniel was clearly emotional on the video as he claimed he was filmed being forced to take part in “grotesque acts”.
He added: “It seemed as if he was deriving pleasure from my pain.” Then he claimed Jackson would “be laughing demonically while this was happening.” The youngster, currently in a safe house in Los Angeles, and now represented by highly respected lawyer Gloria Allred, said that there was nothing he could do to fight back.He added: “I had no control over my body but I was still conscious. ”They drugged me. I was given a goblet of red wine. I suspect it had something in it.” And he described the sinister change in Jackson’s personality once he was in private. One minute they might be walking through grounds of the star’s Neverland Ranch in California.
Once inside and out of sight of others, Jackson would turn off the charm like a tap. Daniel said: “In public, Jackson was charming, but when I was alone with him he was a freak. His whole demeanour changed. You have to have a totally whacked-out demeanour to even consider doing the things he’s done to me. He was acting demonic, he was acting crazed. Very sadistic.”
At this point, Daniel breaks down and asks to stop filming. When it resumes, his first words are: “He was verbally abusive, cursing, very crazed for power.”
Daniel went on to describe Jackson’s naked body.
He said: “I remember that his whole body was the same colour, very white, very pale.”The youngster’s mother Suzanne says her son was introduced to Jackson by her estranged husband Danny.
Before long, the child became a regular visitor to Jackson’s home in Encino and was also treated to a special birthday party at Neverland.
Daniel said he suffered abuse ordeals at both places.
He added: “I can remember things as far back as when I was three. I have a photographic memory. ”I vaguely remember first meeting Jackson—but the things that stick out in my mind are the sexual acts that occurred with him. ”And I remember walking with Jackson on the trail at Neverland and holding his hand and talking to him. Just chit chat. ”Most of what I remember at around the age of 12 and 13 is just being alone with him and that other guy and all the sexual acts.”Mum Suzanne, who did not have custody of Daniel, said she had noticed bite marks on intimate parts of his body.
Asked if he has any pleasant memories of the star, Daniel spits: “Pleasant memories with Jackson? Only outside Neverland riding the rides.”
Suzanne said she discovered her son knew MJ shortly before his fourth birthday—when one of the star’s songs came on the car radio. She said: “My son was very agitated and started kicking my radio so that the knob came off. He told me, ‘I don’t like that’. ”I said, ‘What? It’s Michael Jackson’. He said, ‘I don’t like him’. I said, ‘You’re talking like you know him’. He said, ‘I do’ and started crying. I just flipped out.”LA District Attorney Tom Sneddon has quizzed Daniel and passed a file to cops.
Now that you’ve read the whole of it, you will agree that the story is so detailed that some might think it to be true. I was especially taken in by the poor victim “breaking down” when remembering his “molestation” and unable to go on due to the horrible memories overwhelming him.
The way the story is told the reader also gets the impression that the case has just been uncovered and the investigation is only just starting as “LA District AttorneyTom Sneddon has quizzed Daniel and passed a file to cops”…
However NOW we know that the investigation had been closed by the time the article was printed and Daniel Kapon’s case was found non-existent – there was no crime, no victim and certainly no molester - but since no one knew about it then, what was the public supposed to think of Michael Jackson?
That in addition to Gavin Arvizo a second accuser was telling them that the man was a monster? And this was done after someone had also leaked the declaration made in 1993 to lawyer Larry Feldman by a third so-called “victim” Jordan Chandler who spoke of similar atrocities – however over there there were no charges again?
The pile of lies we see here is like a house of cards – one fictional story is put on top on another fictional story and all this is based on the fictional allegations made eleven years ago which ended in nothing because the “victim” was afraid to go to a criminal trial from the very start of it. However on the surface of it the house of cards does look impressive, doesn’t it?
We can imagine what a terrible impression Kapon’s story produced on the public when in the midst of the Arvizo allegations another “victim” surfaced with these horrible revelations. The world must have been shattered to its very foundation by these sickening details – complete with the “victim breaking down” when telling his story or describing MJ’s “naked body” or the inconsolable mother of the poor “victim” corroborating his lies…
2,6 mln. people fell for Daniel Kapon's lie due to the News of the World tabloid
How many people believed this gross lie about Daniel Kapon? You don’t know?
And how big was the circulation of the dirty Sunday newspaper called the News of the World? According to this source its circulation was 2,6mln. (in 2011 though, but let us not be too meticulous about the figures).
So over 2 and a half million people swallowed the Daniel Kapon lie and retold it to their friends, relatives, neighbors and colleagues!
So how many more millions will it make?
And how many more millions read and are still reading the bogus Kapon’s story repeated by MTV and Contactmusic, both of which are still found on the Internet and are provided below?
And how many people saw the official LAPD release posted on their official site?
A thousand? Two thousand? And does any of us know at all where that site is?
And even if you did see it how can the two short sentences that “there was no crime” and “there will be no charges” of the non-emotional official statement be compared to the horrid impression of fictional molestation described in so much graphic detail? Depicted by the popular newspaper, the news of which was immediately repeated by other UK, US and other tabloids the world over?
And even if the News of the World had published a tiny disclaimer of their previous lie, who will guarantee that all those millions of readers would have paid attention to it? Isn’t it much more likely that the majority will still remember the graphic details of fictional molestation and will wonder from time to time “Do you remember that victim? The one who broke down when speaking about his ordeal? What happened to him? Why are they hushing up this terrible case???”
I bet that there are millions of people who are still thinking that way!
Could it be just some kind of terrible misunderstanding on the part of the News of the World and they simply did not know that there was no case? No, it couldn’t.
On the contrary, the time of this publication shows that they started a huge new provocation against Jackson on purpose, hoping to do him damage the official investigation had been unable to do. They trashed Michael Jackson’s name intentionally knowing full well that there were no grounds for any such allegations.
In my opinion this episode is no lesser insult to the society than the phone-hacking scandal that triggered off the closure of this disreputable paper. Just imagine for how many years this ulcerous “source” was contaminating the social environment with its venom… And Rupert Murdoch and his son initially created the impression of decent people.
Oh, I see some are saying that the bosses did not know what their editorial staff was doing…
Didn’t know again?
3. THE SAME OLD PATTERN WAS USED IN 2011
Previously we were in some doubt whether the smear campaign against Michael was intentional. Now the News of the World example proved to us that it was. The pattern the media used is always the same - the Law says that there was no crime, but the Media says there was and the public believes the Media, and not the Law.
Why does this pattern look so familiar to me? Is it because only recently we had a similar case when the jury said a man was guilty of killing Michael Jackson, but the media said he wasn’t and wanted the public to believe its lies, and not the jury’s verdict?
I am talking of Conrad Murray’s documentary aired immediately after Murray’s conviction – which was a move meant to overturn the verdict and the nasty impression Murray’s trial produced on the public.
What a blow it was for the media that the trial was televised and watched by the whole world! If it hadn’t, Murray’s documentary lies would have passed for the truth and the resulting impression would have again been in favor of the killer and not Michael Jackson as was always the case.
Yes, for Daniel Kapon’s lies the media used the same logic, the same pattern, the same target (Michael Jackson) and the same method – the authorities say one thing but the media says another, and it is the lying media which takes the upper hand…
4. THE LIES SPREAD LIKE WILDFIRE
The events that followed the News of the World publication show how effective this well-tested pattern of smearing Michael Jackson was.
The fictional story spread like fire. MTV reprinted it referring its readers to the release Los Angeles authorities made in mid-April (when the investigation was in full swing) which conveyed the impression that they were still looking into Kapon’s claims.
MTV also said that Santa Barbara authorities declined to comment, citing the gag order in the Jackson case. The comment, made in the evening of June 1, 2004, was totally ridiculous of course, as firstly, the case had already been closed and secondly, the very next day the officials would make an open press release about it:
Jun 1 2004 7:48 PM EDT
Jackson Camp Calls New Allegations A Smear Campaign
Daniel Kapon sold half-hour taped account of abuse to U.K. tabloid.
By Jennifer Vineyard
Michael Jackson and his camp are dismissing as “malicious” and “false” claims by an 18-year-old man who has sold his story of abuse to a British tabloid.
News of the World purchased Daniel Kapon’s half-hour videotape, on which he alleges Jackson had drugged, molested and videotaped him during trips to the Jackson family home in Encino, California, as well as at Neverland Ranch. Kapon claims the abuse started when he was 3 and continued for six years. A Jackson spokesperson said the tape was being offered for nearly a half a million dollars when it first surfaced a month and a half ago.
“This appears to be a malicious attempt to undermine Mr. Jackson’s right to a fair hearing on the charges presently pending,” Jackson’s lawyers said in a statement.
“We have to question the timing and purpose of this false allegation being raised at this time. We believe that this smear campaign is driven by money-hungry lawyers seeking to capitalize on Mr. Jackson’s current legal situation.”
Kapon claims his allegations were prompted by a repressed memory that was recovered while under a psychiatrist’s care. That psychiatrist is said to be Dr. Carole Lieberman, and Kapon’s lawyer is said to be Gloria Allred. Lieberman and Allred previously filed complaints against Jackson with the Department of Children and Family Services following his infamous baby-dangling incident (see “Michael Jackson Tells Attorney To ‘Go To Hell’ “). Lieberman declined to comment, and Allred was unavailable for comment.
Los Angeles authorities issued a press release when allegations first surfaced in mid-April, stating that they are looking into the Kapon’s claims. Santa Barbara authorities declined to comment, citing the gag order in the Jackson case.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1488069/new-jackson-allegations-called-malicious.jhtml
5. THE MYSTERY OF THE VIDEO TAPE
The story from Contactmusic, which also reprinted the sensation, was even more interesting than the MTV one. It disclosed the source from which the News of the World had received their “breaking news” video.
Previously the naïve us thought that the newspaper conducted an interview of its own and this is how they obtained those lies from Daniel Kapon, right? And there was even some talk about the $500,000 paid to him? And it was just a coincidence that by the time they published their costly material the investigation had been closed?
But after reading the Contactmusic article I am not so sure of it at all. Their article says that the video was taken at Santa Barbara Police Department, which was the first to investigate the case (and was evidently the source of the leak too).
Who else if not them?
Or do the police give back the footage of their videos to those questioned by them and these people can freely sell them afterwards to any tabloid they like? This seems highly unlikely to me…
Or does it mean that the video was retained by the police and half a million was paid to the Santa Barbara police department instead of Kapon? This sounds unlikely to me too. If this practice were acceptable the police would trade in their preliminary findings and would turn it into a profitable side business of their own…
So then the only other remaining conclusion is that the Santa Barbara police department provided the tabloid with Daniel Kapon’s video free?
If this is the case, then the finesse of the Santa Barbara police cooperation with a British tabloid is truly impressive – same as their perfect strategy to keep the lies about Michael Jackson going and never ending. The police closed the investigation with their right hand, but used their left hand to pass over the now useless video to a tabloid – so that it was not wasted and lived a bright life of its own…
Since I am totally speechless at witnessing this type of a technology in the civilized part of the planet I will leave it to the readers to choose the right word for this mutually beneficial cooperation between the two sides in the deal.
This article says that the video was taken at the Santa Barbara police department:
30 May 2004 14:20
Jackson Accused By A Second Youngster
Troubled superstar MICHAEL JACKSON has been accused of vicious sexual abuse by a second teenager in America – as he prepares to fight claims by GAVIN ARVIZO.
The THRILLER singer, 45, allegedly recorded “grotesque acts” between himself and child pal DANIEL KAPON after drugging the youngster, reports British newspaper THE NEWS OF THE WORLD.
Kapon – now 18 – says the abuse started when he was just three-years-old and continued for many years. His mother SUZANNE – who didn’t have custody of him at the time – corroborates his story saying she noticed bite marks near his private parts when he visited her. According to Kapon the abuse was always carried out in a chilling bare room and the proceedings were captured on video by a mystery white-haired man.
While giving evidence on camera for Santa Barbara, California police to study, Daniel said: “I was abused by Michael Jackson. “It seemed like he was deriving pleasure from my pain. He’d do the sadistic acts, sometimes taping it, in a darkly lit room. He’d just be getting his kicks.”I recall a director-type, an older guy with white hair. He would hold the video camera and direct, telling Jackson what to do and sometimes they’d collaborate.”
“I had no control over my body but I was still conscious. They drugged me. I was given a goblet of red wine. I suspect it had something in it.” Kapon also spoke of the way Jackson changed when they were alone together, describing him as “charming in public” but in private, “he was a freak. His whole demeanour changed.”
Police are now investigating Kapon’s claims as Jackson prepares to stand trial in September (04) on nine charges.
30/05/2004 14:20
http://www.contactmusic.com/news-article/jackson-accused-by-a-second-youngster
As we know the trial was postponed from September 2004 to March 2005 and Daniel Kapon’s lies were temporarily filling in the gap to keep up the interest to the Arvizo story and even vaguely echoed their lies (in the serving alcohol section).
Whatever it was the statement that the police were “still investigating” the Daniel Kapon case was a blatant lie – the case had been closed two days prior to that and it is simply impossible to imagine that the media outlets did not know it.
The lies about Kapon’s case were so obvious that Fox News allowed itself a little bit of sarcasm over them. I fully agree with their statement that when it comes to Michael Jackson it is always the same well-known professionals from previous scandals who always discover new “victims” for poor MJ – Larry Feldman, Tom Sneddon and Gloria Allred.
By the way they stress that Gavin was the only other Jackson case in a decade (and that is why an urgent need for more “victims” arose):
Published June 01, 2004
FOXNews
Jacko: Now Fingered by the ‘Head Lyncher’
An 18-year-old named Daniel Kapon says Michael Jackson abused him from the time he was 3 years old to age 9. Kapon sold his story to the United Kingdom’s reliably funny News of the World newspaper and it appeared over the weekend.
The bad news for all of them is that Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon doesn’t seem to be taking any of this seriously, which is exactly right.
Kapon lives in Encino,Calif., where Jackson also lived with his parents until the mid 1980s. On a Web site set up by his Woodland Hills high school friends, it’s noted that Kapon is a member of something called the “Messed Up Friends Club.” His position in the club is “Head Lyncher,” described thusly by Simone, the Web master of the site: “He hates me, the webpage designer, more than he hates everybody else.” Kapon’s 2002 school paper on “Oedipus Rex,” can be found on the Internet.
Kapon is represented by Jackson critic Gloria Allred, and was — according to reports — or is — a patient of Carole Lieberman, the Los Angeles shrink who worked on Randy Taraborelli‘s tabloid biography of Jackson and was the person who filed complaints against Jackson for his baby-dangling incident.
Meanwhile, last week, Larry Feldman, the Los Angeles attorney who secured a $20 million settlement against Jackson for a 13-year-old boy in 1993, filed a promise to sue Los Angeles County for his latest clients, the family of the 14-year-old boy who is the plaintiff in the only other Jackson case in a decade.
Strangely enough, it’s always the same professionals from previous Jackson scandals who discover the new ones. They must have a sixth sense for sniffing out Michael Jackson mishegos. No other lawyers or psychiatrists seem to have the same abilities.
Michael’s then lawyers also wondered about the strange timing of Kapon’s accusations calling them a malicious and false attempt to undermine MJ’s right to a fair trial (which they really were) and pointed at Gloria Allred in an allegoric form:
- “This appears to be a malicious attempt to undermine Mr. Jackson’s right to a fair hearing on the charges presently pending,” Jackson’s lawyers said in a statement. ”We have to question the timing and purpose of this false allegation being raised at this time. We believe that this smear campaign is driven by money-hungry lawyers seeking to capitalize on Mr. Jackson’s current legal situation.”
6. THE CIVIL SUIT
The money-hungry lawyer who wanted to capitalize on Michael Jackson’s legal situation was not only Gloria Allred, but a certain Michael G. Mattern, a Newport Beach lawyer who disgraced himself by accepting Kapon’s case after the police officially announced that his case was a big pack of lies and after the Arvizo case ended in full Michael’s acquittal.
- “They investigated a while ago,” Mattern said of the LAPD. Meantime, his client “has been in therapy since then.” Working with a psychologist, Kapon recalled more details of the molestations. Those will be key to the court case. “The standard of proof in civil court is a different ball game,” he said.
The saying goes that “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce”.
Michael Mattern’s statement is indeed a splendid farce of the tragic allegations made against Michael Jackson throughout his life – by Jason Francia, for example, who was also “in therapy” for several months after which he miraculously recalled that he had been tickled by MJ on 3 occasions.
Or by Gavin Arvizo, for example who also recalled molestation only after close association with psychologist Dr. Katz who was famous for devising the interviewing technique which led to a huge pile of false child abuse allegations against the McMartin school staff (their trial lasted for 6 months and ended in these innocent people’s full acquittal).
Or finally, by Jordan Chandler who filed a civil suit similar to Daniel Kapon’s and didn’t go to a criminal court because the “standard of proof in civil court is a different ball game” indeed (quoting Michael Mattern’s words).
Regarding the standard of proof in civil and criminal cases the legal dictionary says the following:
- “In criminal prosecutions and civil actions, the party initiating the action is assigned a burden of proof, but the level of proof in each case is different, taking into account the potential detriment to the defendant if he is found guilty or liable. The differences in civil and criminal standards can lead to opposite outcomes in a case involving the same facts and issues.” http://www.ehow.com/info_8459564_standard-criminal-civil-court-cases.html
The OC Weekly satirical article explains to us the essence of Daniel Kapon’s farce of a civil suit filed against Michael Jackson in October 2005.
Michael Jackson was especially vulnerable at the time as after the criminal trial with the Arvizos he was barely alive. And still he had to deal with the impossibly crazy Daniel Kapon’s allegations – which are well described in this article:
Mozart an Idiot!
OC lawsuit says two-year-old wrote Michael Jackson hits
Thursday, Jan 12 2006
… A lawsuit filed in October in Orange County Superior Court alleges Jackson “copied and used songs authored by” Kapon without his permission. The alleged plagiarism started in 1987, when Kapon was two and Jackson released Bad, and ended with 1997′s Blood on the Dance Floor. The suit doesn’t specify the tunes Kapon supposedly composed, doesn’t say how much Kapon seeks, and doesn’t ask what would seem the most obvious question: Did a two-year-old really help write some of pop’s biggest hits?And was it Kapon or Jacko who was “The Man in the Mirror”?
Kapon first made headlines in the spring of 2004, when he sold a half-hour videotape to the British tabloid News of the World. Price tag: a reported $500,000. In the tape, Kapon recounted years of alleged abuse at Jackson’s hands, at his Neverland ranch and at an Encino property. He said Jackson sometimes filmed the molestations.Jackson’s lawyers dismissed Kapon’s claims as “malicious,” and the Los Angeles Police Department found no criminal wrongdoing after a two-month investigation. None of this deterred Newport Beach lawyer Michael G. Mattern from accepting Kapon’s case.
“They investigated a while ago,” he said of the LAPD. Meantime, his client “has been in therapy since then.” Working with a psychologist, Kapon recalled more details of the molestations, says Mattern. Those will be key to the court case.
“The standard of proof in civil court is a different ball game,” he said. “What the police do has nothing to do with me.”
Mattern filed the suit against Jackson, his MJJ Productions and three different Sony companies. It also names SBC Communications, where Kapon’s mother was an employee at the phone company’s Anaheim office; Jackson and his associates allegedly “battered” Kapon’s mother there. Mattern says he filed the case in Orange County because of the Anaheim attack, and because Kapon alleges Jackson molested him at Disneyland.
The suit, which alleges the molestations started when Kapon was two and lasted until he was 14, claims Jackson molested Kapon by “sticking his tongue down plaintiff’s throat, masturbating plaintiff, and anally penetrating plaintiff by force.” The suit also claims Jackson plied Kapon with drugs and alcohol; burned, tortured and beat him; and even forced Kapon to go through “unnecessary cosmetic surgery procedures.”
Mattern did not allow the Weekly to interview Kapon, citing a pending Feb. 14 court hearing. But Mattern says he’s compiling a list of specific songs Jackson plagiarized from Kapon. He’s not surprised that Jackson would steal ideas from a two-year-old.
“[Daniel] was a gifted child, very bright and had some musical talent,” said Mattern. “But to come up with basic ideas, a song, a melody, doesn’t require that much musical talent. I know how to do it myself—I’m a musician. My daughter was doing melodies when she was two.”
Melodies at two? Stupid, stupid Mozart.
It would be a grave mistake to think that a crazy case like that was thrown out of court the moment it was filed there. On the contrary, the civil case lasted for four years and it is only in the year 2008 that the totally absurd details of Kapon’s so-called molestation finally began to emerge.
If these details had not been hidden from the public view, the people would have had a chance to make sure that Daniel Kapon and his mom were complete lunatics. Instead of wasting other people’s time and money, getting on Michael Jackson’s nerves and pooling wool over people’s eyes Daniel Kapon and his mom should have been placed in the corresponding mental institutions as both were totally crazy.
However, sensational as it was, NO Americal or British tabloid reported the news about the outcome of Kapon’s civil case. I’ve been able to find the first traces of the truth reported in January 2008 ”Thaindian News portal” only.
This news portal went over Kapon’s earlier claims and added some new stuff from Kapon which said that MJ also “subjected him to unnecessary cosmetic surgery, burned, tortured and beating”. Kapon also turned out to be father of MJ’s children as Michael wanted to “continue Kapon’s blood line as he believed that he was related to Rothschilds”!
Another rare article which was recently shared with us by Shelly added more craziness to the story, explaining that Michael Jackson had married his mom “multiple times”, was madly in love with her and wanted Kapon to have sex with Debbie Rowe, only “it did not work out” at the time.
You can familiarize yourselves with the materials of the case here.
What is also interesting about the civil case is that despite its obvious schizophrenic nature the judge did not dismiss the case at once but divided it into more and less acceptable “counts”, part of which survived until the very end of the case which was thrown out of court only after …. the plaintiff failed to show up for the commencement of the trial.
The force of prejudice against Michael Jackson was so huge that even lunatics like Daniel Kapon were given every possible chance to drive their own nail into his body!
The journalists describing all this craziness pretend that they are not in the least surprised by the schizophrenic nature of Kapon’s claims. The most they carefully say is that the allegations are “unusual”:
“A lawsuit filed by a young man who alleged he was molested as a boy by Michael Jackson — and who also claimed he fathered the singer’s two oldest children and saw him dine with Fidel Castro — was dismissed today by a judge.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu granted a motion by Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas C. Mundell, to throw out the case after the 22-year- old plaintiff, [tag Daniel Kapon], failed to show up for the scheduled start of today’s trial.
“I think the judge realized how crazy the lawsuit was,” Mundell said outside the courtroom.
Kapon never visitedJackson’s Neverland Ranch inSanta Barbara Countyas he claimed, and the entertainer did not know him, the lawyer said.
Kapon’s lawsuit allegedJackson“repeatedly and forcefully sexually molested” him starting in 1987, when he was 2, and lasting until he was 14.
The case was originally filed in Orange County, but a judge transferred it to Los Angeles County in March 2006 at the request of Jackson’s lawyers.
In court papers filed Dec. 17, Mundell said Kapon made a series of unusual statements during his Dec. 11 deposition that undermined the validity of his case.
Kapon claimed his mother married Jackson multiple times, and testified that the ceremonies were attended by Elizabeth Taylor, Celine Dion, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Beyonce Knowles and Diana Ross, according to Mundell’s court papers.
He said Kapon testified that his mother “was in Michael Jackson’s ‘Thriller’ music video. She helped Michael with a lot of his material, his songs, his music videos. Michael Jackson was madly in love with my mom.”
Kapon also claimed he fatheredJackson’s two oldest children, Paris and Prince Michael, by masturbating into a jar so his semen could be used to impregnateJackson’s ex-wife Deborah Rowe, according to his deposition.
Jacksonspecifically wanted Kapon to be the father of the two children, Kapon testified.
“He was obsessed with geniuses and blood lines and he told me that he wanted to continue my blood line, which he believed to be related to the Rothschilds,” Kapon testified.
Jackson wanted Kapon to have sexual intercourse with Rowe, but “it did not work out,” he testified.
Kapon also testified that one of Jackson’s other lawyers, Marshall L. Brubacher, was conspiring with disgraced private investigator Anthony Pellicano and “other associates of Michael Jackson” to “kidnap me and make my life a living hell.”
According to additional Kapon deposition testimony, he said he saw Jackson dining with Castro in New York City, Mundell’s court papers state.
“These are not good-faith deposition answers,” Mundell wrote. “They are the ravings of an unbalanced celebrity stalker.”
Treu granted a motion by Barry Fischer, Kapon’s most recent attorney, to withdraw his representation Jan. 10 after his client stopped communicating with him in late November.
Kapon’s mother stated he was homeless and living in a car, Fischer said in his court papers.
“I do not know if he is ill, dead or simply refusing to respond,” Fischer wrote.
The lawyer filed a “missing persons report” with Los Angeles police on Jan.3, a copy of which was attached to his motion.
In December 2006, Treu threw out Kapon’s allegations of childhood sexual molestation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, plagiarism, conversion, breach of contract, accounting, fraud, negligence, civil conspiracy and unfair business practices.
However, Treu ruled then that case could go to trial on allegations of battery, willful misconduct, assault and false imprisonment, along with a sexual battery cause of action that Brubacher did not move to dismiss.
Kapon’s court papers alleged the false imprisonment occurred when Jackson confined him for “multiple periods” from 1987 to late 1991 at Neverland Ranch, as well as homes in Encino and Woodland Hills.
Kapon also claimed he was occasionally confined inside a car, against his will, byJackson; that the singer stuck his tongue down Kapon’s throat, masturbated him and anally penetrated him by force; and that he gave him drugs and alcohol and subjected him to unnecessary cosmetic surgery, as well as burning, torturing and beating him.
Along with the abuse claims, Kapon alleged Jackson misappropriated his song ideas, lyrics and melodies during the time in which the pop star was recording”Bad,” released in 1987, “Dangerous,” released in 1991, “HIStory, released in 1995, and “Blood on the Dance Floor,” released in 1997.
Treu previously dismissed Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Sony Music Holding Inc. as defendants. Kapon alleged they shared responsibility with Jackson for stealing his music ideas and for breaching a contract.
Jacksonwas acquitted in 2005 of child molestation charges brought by a teenage boy, and some years ago reached an undisclosed, but reportedly multimillion-dollar settlement with another boy who alleged he was molested by the pop star.
It is no wonder that with a client like Daniel Kapon his other attorney Barry Fischer finally lost all patience and dropped him saying that he “could no longer prepare for trial in such circumstances”.
To most of us the clinical nature of Daniel Kapon’s fantasies is so obvious that they do not require any debunking, but for those few who are still unconvinced let me repeat what I said in a Phantom victims post regarding the sample date they can compare in Kapon’s suit and real Michael Jackson’s life.
a quote from Daniel Kapon's suit
It is a quote from Kapon’s 2005 lawsuit saying that defendant Michael Jackson “battered” the plaintiff’s mother while the plaintiff was “in close proximity to him” and claiming that this notable event took place on December 21, 1999.
Michael was in New York at that time (http://mjjtimeline.blogspot.com/2009/08/1999.html)
The real timeline shows that in December that year Michael Jackson was in New York recording songs for his new album and on December 20, 1999 he left there for Neverland together with his kids and nanny.
In fact not only didn’t Michael Jackson meet Daniel Kapon on December 21, 1999 – but as MJ’s attorney and earlier the police pointed out Michael Jackson NEVER MET Daniel Kapon AT ALL.
* * *
Each of us can draw his own conclusion from Daniel Kapon’s incredible story. I will tell you of mine only.
1. A great many of Michael Jackson’s accusers were psychotic types, like Even Chandler and Janet Arvizo, or pure madmen, like Daniel Kapon – however their deplorable mental state was taken advantage of by totally sane people like Larry Feldman, Diane Dimond, Gloria Allred, Carole Lieberman, Tom Sneddon and many others.
2. Despite the fact that most of the allegations were the ravings of psychotic or completely mad people, we’ve never heard them to be pronounced as such by the media or authorities. The most the media said about these people was that their allegations were “unusual” or that they were “unstable”.
In contrast to the media’s unusual restraint towards Michael Jackson’s accusers Michael Jackson himself was freely called by the media “weird”, a “freak”, “wacko”, “a threat to society”, etc. with no effort made to provide any fraction of proof for the above statements.
3. The media was working in close collaboration with the Santa Barbara authorities and created the corresponding information background for Michael Jackson’s never-ending harassment. The fact that the Santa Barbara police video of Dainel Kapon’s ravings landed in the News of the World tabloid and was described in most graphic detail two days after the official investigation closed, shows that there was an undisputable link between the two forces where both were interested in portraying Michael Jackson as a monster.
The Los Angeles department in Daniel Kapon’s cases stands somewhat apart from Sneddon as they at least issued an official release about Kapon’s non-existent case, while Tom Sneddon kept complete silence about it. The only person he confided in was Diane Dimond to whom he called the case “pure voodoo”, however we heard no public statements from this man.
Excerpt from Daniel Kapon's civil suit
4. The gravity and graphic nature of Daniel Kapon’s allegations now allow me to look at similar allegations from Arvizo or Jordan Chandler with much more comfort than before.
Now that I know how wide-spread, routine and standard these allegations were the so-called statement by Jordan Chandler does not evoke any more feeling than the crazy allegations from Daniel Kapon’s suit.
At least Jordan’s lies did not go as far as Daniel Kapon’s did. Yes, I remember that he could not have afforded going that far - that would have required an exam which could have ruined the whole case.
5. The fact that Kapon could “break down” while reciting his fictitious story to the police and was “overwhelmed by emotion” over his “uncovered” and previously “repressed” memories, proves to me that it is exceptionally difficult to differentiate between really abused victims and neurotic and exalted types like Daniel Kapon (who can probably cry over anything), actors like Gavin and Star Arvizo, and calculating scoundrels like Jason Francia who also worked himself into some emotions over some some initially forgotten memories of “tickling”.
6. Another conclusion is that no matter how ridiculous the allegation is there is always a chance that in a civil suit the jury will still decide in favor of the plaintiff for a number of reasons – the detriment to the defendant in the civil suit is considered much lower than in the criminal case, the burden of proof is not that high and at the very first instance of doubt the defendant is considered guilty – because in a civil suit all he risks is money, but not his freedom (or life).
Given that Jordan Chandler filed a civil suit against Jackson and it was also planned to be televised as I’ve recently found out, now I think that Michael’s lawyers were right when they convinced him to settle instead of going through the many years of this televised nightmare which would have ended in a money penalty anyway. This conclusion though does not make Carl Douglas (the associate of Johnny Cochran who recently spoke at the Frozen in time seminar) any better than the dirty rogue he is.
7. I also have to bitterly admit that despite all official statements made by the police, authorities, departments of children and family services, etc. about total lack of fact in accusations like Daniel Kapon’s, the people’s minds still retain the colorful details of false “molestations” better than short official disclaimers of these lies. This is a phenomenon of human psychology and it is being widely used by the unscrupulus media against Jackson.
Their motto is that a ridiculous but graphic lie is always better than boring but innocent truth, and all we can do about it is stick this motto to our TV sets and occasionally look at it when they the media starts it all over again.
8. The final conclusion is that when it comes to Michael Jackson the US, UK and Australian media outlets evidently think themselves to be totally above Law. That is why they allowed themselves to freely spread Conrad Murray’s lies about the man he killed after Murray had already been convicted of a crime and this is why they allowed themselves to disseminate Daniel Kapon’s crazy ravings after the police had said that his story was completely bogus.
To me it is exactly the same as the opposite situation when the Law or authorities consider themselves above the media and also allow themselves to do whatever they like. Whichever type of imbalance it is, it is terrible and should be fought.
P.S.
I’ve just found out that Rockforeveron, who was the first to alert us to the News of the World big lie about Jackson, had to buy the NOTW article from their site as it was nowhere to be found.
Rockforeveron said:
- I purchased the NOTW story from their own site because I couldn’t find it anywhere else.
- Wasn’t it interesting how the original NOTW story was nowhere to be found? Stories from the 90s I can understand, but 2004 and most info was stored and spread via the internet, yet it isn’t to be found anywhere. They had an online website back then where they published their stories, but I’d guess they deleted that story soon after, after the damage had been done.
- … interestingly enough not a single mention of Daniel Kapon appears in their archives (or in the Sun archives) after that news story. So they only ever reported on the allegations and not on the conclusion. You’d imagine such a shocking story would’ve had some kind of follow up. Not a single mention of his name appears again after.”
How very typical it is of Michael’s haters! They hit and run, cleaning all dirty traces behind them, and prefer to never recall or reveal lies they once told about him.
Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 2 of 6: Michael Did NOT “Channel” Demon Spirits to Help Him Write Songs!
“God laid this out to me as plain as day. The three ways Michael Jackson got his songs….”
In this clip, the pastor describes the 3 ways that MJ said he was inspired to write songs:
1. Sitting in his Giving Tree: (which he erroneously said that MJ called the “Tree of Knowledge” which is NOT true!). MJ named that tree after the children’s book “The Giving Tree”, written in 1964 by the well-acclaimed poet and author Shel Silverstein. This should come as no surprise to MJ fans, as he was a very prolific reader and owned thousands of books. He used the tree for the same reason that many others use their trees: as a place of peace and tranquility, where he could be free of the pressures of fame and show business. He would use the serenity and solace that he experienced there to write songs, such as “Heal The World”, “Will You Be There”, and “Black Or White”. You can listen to a reading of “The Giving Tree” in the video below:
Here is MJ himself discussing what the tree means to him (and please ignore Martin Bashir’s sinister commentary. Read this post to find out the truth about this documentary, of which MJ never gave his authorization before it aired!)
Here is an excerpt from his interview with Ed Bradley of 60 Minutes where he discusses the therapeutic nature of tree climbing that he wanted his future accuser and cancer patient Gavin Arvizo to experience as he visited Neverland:
EB: How would you characterize your relationship with this boy?
MJ: I’ve helped many, many, many children, thousands of children, cancer kids, leukemia kids. This is one of many.
EB: So, when he would come over, what would he do? What would you do?
MJ: I’ll tell you exactly. When I first saw Gavin, he was total bald-headed, white as snow from the chemotherapy, very bony, looked anorexic, no eyebrows, no eyelashes. And he was so weak, I would have to carry him from the house to the game room, or push him in a wheelchair, to try to give him a childhood, a life. Cause I felt bad. Because I never had that chance, too, as a child. You know? That the– and so, I know what it… it felt like in that way. Not being sick, but not having had a childhood. So, my heart go out to those children I feel their pain.
EB(narrating): Michael says he tried to help in the healing process by taking the boy around the grounds of Neverland to Jackson’s favorite places.
MJ: He had never really climbed a tree. So, I had this tree that I have at Neverland. I call it, “My Giving Tree.” Cause I like to write songs up there. I’ve written many songs up there. So, I said, “You have to climb a tree. That’s part of boyhood. You just gotta do it.” And– I helped him up. And once he went up… up the tree, we looked down on the branches. And it was so beautiful. It was magical. And he loved it. To give him a chance to have a life, you know? Because he was told he was going to die. They told him. They told his parents prepare for his funeral, that’s how bad it was. And I put him on a program. I’ve helped many children doing this. I put him on a mental program.
2. “His Room of Mirrors that he claims MJ used to channel the spirit of Liberace”: What he is relying on for his quotes is the sloppily researched and heavily biased documentary “They Sold Their Souls For Rock N Roll”, a 10 hour expose on the music industry’s connection to Satanism. In it, they dedicate a few minutes to Michael Jackson, and they quote an interview that he purportedly gave to the Psychic News on February 14th, 1987 (and has since been published on Paranormal News Central):
Pop superstar Michael Jackson claims that he inwardly communicates with the flamboyant, pianist Lee Liberace who died in 1987. Although Jackson is known for his eccentric behavior over the years, it’s obvious that there is definitely something different about him. The following are quotes from various interviews he has had.
“I have my one secret room, with a moving wall and mirrors. That’s where I talk to Lee Liberace. His is the voice I hear in there. I feel his presence so very close to me.” Liberace is like my guardian angel. He’s even given me permission to record his theme song “I’ll be seeing you”. – Michael Jackson. Psychic News, Feb 14th. 1987.
“When I hit the stage it’s all of a sudden a magic form somewhere that comes and the spirit just hits you, and you lose control of yourself”. It happens subliminally. It’s the music that compels me to do it. You don’t think about it, it just happens. I’m slave to the rhythm’ (1993 Oprah Winfrey interview [explaining the reason for the overt sexuality during his concerts], The Evening Star, Feb. 11, 1993, p. A10).
“I wake up from dreams and go ‘Wow, put this down on paper,’ the whole thing is strange. You hear the words, everything is right there in front of your face. I feel that somewhere, someplace it’s been done and I’m just a courier bringing it into the world” (Rolling Stone, Feb. 17, 1983).
“When I hit the stage it’s all of a sudden a ‘magic’ from somewhere that comes and the spirit just hits you, and you just lose control of yourself” (Teen Beat: A Tribute to Michael Jackson, Summer 1984, p. 27).
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that he gave this interview to Psychic News, and it very well may be a fabrication. Psychic News was a known as a “spirituality magazine”, and it originated from Britain, which is home to some of the most scandalous and sleazy tabloids in the world. (The phone hacking scandal from earlier this year is a perfect example of this.) It is very common for tabloids to fabricate interviews, pay people to lie (read this post for details on how some of MJ’s friends and family were offered hundreds of thousands of dollars to lie and say he was gay), and post doctored photos of celebrities to show them in an unflattering light. (For example, MJ sued the British tabloid “The Mirror” in 1992 for doctoring a photo of his face and saying it was mutilated by plastic surgery, and the lawsuit was settled in 1998.)
Here is an examples of tabloids fabricating interviews and deliberately printing false information about celebrities by relying on their “sources”:
1. Tom Cruise, one of Hollywood’s biggest superstars, has had to fight false allegations of being a homosexual for many years, and he filed two defamation lawsuits against tabloids who printed false stories about him. In 2001, he sued Bold magazine after they claimed to have obtained a videotape of Cruise engaging in homosexual acts, and he dropped his lawsuit once they issued a retraction. (How nice of him!) Cruise later sued Chad Slater, a gay porn actor who had been quoted in a tabloid and said he had an affair with Cruise. After being served with Cruise’s lawsuit, Slater said that the interview had been fabricated by the magazine, and the magazine published a retraction. Cruise eventually won a $10-million verdict against the porn star.
2. Nadya Suleman, who the tabloid media has dubbed the “Octomom” due to her giving birth to octuplets via in-vitro fertilization, denied reports that she criticized her children in an interview with tabloid magazine “In Touch”. She was quoted as saying that she “hates her babies”, “is disgusted by them”, and that they are “animals”. She said the entire interview was fabricated, reiterated her love for her children, and she wouldn’t sue because it would take too much time and money. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
Suleman, who made headlines when she gave birth to octuplets in 2009, went on to say that she currently has no plans to sue the publication, claiming it “would monopolize quite a bit of time and energy and money“, and instead wants to move on. ”I need to just keep moving forward as I have been doing and stay strong,” she said.
“I realize I completely must ignore these claims because they’re erroneous and they’re false.”This is not the first time [this has happened]. From the beginning, 95% of what has been said in tabloids, especially in America, has been lies literally pulled out of thin air. I’ve been writing a book and I’ve said that and disclosed so many things they have lied about.”
She added: “My advice to all the people reading or listening is don’t believe a single thing unless it comes out of the person’s mouth.“
And notice how they turned her into the “Octomom” caricature the same way they turned MJ into a “Wacko Jacko” caricature! The parallels between the two couldn’t be more evident!
3. Here is a video of Richard Matsuura, who did an interview in 2004 to refute a lie that was printed about he and MJ in Vanity Fair magazine by tabloid trash peddler Maureen Orth. (I will be rebutting all five of her Vanity Fair articles in the next few months, so stay tuned.) According to her source – which happened to be a former business associate of MJ who had an axe to grind – MJ plied Richard with Matsuura with alcohol in 1998, when he was only 12 years old. Any decent journalist would have contacted Matsuura and his father to corroborate the story, but Orth just ran with it without verifying it’s authentic! Matsuura vehemently denied the story, and this just goes to show the lengths that people will go to slander celebrities in the name of the almighty dollar!
4. Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow was said to have tried to “force” a group of NFL draft prospects to pray before taking a written test during the pre-draft scouting combine in March 2010. A “league source” told a journalist for the blog Pro Football Talk that Tebow was told to “shut the f*** up” after he initiated his request, and several other players in the room laughed. But Tebow completely denied the story, and it is totally out of character of him to force anyone to pray. Here’s an excerpt:
He reached out, via agent Jimmy Sexton, in response to Tuesday night’s story regarding the incident during the Wonderlic testing at the Scouting Combine. As a league source told us, Tebow said something in the testing room about saying a prayer. And then another player said something in response. And then some of the other players laughed.
But Tebow says it didn’t happen.
“Not one single word of it is true,” Tebow told me.
Tebow has a very genuine and disarming way about him. There’s an innocence and kindness in his voice that conflicts with the image of a highly successful college quarterback, who was arguably one of the best college football players of all time.
He was nevertheless firm and resolute in his denial.
“One of the number one things for me is being someone of character and when I say something people can take it to the bank,” Tebow said. “That story is absolutely not true.”
5. Here is the audio from the late, great Ed Bradley of 60 Minutes, as he discusses his December 2003 interview with Michael Jackson on the Larry King show in February 2004. Notice how he describes how the New York Times attributed a fabricated quote to him, and how he could NEVER do that as a journalist on 60 Minutes! We did a post on this issue, and you can read it here:
Those aforementioned stories are just a few examples of how far the media is willing to go in search of revenues and ratings, without any regard whatsoever for the truth! There’s an old saying in the media that goes as follows: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story”. That couldn’t be more applicable, not only to the media, but to G. Craig Lewis!
Here is a quote from conservative commentator Matt Drudge, who vehemently defended MJ on his radio show throughout the 2005 trial, and you can listen to that audio beginning in this post. He was very critical of the media for their biased reporting, which helped turn the public against MJ:
Matt Drudge: I think if you did a pulse poll, of people listening to these local talk shows, they would say 95% that Michael Jackson did all this. They would say that, because it’s based on the coverage! It’s based on the coverage!
MJ met Liberace on several occasions, deeply admired him for his artistry, and used him as an inspiration for some of his costumes and outfits. Here is a photo they took together at a party in 1983:
And here is a video that they appear in briefly at 0:26.
MJ’s admiration for Liberace didn’t extend any further than his artistry and attire! MJ did NOT “worship” him or “channel his spirits”, or any other nonsense that is spouted either here or elsewhere. MJ routinely gave God the credit for his talents and success, and I will give numerous examples of this later on in this series.
And as far as the “using mirrors to channel spirits” garbage, ALL DANCERS use mirrors to practice and hone their technique! How else are they supposed to know if they’re doing their moves correctly? Here is a video of MJ dancing in his personal dance studio at Neverland:
3. And through his dreams (meaning that MJ channeled the “God of Dreams”). Give me a break! He’s twisting the words of Randy Phillips, the President of AEG Live, where he said the following in an interview in October 2009:
“Michael said, ‘But Kenny, God channels this through me at night. I can’t sleep because I’m so super-charged.’
“Kenny said, ‘But Michael, we have to finish. Can’t God take a vacation?’ Without missing a beat, Michael said, ‘You don’t understand – if I’m not there to receive these ideas, God might give them to Prince.’”
MJ always said that his songwriting talent was a gift from God, and he openly acknowledged God in front of others (as evidenced through his “This Is It” rehearsals, and in his conversation with Dr. Conrad Murray that was surreptitiously recorded while he was under anesthesia). What Randy Phillips is saying here has nothing to do with what G. Craig Lewis said in his presentation. Lewis is trying to say that MJ wanted to go to sleep so he could “communicate with spirits” in order to get song ideas, but Randy is saying that he wanted MJ to stop adding new vignettes (which are short video introductions, such as the one for “Smooth Criminal”) due to their high costs.
MJ had such a hard time sleeping because of several factors: first of all, he suffered from Lupus, and insomnia is one of the most common side effects. Second, he was under tremendous stress to make sure that his 50 concert comeback tour was a tremendous success, and as we all know, stress is a major factor in the insomnia of millions of people around the world. Third, as a result of the stress of making sure his tour was a success, he practiced long hours, and danced many strenuous routines that pushed his adrenaline levels to the limit. As a result, it was very difficult for him to “come down” after experiencing the tremendous highs that come from hours upon hours of vigorous activity. He was NOT a “drug addict” (and this article proves it), and his desire for propofol – the anesthetic that Dr. Murray used to help MJ sleep – was based on the desired side effects of the drug (i.e. being made unconscious for several hours), and not for his own pleasure!
The notion that he wanted sleep in order to “channel spirits” to get song ideas is utterly preposterous! In this 1983 interview, at 1:05 you can clearly hear him say that he thinks of song ideas at all times of the day, and that there is no set time that he writes! In fact, the songs that he wrote in his Giving Tree further discredit the notion that he had to be asleep to “channel spirits” and be inspired to write! Don’t you think he would have fallen out of the tree if he had been sleeping there??!!
Lewis goes on to say that “Michael would sleep for three or four days at a time because he was trying to get hit songs. He even said one time that he couldn’t go to sleep because a spirit told him that if he did not get to sleep to get this song, the spirit is going to give it to Prince”. This is a total fabrication of what Randy Phillips said in the aforementioned interview. MJ’s desire for propofol was to get the rest his 50 year old body so badly needed after long hours of rehearsing, and NOT to get “inspired” to write another hit song! He didn’t need any more hit songs! He already had 40 years’ worth of hit songs! MJ had no plans on releasing any album until after his tour was completed, and he wasn’t even recording any new material in the last weeks of his life!
At the very end, he claimed that the reason MJ wanted sedation is because he was trying to sleep to get the inspiration for “the next hit song”, when we all know it was due to insomnia!
Here’s a crazy idea: instead of relying on the word of someone who has never met MJ, and who clearly has an agenda to smear him, let’s rely on someone who was a close friend of MJ, and worked EXTENSIVELY with him in the studio!
In July 2009, audio engineer and music producer Bruce Swedien released a book titled “In The Studio with Michael Jackson”, where he chronicles his many years of friendship and collobrations with MJ. This post from the MJJ-777 blog includes an excerpt from the book.
Here is an interview he gave shortly after MJ’s death:
In November 2011, college professor and doctoral candidate Joe Vogel released “Man In The Music”, which meticulously describes MJ’s songwriting process and techniques. Here is a 3 hour radio interview he gave where he describes his motivation for writing the book.
Finally, Lewis claimed “God laid this out to me as plain as day”, well let’s look at what William Wagener, a staunch MJ supporter and advocate for justice, said that God said to him. Here is a 3 hour radio interview he gave in October 2010 to Rev. Catherine Gross (who I’ll discuss in more detail later on in this series), and at 106:00 he says the following:
“I’m not one of these people who follows celebrities. I don’t read celeb mags, I don’t follow Oprah, I’m just not into that. I follow justice issues, and it just turned out that as I got into the Michael Jackson trial, I saw tremendous injustice, and then I couldn’t stop going, and I had to start speaking out. The first show I did, I didn’t say much one way or the other, but I had some guests that were pretty certain that Michael was guilty, so I let them say their piece, and I asked them “Do you really think Michael’s guilty?” and I pinned them down, and they were kind of wishy- washy, and they wanted to bring attention to victim’s rights.
I prayed to Almighty God “If the defense attorneys have been so smooth, and so cleverly pulled this trial together to make Michael look innocent when he’s really guilty, please Heavenly Father don’t let me be misled. Don’t let me be screaming “He’s not guilty!” when in fact he’s guilty.” And I stood there in prayer, and just meditated, and within a minute or two I felt an answer from the Holy Spirit saying this: “Michael Jackson is completely innocent of all these charges. Even though he’s not a perfect human being, he will be found not guilty on all 10 charges, because, in fact, he IS innocent,” and God had said to me “Michael Jackson is mine! He belongs to me, and I will take him, but first he will be found Not Guilty of all these charges and now I want you William Wagener, to go proclaim it to your church. Not on television, but I want you to first go to the church you go to, and proclaim it.”
Based on the outcome of the trial, who do you think was telling the truth? G. Craig Lewis or William Wagener? I’d place my money on Wagener!
He claims that MJ built the statue of himself for the “HIStory” album because “the Nephilim spirit in him wanted to be worshipped”. You’ve got to be kidding me! That statue was built in order to be used as part of a multi-million dollar marketing campaign for the album, and nothing more. He wasn’t a narcissist who felt he should be worshipped, and didn’t film that trailer as anything other than promotion. Here is what he had to say to Diane Sawyer in 1995 about the “self-deification” nonsense criticism that he faced at that time:
Diane: We’re going to show you a film now, created by Michael Jackson, and it’s causing a furore in some movie theatres around this country. They say among other things that it’s clearly modelled after Triumph of The Will. I mean Rieffenschtal. A Nazi film with a Nazi meaning to it.
Michael: It’s not true. None of that’s true. None of those things are true.
Diane: Did you watch that film before you did it?
Michael: I watch everything. I love movies. I love documentaries. It had nothing to do with that at all.
Diane: But there are people who keep saying this is…they look at it and say this is…
Michael: Absolutely not.
Diane: You were…
Michael: It has nothing to do with politics, or Communism, or Fascism…
Diane: Well…
Michael: At all.
Diane: Well the critics have said that it’s the most “body vein, glorious, self-deaffecation a pop singer ever undertook with a straight face”.
Michael: Good! That’s what I wanted.
Diane: For the controversy?
Michael: Yeah!
Diane: And they…
Michael: They fell into my trap.
Diane: But the people who say that…
Michael: I wanted everybody’s attention.
Diane: But for the people who say these symbols matter…
Michael: No. The symbols…no.
Diane: The suffering…
Michael: No. The symbol has nothing to do with that. It’s not political. It’s not Fascist. It’s not dogma. It’s not, you know, ideaology and all this stuff. It’s pure, simple love. You don’t see any tanks. You don’t see any cannons. It’s about love. It’s people coming together.
Diane: About love. We’re gonna let everybody watch a bit of it.
Michael: Yeah, but it’s art! It’s art!
Diane: Okay.
Michael: Where a director…we get him to create art.
Lewis then says that the “777” on MJ’s arm is a reference to Aleister Crowley’s book “777”. Wrong again! MJ was inspired by the Bible, and this is where the “777” comes from! This site has an explanation on the significance of the number “7”, and the video below explains it as well:
While we’re on the subject of creation, let’s look at what MJ thought about creationism! Here is an excerpt from “The Michael Jackson Tapes”, page 92:
Here are some interesting facts about MJ and the number “7”, and let me be clear about this: I’m NOT trying to say that MJ was a deity!
- Conrad Murray was convicted of manslaughter on November 7th, 2011. That was the 7th day of the month, the 7th week of trial, and the word GUILTY begins with “G”, the 7th capital of the alphabet.
- Michael Jackson signed his will on 7/7/02.
- Michael Jackson’s memorial was on 7/7/09 … exactly 7 years after the will was signed.
- Michael Jackson’s two biggest hits — “Black & White” and “Billie Jean” — were each #1 for 7 weeks.
- Michael Jackson’s three biggest albums — “Thriller,” “Bad” and “Dangerous” — each produced 7 top 40 hits.
- Michael Jackson was the 7th of 9 children.
- 7 was Michael’s favorite number.
- 7s and 11s are considered Godly numbers.
- The courtroom was in department 107.
- The jury deliberated for 10hrs and 7 minutes.
- The verdict was read at 1:17pm LA time.
- This post from the blog MJJ-777 also discusses MJ’s love of the number “7”.
He then goes on to say that “the next album he went a step further”, and shows the cover of “Dangerous”. But “Dangerous” was released in 1991, and “HIStory” was released in 1995! This may seem like a very “small error” when you look at the big picture, but it’s symptomatic of the myriad of small errors that add up to the large error that is this entire series! He claims that the album cover for “Dangerous” is filled with witchcraft, and that Aleister Crowley is featured on the cover, when in fact it is P.T. Barnum! He was the founder of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum and Bailey Circus, and was one of MJ’s many inspirations! Look at the “Dangerous” album cover below, and the actual photo of P.T. Barnum that MJ used for the album cover!
In fact, in his blog he even ADMITTED that it was P.T. Barnum on the cover! That “mistake” was a sign of his sloppy research! Yet he still stands by everything else he said!
Part V DVD, I mistakenly called PT Barnum, Aliester Crowley on Michael Jackson’s dangerous cover. My bad! But does that discount the fact that Michael and Barnum studied and utilized Aliester Crowley’s 777 book of the law and even put 777 on his sleeve when he created the statue? What about the dream demons, pedophilia, the Korybante behavior, the lyrics, etc? Should we throw the whole video away because I, G. Craige Lewis, am human and I made 1 mistake?
What’s truly disappointing is that he doesn’t acknowledge the positive, uplifting songs on the album such as “Heal The World”, “Gone Too Soon”, and “Keep The Faith”. He’s deliberately suppressing anything that goes against his message, and he’s no different than a sleazy used-car salesman who tries to sell you a lemon by not telling you about the repair history of that car!
He saved his most outrageous statement for last! He spoke out of both sides of his mouth by saying the following: “I’m not trying to accuse the man of what he did, but his album is telling me exactly what he did”, and he shows the “naked boy” on the cover of Dangerous, in order to imply that MJ was a child molester! He says that “we don’t need rocket science to decode that message”!
For those of you who are reading this, and are not familiar with this blog, and not familiar with the child molestation allegations against MJ, let me give you a few posts that will get you up to speed and provide you with the facts behind the false charges:
1. Journalist Charles Thomson wrote this post which briefly summarizes the 1993 case, and criticizes the media’s biased coverage of the suicide of Evan Chandler, the father who false accused MJ of molesting his son.
2. Thetis7, one of the admins of this blog, wrote a meticulously researched, 3-part series aptly titled “HIStory vs. EVANstory” that discusses the 1993 case in much more detail, for those who want to know the complete story. Here is Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
3. In January 2005, just a few weeks before the start of the trial, a group of dedicated fans published an extensive report called “The Veritas Project”, and their motivation for doing so was their pure disgust at how inaccurate and biased the media was towards MJ in the months between his arrest and the start of the trial, so they decided to do their own research (similar to what we’re doing now with this blog), and the end result is phenomenal! Pay attention to the flowchart at the very end!
4. Charles Thomson wrote another excellent article on the 5 year anniversary of MJ’s acquittal titled “One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History” that clearly and succinctly summarizes not only the complete joke of a trial, but the way the media deliberately suppressed exculpatory evidence in their desire to increase ratings and revenues by convicting MJ in the court of public opinion.
5. For an extensive summary of both the 1993 and 2005 allegations, as well as an analysis of how mental illness affected the actions of those parents who coerced their children to lie and falsely accuse MJ, read this post titled “The Untold Story” on the Michael Jackson: Smoke Without Fire blog.
After reading each of those posts and learning all of the facts behind the cases, you will have 100% faith in Michael Jackson’s innocence, and not because of “reasonable doubt”, but because of ABSOLUTE DOUBT!
Most of the garbage from this series was inspired by the DVD “They Sold Their Souls For Rock N Roll”, which is a series that “exposes” popular music acts who promote Satanism. They literally said that the “Thriller” video is demonic, and full of the occult, and is a symbol of the type of person that MJ really is (i.e. a demon in disguise). Just listen to how the narrator uses a dramatic, over the top tone of voice in order to present his “message” about MJ:
Of course they didn’t even bother to mention his disclaimer at the beginning of the video where he explicitly says he doesn’t endorse the occult!
Another pastor that I want to rebut now is Pastor Joe Schimmel, who helped research, produce, and distribute the documentary “They Sold Their Souls for Rock and Roll” , which was the foundation for much of G. Craig Lewis’ sermon on MJ. When MJ’s “This Is It” was released in October 2009, Schimmel posted an article called “Michael Jackson and the Moral Decline of America”, in which he levels every insidious accusation and lie at MJ that you could imagine!
With the film release of “Michael Jackson: This Is It” on October 28, 2009, the King of Pop is still receiving idolatrous praise by many in the liberal media, despite the preponderance of evidence suggesting that he was a child rapist. Tragically, as we have learned through the Roman Polanski saga, if you have been anointed by the liberal media and have even a modicum of talent, they will give you a free pass to rape America’s children.
Stacy Brown, co-author of “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask,” illustrates how even fans who acknowledged Jackson’s guilt seemed to give Jackson a pass because he could sing and dance. Brown admits, “Let’s face it, I’m not one to believe that Michael was innocent of molesting children, but he was never convicted.” However, despite her belief that Jackson was guilty of child molestation, the star-struck Brown praises Michael Jackson as “Elvis, the Rolling Stones, Frank Sinatra, and the Beatles all rolled into one.” Should we place OJ Simpson on a pedestal because of his incredible running ability and conclude, “Let’s face it, I’m not one to believe that OJ was innocent of murdering people, but he was never convicted?”
The fact that so many Americans can easily ignore the horrific crimes that “stars” commit against our children is symptomatic of a culture that has been increasingly jaded by Darwinism, moral relativism, and Hollywood propaganda. While millions of dollars was enough to quiet parents whose children claimed that Jackson had molested them, many in the popular media cashed in by ignoring his alleged crimes and glorifying his bizarre persona.
New York Congressman, Peter King, sought to set the record straight and asked what glorifying a pervert like Michael Jackson says about us as a country. King said that Jackson, who is believed by most Americans to have been a child molester, is being glorified “day in and day out” while society completely ignores the efforts of teachers, police officers, firefighters, and veterans. “Let’s knock out the psychobabble,” King said, “he was a pervert, a child molester; he was a pedophile. And to be giving this much coverage to him, day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country?”
While one would expect some in an increasingly godless society to exalt a man who was known to sleep with young boys, it is tragic when those who claim to be spiritual leaders, ignore Jackson’s perverted lifestyle and speak of him as though he is now entertaining angels by doing the ‘moonwalk’ in Heaven. David Pack, a Grammy-award winning artist, music director, and a member of Saddleback Church, wrote in the Purpose Driven Connection, “One of the greatest artists of our time is now moon-walking along the gold paved roads of heaven, where streets have no name, with a broad smile on his face…”
This picture becomes even more disheartening when we consider the fact that Michael Jackson had a penchant for simulating sex on stage before thousands of boys and girls. When Oprah Winfrey asked Jackson why he repeatedly grabbed his crotch while on stage, he claimed that he had no control over his actions. If Jackson had a hard time controlling his sexually deviant inclinations under bright stage lights before tens of thousands of children, how could anyone in their right mind assume that he controlled himself in private with young boys in his bed?
To make matters worse, Jackson used his vast resources to transform Neverland Ranch into a magnet for children and a pedophile’s paradise. The entire ranch was designed to allure countless children onto his property and into his bed. Beyond the testimony of molestations by children Jackson shared his bed with, and the millions of dollars he gave these families to settle their lawsuits, there are other deeply disturbing facts as well. Michael Jackson also had an elaborate, specialized alarm system that alerted him anytime someone was near his bedroom, lest someone enter his room and interrupt his personal time with unsuspecting boys he found attractive. Add to this, the fact that investigators found risqué books in his room with pictures of naked boys and the picture becomes alarmingly clear.
Moreover, Jackson was known to have had homosexual relationships with other adult males as well. Ian Halperin, Jackson’s biographer, who authored Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson and claimed that Jackson had only six months to live, last December, stated, “In the course of my investigations, I spoke to two of his gay lovers, one a Hollywood waiter, the other an aspiring actor. The waiter had remained friends, perhaps more, with the singer until his death…. He had served Jackson at a restaurant, Jackson made his interest plain and the two slept together the following night.”
Halperin states that he was shown evidence of Jackson’s sexual relationship with the waiter, which included photographs of the gay lovers together. Halperin further stated, “When Jackson lived in Las Vegas, one of his closest aides told how he would sneak off to a ‘grungy, rat-infested’ motel – often dressed as a woman to disguise his identity – to meet a male construction worker he had fallen in love with.” (Online Source)
The absurd picture of Michael Jackson doing the moonwalk in heaven before the thrice-holy God, becomes even more insidious when we realize that Jackson engaged in Black Magic in an effort to murder several people that made his enemies’ list. In our Rockumentary, They Sold Their Souls for Rock and Roll, we document how Michael Jackson claimed that he was in touch with spirit entities and that he used a special room full of mirrors to commune with these spirits. Jackson claimed that he sought their guidance in regard to using their music. He even went so far as to claim that music was audibly communicated to him through dreams and that he was merely the messenger bringing these songs into the world.
In 2000, Vanity Fair reported that Jackson went so far as to bathe in blood and have a number of animals sacrificed so he could put death curses on Steven Spielberg and others. In the article, it was reported that Jackson attended a voodoo ritual in Switzerland, and a witch doctor named Baba sacrificed 42 cows as part of the death curse ceremony. Jackson ordered his former business adviser, Myung-Ho Lee, to wire $150,000 to a bank in Mali to cover the cost of the ceremony. The witch doctor promised Jackson that Spielberg, music mogul David Geffen, and 23 other people on Jackson’s hit list would die…but ironically, it was Michael Jackson himself who would end up dying a premature death! (Online Source)
As further evidence to Jackson’s occult practices, Michael claimed that a “force” that he referred to as a “spirit” would seize control of his body while he was performing. When we consider the fact that this “spirit” repeatedly compelled Jackson to grab his crotch before his young, adoring and impressionable fans, that he was involved in perverse behavior with children, and that he sought to harness dark spiritual forces to commit mass murder, it becomes evident that the destructive dark spirits that Jackson relied upon to influence the masses had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit of the Living God.
As the liberal media and Hollywood elitists continue to parade sexual deviants and drug addicts before our children and chip away at the moral foundation of our nation, it is imperative, now more than ever, that wise parents teach their children how to discern the difference between good and evil and train them up in “the way” they “should go.” (Proverbs 22:6)
If this is indicative of the trash that is written about MJ from some Christian “leaders”, then no wonder MJ is held in such low regard by some in the religious community!
As you can see, the article was filled with lies, half-truths, innuendoes, ad-hominem attacks, and other intellectual fallacies. (Notice how he referred to MJ as a “rapist”, which has a more violent connotation than molester. I’ll discuss this fallacy in greater detail later in this series.) He relied exclusively on ridiculous tabloid books and articles that aren’t even worth the paper that they’re printed on! This is what happens when you let your opinion dictate your research, instead of letting your research dictate your opinion!
The first book that he mentioned, “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask”, is a “tell all” book written by Bob Jones, who was MJ’s former manager. He was fired unceremoniously in 2004, and wrote the book out of revenge, and of financial gain. Stacy Brown is a co-author of the book, and he’s a former “friend” of the Jackson family. (With friends like him, who needs enemies?!!) The fact that Pastor Schimmel referes to Stacy as “she” is symptomatic of his abysmal lack of research! Here is a video of Brown offering his “analysis” of the trial as a paid analyst for MSNBC:
In that clip, he discussed the two jurors who voted to acquit MJ in June 2005, but did a 180 degree turnaround when they were offered money from book publishers to lie and say that MJ was really guilty. Some of the other jurors were also offered money, but rejected it. The two jurors lost their book deal when Stacy Brown was caught plagiarizing material from one of Maureen Orth’s Vanity Fair articles, and they sued to get out of their book deal. You can learn more about this debacle in this post.
Here is an excerpt from a summary Bob Jones’ trial testimony (on Day 29 of the trial), where he states that certain “facts” mentioned in his book were fabricated in order to make the book more sensational and salacious:
The extremely consistent pattern of prosecution witnesses having memory lapses continued as former Michael Jackson publicist Bob Jones initially testified that “I don’t recall ever seeing any head licking” by Mr. Jackson on the flight from Paris to Los Angeles.
Prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss then read a proposed passage from a book Jones is writing that stated that Mr. Jackson licked the boy’s head.
Prosecutors claim Mr. Jackson also licked the head of a boy who now accuses Mr. Jackson of molesting him in early 2003.
Bob Jones was fired by Mr. Jackson a year ago. Reportedly, Jones was very angry about the termination.
Under cross-examination by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., Jones said that passages he writes are completed by a co-writer, MSNBC correspondent, Stacy Brown, and then reviewed. Jones said he had not reviewed the passage and it was inaccurate.
I will rip apart the testimony of Bob Jones and Stacy Brown, as well as fact check and rebut their book, in a future post.
Pastor Schimmel uses the ad hominem fallacy by falsely connecting MJ and OJ by implying that we will also ignore OJ’s conviction if he dies. This is one of the oldest tricks in the book: delegitimize MJ’s acquittal by comparing it to OJ Simpson, whose acquittal is arguably the most controversial in the history of the United States! But there is one COLASSAL difference between MJ and OJ: OJ is considered guilty by many based on the overwhelming amount of inculpatory evidence, and NOT because of the way he looks, or his personality. MJ is considered guilty by many based on the way he looks, and his personality, and NOT because of the evidence! (By the way, notice how the OJ prosecutors refused to use honest witnesses who had sold their stories to tabloids, but the MJ prosecutors relied heavily on dishonest witnesses who had sold their stories to tabloids! I’ll discuss this later in this series.)
One of the biggest misconceptions of MJ is that he “forced” children to sleep in his bed without their parent’s permission, and that’s not true at all! His “bedroom” was actually a two-story duplex that is larger than most apartments! Although he had guest units, oftentimes entire families would want to sleep in his duplex because they wanted to be around him. If the children of his guests wanted to sleep in his duplex, they had to get their parents’ permission. Here are videos of Macaulay Culkin and MJ’s attorney Thomas Mesereau clarifying the media’s myths about this issue:
(Culkin’s defense of MJ begins at 2:25)
You can listen to this interview from JC Agajanian, a close friend of MJ, where he also debunks the “MJ forced kids to sleep with him” myth. Also, read this post and this post for more information on the truth about MJ’s bed sharing.
Pastor Schimmel goes on to call Neverland a “pedophile’s paradise”. The reality is that Neverland was built as a place for MJ to live in peace (as he couldn’t go anywhere without being mobbed!), and as a place for disadvantaged and terminally ill children, AND THEIR FAMILIES, to visit to have a good time and enjoy themselves, all at MJ’s expense. Children were not “lured” there; they BEGGED to go there! And when they did go there, they were always accompanied by Neverland staff, their families, and their chaperones!
Here is a press release from the Make A Wish Foundation, which grants “wishes” to terminally ill children, such as visiting their favorite celebrities. This press release was issued shortly after MJ was arrested in November 2003 because they were bombarded with questions about whether they had “delivered” MJ’s accuser to him and left him unattended:
Make-A-Wish Foundation Responds to Allegations Regarding Connection Between Foundation and Michael Jackson Case
PHOENIX, November 22 /PRNewswire/ — Over the past two days, numerous media sources have asserted that there is a connection between the alleged child victim in the Michael Jackson case and the Make-A-Wish Foundation(R). Although the actual identity of the victim is not known to the public or the Foundation, the Foundation believes very strongly that it is virtually impossible that the incident in question could have occurred as part of a Make-A-Wish(R) experience.
“The health and safety of our wish children are our highest priority – especially given the fact that each child we serve is diagnosed with a life-threatening medical condition,” said Paula Van Ness, president & chief executive officer for the Make-A-Wish Foundation of America. “For every wish we grant, we work closely with the family, and in all cases parents and siblings directly share in the experience.
“Often times with celebrity wishes, they are fulfilled as part of a larger group of wish children and families. In no instance is a Make-A-Wish child left unattended during the course of one of our wishes. Based on this, we believe that the child in question in the Michael Jackson case could not have been at Neverland as a participant in a Make-A-Wish experience.”
Van Ness continued, “Since the Foundation is the largest wish-granting organisation in the world, we understand how someone might attribute the experience of a cancer patient at Neverland to us. However, we are aware of more than 200 wish-granting organisations in existence throughout the world, and we know that our wish children often receive wishes from more than one organisation. I can’t speak for other organisations, but I firmly believe that given the circumstances, this could not have resulted from one of our wish experiences.”
Of the more than 11,000 wishes the Foundation grants each year, fewer than 6 per cent (approximately 600) involve children seeking wishes to meet a celebrity. Since 1995, the Foundation has coordinated two Neverland-related group wish experiences for a total of 13 children and their families. In every case, the Make-A-Wish children were joined at Neverland by numerous children from other organisations; took part in a same-day, outdoor festival; were accompanied at all times by members of their family and Make-A-Wish personnel; and left the Neverland property the same day.
Another person who has first-hand knowledge of the daily happenings at Neverland is, ironically, Stacy Brown! Shortly after MJ’s arrest, Brown initially defended MJ against the allegations by refuting the misconception that MJ spent excessive amounts of time with the children of strangers, which was bolstered by the fact that the media would always replay footage of MJ playing with children at Neverland, but oftentimes they were his own nieces and nephews! It’s too bad he took blood money to trash MJ by writing his aforementioned “tell all” book with Bob Jones!
Jackson Family Concerned Not Just For Michael, Friend Says
In the wake of Michael Jackson’s surrender and arrest, his family members are just as outraged as he is about the molestation charges.
Their concern, a family friend said, extends not just to the superstar, but also to the littlest ones within their extensive clan, whom they say are sometimes misrepresented as supposed “evidence” to show that the singer has an unhealthy interest in young children. Granted, Jackson does invite children other than his own to visit Neverland, but much of the time, the children shown at the singer’s side are actually family.
“[Michael] has 27 nieces and nephews,” said family friend Stacy Brown, who has often acted as a liaison between the Jackson family and the media. “And a lot of times, what people don’t understand and are never told is that a lot of those kids [seen photographed and videotaped with him] are his nieces and nephews. They go to the ranch, they go to Neverland quite often, and are with their uncle often and love him. And he loves them.”
But he can’t protect them from the vast amount of media coverage of this latest scandal. Since many of them are grade-school age — and attend public school — they can’t easily be shielded from the reports.
“It’s horrible,” Brown said. “They have to hear, they have to be teased and hear lewd comments about a close family member. And even some of this, they hear it from the teachers. It’s not right.”
Brown said the family’s concern — besides supporting Jackson — is how to explain the whole drama to the kids. He said one nephew in particular, who is “very very distraught,” keeps asking him, “Why are they doing this to him?”
Pastor Schimmel goes on to use MJ’s bedroom alarms to fool his readers into thinking that MJ had devious intentions to have them, but in fact they were a safety measure that helped exonerate him in 2005!
First, let’s read what Macaulay’s father Kit had to say about those bedroom alarms in his book “Lost Boy”. From page 48:
What the child molestation charges of 1993 did, perhaps above all else, were to insist that Michael forever thereafter, as to everything that he would ever do in life, be viewed solely through a lens of pedophilia. I’ll give but a single “for instance”; one that goes to the well-reported on alarm system just outside Michael’s bedroom and the so-called “secret room” actually in that bedroom. Michael, remember, is a Scardey-Cat, which isn’t to say that there weren’t times when perhaps he had just cause to be so.
Take the helicopters that would buzz Neverland on a daily basis (indeed, often several times a day). One could hear their approach over and above the crackling speech on security walkie-talkies, which always attempted to give their positions (“Moving Northeast. Eleven O’Clock. Two Hundred Feet. Copy.”); this before their actual arrival, which could be perfectly deafening. It always gave one the sense that an invasion was taking place. So bad and so frequent did these visits become as to cause Michael at one point to make in-depth inquiries regarding the purchase of the air space directly above this property (such as Manhattan real-estate tycoons are allowed); solicitations which only led to his being told thatlocal zoning laws did not allow for this. Many of these helicopters contained (none-too-surprisingly) “ladies and gentlemen of the press”, who (we should all well know) have an absolute license under the First Article of the Bill of Rights (also known as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution), to do pretty much as they please, no matter how much it may infringe upon an individual’s right to the pursuit of happiness in the privacy of his or her own home. American freedom, after all, depends on it (the media themselves will tell you this); and it is a license that, when it is not our own personal pursuit and our own personal privacy that is at risk, we all perfectly relish! But, be this as it shamefully may, others of these whirly-bird attack squads were not made up of such “girls and boys”, but rather of the merely curious; folks who would gladly pay for a helicopter rid who’s tour included as its centerpiece the buzzing of Michael’s home.
To Michael the Scardey-Cat they all represented the specter of hooded terrorists, dressed as perfect ninjas, skidding down ropes onto the property, the better to commit “The Kidnapping of the Century”; and even though (in perfect hindsight) none of this ever did occur, there were other times when no less benign incidents would only go to feed this fear. Take the morning when Michael arose and walked into his private garden, there to find a fan crouched in the bushes; a fan “fanatical” enough (for so comes the word) to enter the property and scale the wall and spend the night there (Can anyone yet remember the just who and the just where of John Lennon’s murder?!). That Michael would respond to such as this by actually outfitting his bedroom with a relatively conspicuous store-bought beam alarm system (one that the entire cleaning staff knew existed and that could be simply stepped over), as well as with a so-called “secret room” (really a closet) to which he could run in times of such emergency should not surprise anyone; indeed, these are things that under like circumstances most any of us would do. But when viewed through the lens of pedophilia, the existence of these could only have a far more sinister purpose. And that (and all like unto it) was Michael’s problem in a nutshell, and here was little that Michael could thereafter ever do about it. It was the bell that couldn’t be un-rung. It was the genie who wouldn’t return to the bottle.
So as you can see, Kit offered a completely rational explanation for the bedroom alarms! Michael tried to make Neverland a “no-fly zone” by attempting to purchase the airspace, but was unable to, and as a result helicopters had free access to fly overhead. Even worse, for a fan to get past all of the security and hide in MJ’s garden must have been an absolutely terrifying experience for MJ (or for anyone, for that matter), and MJ had a right to take precautions to protect his privacy. This disproves the media’s theory that MJ had it installed for nefarious reasons!
Now, let’s see how the bedroom alarms helped exonerate MJ in 2005! Star Arvizo claimed that he witnessed MJ molest Gavin on several occasions by walking in on the act, but wouldn’t MJ have known that Star was approaching when he heard the alarms? Sneddon argued that the volume of the alarm was turned down during that period of time, and thus MJ wasn’t able to hear it. But defense witness Larry Nimmer (a professional videographer who was hired to film Neverland after Judge Melville refused to allow jurors to tour the property) totally debunked that theory by performing a test where he placed his camera in MJ’s upper chamber (where the molestation allegedly happened), and he had a maid activate the alarm by entering MJ’s living quarters, and by doing this he demonstrated how loud and audible the alarm was, thus destroying Sneddon’s claim. Nimmer included this test in his documentary “The Untold Story of Neverland”, which is available on the DVD that I purchased, but is mysteriously missing from the shortened version that is available on youtube (otherwise, I would have surely included it here! If anyone finds it, please let us know!)
Both Nimmer and Maria Gomez (the maid) explained their test on the witness stand, and for more details please read this article.
Another person who defended the bedroom alarms was, ironically, Adrian McManus, one of the “Neverland 5” employees who lost a multi-million dollar lawsuit against MJ and to this day owes him $1.4 million dollars. She was fired from Neverland for theft prior to the allegations, and then sold lies to the tabloids about witnessing MJ molest young boys, including Macaulay Culkin. Former employee Francine Contreras testified against McManus’ character by describing the display at McManus’ home of pilfered items from Neverland, including toys that were meant to be given to needy children! (Have you no shame, Adrian? How low can you go?)
During her cross examination, she was presented with a transcript of her 1994 deposition, where she defended the bedroom alarms by stating the following: “When you’re a celebrity, you lead a difficult life. People kill celebrities. That little sensor benefits him for his life.” That quote and others made by McManus can be seen @ 4:36 in the following video which is part of the series “What did happen to Michael Jackson” by LunaJo67, a fellow MJ advocate.
Here is the actual test that defense witness and filmographer Larry Nimmer conducted on the bedroom alarms to prove that they worked properly, and to prove that Star was lying about walking into MJ’s bedroom and watching MJ masturbate his brother Gavin without MJ’s knowledge!
The two children’s books that Pastor Schimmel describes, as well as MJ’s art collection, which were both used by prosecutors as evidence of MJ’s homosexuality and lust for young boys, were thoroughly examined in our 6 part series “Porn” Found in Michael Jackson’s Home. The word porn is in quotes to sarcastically show the absurdity of the prosecutor’s theory that MJ’s art collection was used as homosexual erotica!
The second book that the pastor clings to in order to support his prejudices is the tabloid book “Unmasked” The Final Years of Michael Jackson”. The author of the book is tabloid book author Ian Halperin, who has written unauthorized biographies on such celebrities as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Brad Pitt, and Kurt Cobain. Halperin was inspired to write a book about MJ after his acquittal in 2005, where he felt that MJ should have been convicted, based on his exclusive reliance of the mainstream media for information on the case. As he explains in the video below, he was so shocked and angered by the acquittal that he dedicated 5 years to researching the truth, with the purpose of finally nailing MJ, but guess what conclusion he was forced to upon evaluating the facts of the cases? MICHAEL JACKSON WAS COMPLETELY INNOCENT!
Please ignore everything he says after first minute because he goes on to talk about being “contacted” by people in MJ’s camp about their concerns over MJ’s health, which is totally false. I personally believe that when he was unable to objectively prove that MJ was guilty of child abuse, his publisher told him to sensationalize the book to make it interesting, and he acquiesced by claiming that he worked undercover in MJ’s inner circle, that MJ was a homosexual who would meet his male lovers in motels, and other nonsense. This book was panned throughout the fan community due to its glaring lies and half-truths, and it added no new exculpatory information that wasn’t already available to fans from far more legitimate sources, such as the books by Aphrodite Jones or Geraldine Hughes (Michael Jackson Conspiracy and Redemption, respectively).
Notice how he used the word “unwaveringly”, which means that his position that MJ is innocent will never change. He is absolutely convinced that MJ was falsely accused, maliciously prosecuted, and rightfully acquitted.
This is one of the most egregious examples of the “cherry-picking” fallacy that I have ever seen! Cherry-picking is described as follows:
The act of pointing to individual cases or data that seems to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
If he had even skimmed through Halperin’s book, he would have known that MJ was thoroughly exonerated of the allegations, but of course that would undermine the premise of his article, so that important piece of information was ignored! Similary, if he had read Stacy Brown’s book, he would have known that Brown is a man, and not a woman!
Lastly, Pastor Schimmel clings to “investigative journalist” Maureen Orth, who we all know is a paragon of truth when it comes to Michael Jackson. Orth’s articles are essentially tabloid garbage that is published in a mainstream magazine, thus giving them more credibility than they ever would have gotten. She relied on unscrupulous ex-employees, people who were involved in lawsuits with MJ and had an axe to grind, biased law enforcement officials who were more interested in getting Jackson convicted then seeking true justice, and a host of other “unnamed sources”. In that particular article, she used Myung-Ho Lee as a named source (which is rare for her), and he was mired in a frivolous against MJ at the time that he spoke with her. In fact, he’s the same person who lied and said he saw MJ plying a young boy with alcohol, and the video I embedded earlier in this post clearly proved that Lee lied about that story!
So all in all, you can see that Pastor Schimmel’s negative view of MJ was reinforced by those 3 pieces of biased, tabloid information, and that is typical of how MJ haters operate. That post of his wasn’t worth the paper it’s printed on!
Here are just a few more examples of the hatred and bigotry that has been spewed at MJ from the religious community. If I wrote a rebuttal to everything negative that I’ve read or heard about MJ, this series would be 100 parts long! So I’ll post these last few tidbits of information for your viewing and listening pleasure! You’ll be able to get a small portion of the junk that is out there about MJ, but remember this: in no way, shape, or form is this representative of the religious community! These men and women only speak for themselves, and in Part 5 of this series I will include lots of examples of people of faith who have defended MJ.
1. On June 19th, 2005, a week after MJ’s acquittal (and on Father’s Day), this pastor preached a sermon called “Michael Jackson or Man of God” (as if the two are mutually exclusive!). In this sermon, he calls MJ a “freak of nature”, and the congregation laughs and says “Amen!” It’s purely disgusting. He calls MJ a “girly man”, the worst father he can think of, he would have saved the taxpayer’s a lot of money had he just surrendered, and he’s worried that children think that MJ fits “the concept of a man”. And of course he had to rely on the words of Ray Hultman, who as we all know said that he thought MJ was guilty in 1993, but that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him in this case. He implies that MJ is proof of the moral decline in America, and he isn’t “masculine enough” to be a Man of God. You can listen to the sermon here. He mentions MJ at 18:00-22:00, 23:00, 28:00, 33:00, 36:12, 41:28, 44:30, at 45:20 (in this last part, he says that God will say “Guilty!” to MJ when he dies.)
Since he mentioned that MJ should have just turned himself in, let’s look at what his “confession” would have looked like! This is based 100% from the prosecution’s evidence and timeline!
Hi, I’m Michael Jackson, the most selective pedophile in the world. While most child molesters have hundreds of victims, I have a one boy every ten year average. The thing is, I’m only attracted to kids who have greedy, lawsuit-happy parents. Remember back in 1993? Let me refresh your memory.
Evan Chandler, the father of my first victim, demanded $20 million in return for his silence. I had every intention of paying him off eventually but I decided to let him turn me in first. I figured it would be fun to be publicly humiliated, strip searched, investigated by the police and all that other great stuff that comes along with being accused of sexual abuse. There was that little problem of going to jail but luckily for me, I came up with this brilliant plan to pay the boy not to testify (gee, what a concept! I wish I’d thought of this when Evan Chandler first tried to blackmail me). It seems, however, that there’s a typo in the settlement document because apparently it says that the boy and his family could have still testified against me in a criminal trial… WHOOPS!
Even though my stupid lawyers messed up my witness tampering plan, I still got off because the kid didn’t want to testify against me in the criminal trial. Neither did his parents; it seems that once they got their paycheck, the Chandlers no longer felt it was necessary to get justice for their poor molested son. Talk about good luck, huh? The first boy I decided to molest just happened to have parents who were willing to prostitute their kid. Evan even asked a judge to allow him to release an album of songs about the abuse. Cool, huh? That Evan Chandler is a great guy.
For the next ten years I went cold turkey. That all changed after a little documentary called “Living with Michael Jackson” aired. I knew the kid who was shown on the documentary for almost two years and never touched him until after I paraded him around on national television and talked about our innocent, non-sexual sleepovers. Then everybody started saying that something sexual was going on and I thought, “Hey that’s not a bad idea. But shit, he’ll probably turn me in if I molest him so lemme hire a lawyer first.” Then I called Mark Geragos and asked him to defend me in a crime that I hadn’t committed yet.
Once I had the right legal representation, everything was set. The family and I were still on friendly terms at this point but I kidnapped them all, stole their furniture and forced them to say nice things about me on camera. Why did I go to all that trouble? Well, I wanted to improve my image after the Martin Bashir documentary aired (don’t ask how the furniture fits into all of this). For some reason, however, I didn’t include the footage of the family in my rebuttal video to Bashir’s documentary… kinda defeats the purpose of my kidnapping scheme, huh? After getting their statements on tape, I then molested the boy even though the whole point of the conspiracy was to convince the world that I wasn’t a child molester. Wrap your head around that one.
Now you’re probably thinking I’m a total asshole at this point but I swear, I wasn’t that bad to the family. I bought them gifts, gave them my credit cards, allowed them to go on shopping sprees, let them visit their civil lawyers – how many other child molesting kidnappers extend such priviliges to their victims? Shit, I even let the mother phone a friend and everything. From what I hear she actually told her friend – let’s call him Jamie Masada – that I was holding her against her will. Hey, don’t look at me. It’s not my fault that the idiot didn’t bother contacting the police.
Anyway, things were going according to my plan until I found out the Department of Children and Family Services and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department were going to launch an investigation. Luckily, my entire staff knew about what was going on, accompanied the kid to his interview and intimidated him into saying nothing was wrong. For some reason, the DCFS and the SBCSD didn’t pick up on the fact that the family was being held hostage. Strange huh? Oh well, in the words of my man Tom Sneddon, “it’s LA, what do you expect?” Wait a minute… his department investigated too. Ah, whatever, either way I was cleared of any wrongdoing. Although it was a close call, I decided to molest the kid after being investigated by authorities. Makes sense, right?
My plan hit another glitch when the family escaped from Neverland. For whatever reason, they didn’t go to the police after their great escape (phew) and I was even able to talk them into coming back. I then came up with a cunning plan to ship them off to Brazil to prevent them from speaking with authorities once I was finished molesting the boy… you know, because there is no way of contacting the Santa Barbara Police Department all the way from Brazil.
There was still the possibility, however, that the family might come across a telephone or a computer in Brazil (a bit far-fetched, I know) so I got Geragos to force the whole family into signing more documents that say I didn’t do anything wrong. So basically, my entire staff, Mark Geragos, the DCFS, the SBCSD and all of my friends and family members who visited the ranch during that time period are also to blame. This was a mass conspiracy that was designed just so I could molest this poor boy and steal his mother’s furniture.
Yep, the prosecution’s case makes perfect sense…
NOTE: While this page is supposed to be satirical, the above scenario is solely based on information that has come from the prosecution’s side. Seriously.
2. On July 7th, 2009, the day of MJ’s memorial, this pastor named God posted a video titled “10 Reasons Why Michael Jackson’s Life and Death Matter”, where he dedicates 21 minutes to judging MJ and using his life as an “example” of how not to live. I called that pastor God because he surely acted like Him in this video! It wasn’t enough for him to preach a sermon on MJ; no! He had to film a video in a cemetery, and publish it on the day of MJ’s memorial just rub salt in everyone’s wounds! The 10 reasons he gives are #1: Idolatry (MJ worshipped himself and music, and not God), #2. All men are mortal (MJ lived for his own glory, and was filled with plastic surgery), #3. The love of money is the root of all evil (MJ worshipped money and lived as a king, but is now a prisoner of darkness and is “singing a different tune”), #4. Fallen man self-destructs (MJ got stranger, weirder, and more miserable as he got older), #5. MJ’s life was a wasted life! (This is got to be the most outrageous, insensitive, and judgmental statement made about MJ in this entire series!), #6. MJ’s life was a vacuum because he obviously didn’t know God due to his weirdness , #7. MJ was judged by God (and he seemed absolutely sure of this!), #8. Because so many people loved MJ, there’s no way he could be in Heaven, #9. Life is short, and #10. MJ was just another man. It’s too bad he wasn’t willing to allow comments on his video. Probably couldn’t handle dissenting opinions, or people questioning him and telling him that he’s wrong about MJ!
What’s most disturbing is the total lack of compassion for MJ’s mourning family, or any mention of his tremendous philanthropy! This video is indicative of the “MJ wouldn’t have been weird and would have been a Gospel artist if he had known God” mentality that is so prevalent by many in the religious community.
3. Here is a list of quotes from Pastor Bob Enyart about Michael Jackson throughout the years. He has an extensive track record of hateful rhetoric towards people he views as “immoral” in his self-righteous eyes, such as reading the names of AIDS victims on his television show and calling them “sodomites”. As you can see from the list below, Enyart follows the same playbook as Pastor Schimmel; they both cherry pick tabloids to reinforce their own negative opinions on MJ, and feed it to their gullible followers. His reliance on Latoya’s ex-“husband” Jack Gordon is an all-time low for MJ haters! By the way, to add insult to injury, this list was posted on the day of MJ’s memorial! My commentary is in red.
* Michael Jackson was a homosexual child molester.” -Bob Enyart, Denver radio, KGOV.com. (No he wasn’t! Enyart is using an ad hominen attack to prejudice his listeners against MJ by saying he’s homosexual, as if this is worse than being a heterosexual child molester! Read this post to see examples of how the “MJ is gay” myth has been used against him ever since the 1970′s!)
* Michael Jackson Lied: Vanity Fair (Sept. 1995) reported Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon’s disclosure that Michael Jackson lied when he claimed that no marks on his genitals linked him with his young accuser’s charges. “His statement on TV is untrue.” Sneddon indicated that a police photo taken by search warrant corroborated the accuracy of the boy’s drawing of a spot on Jackson’s privates. (So if Jordan’s description matched, then why wasn’t MJ arrested and charged? Why couldn’t Sneddon use the photos to secure a grand jury indictment? Why did he change the description when he tried to use the photos to prejudice the 2005 jury? Read this post for information that proves that Jordan’s description DID NOT MATCH!)
* Jackson’s Book of Nude Boys: USA Today reported (Aug. 7, 1995) another Jackson lie when he claimed that “nothing” was found in the cop’s search linking him to child molestation. In truth, the police found a book of nude boys, “the sort of book that has been linked to pedophiles,” in the room of a man who admittedly shares his bed with young boys. (More media lies! We did a series of posts on MJ’s art collection, which Sneddon tried to say was gay and child erotica that was used to sexually gratify MJ, and that couldn’t be further from the truth!)
* Jackson Lied About Other Accusers: Michael Jackson lied saying that no other children had come forward to accuse him, when in truth he was negotiating a $22 million settlement with another boy. Jackson defenders forget that predators sometimes target victims in families who will garner little credibility or sympathy. (The settlement was with Jason Francia, who I will obliterate in Part 4 of this series. It was for only $2.4 million, and only to protect MJ’s image from being further sullied, and not because it was a sign of guilt! Jason’s mother Blanca blackmailed MJ by threatening to file a civil lawsuit in 1995, right before the release of his HIStory album. Because the settlement was confidential, MJ could not admit to it. Read this post for more information on the Francia and Chandler settlements.)
* BEL Presents Three Items to the District Attorney: on May 29, 2005 the Santa Barbara D.A.’s office thanked Bob Enyart Live for bringing the following to their attention, although clearly these did not help their criminal prosecution any:
1. Jackson, a Boy, and a Homosexual Reporter: A page from In Touch, a popular homosexual magazine, was broadcast on the nationally syndicated TV show Bob Enyart Live presenting a clear photograph taken prior to the public accusations against Jackson showing him at a “gay” vacation spot with one arms around homosexual reporter Alan Light and his other arm around a young boy. (MJ did not even KNOW the reporter! He merely posed for the photo because he wanted to be kind to a fan, and that’s it! The young boy in the photo is Jimmy Safechuck, with whom MJ was friends with, as well as his family! They met during the recording of a Pepsi commercial, and you can see the photo here.)
2. Jackson Anger’s His Special Friend: A nationally broadcast news report in the 1990s showed video of Michael Jackson in a London toy store, closed down for him to bring a young boy shopping. The clip showed Jackson touching the boy to show him a toy, and the boy pulled away from Jackson, seemingly not wanting to be touched by his benefactor. (I have no idea what video he is talking about, and I couldn’t find it on YouTube, but whatever it is, it is surely being blown out of proportion by Enyart, who is clearly grasping at straws, trying to use ANYTHING to make MJ look bad. Pathetic.)
3. 1991 Super Bowl Half Time Show – with scores of children around him and millions watching, Michael Jackson grabbed his crotch and thrust his hips toward the cameras. An office worker during lunch who grabbed his genitals and thrusted his midsection toward a secretary would be charged with sexual harassment by quitting time. A man doing this with twelve-year olds around him is even more of a pervert. (And he did this at nearly everyone one of his concerts. So what? That was part of his dance routine. I wonder if Enyart also believes that NFL cheerleaders who perform sexually provactive dances are also perverts? Once again, another attempt at grasping at straws!)
* Lisa Marie Defends Jackson: like a kiss of death, on Prime Time Live Michael Jackson and his investment-partner-wife Lisa Marie Presley both insisted that young boys had the right to be in Michael’s bathroom with him. (No, she did not say that! She said that she saw children who were so excited to be around MJ that they would follow him everywhere, including the bathroom! MJ never allowed any children to use the bathroom with him, or shower with him! And they’re marriage was real, too! Who is Enyart to say that it was fake, when almost 50% of all marriages end in divorce? In fact, her next marriage to actor Nicholas Cage lasted a measly 108 days! They married in August 2002, and filed for divorce in November 2002, and the divorce was finalized in May 2004. The divorce proceedings lasted longer than the marriage, so I wonder why Enyart and his ilk never questions their marriage as being a sham?)
* NAMBLA Exploits Jackson’s Child Molestation: in the mid-1990s the North American Man Boy Love Association ran a newsletter cover story celebrating the results of their own informal poll showing that a significant percent of the general public would still admire Michael Jackson, even if it were proved conclusively that he sexually molested young boys. By NAMBLA’s analysis, in Europe and America Michael Jackson was helping to undermine the taboo against sex with children (click and search for: Milk). (MJ has no control over what real perverts and predators feel about him, and if they want to “use” him as a role model to help promote their agenda, then that is THEIR problem, and it has nothing to do with MJ, and shouldn’t be used against him.)
* Dianne Sawyer erred – ‘Jackson cleared’ of all charges: according to the district attorney the police were waiting for “somebody to come forward” who had not been bribed into silence, Vanity Fair (Sept. 1995). (While MJ certainly was never “cleared”, its important to note that he was never arrested and charged in the first place! The only reason Sneddon and Garcetti kept the case open until the statute of limitations ran out is because they were embarrassed by not being able to prosecute MJ, and wanted to save face and look tough in the court of public opinion!)
* Jackson’s Own Sister: was one of the first to indicate that her brother Michael had paid huge sums to silence accusations. (Yes, she did admit this in her infamous press conference in December 1993, but she retracted her lies years later, and MJ and the Jackson family forgave her.)
* LaToya Jackson’s Husband: LaToya’s former spouse Jack Gordon stated that Michael took a nice young boy into his bedroom, and that the two stayed in there for five days, and when they came out, the kid had turned into a different kid and seemed very disturbed. (Jack Gordon is a certified fraud and liar, and he has no credibility whatsoever. He threatened Latoya to give that aformention press conference in order to sell her story to tabloids who were willing to pay six or seven figures for any dirt on MJ. The fact that Enyart is relying on such an unreliable source whose “facts” have not been vetted is typical.)
* Jackson’s Personal Chauffeur: stated that he drove Michael Jackson to the home of one of his accusers for all-night sleepovers, thirty days in a row. (We have debunked the “MJ slept with Jordan Chandler or 30 days in a row” myth in this post.)
* Jackson’s Personal Bodyguard: Jerome Johnson said that Michael Jackson had one particular sleepover with four kids. Johnson also stated that if anyone interrupted Michael during a sleepover with boys, that person would be fired. -Hollywood private investigator Don Crutchfield told Bill O’Reilly on Feb. 13, 2003. Various media outlets hired Crutchfield to research Michael Jackson and he wrote the book: Confessions of a Hollywood PI. (Once again, Enyart is relying on a tabloid book filled with lies from disgruntled ex-employees for information. Jerome Johnson worked at Neverland in the early 90′s, and he defended MJ when the Chandler debacle hit the news. He also blasted the Neverland 5 for their frivolous lawsuit, but all of a sudden he “flipped” and said he could “no longer lie for MJ”. He submitted an official declaration – and not a deposition – supporting the Neverland 5′s lawsuit, but some incriminating evidence against him soon found its way into court! He tried to extort $7 million dollars from MJ by having his wife, who was a banker, type a letter demanding payment by January 24, 1996! The judge in the civil trial had all of the defendants take a DNA test to determine who licked the envelope that contained the letter, and Jerome’s wife was determined to be the one! Jerome plead the Fifth and refused to testify against MJ, thus destroying any chance that the Neverland 5 might win their lawsuit. And this is the guy that Enyart has put his “faith” in! What a joke!)
* Jackson’s Head of Security: Bill Brey was overheard by bodyguard Jerome Johnson telling Michael Jackson that he had to lie to help cover up Michael’s behavior with boys. O’Reilly Factor, Feb. 13, 2003. (Same as above.)
* Jackson’s Own Estate Manager:, Mariano Quindoy, estate manager of the Neverland Ranch, said that Michael Jackson often lured children ages 7 to 12 into his bedroom to engage them in “gay sex.” Quindoy stated this in a nationally broadcast interview in his native Philippines and it was reported by The Philippines Inquirer and World Net Daily. (Same as above, except you can replace “Jerome Johnson” with “Mariano Quindoy”. They’re both ex-employees who tried to make money by lying about MJ, and the tabloids were oh so willing to pay up!)
* Jackson Himself Defends Boys in His Bed: Michael Jackson answered CBS News, “Why not?” when asked whether he sleeps with children in his bed and admitted on film to British broadcaster Martin Bashir that he liked to share his bed with boys in pajamas. (MJ did NOT say he liked to share his bed with boys “in pajamas”. He said it’s OK if he gives his bed to a child, and he would sleep on the floor.)
* Jackson’s Personal Maid: stated that she occasionally saw Michael Jackson in the bathroom and in his bedroom when he was in various stages of undress, with a young boy, in bed, and even in the same sleeping bag. (He’s referring to Blanca Francia. She will be discredited in Part 4 of this series, so stay tuned!)* BEL Phone Call to Jackson Attorney’s Office: Listen to today’s show to hear a re-broadcast of Bob’s phone call placed to Jackson’s attorney’s office on the very day that Mark Geragos threatened to sue anyone who “besmirched Michael Jackson’s reputation.” Here’s the transcript of that call with Geragos’ secretary: (This is more grandstanding on Enyart’s part in order to entertain his listeners.)
Secretary: This is Joselyn.
Enyart: Hi Joselyn, this is Bob Enyart Live in Denver. We’re on the radio right now – AM 670 KLTT. And we’re responding to Mark Geragos. He said today that if anyone does anything to besmirch Michael Jackson’s reputation, that he’d be on them like a ton of bricks. And we wanted to know if Mark has any guidelines, if we could figure out what we can do to qualify to be a ‘besmircher?’
Secretary: You know, I really don’t know and Mark’s not in right now. I can get a message over to him if you want.
Enyart: Alright, if you could just let him know that at Bob Enyart Live in Denver that we were broadcasting that Michael Jackson is a homosexual child molester and if that qualifies that it would be great for him to get in touch with us.
Secretary: I’ll let him know.
Enyart: Alright, thank you.
* Jackson’s Long-time Friend Now Admits: After Jackson’s death, British millionaire Terry George has acknowledged thatwhen he was only 13 years old, during his extended friendship with young adult Michael Jackson, that the celebrity talked sexually to him, and claimed to be performing a sex act during one of his conversations with this young boy. (George is one of the “phantom victims” of MJ who we thoroughly debunked in this post.)* Two of Jackson’s Jurors Regret Aquittal: As reported by the Associated Press, in a preview shown on NBC’s Today, talk host Rita Cosby asked Eleanor Cook if the other jurors will be angry with her and Ray Hultman. Cook answered, “They can be as angry as they want to, they ought to be ashamed, they’re the ones that let a pedophile go.” (Here is the post that we did that describes how those two jurors were paid to lie and write a book saying MJ was really guilty, but they lost their book deal when they were caught using plagairized material from Maureen Orth’s Vanity Fair hit pieces. Ironically, Hultman offered MJ his condelences upon hearing the news of his death, so that shows how much of a turnaround he had since the end of the trial! Would he have done that if he really felt that MJ was guilty? I don’t think so!)
Note: Michael Jackson defender Ian Halperin wrote in London’s Daily Mail, “It is clear to me that Michael was homosexual and that his taste was for young men, albeit not as young as Jordan Chandler or Gavin Arvizo. In the course of my investigations, I spoke to two of his gay lovers, one a Hollywood waiter, the other an aspiring actor… Other witnesses speak of strings of young men visiting his house at all hours, even in the period of his decline… in Las Vegas, one of his closest aides told how he would sneak off… to meet a male construction worker he had fallen in love with.” For 3,500 years Judeo-Christian legal history has outlawed homosexual behavior. About one third of all children sexually molested are boys, and over ninety percent of those boys are hurt by men. (If you, the reader, are in rebellion against God and you don’t care about children, then ignore the previous sentence.) Every man molesting a boy is committing a homosexual act. America’s founding fathers held sodomy to be a crime, and every state outlawed the behavior. The decriminalization of homosexuality in the late 20th century has led to the tortured deaths of millions of its victims worldwide. If you love your neighbor, you’ll warn him that God made us male and female. (Once again, Enyart is cherry picking his sources to include only what fits his preconceived biases against MJ. Just as Pastor Schimmel did above in his post, Enyart completely ignores Halperin’s exoneration of MJ for the false allegations, and instead focuses on homosexuality because he can use it to paint MJ in a negative light to his socially conservative audience who overwhelmingly oppose homosexuality on religious grounds.)
To be continued…………………….
Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 1 of 6: Michael was NOT a Devil Worshipper!
As a lifelong fan of Michael Jackson, I thought that I had seen and heard every nasty, disgusting, and despicable comment about him that exists in the English language, but I was wrong! A few months ago, I stumbled upon a video of a Christian pastor bashing MJ in a horrible way, and his “research” was filled with lies, innuendoes, and tabloid gossip. I was baffled at what I heard, and I quickly decided to write a rebuttal to him. While doing my research, I decided to expand my rebuttal to include other attacks against MJ from the religious community, whether they’re from religious websites, bloggers, etc., and whether it’s from Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. Nothing could prepare me for the things that I read and heard about MJ from people who espouse “love thy neighbor” in one breathe, and then turn around and call MJ a “child molesting, plastic surgery freak!” in the next breath! Sometimes I didn’t know if I was reading a religious blog, TMZ, or Topix (a popular forum for MJ haters)!
Don’t believe me? Look at the excerpt below from a Christian blogger, written shortly after MJ’s death, in response to what Gospel artist David Pack said about MJ (Pack’s words are in blue):
A few thoughts before I begin. Clearly the hangers-on are climbing their way out of the closets and shadows, grabbing at whatever spotlight they can. David Pack is one of them. Who in the world is David Peck? He says at the PDL website:” David Pack is a Grammy winning recording artist, producer, and music director. A member of Saddleback Church, he works with Rick Warren on special projects, including the PEACE Plan and AIDS & Worship Conferences. ” I.e., a washed-up has-been and name dropper who found a second career (I mean purpose) with Ricky Warren).
David Pack, whom most of us have never heard of, clearly fell “victim” to “evangelical easy believism” and hasn’t a clue about the Gospel or salvation nor the cults. His tribute to Michael Jackson (MJ) reads nothing short of sentimental drivel. Read what he said (my response is in italics):
Quote:
During that special evening, I felt the need to share my faith with him, to let him know that another Christian artist was sitting next to him. So when he whispered, “How can I ever thank you for this wonderful night?” I said, “Michael, I didn’t put this together, God did!” He said, “Oh yes, I believe that with all of my heart.”
Another Christian? MJ was a JW, a cult member, NOT a Christian. John 8 says that unless you believe Jesus Christ is God, you will die in your sins. JW’s outright deny He is God. What Jesus is Pack declaring to be the true one?
I told him I was a Christian, and he said he was, too. We talked about the first Christian song we’d both heard as children: “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Little ones to him belong, they are weak but he is strong.” With the dinner party loudly going on around us, we both quietly leaned in and sang the song, smiling like choirboys. “Yes, Jesus loves me. Yes, Jesus loves me.” Then we gave each other a short embrace. I knew at that moment that this sweet-spirited young genius was going to find his eternal peace in heaven. I did not find Michael weird, messed up, or anything you’ve ever heard about him….
Singing a song about Jesus gave Pack assurance this cult-member was going to heaven? Truly this is pathetic. This is exactly what is wrong with American “Evangelicalism”! A self-centered child’s song is somehow the standard by which to KNOW one is going to heaven?? What, MJ found his purpose with that song? So typical, any mention of “Jesus” and people call you a Christian. If this is Pack’s standard to call himself a Christian, the guy needs to hear the Gospel NOW!
And what’s even more telling is that Pack didn’t see MJ as weird. THAT in itself is WEIRD. That tells me Pack has a few skrews loose.
I believe that during his trials he related to the suffering of Christ, and prayed for intervention, because he was being accused over what he loved most—children. This caused him perhaps more pain than anything in his life.Ok this makes me GAG. How in the WORLD can he possibly compare a child molesting freak to Jesus Christ? It sounds like Pack hasn’t a clue about who Jesus even is! Jesus did not suffer for doing wrong. He suffered for being GOD! That ain’t what MJ was on trial for. This is truly twisted and perverted.
If there’s anything that gives me peace during this moment of loss, it’s knowing that one of the greatest artists of our time is now moon-walking along the gold paved roads of heaven, where streets have no name, with a broad smile on his face, and a band of angels welcoming him home.
Oh please! Moon-walking? David Pack’s view of heaven, like his god, is man-centered, fleshly and temporal and has nothing to do with the Biblical Heaven with the Biblical God! I think ol’ Pack has heard one too many Roman Catholic ideas of heaven and angels, if you ask me. Pack has a false sense of peace, but he GAVE a false sense of peace to MJ too.
End quote.
Is this guy serious?? Jackson a Christian? Moonwalking in heaven? Someone give me a vomit bag QUICK! I’m going to be sick!!!
MJ was well known for being a JW his whole pathetic life (he accused his father of abuse and his father forced the kids into show business, was a drug user and child molester), and then a few years back, thanks to Germaine, he converted to the Nation of Islam.
Clearly MJ had no clue about the real Jesus Christ, salvation, nor The Gospel found in Scripture. What’s so annoying is that neither does Pack.
That attitude towards MJ was displayed by many Christians in the days and weeks after his death, and it even inspired MJ blogger Bonnie Cox (herself a devout Christian) to start her blog. Here is an excerpt from her blog where she describes the horror and shock that she felt after she saw what a Reverend had to say about MJ on Facebook:
End of July 2009 – The Awakening
Sometime after the Fourth of July holiday, I was reading over my new newsfeeds on my Facebook page. One of my longer term friends had posted an update on his page that caught my eye. It was a remark he made about Elvis and Michael Jackson. This is what started all this, my awakening if you will.
I read the post and read it again. What it said (and I did not copy this) this person had watched the t.v. special “The Two Kings” and he was enraged that they were comparing Elvis to Michael Jackson.
He went on to say that he thought there was NO COMPARISON (yes, he used all caps) between Elvis and Michael Jackson, that Michael Jackson was a (painful to write) “freak of nature” and a “Pedophile”.
I stared at this comment and could not believe he had posted that. The anger was a growing, festering entity within me. First, I was shocked that someone like this person could blindly call someone names like this after vilifying the press and their lack of integrity over political issues. The second thing that really enraged me was that this guy is a REVEREND! Yes, a man of the cloth.
Before I thought better of it, I pounced to reply to his comment, “What are you doing? You don’t know this man? You’re going to believe everything the press has to say NOW? Why? You know he was found innocent! You’re supposed to be a man of GOD! Would Jesus treat him like that?”
He replied back of course, with similar arguments using O.J. Simpson as an example of someone who was found “innocent”. By the time I had received that reply in my email notification, 20 other people had also jumped on this thread to comment. MOST of them were in support of Michael, but some were not.
Later on in her post, she said the following:
After completing the 60 Minutes Interview with Ed Bradley (took place in 2005, after the second accusation), I just put my head down on the desk and cried. The same type of tears I cry when the news runs a special report on the rescue of some severely abused or neglected animal. I felt absolutely filthy inside.
I was beyond angry. I began writing down on paper what I wanted to look for: Interviews, depositions, appearances, fans, speeches, awards, etc . . . everything I wanted to search for.
I wanted to know Michael Jackson. I wanted to know why he was such a target.
I wanted to know what compelled people to do this to ANY human being, let alone him.
I wanted to know why someone who professed God so much in just about every interview, could not seem to find any peace . . . or the love he was looking for.
I wanted to know Michael’s pain. I don’t know why, but I did. I felt if I got to know his pain, I would know him and what drew people to hurting him.
Did you notice how she mentioned how the reverend had routinely bashed the media for their political coverage (I assume he’s a conservative who thinks the media is too liberal), yet he all of a sudden believed EVERYTHING that they said about MJ?
One thing that anyone who knows me can rest assured of is that if there is negative information anywhere about MJ, I will refute it, whether it’s from liberals like Gloria Allred, conservatives like Andrew Bretibart, established professional “journalists” (and I use that term very loosely) like Diane Dimond, online bloggers like “Vanity Goddess”, or dedicated MJ hate sites like MJ Facts Info. All of those aforementioned people have had their reasoning and logic torn to pieces on this blog, and this series will be no different. My rebuttals to attacks on MJ from the religious community will be no different than my rebuttals to attacks on MJ from the legal community (such as Nancy Grace and Sunny Hostin).
Before we get started, let me discuss what this series will and will not do: This series will show the attacks against MJ from the religious community, and my rebuttals will immediately follow. I will debunk all of their arguments against MJ, such as “If MJ had God in his life, he would have sung Gospel music exclusively, he wouldn’t have had any problems in his life, and would have been normal!” by showing many Christians who have had problems of all kinds in their lives, despite their pious public images. This series will also show many Christians who have shown their love and support for MJ, both before and after his death.
There’s a very pernicious mentality about MJ that has permeated the religious community, and that is the notion that God would have made MJ “normal” had MJ known and worshipped him, and he wouldn’t have “bleached his skin”, or “had sleepovers with young boys”, and he wouldn’t have been a “drug addict”, and he wouldn’t have “butchered his face”, or the other usual crap that is said about MJ. Ultimately, this mentality says that if MJ had known God and had Christ in his life, he’d still be alive! (As if Christians never die an early death!) Here are a few examples:
This video from a pastor who says that if MJ had a relationship with God, he wouldn’t have died early, and mocks MJ by using the names of many of his songs to judge him at the end(but I’ll give him credit for not judging his salvation, as many people in the church have done, and still do!):
The following is an excerpt from a blogger, who obviously felt that MJ wasn’t a humble person, which is astonishing because she claimed she was a lifelong fan:
Just think, if Michael had known Jesus personally throughout his career, maybe his life would’ve taken a different path (Proverbs 3:5-6). Perhaps he would’ve been happy with the way God made his beautiful, handsome face and not have subjected himself to years of unnecessary plastic surgeries that dramatically changed his appearance (Psalm 139:14). Maybe he would’ve listened to his closest confidants to seek healthier treatments for his insomnia, and his physical and emotional pain instead of allegedly abusing prescription drugs that led to his addiction (Jeremiah 17:14; Acts 9:34). Perhaps Michael would’ve made better financial decisions to keep himself out of tremendous debt (Proverbs 22:7; Romans 13:8a). Maybe he would’ve listened to warnings about having sleepovers with young boys (Proverbs 11:14; Ephesians 5:15,17). Perhaps he wouldn’t have been so lonely (Psalm 25:16; Psalm 34:18; Hebrews 13:5b). Maybe he would’ve received peace for his tortured soul (Psalm 23:2-3a; Matthew 11:28-29).
Perhaps he’d still be alive!
“My son do not forget my teaching, but keep my commands in your heart, for they will prolong your life many years and bring you prosperity” (Proverbs 3:1-2 / NIV).
Life Lessons
Some of the lessons we all can learn from Michael’s life and shocking death is that our lives are in God’s hands (Psalm 139:16b), and He gives all of us life here on earth for only a season (Ecclesiastes 3:1-2). But what a glorious season it can be if we walk according to His will and His ways. Michael was truly blessed. He had an unusually lengthy season as an extraordinary entertainer and humanitarian that spanned four decades. Four decades! But like all seasons under heaven, Michael’s came to an end — albeit a tragic one.
We learn from Michael that life is precious, and life is short (Psalm 144:4; Psalm 90:12) and that we need to live our lives with purpose, humility and wisdom.
That last sentence of hers implies that MJ did not live his life with purpose, humility, and wisdom, which is an extraordinary assertion for her to make, considering that she never met the man even once!
Here’s another example. This author of this article condescendingly titled it “Michael Jackson’s Real Legacy”, as if he knows anything about MJ to even say that!
It seems to me that he was on a perpetual search for happiness and just couldn’t find it. He built Neverland but it never brought him the happiness that he so desperately longed for. Nothing could. Bubbles couldn’t. Elizabeth Taylor couldn’t. Sold out arenas couldn’t. Hundreds of millions of dollars couldn’t.
He looked for it in the Jehovah’s Witnesses but there was nothing but legalism behind that hollow door of religion. He tried to find it in cosmetic surgery but all he could find was disfigurement. He even tried (and succeeded) in changing the color of his skin. But the white Michael Jackson seemed just as miserable as the black one…if not a little more.
The poor guy couldn’t even think back to the “better times” of his childhood. Why? Because, according to him, even these memories were not good. In one interview he said that when he was a kid he would literally puke when his father entered the room. That’s how terrified he was of his own dad. According to Michael he never had time to play but only to practice. His dad was too busy pushing him and his brothers up the music charts to be worried about Michael having any kind of normal childhood.
Not only was his childhood ruined but, according to many, he ruined some childhoods himself. Whether the allegations are true or not we will probably never really know. What we do know is that the accusations, the court mayhem and the financial payoffs added to the craziness and emptiness that defined the later years of Michael Jackson.
I wish Michael Jackson could have met the real Jesus, not the rule mongering, anti holiday, party pooper Jesus of The Watchtower. I’m talking about the Jesus of the New Testament. I really wish the King of Pop would have met the King of kings. Jesus would have quenched his thirst (see the woman at the well), healed his hurts (see the ten lepers) and changed the color of his soul not his skin. The King of kings could have given Michael a reason to sing and dance (see all the Gospels.)
He claims that MJ was never happy because he “didn’t have Jesus”, but the reason that MJ wasn’t happy was due to the false allegations that plagued him in the later years of his life! He didn’t build Neverland strictly for his own happiness (as I will explain later), but for the happiness of poor and sick children, and (most importantly!) their families!
Here is a comment from a close friend of mine about pastors who bash MJ in church, and after reading those 2 excerpts above, it’s easy to see why she feels this way! She wrote this in response to the pastor that I will refute later on in this post, and who inspired me to write this series in the first place!
As a non-Christian I will only say this: Michael Jackson was a lot better person than most of those Christians who judge him. It’s not statues and paintings those will make someone a good or a bad person. It’s how you treat people. And there Lewis and his like could learn a thing or two from him. For one, Michael didn’t judge others.
Why on earth some of these Christian preachers feel the need to hold a sermon featuring Michael at all? How will it add to the spiritual growth of their congregation to single out a man, whom you never knew personally, and publicly judge him and bash him and call him all kinds of names? Sorry, but it’s no better than what tabloids do and it seems like he needed Michael’s name to somehow spice up his sermon, which is pathetic. It really is like gossiping in the disguise of a sermon.
Well said! After watching numerous religious leaders bash and trash MJ, I feel those sentiments exactly!
My friend and fellow MJ blogger Raven Woods (author of the “All For Love” blog) has very similar thoughts on this issue. Here is a note that she wrote on Facebook after reading what was said about MJ in an article titled – you guessed it! – “Would Jesus Have Made a Difference in Michael Jackson’s Life?” It was printed in a Christian magazine that was dated July 2009:
I was at the Laundromat this afternoon and, bored while waiting, started to browse through some of the magazines. Most of them are pretty outdated. Well, out of curiosity, I happened to pick up an issue of “The Message” which, from what I gathered, is a Christian magazine, though I’m not sure what denomination. But as I was flipping through, I saw a pic of young Michael with his brothers. Then I realized it was an entire centerspread on Michael! Apparently the issue was from June or July, 2009, and of course like so many publications during that time, they felt compelled to run a “tribute.” It’s still mind boggling to realize what a truly global impact Michael’s death had, one that compelled even country music stations to play his songs in tribute, and Christian magazines normally devoted to articles on Biblical scripture to pause a moment to reflect on this extraordinary life. Nervously, I proceeded to read the article, expecting the worst, because by now I’ve come to know all too well how most “Christian organizations” view Michael Jackson-you know the rote. Either as a pedophile and false idol at worst, or a measly pop star unworthy of adoration at best. I figured the article would take one of those approaches, probably lambasting the world’s outpouring of grief as indicative of humanity’s misplaced priorities, but I was pleasantly surprised. The article was mostly balanced and, I thought, pretty fair overall, but there were still some issues that bothered me. The article portrayed Michael mostly as a tragic victim-a victim of fame, of an abusive childhood, of failed marriages, of accusations leveled against him (of course, you knew they would mention that, but how could they not! Those charges, fairly or not, became forever linked in the public’s consciousness with the name Michael Jackson). It occurred to me as I read the article that there are two false extreme perceptions the public has of Michael Jackson. He is either viewed as a complete monster and freak, or as “The Victim.” Of course, neither is accurate. He certainly wasn’t a monster, but I think this tendency to reduce him to nothing more than the clichéd’ “Victim of Fame” is just as damaging. Both extremes do one thing-they deny him of his humanity and his complexity as a human being. It also bothered me that an entire centerspread article on the passing of Michael Jackson, especially in a Christian magazine, of all places, made no mention whatsoever of his enormous humanitarian contributions. But what bothered me most (even if albeit well intentioned by the writers) was the question, “What difference could Jesus have made in Michael Jackson’s life?”
In other words, had Michael “known Jesus” he could have surely been saved from the demons that plagued him, and the loneliness that consumed him! My immediate response to that was, “And how do you people presume to know what Michael’s relationship with Christ was? It was rumored that Andre Crouch had said that Michael received Christ three weeks before his death, although in a recent article he denied the rumor, but did say that Michael had asked about the anointment of Jesus. However, as a Jehovah’s Witness Michael had been deeply religious all of his life (even if sometimes conflicted). I got the feeling that this was simply yet one more way of passing judgment on Michael-of the person he was, and the life he lived, and the fan adoration he had for most of his life. But who are they to pass judgment on what Michael’s relationship with Christ was? Do they know? I doubt it seriously.but like so many, they have no problem with judging a man they never met, or reducing him to a level just this side of caricature. So while the piece wasn’t as horrible as I feared, it still left the tang of an unpleasant taste. Unfortunately, I think Michael will always be one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented persons ever written about.
It’s a shame when you read about MJ in a religious magazine or blog, and you’re surprised when they write positive things about him, but unfortunately that is the exception, and not the norm. I encountered this myself each and every time I went to a Christian website and did a search of “Michael Jackson”, and read through the dozens of hits that would come up. I had to mentally prepare myself to read and listen to all of the lies and condemnation that was hurled at him by a bunch of pious, self-righteous, judgmental, holier-than-thou hypocrites who hide behind religion, and use it as a shield as they cast stones while living inside of their glass houses! If only THEIR lives could be exposed to the masses every day, and judged by their peers!
And did you notice how those aforementioned articles were written under the assertion that MJ “didn’t know” God? It’s utterly amazing how the authors could literally be an armchair quarterback and come to that conclusion by skimming over MJ’s life, despite having never known him!
Many Christians say that MJ would have been “normal” had he known God, but what if MJ really was “normal”, and instead of building Neverland to host sick and underprivileged children, he built his own version of the Playboy Mansion and used it to have wild, drug filled sex parties with porn stars (just like Hugh Hefner)? What would these same religious leaders say about MJ then? What if MJ regularly went clubbing and bar-hopping, and got involved in many alcohol-induced barroom brawls? What if he had multiple children out of wedlock with the many groupies who threw themselves at him throughout his career, and didn’t pay child support? What if he was in and out of drug rehab for recreational drugs that he used for pleasure, such as cocaine or marijuana?
However, this series will NOT focus on religion, in and of itself, and any criticisms I level at the people I refute is strictly based on what they said about MJ, and nothing else. I am 100% neutral on the views that they express in the sermons and blogs that I will link to, so please know that I am not endorsing or opposing anything that is said by them.
And let me say this: no matter how “religious” or “spiritual” someone is, no matter what title they have earned, no matter how many years they spent at their seminary, or how many Bible or Torah or Quran verses or sermons they have memorized, they are still human beings who are capable of making mistakes, and it’s not blasphemy to call them out and correct them when it is called for. For the liberal readers of this blog, did you agree with everything that the late Rev. Jerry Falwell said in his lifetime? Of course not! To the conservative readers of this blog, do you agree with everything that Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson say? What about President Obama’s former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright? Of course not! They’re entitled to their political views, and so are you, and you shouldn’t feel intimidated when it comes to challenging them, and I certainly don’t feel intimidated when it comes to defending MJ against any religious leader (or ANYONE for that matter), especially when their criticisms are rooted in their own misconceptions about the man that are influenced by the tabloid media! If everyone let religious leaders go unchallenged, then women and minorities wouldn’t have the civil rights that we have today, because people have used religion as a means to enforce slavery, segregation, and discrimination against women (such as forbidding them the right to vote or own property). For example, the Ku Klux Klan – which happens to be a Christian organization – has used the Bible to justify their hatred of others, but nobody is afraid to criticize them as the idiots that they are!
In this post, I will refute several rabid MJ haters who have attacked MJ from behind the pulpit (and when you see the tone of their rhetoric, you’ll know why I used the term “hater”). In future posts, I will show MJ’s spiritual side, prove that he wasn’t a devil worshipper, show how his accusers lied against him despite their claims of “spirituality”, show examples of many Christians hypocrites who many would have used as good examples of how to live, and most importantly, your faith in humanity will be restored when I showcase the Christians who have defended him! (Just wait until you see the pastor who apologizes to God for attacking MJ!).
With that being said, let’s get down to business!
I recently saw a YouTube series by a pastor named G. Craig Lewis, who claims that MJ was a Satanist who idolized Aleister Crowley, who was an occultist who inspired the Beatles, Ozzy Osbourne, and Led Zeppelin. He also said that MJ was a “corybantes”, which were castrated men who worshipped the goddess Cybele through song and dance. I included the links to the first 2 parts below, along with some “highlights” of each part (Part 3 and 4 of his sermon will be refuted in part 2 of this series):
Let’s annihilate his lies one by one!
“When he bought the Beatles anthology so he could channel Aleister Crowley through it, he stole your heart“. ” This isn’t true at all! He bought the Beatles catalog on September 6th, 1985 because he knew it would be an appreciating intangible asset, no different than someone who buys stocks on Wall Street! I notice how I said he BOUGHT the catalog, and did not STEAL it, as that lie has been leveled at him ever since the transaction was finalized! Let’s look at what MJ’s attorney John Branca, who negotiated the purchase, had to say about MJ’s acquisition of the catalog, beginning at 3:30:
Branca confirmed that MJ bought it after first seeking Yoko Ono’s (the widow of John Lennon) and Paul McCartney’s permission, which they happily granted!
“Corybantes: they had their hair dressed and waved like women. They were heavily made up, their faces resembling white washed walls. They were castrated and keepers of children or infants.” In the video above, you can see how he tried to juxtapose a photo of MJ with a photo of a corybantes in order to prejudice his audience against MJ. By having the photo of MJ onscreen while describing the corybantes as (for all intents and purposes) effeminate, he was trying to say that since MJ had those characteristics, he was a corybantes! I’ll rebut this trash by saying, first and foremost, MJ was NOT physically or chemically castrated! That myth was debunked in this post, which was written by my fellow MJ bloggers Seven Bowie and Nikki Allygator (who also wrote this amazing piece debunking the gay rumors). That rumor started from jealous haters who said that he had himself castrated and took female hormones in order to maintain his high-pitched voice, when in fact he was a natural tenor!
As you can see from the photo below, MJ could grow a beard if he wanted to, and that would be impossible if he was castrated and without testosterone:
Listen to his voice at 0:37, and ask yourself does that sound like someone who is devoid of testosterone in his body?
And look at the photo below, and tell me that looks like someone who is physically castrated!
The makeup that MJ wore was due to his vitiligo, which was caused by the autoimmune disease Lupus (which we discussed in detail in this post). Had he not wore makeup, his skin tone would have been very uneven and splotchy, and he would have been ridiculed even worse than he was!
The wigs that he wore later on in his career were due to his hair falling out as a result of lupus, and the huge bald spot resulting from the 3rd degree burn he suffered while shooting the Pepsi commercial. Had he not worn a wig, he (once again) would have been subjected to even more ridicule!
“There’s a line in ‘We Are The World’ that’s so demonic that it’s hard to believe that folks sung this in their churches in celebration to Michael Jackson. Michael wrote this part….”
In this part, the pastor claims that a line from “We Are The World” is “demonic”, but it’s not a line that MJ sung! It was the following line sung by Willie Nelson: “As God has shown us by turning stones to bread“, and he may have written that himself. The song was re-worked from the original demo that was co-written by Lionel Richie, and sung exclusively by MJ. The lyrics are completely different in most parts, most notably the chorus where “we’re saving our own lives” replaced “we’re taking our own lives” because they didn’t want to be accused of glorifying suicide. Let’s listen to the original demo of the song, which was officially released in November 2004 on the Ultimate Collection CD:
People have tried to pin that line on MJ in order accuse him of devil worship, when Willie Nelson OR Lionel Richie very well could have written that line! And even if MJ did write that line, he surely didn’t do it with the intention of devil worship! Why do people like Lewis have to attack MJ over something that is so trivial and petty as a line in a song, given the fact that the man was a true humanitarian and obeyed the Gospel’s message of helping the poor and less fortunate! The song has earned $63 million dollars since 1985 (and was re-recorded by contemporary artists in January 2010 to benefit Haiti), and to me THAT is what should be emphasized, not that one line from the song!
There is a DVD called “We Are The World: The Story Behind The Song”, and it shows how the song was written and re-written until they got it right. For example, in the demo above, you hear the “sha-lum sha-lin-gay” hook, and it was rehearsed for the final song, but ultimately rejected for “One world, our children”. In the DVD, you will actually see them debating over whether or not those ad libs should be included! (It can be rented from iTunes, Blockbuster, or Netflix.)
He goes on to say that “Another Part Of Me” is a sign of devil worship due to the lyrics. Seriously. “We’re sending out a major love, and this is our message to you, the planets are lining up, we’re bringing brighter days” is supposed to be a sign that MJ is also into astrology as well! But the reason MJ had those references to planets and outer space is because the song was written for Captain EO, a movie that takes place on a spaceship!!! It had nothing whatsoever to do with Astrology! Here’s a clip:
And the icing on the cake is when he said “Blame It on the Boogie” is a sign of devil worship! But just to show you how poorly researched this series is, MJ didn’t even write that song! It was written by Michael George Jackson-Clarke, David Jackson, and Elmar Krohn, with the hope that it could be sold to Stevie Wonder! Here is the original version:
And here is Michael George Jackson with his son Sam talking about the making of that song, how the Jacksons came around to recording it, and the documentary they made about what the song did for them (which was, of course, recorded after MJ’s death). You can read more information on his official website.
Here is an excerpt from J. Randy Taraborelli’s book “Michael Jackson: The Magic, The Madness, The Whole Story”, where he describes how the Jacksons were forced to record “Blame It on the Boogie” by their record label:
When Michael Jackson set out to make his new solo album, he didn’t know what he wanted to be the final result. However, he knew what he didn’t want, and that was to make a record that sounded like a Jacksons’ album. From the start of his professional career, someone had decided the sound of Michael’s music. First, it had been Motown’s crack production staff and then the artist and repertoire executives at CBS/Epic. Though the family was given the freedom to write and ‘produce’ the Destiny album, Epic insisted that they record a song they didn’t write, ‘Blame It on the Boogie’. Other concessions and compromises were made along the way with the three albums for that label, and Michael never felt totally responsible for the results.
While Destiny’s hit single, ‘Shake Your Body’, re-established The Jacksons in the marketplace, many observers in the music business felt as Michael did, that the brothers had left their magic at Motown.
Lewis claims that Quincy Jones said that MJ loved the song so much that he danced in the streets after writing it, but Quincy Jones did not work on the “Destiny” album, which was released on December 17th, 1978! He didn’t work with MJ on any albums until “Off The Wall”, which was released on August 10th, 1979! Sounds like this pastor did some “cut and paste” research! The quote that the pastor is attributing to “Blame It On The Boogie” was actually said about the song “Don’t Stop Till You Get Enough”! (I’m still searching for the exact quote from Quincy Jones about the song.) Michael himself also said how the song affected him as he wrote and composed it:
During ‘Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough’ (which would become Off the Wall’s first single), Michael unveiled a playful, sexy falsetto no one had ever heard from him before. All of the right elements were in place on this song: an unstoppable beat, a meticulous, well-balanced delivery of lyrics and melody and a driving energy. Michael explained that he couldn’t shake the song’s melody when it came to him one day. He walked throughout the house humming and singing it to himself. Finally, he went into the family’s twenty-four-track studio and had Randy put the melody down on the piano (Michael can’t play).
When he played it for Quincy, it was a done deal: it had to be on the album.
I recently did a series of posts on the intellectual fallacies that MJ haters use when they try to tear down the superstar, and Lewis is using several of them. Can you guess which ones? In this example, he’s using the fallacy of “cherry picking”, which means he’s selectively choosing lyrics that “fit” his agenda, while IGNORING lyrics that refute it. So if he wants to use song lyrics to trash MJ, then I will use song lyrics to defend MJ! Two can play that game!
First, let’s look at the last verse of “Heal the World”:
And The Dream We Were
Conceived In
Will Reveal A Joyful Face
And The World We
Once Believed In
Will Shine Again In Grace
Then Why Do We Keep
Strangling Life
Wound This Earth
Crucify Its Soul
Though It’s Plain To See
This World Is Heavenly
Be God’s Glow
We Could Fly So High
Let Our Spirits Never Die
In My Heart
I Feel You Are All
My Brothers
Create A World With
No Fear
Together We’ll Cry
Happy Tears
See The Nations Turn
Their Swords
Into Plowshares
As you can see, MJ is encouraging everyone to “be God’s glow” by showing people God’s grace and love through their actions. The next group of lyrics that I bolded and underlined have flown under the radar of many fans, and many people don’t realize MJ’s inspiration behind them. The term “swords to plowshares” comes from the following two Bible verses: Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3:
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
That message of world peace in that verse is consistent with the message of “Heal The World”, and that is why MJ chose to include that in the lyrics. And MJ isn’t the only person to be inspired by that verse! There is a non-profit organization called “Swords to Plowshares” that is dedicated to helping the veterans of wars reintegrate into society and become productive citizens! Here is their mission statement:
Our Mission
War causes wounds and suffering that last beyond the battlefield. Swords to Plowshares’ mission is to heal the wounds, to restore dignity, hope, and self-sufficiency to all veterans in need, and to significantly reduce homelessness and poverty among veterans.
Founded in 1974, Swords to Plowshares is a community-based, not-for-profit organization that provides counseling and case management, employment and training, housing and legal assistance to veterans in the San Francisco Bay Area. We promote and protect the rights of veterans through advocacy, public education and partnerships with local, state and national entities.
Let’s now look at the lyrics for “Can You Feel It?”
All the colors of the world should be
lovin’ each other wholeheartedly.
yes it’s alright, take my message to your brother and tell him twice.
spread the word who tried to teach the man who is hatin’ his brother,
when hate won’t do
’cause we’re all the same
yes the blood inside of me is inside of you.
Those lyrics perfectly coincide with the Gospel’s message of “love thy neighbor”! Pay attention to the last line, where he MJ sings his interpretation of the old saying “we all bleed red!”
Here are the lyrics to “Dangerous”:
And then it happened
She touched me
For the lips of
A strange woman
Drop as a honeycomb
And her mouth was
Smoother than oil
But her inner spirit and words
Were as sharp as
A two-edged sword
But I loved it
‘Cause it’s dangerous
Those lyrics that I bolded and underlined are from Proverbs 5:3:
For the lips of a strange woman drop as a honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil.
Other songs that mention God or have religious themes are “They Don’t Really Care About Us” (You’re rapin’ me off my pride
Oh, for God’s sake/I look to heaven to fulfill its prophecy…,Set me free ), “Stranger in Moscow” (he sings “Lord have mercy” in the ad libs at the end), “Scream” (the second chorus features “Oh Father please have mercy, cause I just can’t take it!”), and “Earth Song” (MJ asks “What about the Holy Land?” at the end).
Retired NBA player and devout Christian Allan Houston said in this blog post that this song was the inspiration for a teachable moment between him and his son! He was asked about the meaning of the lyrics, and Houston said that it allowed him to talk to his son about sex in a realistic manner, which he is grateful for because the topic of sex is very awkward for most parents:
My son loves Michael Jackson, but something was disturbing him and he couldn’t figure out why. He said he wanted to take the song ‘Dangerous’ off his Nintendo DS. I asked why. He said he looked at the lyrics on www.lyrics007.com, and the lyrics seemed ‘inappropriate’. When he showed me, I understood why he was in turmoil over one of his favorite artists’ inner conflict in the song.
My job was to explain to my son why there was nothing ‘wrong’ with the lyrics; and what was right about him coming to me and getting clarification. I immediately was so thankful because I realized this was a very important teaching opportunity on many levels.
1. we as fathers and/or mentors HAVE to be able to be real with our kids: especially on the object of sexuality. We can’t run from this, because they’ll find out one way or another.
2. we can’t give them just ANY answers to real questions and issues…..WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM TRUTH. I believe truth comes from the WORD OF GOD.
What’s so cool about this moment is that evidently MJ did too!Michael Jackson’s lyrics from the song “Dangerous” :And then it happened
She touched me
For the lips of A strange woman
Drop as a honeycomb
And her mouth was Smoother than oil
But her inner spirit and words
Were as sharp as A two-edged sword
But I loved it ‘Cause it’s dangerousNow….check it…..
Compare them to Proverbs 5:3-4
‘For the lips of an adulteress drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword.
I always tell my kids..don’t just sing songs because everyone else is singing them….
go see what they’re saying in the songs so you know what you’re saying!
We gotta be careful with what we’re saying, and putting in our hearts Lets teach’em how to change the world!I see how Michael Jackson’s legacy will never die.
To be continued………………
Discrepancies between Jordan and June Chandler’s stories
They were always together
This post was prompted by the discrepancy found by a IMDB poster between Jordan Chandler’s interview with psychiatrist Dr. Richard Gardner (to whom he was sent for evaluation of his story on October 6, 1993) and June Chandler’s testimony at the 2005 Arvizo trial.
I decided to make a quick summary of several other contradictory things in the Chandlers’ documents. The package will include the so-called Jordan Chandler’s declaration or statement to Larry Feldman of December 28, 1993 (not a deposition, he never made one!) and a collection of lies told by Ray Chander at various times.
The list of discrepancies is far from complete but I decided not to put off until tomorrow what I can do today and write down what we have for the moment – we can return to the list and supplement it with new information any time. The list will include small and big discrepancies all brought together as you never know which of them will acquire importance in the future.
-
It starts with the description of which party, Michael Jackson or the Chandlers, wanted further communication with the other party after their first meeting in May 1992.
Ray Chandler says it was Michael Jackson who wanted it. He speaks about it in a conversation with Larry King, discussed here:
CHANDLER: That’s how they met. Michael took the boy’s phone number.
KING: Took it right there? The mother had no complaint about or stepfather had no complaint of the taking of the number by Jackson? There was no reason to think of anything?
CHANDLER: No, at that point it was very innocent. Or seemed innocent.
June Chandler said she gave to Michael Jordan’s number and allowed him to give him a call ( see the trial transcript please), though wife of an employee present during the conversation said June was almost forcing her son on Michael (“It was almost like she was forcing [the boy] on him,” Green recalls. “I think Michael thought he owed the boy something, and that’s when it all started.”).
At the 2005 trial where June Chandler testified she worded it as follows:
Q. …do you recall how long you were with Mr. Jackson and Jordan that day?
A. Briefly. Five minutes. Ten minutes.
Q. And did — was there any information exchanged between you and Mr. Jackson that day?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that?
A. I said, “If you would like to see Jordie or if he could call you or if you’d like to speak to him, here is our number, and you can give him a call.”
Q. And you gave that to Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes, I did.
And Jordan Chandler said in his interview with Dr. Richard Gardner that it was his step-father David Schwartz who gave the telephone to Michael, imploring him to call him:
Jordan: My stepfather took him [Michael] outside to choose a car for him to use. And I guess when my stepfather was outside he said, ‘You don’t have to pay for the car if you just take Jordie’s number and give him a call’.
Dr. Gardner: ”Why would your stepfather say that?”
Jordan: “Because my stepfather knows I was interested in Michael Jackson and his music.”
Dr. Gardner: ”And this was in your presence?’
Jordan: “No. I was told this by my stepfather.”
Dr.Gardner: “So what happened then?”
Jordan: “Then he [Michael] left.”
Dr. Gardner: “Did he agree to a deal?”
Jordan: “Yeah.”
Dr. Gardner: “Okay, then what happened?”
Jordan: “I don’t remember how many days later, but he called me”.
So Michael called Jordan just because it was a deal with Jordan’s stepfather! He was simply fulfilling his promise to him! If he had only known what would come of it…
.... but the media preferred to show the two of them only
2. The duration of the phone calls between Michael and Jordan Chandler is also a big mystery.
Jordan’s mother says she was always present during all telephone calls between Michael and Jordan. Altogether there were 8 or 10 of them which lasted from 10 min to an hour and a half.
In Jordan’s statement the duration of telephone conversations between Michael and Jordan is extended up to three hours. He says that the first three-hour call was made from his father’s house, and this was repeated not just once.
However from June Chandler and other sources we know that Jordan stayed at his father’s house on very rare occasions, so repeated and prolonged conversations from Evan Chandler’s house are simply out of the question under such circumstances:
JORDAN’S STATEMENT:
“I received many telephone calls from Michael Jackson. On occasion they lasted as long as three hours.”
HIS MOTHER’S TESTIMONY:
Q. Were you present in the house during the time to observe the length of the conversations between your son and Mr.
Jackson?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. On more than one occasion?
A. Absolutely.
Q. So based upon your observations give us an estimate of the number of times, that you know of, that Mr. Jackson called your son Jordan.
A. I would say eight to ten times.
Q. Could you give the jury some idea of how long these conversations lasted?
A. It was from maybe ten minutes, to an hour, or an hour and a half.
3) Jordan says that on their first visit to Neverland Michael took him and Lily to Toys-R-Us to get anything they wanted. It sounds like they were alone there. And the mother says she was accompanying them.
JORDAN’S STATEMENT:
“One evening he took Lily and me to Toys-R-Us and we were allowed to get anything we wanted”.
HIS MOTHER:
“Lily and Jordie and Michael and I went. And they had fun. They were shopping and Michael bought lots of things for them. They picked out stuff, and they were showered with great presents from Toys-R-Us.
Michael always held Lily in his arms
4) Jordan says he stayed in Las Vegas for a week. His mother says it was a 2-3 days trip only.
Their difference of opinion is important as it shows that nothing extraordinary happened during that visit, though both claim that this is when the “sleepovers” started and this was accompanied by some “crying” and heated discussion.
Liars! They cannot even remember how long that notable trip lasted!
JORDAN’s statement:
In late March 93, my mother, Lily and I went to Las Vegas as a guest of Michael Jackson. We stayed at a large suite at the Mirage hotel about a week.
HIS MOTHER:
Q. And when you got to Las Vegas, where did you stay, what hotel?
A. The Mirage Hotel.
Q. Do you remember how long you stayed in Las Vegas on this occasion?
A. Two or three nights.
5) Their individual stories of starting the so-called “sleepovers” are a stark contrast to each other.
First they could not agree on how long the stay in Las Vegas lasted, and now they don’t know how the “sharing-the-bed” thing began (one would imagine that it is so important an issue that at least here they would agree, but they do not).
Jordan says the sleepover started one day during that “week” because he was scared to remain alone in this room after the Exorcist movie:
“We stayed at the Mirage hotel for a week (?). One night Michael Jackson and I watched the Exorcist in Michael Jackson’s bedroom. When the movie was over, I was scared. MJ suggested that I spend the night with him, which I did. Although we slept in the same bed there was no physical contact”.
As we know his mother says they stayed at the Mirage hotel for 3 days only. Her story starts with a statement which surprised even Tom Sneddon – on the first night at the hotel the four of them stayed together in one and the same room in their three-room suite (so their separate “sleepover” was ruled out on that night):
Q. Now, when you got to Las Vegas, did you have — obviously you had a room – in The Mirage.
A. Correct
Q. And who was in your room when you first got there? Who was staying in your room?
A. Jordan, myself, Lily and Michael.
Q. All in the same room?
A. Correct.
....but the media focused on Jordan instead
Now comes the point of “how it started”.
June Chandler says that the second night their sleeping arrangements changed. The short of her story:
Jordan and Michael were going to see a Cirque du Soleil performance. It was starting around 11 p.m. at night, but all of a sudden they returned to the hotel at 11.30 p.m. Michael was “crying” and asked “Why are you doing this? Why are you not allowing Jordan to be with me?” Their conversation lasted for some 30-40 minutes until after midnight. Then she says she “relented” and allowed his son to sleep in Michael’s bedroom for the first time.
To more or less reconcile the version Jordan related to Dr. Gardner (about the Exorcist) and his mother’s testimony, we have to assume that they watched the movie (if they did at all) after they came back to the hotel and had that tearful discussion with June Chandler. This is quite possible though given the duration of the film (approx.2:30) it should have ended at 3 in the morning and on the next day they were leaving Las Vegas.
Okay, but what does June Chandler say about the Exorcist movie at all?
She says that “she was told they had seen it”:
Q. Okay. At some point did you all see an Exorcist movie?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall anyone watching an Exorcist movie?
A. I was told Jordan and Michael watched an Exorcist movie.
All this is very nice of course, except one fact though – to Dr. Richard Gardner Jordan said that the notable soap-opera with “crying” and Michael’s remonstrances with his mother over the possibility to stay in his room for the first time took place after they had seen the movie, and Jordan had already stayed in Michael’s room, and June found out about this fact the next day only, and it was only then that all this “crying” actually took place:
Jordan: “After my mom and Kelly went to sleep, we went to watch the movie The Exorcist. We were in his room, in his bed. And when it was over I was scared, and he said, why don’t you just stay in here. And I did and nothing happened.”
Dr. Gardner: ”When you say you stayed in the room – - “
Jordan: “Stayed in the same bed.”
Dr. Gardner: “Slept in the same bed?”
Jordan: “That’s right.”
Dr. Gardner: “When you slept in the same bed was there any physical contact?”
Jordan: “No.”
Dr. Gardner: “Was it a big bed?”
Jordan: “Yeah, I think so.”
Dr. Gardner: “So there was no physical contact. What were your thoughts when he said let’s sleep in the same bed?”
Jordan: “Well, I was scared, and I didn’t think anything was going to happen.”
Dr. Gardner: “You were scared of him or scared of the movie?”
Jordan: “The movie. So I said, ‘Okay, that’s fine.” It was like a regular slumber party.”
Dr. Gardner: “Okay, is there anything else to say about that event?”
Jordan: “Just simply that we talked about how they got the idea for The Exorcist. So the next morning, I was with my mom alone and – - ”
Dr. Gardner: “Did your mother know that you had slept in bed with him?”
Jordan: “Well, I’m getting to that. I said, ‘I slept with Michael in the same bed last night,’ and she said, ‘Well, just don’t do it again’.”
Dr. Gardner: “Did she speak to Michael at all?”
Jordan: “Well, I’ll get to that. So when I told Michael the news of the fact that she said don’t do that again – don’t sleep in the same bed – we were alone, Michael and I, and he burst out in tears and said, ‘She can’t set up barricades like that,’ and ‘Nothing could happen, it’s just a simple slumber party type thing,’ and ‘There’s nothing wrong with it’.”
Dr. Gardner: “He said, nothing will happen, there’s nothing wrong with it, and it’s like a slumber party?”
Jordan: “Right. And so, he came – - I don’t remember if I was crying or not but he decided that he had to confront my mom with his feelings about what she said. What he told me he said, ‘There’s nothing wrong with it, you should allow it because it’s simple and fun and you shouldn’t set up barricades.’ And he got my mom feeling so guilty that she just broke down in tears and decided that, okay, I believe you. And Michael somehow got her to agree that there would be no further questions asked. And so from that point on I was in his bed till the end of our relationship.”
Guys, let us make it clear.
In June Chandler’s version of the events they first had a tearful discussion and then Jordan was finally allowed to sleep in Michael’s bedroom. As regards the Exorcist June Chandler says she does not know anything about it, so we assume that they saw it exactly on that very night after she allowed a sleepover.
And in Jordan Chandler’s version they first saw the Exorcist, then his mother found it out, challenged Michael Jackson with her questions, he cried over it and it was after that that she also cried and “relented” to the whole thing.
Now thanks to the attentive reader we have also noticed that in the version of crying before watching the Exorcist Jordan was allegedly present at the tearful conversation, while in the version of crying after the Exorcist Jordan wasn’t present at the conversation as he was only “told by him” [Michael] about it.
Well, how do you like it?
6) Another interesting discrepancy is connected with the so-called “30 days in a row” which Michael Jackson allegedly spent in Jordan and June Chandler’s house.
Ray Chandler thunders over it:
Ray Chandler speaks to Larry King on November 25, 2003:http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/25/lkl.00.html
CHANDLER: And one other place, which I think, you know, is very important to understand that it also occurred in the boy’s home, where he was living with his then family. Michael slept in the boy’s bedroom behind closed doors for 30 nights in a row. Thirty nights in a row.
To answer the above let me refer you to what I’ve written about it earlier (I simply cannot go over all that absurdity again).
Though June Chandler did speak about some vague “30 days” she was quite definite that they were never in a row – she said Michael’s consecutive stays “could be a week or two at a time only:
Q. After you got back from Monaco, did Michael Jackson spend nights at your home?
A. Yes.
Q. Were the 30 nights you’ve described after you got back from Monaco?
A. No.
Q. How many nights after you got back from Monaco do you think Michael Jackson stayed at your home?
A. Oh, perhaps a week or two.
Let me explain this Monaco thing – Jordan claimed in his declaration of December 28, 1993 that it was in Monaco that ‘things got out of hand’ – which was at the beginning of May (May 9, 1993). Even our Diane Dimond as a big expert on Michael Jackson also said that “it” started in Monaco.
However according to June those ‘30 days’ were NOT AFTER Monaco. They were BEFORE it. Which means that even according to Jordan’s or Diane Dimond the period before Monaco was nothing special in the ‘relationship’ between Michael and Jordan.
A simple deduction of 30 days from the beginning of May takes us to the beginning of April which is approximately the moment named by June Chandler and Jordan as the time when Michael invited them to Las Vegas and where Jordan allegedly stayed in Michael’s room for the first time.
We have just heard from June Chandler that Michael spent full 30 days in June’s home after Las Vegas (late March) and before Monaco (May 9) with consecutive stays being no more than “a week or two at a time”. This pressing schedule didn’t prevent them from staying (at least overnight) at Neverland two or three times too and go to Disneyland in Florida on two occasions staying there for two or three days each time. Please note that between Florida and Monaco some two or three weeks elapsed according to June’s testimony within which period June Chandler saw Michael only “at times”.
Well, didn’t I tell you that it would be difficult to understand it?
I don’t understand it either and would be really grateful if someone could explain to me how it is possible to squeeze those 30 days in question as well as numerous other events (with all those breaks in between them) into the maximum of 40 days which passed between Las Vegas (the end of March) and Monaco (the beginning of May) – especially if you consider that besides the Chandlers Michael had other matters to attend to?
For example, Michael worked on “Whatsupwithu” video with Eddy Murphy at the time which was aired on April 11, and attended some South Central educational institutions within the Heal Los Angeles program on April 26 and went with Lisa-Maria Presley to an event organized by Jimmy Carter in Atlanta within the Heal the world project on May 5.
If you don’t believe me please check up June Chandler’s testimony for the timeline yourselves:
Q. Were there other visits to Neverland Valley Ranch after you came back from Las Vegas?
A. Yes, there were.
…Q. Do you remember on how many such occasions?
A. I would say two or three times.
Q. Now, were there occasions after you got back from Las Vegas — let me — where Mr. Jackson actually was invited to stay at your residence where you lived at this point in time?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what city was it that you lived in at this time?
A. Santa Monica.
Q. We’re talking about 1993, in the spring, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And during this time, did Mr. Jackson ever spend the night at your residence?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And do you recall on how many occasions Mr.Jackson spent the night at your residence?
A. I would say more than 30 times.
Q. And were some of those occasions on consecutive days or nights?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long consecutively do you think that that occurred?
A. Oh. It could be a week or two at a time.
Q. And when you went to Disney World with Mr. Jackson, who else went with you?
A. Jordan and Lily.
Q. Do you recall where you stayed?
A. I recall The Grand Floridian was one hotel. Q. And during the time that — do you remember how many days — did you go there on more than one occasion?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. How many occasions?
A. Twice.
Q. Do you — I think you answered this, but just in case, how many days did you think you were in Florida?
A. Oh, I don’t really remember, but it’s probably more than two nights. Two, three nights.
Q. And after you came back from Florida, do you recall where you went?
A. After that, I think the next trip was to Monaco.
Q. In between the time that you went to Florida and to Monaco, do you recall where you were — where you were personally staying?
A. No. I guess home.
Q. Do you remember how much time elapsed between the two trips?
A. Not really, no.
Q. Was it more than a month, more than a week? Obviously it was more than a day or so.
A. Yes. It was a couple — it could be three weeks.
Q. And during that time when you got back from Florida till the time that you left for Monaco, were you with Mr. Jackson?
A. At times.
7) The above remarkably inconsistent piece is also remarkable for June Chandler’s invitation to Michael to stay in their house right after the visit to Las Vegas.
“Mr. Jackson actually was invited to stay at your residence”.
What struck me about this statement was its passive form which was confirmed by June Chandler. But how can you be invited into anyone’s home if the master of the house does not invite you there? Wasn’t it no other but June Chandler who invited Michael to her home immediately after Las Vegas – which was exactly after that dubious Exorcist/du Soleil episode which supposedly worried her and over which she cried?
Recently I have found another proof that all talk about Michael Jackson being the initiator of spending time with Jordan Chandler was a complete fabrication. Surprisingly, but the discovery was made in the place least suitable for it – in one of the articles written by Maureen Orth:
She says,
” Pellicano isn’t bothered by admitting that Jackson slept with Jamie at Jamie’s house at least 30 days in a row, either. “They invited Michael to stay there. Michael didn’t crash their house. He didn’t say, ‘I want to stay here.’ They wanted him to stay there.”
According to Pellicano, there was no cause for alarm in Jackson’s having a friend like Jamie. “If Michael has no sexual preference one way or another, male or female, to my knowledge, and the parents of the children are allowing this, you have to look at it in the context—especially at the ranch. They go out and they play and they go on the rides and they have water fights and do all this stuff. And then they kind of like crash. Now, Michael is always fully dressed.” Even at Jamie’s house? “When [Jamie] went to bed, he had pajamas on, and sweats, and Michael had sweats and pajamas on. Michael goes to bed with his hat on. I’m serious.”
As regards the hat I can easily believe Pellicano’s words – Michael was associating with Jordan Chandler exactly after the first leg of the Dangerous tour about which we know (from Karen Faye) that Michael went there with his scalp not yet healed after the balloon stretching of his skin.
So going to bed in a hat was a very natural thing to do, considering that Michael still had a scar and a half-healed burned spot there. No need to laugh, I am being serious, guys.
8) Okay, and the last interesting discrepancy – or rather a notable omission – is connected with the description Jordan Chandler made of Michael’s genitalia.
The initial description was widely reported in the press and was originally found in Jordan’s first interview with Deborah Linden, the sheriff’s assistant – however it was completely missing from the statement he made to Larry Feldman several months later.
Have you ever asked yourself a question why that light splotch “which was the color of his face” and the “circumcised penis” described by Jordan in September 1993, disappeared from his story by the end of December 1993 when Jordan’s gave his account of the alleged molestation again?
What happened in between those two statements which contributed to the notable omission of so crucial an evidence?
Yes, yes, you are right – it was Michael Jackson’s strip search which didn’t support Jordan’s initial story and which made the media, the prosecution, Jordan Chandler and his lawyer Larry Feldman jointly forget by December 1993 the words Jordan said in September the same year.
It was only twelve years later (in 2005) that the description would reemerge in Tom Sneddon’s declaration, but this time it would come in a totally amended version – now he would not talk of “the light splotch the color of his face”, but would cite some indefinite dark spot found at the “relatively same location”, never mentioning the circumcision issue at all.
This is what Tom Sneddon considered a “match”.
Merry Christmas to all of you, guys!
Haters’ real agenda and new strategy against Michael Jackson’s fans
Guys, you remember that it was quite by chance that we got familiar with the updates on the haters’ site which claims that it provides its readers with true information about Michael Jackson.
It was after reading their “Home” section that I realized that in addition to their total misinformation about Michael, haters have also now developed a new strategy against Michael’s fans.
Here is their full text for your independent study:
There are plenty of websites out there that want to continue Michael Jackson’s PR team’s work even after he has died. I have to admit, that MJ’s PR teams did great work, and there are a substantial number of people who really, truly believe that everything the PR teams said and disseminated about MJ was true. I can’t criticise people like that, in all honesty they probably are great fans of MJ’s music and probably aren’t interested in anything else.
Then again, there are websites out there with a far more sinister agenda. They want to make MJ out to be something he isn’t. Now, I don’t know about you, but I would never compromise myself by accepting that it’s OK, in our society, for a grown man to sleep with children in the way Michael Jackson did. I don’t care who they are! There are no special exemptions, even if you missed out on a childhood, you are famous, or even the man insists repeatedly that it is “innocent”. No way!
Yet, sadly, there are people who do.
In fact, there are entire websites set up to take each of Michael Jackson’s misdeeds and make an excuse for each and every one! From his collection of child erotica, to his sleepovers with boys, to his payments to boys to make accusations go away, his huge collection of porn kept where his young guests had access to it, even his heavy drug use, to his wooing of parents of his “special friends”, there are excuses for each and every one.
The obvious logic is – you wouldn’t need a vindication website if MJ did anything wrong. Any accusations would be laughed off with an “It’s ridiculous that Mike would ever do anything like that” and be forgotten. That can’t be the case, however. The people running those websites know that MJ’s behaviour looks bad to the average person. It can’t be laughed off. It needs to be explained, excused, normalised, justified. They fail. It is not normal to have a succession of young boy friends. It is not normal to have booze, porn and drugs at a supposedly child friendly place like Neverland. It is not normal for a grown man to sleep with boys when he also collects books like MJ had. In short, these websites are defending the indefensible.
It’s time rational fans stood up and said, “MJ entertained us, but his behaviour was way out of line”. If fans can be honest with themselves and others, MJ’s musical legacy will endure, if they can’t then his legacy will die out because too many people will be turned off.
Attempts to cover Michael Jackson’s actions with obfuscation will not work.
Want to learn the truth behind alleged “extortion” attempts against Michael Jackson? Or how he fits the profile of a pedophile? Look no further. Use the links at left.
What’s new in the haters’ approach to Michael Jackson except the usual distortion of truth, downright lies and huge ommissions of facts?
Now haters support and even tacitly encourage fans to preserve Michael Jackson’s legacy – but while doing so they also support (and even encourage) the fans’ division from Michael’s advocates who are doing research of the documents and are proving the man’s innocence. The above text makes it clear that their main target is this particular site.
Now they welcome Michael’s fans to praise him as a great entertainer and will even understand them if they are “not interested in anything else” except Michael Jackson’s musical legacy.
However if Michael’s advocates prove that he never molested anyone this is suggested to be seen as a sinister agenda. The noble reason cited is that finding Michael’s innocent will allegedly promote the concept of “grown-up men sleeping with children in the way Michael did”.
In which way he “slept” with children these people do not specify, though the issue of sleep is given prominent attention and is actually the crucial point around which the whole story is revolving.
Everyone knows that Michael did talk of readily sharing his bedroom with others – but what he never talked of or meant was taking anyone into his bed to cuddle up with there.
Michael wasn’t very articulate when he tried to explain himself on the “sleep” subject (this goes for other subjects as well), but with the help of people like Frank Cascio, Macaulay Culkin, Kit Culkin, JC Agajanian and even Corey Feldman who were participants in the process we have found out that Michael spoke of ordinary slumber parties in which both children and parents took part. He gave his bed to others, often slept on the floor or some couch or even on a different storey, and the worst thing which ever happened in that bedroom was letting children fall asleep on his bed while watching TV or playing games.
Even if a child did crawl into Michael’s bed as Brett Barnes did, this child would later testify that Michael was always at the far end from him and would never – God forbid – touch him. Considering that this was most probably taking place in the presence of other people in the same bedroom, all this testimony amounts to is just another of those slumber parties again.
However the issue of having children in the same room is a sensitive subject over which Michael’s advocates are not at one. All of us have our own reservations about it, but the central fact which embraces us all is that despite our difference of opinion over the slumber parties Michael himself was nevertheless innocent of the horrendous crimes he was suspected of.
His innocence is an established fact because Michael’s advocates have made double effort to look into the factual side of things. It may surprise Michael’s haters but the reason for this double scrutiny was that we were also apprehensive of his lifestyle, asked the same questions and therefore made a thorough, detailed and no-nonsense research into every instance of every allegation ever made.
The research showed that each time we had to step on a new minefield to check up those allegations not knowing which future was awaiting us, it turned out to our big relief that Michael was completely innocent again - independent of the “sleep” issue and the impression each of us had about him sharing his bedroom with children and other people.
How and why this happened I don’t know. I mean I don’t know why he had a full chance to molest children but nevertheless never did it – probably because he was made of some other stuff than the rest of us who think dirty of him? But on the other hand will the rest of us take advantage of a similar situation and molest someone else’s children if we had a chance to sleep beside them in a youth camp or when going on a hike?
No, we definitely won’t? So it means that we are also made of the same kind of stuff as Michael was and know first-hand that a totally innocent scenario is also possible?
And even if we were extremely popular with some children and they besieged us with their attention and imposed themselves on us in the same way they forced themselves on Michael, we would still never overstep the line? Simply because the idea would never even enter our mind? And if someone suggested it we would vomit with repulsion at the mere thought of it?
So does it mean that under certain circumstances we can envisage slumber parties or the behavior similar to Michael’s even for ourselves? Yes, it does.
Does our agreement with the possibility that a slumber party may be a totally innocent event imply that we recommend such parties to the general public? No, it doesn’t.
What shall we say if someone claims that since we had a slumber party with some children this automatically turns us into pedophiles? The answer depends on the temper of the one who answers – as to me I will probably drive these people down the stairs.
We will react so because we know for sure either from our own first-hand experience or general feelings about the subject that it is possible to have those parties and still remain innocent of anything bad, don’t we? Yes, we do.
And this is the crucial part of it all.
No matter whether we like or dislike Michael’s lifestyle he didn’t commit a single misdeed towards a child as our own independent research proved it. The core point is that no matter what we think of him he didn’t do it. Everyone thought bad of him because he had every opportunity to do so, but he nevertheless didn’t do it and this baffling fact is what is laying the basis for the attitude of Michael’s advocates towards the man.
Let us leave the task of explaining Michael’s lifestyle to those who knew him personally – the Cascios, Culkins or Mr. Agajanian, for example – while we will just satisfy ourselves with a conclusion that Michael never committed any crimes against children.
Let his friends also explain – if they can, of course - why Michael allowed all his acquaintances to freely rake through his personal things in the closet or why he let people live at his expense in his house for as long as they liked even when he was away from it.
Or why he paid for the burial of penniless singers when they died in obscurity or why he insisted on going to a Jacuzzi with a boy ill with AIDS when all others shunned the boy like the plague.
Or why he made friends with a severely burnt child and turned him into a regular visitor to his home though his face should have been a terrible sight for his then wife and members of the household. By the way the list of Michael’s so-called dangerous liaisons in the haters’ site should be supplemented with Ryan White, the boy ill with AIDS and Dave Dave, the burn victim. I didn’t notice their names among the liaisons, which is a deplorable ommision – some chance people are there while the key players are not.
I’ve mentioned all those strange Michael’s habits as they are also totally unusual for average people and if we are able to understand why Michael behaved like that this will surely bring us closer to understanding the whole unusual phenomenon of Michael Jackson per se.
Now Michael’s haters call for “rational” fans to stand up and say: “MJ entertained us, but his behaviour was way out of line”.
Okay, I will agree to a similar statement but only in my wording if I may – Michael Jackson entertained us greatly and his behavior was unusual. But though his habits were different from ours there was nothing criminal about them. His lifestyle was unique as he was a unique human being, placed into unique circumstances, who faced unique challenges, pursued unique goals and made unique life achievements – so repeating his style unless we are the same kind of people is totally artificial, unnecessary, impossible and should not be even tried.
And asserting Michael’s innocence is absolutely not the same as promoting his lifestyle as a norm in the present-day society. It would probably be socially okay if all of us were like Michael Jackson, but we are far from being anything like him and as a human entity are not yet ready for his level of childlike innocence, playfulness and strict inner law prohibiting any wrongdoing – so let’s forget it.
Michael’s slumber parties may look strange, unusual and probably shocking to some of us, but he was still innocent despite all our attempts at their dirty interpretation. And since he was innocent, it means he didn’t deserve the murderous harassment by the public, media and prosecution to which he was subjected for more than 20 years during his life and after it.
Hence the need to explain to the world the situation we all found ourselves in – we killed an innocent man whose only guilt was essentially in the fact that we thought bad of him.
At the very least it was an extreme over-reaction on the part of the public, but to be frank with you it was simple cruelty based on our ignorance, hypocrisy and our own dirty thinking which led to a grave crime committed against a very pure person who could not hurt a fly.
* * *
But if we disagreed with the haters that proving Michael’s innocence is no danger to the society, shall we agree to their other statement that it is okay to admire the man for his talent and silently accept or tolerate the idea that he could have possibly committed crimes against children?
By asking this question I refer to the haters’ idea that they “can’t criticize people who are great fans of Michael’s music but aren’t interested in anything else”.
In contrast to haters, I as an advocate of Michael’s innocence, find myself at great odds with people who say they admire Michael’s music, but are indifferent to how he behaved with children. When I ask myself whether I would ever support Michael Jackson or ever listen to his music if he turned out to be a monster instead of a human being, I say to myself a definite NO.
Never in my life would I support the man if I were doubtful of his innocence. In fact I have already gone through the doubt stage when I didn’t even want to think of Michael Jackson, but this period ended when my eyes finally opened to the facts of a huge set-up, false accusations and the unjust and horrendous way this innocent man was treated.
So like all normal people I looked into two options only – either the man is a villain and then his music and talent are non-existent for me, or he is innocent and this opens the road for my admiring his genius at last.
However the compromise variant of admiring the talent but closing my eyes on “everything else” is something which has never, ever entered my mind – because for a normal human being this compromise can never be an option.
I bet that the carefully worded haters’ call to Michael Jackson’s fans to like their idol but be indifferent to “everything else” did not initially strike you as offensive until you have probably realized just now what is standing behind it.
If this isn’t a stealthy way to make people tolerant to someone’s perverse behavior (or the potential possibility of it) at the pretext of him being a talent, genius, Nobel prize winner, etc, I don’t know what else this attempt might be.
And as such it may be a very roundabout way of using the innocent name of Michael Jackson for making people gradually accept the concept of ped-lia, which is the thing Michael staunchily fought until his dying day and which he himself never had any bearing to.
If you think that the above haters’ idea is totally impossible, abstract and unrealistic to implement to, it shows that you have not been to some hugely provocative “fan” sites where the idea of “even if he enjoyed himself that way, so what?” is being promoted in full earnest.
By hissing that “he is probably a villain but a very talented one, so it is okay to like him that way” these snakes are actually eroding the natural barrier in every normal human being which is built in there by God or nature for the protection of our children. This barrier says that no matter how talented a person is, if he molests children he is an anti-human who is taking you on the road to hell.
But now we see that someone wants to break this natural barrier by offering a colossal number of Michael’s fans a sweet and soothing venom in the cup called “we have thrown the man into a bad class, but it is okay to love him that way, because it is only his genius that matters”.
Michael’s vindicators prove that he wasn’t that way (however this is found unacceptable by Michael’s haters and is even proclaimed dangerous to the society) while the same haters will perfectly understand if huge numbers of people admiring Michael will get tolerant to the potential possibility of him being a predator (and this will not be considered dangerous to the society).
So proving the man’s innocence is dangerous to the society morals, while admiring him without paying attention to whether he did or didn’t commit any wrongdoing to children is not? OMG, why do I have a terrible premonition that eroding the last bastion of human ethics is what these people are actually aiming at?
I would disbelieve my eyes and doubt my own conclusions if the haters didn’t try so blatantly to make a differentiation betwen Michael’s “ordinary” fans and his advocates, splashing dirt at us and naming our intention to vindicate Michael “a sinister agenda”.
What is a really sinister agenda is making Michael’s fans believe that they can be his true fans and still play with the idea that he could have possibly committed crimes against children.
These two things are totally incompatible, because a “fan” who admires Michael but thinks ugly thoughts about him is actually his hater, as he is attributing to him the extreme evil, to fighting which Michael devoted his whole life.
Another sinister aspect of the same ideology is by complying with the idea that “he could possibly do it” and like the man anyway, the person shows his inner readiness to accept the possibility of finding a ped-le (which Michael wasn’t!) attractive and even adorable.
And this inner readiness to erode the inner moral law inside each of us is exactly what Michael’s haters are aiming at.
Our attitude towards Michael is directly the opposite of all this mess which haters suggest for Michael’s fans. It is clear, pure and simple – we have done our research and made sure that he was innocent and that is why we support him both as a human being and as a great performer. Otherwise we wouldn’t. If we thought him to be a criminal we would never even listen to his music.
Moreover, by sharing the same clean and pure ideals which Michael Jackon adhered to, we find ourselves in direct opposition to the pedophile lobby which is extremely active and is still willing to use Michael’s innocent name for crashing the last moral barriers of the general public. Using millions of Michael’s fans will be a very convenient vehicle to take them to the desired target if they manage to implant their poisonous ideas into these people’s minds.
This is why they find us dangerous – we are standing in the way to their plans!
It is this blog which drew our readers’ attention to the several professors who recommended the book by a convicted pedophile Tom O’Carroll “for family reading” .
It is also this blog which found that one of the haters’ best sources for slandering Michael, Victor Gutierrez, had an unaccounted for attendance of a NAMBLA conferencee about which he bragged himself, though even FBI agents have huge difficulties in infiltrating this mafia-like organization, not to mention the “poor Latino” like Gutierrez. His first explantion of that visit was that he attended a NAMBLA conference as a journalist which later changed into an agent working undercover, only no one paid attention to the findings of the “poor Latino” for some reason, which makes us doubt both variants of the story and suggest our own version of his visit there.
It is this blog which brought to people’s attention the story of Aaron and Nick Carter and their manager Lou Pearlman who was a huge authority in producing musical bands but was heavily suspected of pedophilia and whom the boys pushed out of their lives with the words “what goes round comes round” (when Lou Pearlman went into prison for another crime).
Of course these guys see us as a menace to their comfortable life because we wrote about Corey Feldman’s outcry to the general public telling them of the horrible pedophilia crimes widely taking place in Hollywood. Feldman’s friend and co-star was abused as a boy and consequently committed suicide. Feldman was also abused and said so to the police when they were questioning him about Michael Jackson. He even gave them the name of his abuser, only no one paid attention as the only person they were after was Michael Jackson, whom Corey did not find any fault with, except that Michael once warned him against early sex by showing him the book on veneral diseases.
And it is our blog which found totally revolting information on the way the great sexologist of the 20th century Alfred Kinsey made his scientific research of the “sexuality” of children. He did it with the help of pedophiles who did things even to infants, God bless their poor souls….
Why do sites like the one hating Michael Jackson – where people present themselves as fighters for the “common good” - always talk about Michael Jackson only, though he was the man who was found innocent of all charges? Why aren’t they handling real crimes which are happening all over the place, only no one is paying attention to them?
I really wonder why the instances of real abuse do not concern those who claim they are defending public morals and why the only person they select is Michael Jackson who is actually a totally innocent man?
Why does it have to be the site of Michael Jackson’s advocates to persistenly show that the lobby of real pedophiles is extremely powerful and their crimes are going on and remain totally unpunishable?
Why indeed does it have to be us to bring up the subject again and again, though all we do is the research of Michael Jackson’s innocence and while handling the respective literature we are totally aghast to find out the scope and openness of real pedophiles’ activities?
Is it because the future of our children is a matter of concern of the followers of Michael Jackson because he was probably the only one who really stood up for children’s rights?
And doesn’t it show that it is exactly Michael Jackson’s haters who don’t give a damn for the children’s rights, their present and future?
Michael Jackson Was NOT The First Black Entertainer To Lose His Pigmentation Due To Vitiligo!
A reader of this blog recently alerted me to the fact that Michael Jackson was NOT the first professional singer and dancer to have lose all of the pigmentation in his skin due to vitiligo! In November 1978, Ebony magazine published a story called “The Man Who Turned White” (page 165), which is about Arthur Wright, an incredible entertainer whose resume includes performances with the Jean Leon Destine Company of Haitian Dancers, the Negro Dance Theater, Broadway, and numerous international tours.
In November 1961, Wright began to notice that he was losing pigmentation in various parts of his body, and like many vitiligo patients, he began to lose self-esteem and self-worth as the disease gradually progressed throughout his entire body. He tried using makeup to even out his skin, but that remedy only lasted so long. After 8 long and agonizing years of using numerous lotions, creams, and pills to mitigate the disease, and 8 years of being started at, taunted, called a “freak”, and losing friends and lovers after “discovered” and rejected by them, he finally decided to undergo depigmentation in order to even out his skin tone once and for all. Under the care of a dermatologist, the process took 3 years, but when it was completed he felt as if a monkey had been taken off of his shoulders. He was finally free! No more stares, no more taunts, and no more living in fear! He was freed from his self-imposed prison!
The reader who sent me the link read this article when it was first published in 1978, but was unable to find it until recently when she did a Google search and found it archived in Google Books! Her detective work is outstanding! Thank you for your contribution! You know who you are!
I initially thought that I would include this in a new series that I’m working on, but instead I will make an entire post out of it, as this bombshell article is certainly worthy of it. I will also include other victims of vitiligo that you may not be aware of. So here is the article in its entirety! (I transcribed it below as the print is very small and may be illegible for many readers.)
THE MAN WHO TURNED WHITE
Incurable disease changes dancer’s skin color and his life
BY RON HARRIS
Five years ago, Arthur Wright sat quietly in the darkness of a New York movie theater while around him moviegoers laughed loudly at the hilarious hit comedy “Watermelon Man”, a rib-tickler about trials and tribulations of a Black man who awoke one morning to find that overnight his skin ad turned white.
For the casual viewer, such an oddity could conceivably have its humorous side. Wright, however, did not laugh. Tears streamed down his melancholy face as he cried softly in the darkness, unnoticed by the enthusiastic audience around him.
To Wright, the story on the screen was more than fantasy, more than a far-fetched situation. For him it was a harsh, agonizing reality. For Arthur Wright, he was the man on that screen – a Black man who woke up one morning to find that his skin was turning white.
At the height of a promising career which included an extended stint with the Jean Leon Destine Company of Haitian Dancers, work with the Negro Dance Theatre, performances before President Kennedy at the White House, a Broadway musical, and Asian and European dance tours, Wright awakened one morning to find that he had become a victim of vitiligo, a skin disorder that robs the skin of color. Quietly, painlessly, the disease had begun its damage; patches of white appeared on his brown skin. Wright was stunned. He couldn’t imagine what was happening to him. He had no idea how his life would be forever changed.
Vitiligo strikes one to two percent of the American population, starting usually as a white spot on the hands or face and gradually progressing over the entire body. Dermatologists say they do not know the cause, or the cure. Vitiligo has been under study by researchers for some 40 years. Doctors have even linked prematurely gray hair to the disease. The disease is painless, does not affect other parts of the body, and is not contagious. Physiologically its damage is minimal, there are no crippling effects, nor is it life threatening. Psychologically, however, it is devastating –especially for Black patients. An otherwise healthy individual finds that overnight he or she has been transformed into a social abnormality, a spotted “freak” in a highly color-conscious society where physical appearance can mean the difference between a good job or the unemployment line, social acceptance or alienation, companionship or loneliness. For Wright, a dancer, singer, and entertainer in the prime of a promising theatrical career, the experience was traumatic. In the theater, physical appearance is as important, if not often more so, than talent. Many once-famous talents have slipped into the realm of the forgotten as their precious good looks began to fade.
It was the night of November 22nd, 1961, five days after the closing of the Broadway musical “Kwamina”, in which Wright had performed, that the disease struck. Wright, then 34, had retreated to his Brooklyn apartment to filter through new job prospects and consider the idea of acting classes. “It was a Thursday morning” Wright recalls, staring blankly at a marble-topped table in his Manhattan apartment while slowly scanning his memory for details of that disastrous day, “All week I had been at home trying to rest and decide what I was going to do next. I went to the bathroom to shave, and when I turned on the light I saw that the whole area where I shave had turned completely white. I just stared in the mirror. I couldn’t believe what I saw. Finally, I turned off the lights and stood momentarily in the semi-darkness. Then I just sank to the floor and moaned and cried.”
“I couldn’t believe this was happening to me. Here I was a dancer in perfect health and this happens. Why me?” Well, immediately I became a hermit. I didn’t go out of the house for more than a week. Finally I realized that I would have to get out of the house if I was going to work, but how could I face people looking the way that I did? My roommate suggested that I try using makeup to cover up the white spots. Being in the theater, I was familiar with applying makeup. I stood in the bathroom for nearly an hour putting it on, making sure every detail was perfect before I went out. I vividly remember walking down the street to the corner and looking into a store window. What I was shocking. In the bathroom of my apartment the makeup looked even, the same color as my face. But in the sunlight it was a different color than my skin. I looked like a clown. I ran back to my apartment and cried.”
What followed that memorable day was eight years of suffering, Wright says –eight years of being laughed at, talked about and singled out in crowds. They were years of applying facial makeup daily. Eventually, when the disease spread to the chest, thighs, arms and legs, makeup had to be applied to Wright’s entire body before he appeared on stage. Meanwhile he consulted eight dermatologists in New York, Chicago and Washington, and even in Europe. Each offered a different cure. None worked. There were numerous pills, lotions, creams and balms which purportedly would restore Wright’s skin to its once rich brown color. None worked. There was deep depression and a short barbiturate addiction, the results of a cure prescribed by one dermatologist. There was the loss of friends, the loss of lovers, and there was fear – fear that the makeup mask he so diligently applied each morning would be discovered, his condition revealed, and the rejection that usually followed the unmasking repeated.
To escape the stares and cruel comments, Wright, originally from the tiny town of Elizabeth, LA., plunged himself into his work. “I had to work,” he says, his hazel brown eyes pleading for comprehension of his plight. “I knew that as long as my mind was occupied I wouldn’t dwell on the disease and what it was doing to my body. Work became a near obsession. I was out every day audition for parts.” Work came in the form of a one-year tour of Europe where he was billed as “The Colored Recording Star from America,” although he had never layed down a single solo track. It also included nightclub work in Chicago.
But even work, including jobs as a mail clerk in a New York department store and with the U.S. Postal Service, was not enough to erase the suffering Wright felt because of his affliction. In 1969, after eight years of hoping that some new medical discovery would be made that would return his color, he grew tired of being neither totally Black nor White and went to Washington to see Dr. Robert Stolar, a renowned dermatologist. Under Dr. Stolar’s care he underwent depigmentation, a process of removing color from the skin by applying a special cream. Dr. Stolar has prescribed the treatment for more than 50 Blacks afflicted with the disease.
“It took three years to make the decision to have that done,” Wright says. “I just couldn’t believe that there was not some way I could get my own color back. Plus, I didn’t want people thinking that I wanted to be White. During that time everything was ‘Black Is Beautiful’ and ‘Be proud of being Black,’ and here I was getting ready to undergo a process that would turn me white. But I decided that I couldn’t live as I was for the rest of my life. I couldn’t continue my life running away from people, living partly as a hermit. I had to do something, and depigmentation seemed to me to be the only way out.”
It took five years for the process to be completed, but Wright stopped wearing makeup after only three months when his face became all white. “I was so happy not to wear another speck of makeup that I didn’t know what to do,” he says, clasping his hands in a moment of jubilation. “You have no idea what a relief that was. I was so glad to be released from that bondage. It had become such a routine that it was as natural as breathing, as brushing my teeth or combing my hair. Every day when I went to the bathroom for the ritual, it was like standing in front of a mirror behind someone else, making that person up and then superimposing myself. You see, without the makeup, it wasn’t me. I had to recognize my own face before I could go out, and that person with all those spots was not me.”
Wright’s battle with the mysterious vitiligo not only changed his exterior self, it also changed his attitude about many things, about life itself. For nearly 12 years after the disease first struck, he could not talk about his condition. Today, he speaks of it freely. He has even written a book about his experience entitled “Color Me White”. He has yet to find a publisher and has considered publishing the manuscript in Europe, along with a second book of poems he wrote while undergoing depigmentation in Washington. Since moving back to New York, Wright has spent most of his time painting and working on his book of poems. Two of his most recent works, one an abstract and the other a self-portrait, are among the numerous Brazilian, African and Afro-American paintings that line the walls of his apartment. “I started painting while I was in Washington to pass the time, but I really began to get into it,” he says. “I find the concentration needed to paint to be very relaxing.” He has also started to revive his singing career. “I’ve written a number of tunes and I also have some new arrangements of ballads that I am putting together,’’ he says. “I will never be able to dance the way I once did, but I still have my voice.” Wright says he is no longer the focus of stares and snide remarks, though he admits, “I get the strangest looks from Orientals. But I’m not self-conscious about it at all. Now if somebody stares, it doesn’t bother me because I know it’s not because of the spots or because I’m wearing makeup.”
After some 17years of “being in a prison,” Wright has resumed his active life. He doesn’t have as many friends as he did in 1961, but now that is by choice. “My old friends who stood by me are still here, and there are some new friends, but my approach to people has changed. I’m excited about my new self and I’m anticipating meeting new people, but this time the relationships will be much deeper because of my maturity.
“Somehow I knew that this whole thing happened for a reason,” he says softly, “and that was to make me a better person. This experience has made me much more compassionate. I suffered a great deal because of the skin condition. I mean I suffered. I was a very outgoing person when this happened, always on the go, doing things and loving people. But after this I became that sort of hermit. I lost a lot of friends, and that hurt. I was afraid of people, afraid of being rejected. I had no sex life, for years and very little when I started back. I ran away from anybody who showed any interest in me. I didn’t want to be rejected, and I couldn’t know if they would accept me with those spots all over my body.
“I met people and they didn’t want to shake my hand because of the spots. I was a freak. When I rode the subway people would laugh, giggle and point at me, because when my makeup came off my lips they were pink and there I was with this dark complexion and pink lips. I found that a lot of people that I thought were my friends were just phony people, and I started getting rid of all phony people around me. A lot of people let me down because they fitted in the category that I didn’t think they fitted in. The whole thing caused me to lose faith in people and distrust them. It really made me see the stupidity of the average person when dealing with other people, how they hurt people unwittingly. The impact of it all was hurt. I was exasperated, and sometimes I was angry. Now I know that it is like to have one leg or one arm, and I learned about that while I had a perfectly healthy body. I have learned that it is the interior, what’s inside, that counts. Because of that lesson, at this moment I have the greatest inner peace that I have ever had in my life. After eight years of inner turmoil and ridicule from outside I am at peace with myself, and that means a helluva lot to me.
Pretty amazing story, huh? What really stood out to me was the addiction that he had for barbiturates AS A RESULT OF A PRESCRIPTION FOR HIS VITILIGO, and not because he wanted to “get high” strictly for “recreational purposes”. This is exactly what happened with MJ and his dependence to painkillers (which he admitted to in 1993, and it was due to his scalp surgery). His drug use was a result of treatments for vitiligo (a symptom of the autoimmune disease Lupus), his scalp burns, and his back pains that were a result of his fall from a prop during a concert. He wasn’t a recreational drug user!
Let’s look at what MJ had to say in his groundbreaking 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey. I personally remember watching in disbelief as he explained his disease, as I had never heard of it before at that time. He discusses his vitiligo beginning at 6:15:
Did you notice how at 7:18 he mentioned that it’s in his family? In July 2010 Joe Jackson confirmed in this article that his aunt also had vitiligo, and when MJ started showing signs of the disease it wasn’t a big surprise:
During Jackson’s life, there was speculation as to whether he truly had vitiligo, but the official autopsy report from the L.A. County Coroner noted that he did, in fact, suffer from the condition and had noticeable “patches of light and dark pigmented areas.”
Other members of the Jackson clan have noted that the condition runs in their family.
In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Chris Connelly, Joe Jackson said his son had vitiligo, and attributed Michael Jackson’s whitened skin to the condition.
“Everybody tryin’ to make a big thing out of it … They say — ‘He try to paint his self white.’ That’s not true. Michael got vitiligo,” Joe Jackson said. “We saw it comin’ on him … at [an] early age. You know, just a little spot. My aunt had the same thing.”
Here is an interview from 1996 where he once again confirms his vitiligo. He answers multiple questions from fans, and at 1:25 he answers why he wears surgical masks when he’s out in public: it’s because of his vitiligo, and his desire to keep as much of his skin covered as possible! I had always questioned why he did that, but it makes perfect sense now, and now we as fans can articulately and accurately answer that question whenever others ask why he wore the mask.
And pay attention to what he says about the tabloids!
And here is a video of Latoya confirming that MJ’s oldest son Prince also has vitiligo (read the subtitles), so it indeed runs in the family (and it confirms that Prince is MJ’s biological son, as well as Paris and Blanket).
You can see the vitiligo patches under his right armpit!
A few days after this interview aired, Geraldo Rivera dedicated an entire episode to dissecting everything that was said. Guests on his show include the author of “Michael Jackson: The Magic, The Madness, The Whole Story” J. Randy Taraborrelli, editor of the National Enquirer tabloid Mike Walker, and New York Daily News columnist Richard Johnson. The most interesting guests, however, were the three vitiligo patients who described their everyday struggles!
In part 1, the infamous stories about MJ sleeping in the hyperbaric chamber and his desire to purchase the Elephant Man’s bones are discussed, as well as his plastic surgeries and sex life (or lack thereof). Pay attention at 8:10 to how Mike Walker brings up the young girls in MJ’s hotel room in Japan, which dispels the myth that it was only boys who got to hang out with him. And of course, at the very end, even Walker admits that despite MJ’s weirdness, “the things he does for children are wonderful!”
In part 2, they claim that it was MJ who forced MTV to call him the “King of Pop” (which I highly doubt), and Richard Johnson questions his claims of vitiligo, although Taraborrelli gives an incredible rebuttal to Johnson’s doubts. Walker confirms that the glove and surgical masks were used to hide vitiligo splotches as Geraldo as the three patients discuss their experiences. (Look at the photo of MJ’s hand below as he holds a cat.) They show a clip of Latoya denying that MJ really has it as well. The highlight of this part is the diehard MJ fan who calls the three guests slimeballs for judging MJ!
The vitiligo patches on his hand are highly noticeable! No wonder he wore the glove!
In part 3, they have a dermatologist who thoroughly explains vitiligo, and how to treat it, including “bleaching” creams that are only available through a dermatologist. There is also a member of the Vitiligo Foundation who made a plea for MJ to be their spokesman so that he could bring awareness and understanding to the disease. After hearing her plea, I’m surprised he rejected it!!
In part 4, they continue discussing the vitiligo, and Geraldo read on-air a letter from Dr. Arnold Klein, which was sent to Geraldo at the request of MJ. They also bring up a rumor that MJ addressed in the interview about a “white boy playing him as a kid in a commercial”. It was a misunderstanding because the media painted it as MJ wanting to be white, but in reality (based on the kid’s background) it was probably Wade Robson (one of MJ’s closest friends), and he was chosen because he was a great dancer, and MJ wanted him to be in the commercial. Mike Walker was honest enough to admit the real goal of all tabloids exist: to make money!
In part 5, J.Randy Taraborrelli said that he hoped MJ would issue a Christmas album, but as we all know that never came to fruition.
Here are some other interesting stories from people who have vitiligo:
- Darcel de Vlugt, a 23 year old woman, gave an interview on the Today Show on August 25th, 2009. She describes being called “spot” and a “Dalmatian”, and being told that her disease is contagious. You can see how traumatized she is over her childhood experiences as her eyes well up with tears!
- Luke Davis, a 46 year old biracial (half Nigerian half Irish) man who lives in England. On July 24th, 2009, he wrote about his life experiences in the Daily Mail, and he refuted the notion that racism is dead in the following excerpt:
In many ways, despite society’s insistence that racism is a thing of the past, my life is better as a white man.
Much as this country proclaims that it is tolerant of every creed and colour, my experience shows this is not the case.
While this might sound shocking, I believe I’m only stating what every black man living in this country knows.
For instance, I was recently offered a job as a butcher, which I know I wouldn’t have got were I black. How can I be so sure? After offering me the job, the owner of the business discreetly reassured me that it was not an establishment where black people were allowed to work.
Of course, my blood ran cold. Until that point, he’d seemed like a genuinely good bloke and I was astounded he was even capable of thinking such a thing, let alone saying it.
I couldn’t bring myself to accept the job: I would have felt like a traitor to my own heritage.
As a white man, I also no longer have to live in fear of experiencing the physical and verbal assaults I used to endure as a black man – attacks that my black friends still endure.
At a school reunion a few years ago, I watched an old acquaintance of mine – who is black – being subjected to racist name-calling by a group of drunk white men.
I was furious, but I would be lying if I said I wasn’t relieved that the fact my skin is now white meant I could just get on with my night in peace.
- Lee Thomas, a black news anchor, wrote a book in 2007 about his experience with vitiligo called “Turning White: A Memoir of Change”, and the photo below is from 2007, and you can see in the 3 videos below the photo from a September 2011 interview how much the disease has progressed!
I found a site that contains a sideshow of photos from the 1800’s that shows how blacks with vitiligo were used in circuses and advertised as “freaks” for the public’s entertainment! It is purely disgusting to think that people would pay their hard earned money to stare and laugh at other human beings who were “different”, but I guess I can’t say that I’m surprised, considering that many of these photos were taken during and just after slavery, an institution that considered black people to be totally inferior and unworthy of freedom.
That slideshow contains dozens of photos, and I have included several here for you to see. As you look at the faces of the “freaks”, try to think about what MJ, Arthur Wright, Lee Thomas, and every other vitiligo patient has had to endure! All of their stories are so similar to one another!
Financial cost to the buyer to laugh at a "freak"? 10 cents. Emotional cost to that "freak"? PRICELESS!
Blacks with vitiligo were often called "leopard people".
Notice the sign by the entrance in the left photo: "Now On Exhibition"!!
The title is self-explanatory!
The tabloid media did the SAME THING to MJ! By the way, this book was written by the editors of the National Enquirer!
Notice how in the video below, not only does “journalist” Juliet Huddy call MJ a “freak”, but she says that his face was falling off!
Can you imagine if someone referred to MJ as a "coon song and dance artist"?
Young children were not spared from this ghastly form of exploitation!
They would have called MJ a "leopard" and "dalmation" too!!!
Entire families were used in these "freak shows"!!
Let’s look at this photo of MJ from the 70’s, and notice the painful look on his face, and just imagine what MJ had to go through, being in the public eye and having to battle this disease.
For more information on MJ’s battle with vitiligo, please read this post from our blog, this post from MJJ-777, and this post from the “Rhythm of the Tide” blog.
On a final note, let’s take a look on what was the cover story in that November 1978 issue of Ebony:
Diana Ross on the cover of Ebony for their feature story on "The Wiz"
Michael Jackson in the lower right hand corner
Whoa! What a coincidence!! I bet MJ cringed as he read about Wright’s experiences, which were an unfortunate foreshadowing of what he would endure in only a few years’ time!
This was a very depressing post, and I’m sure the stories you’ve read here have disturbed many of you, so I want to end this on a positive note! Here is a video from the Dr. Oz show, where he showcases a revolutionary new treatment for vitiligo patients called “Microskin“, which is a described as follows:
Microskin is a simulated second skin which is formulated individually to color correct skin conditions. It is a light liquidized application which is applied on to the epidermis (top layer of skin). Microskin is not a cream, and doesn’t have the makeup appearance like other camouflage products. Once applied, Microskin is durable, flexible, and it won’t rub off on clothing or linen. It’s waterproof and allows your skin to breathe. Microskin is suitable for all genders and skin types.
Look at the sheer joy on this lady’s face as she sees the end results of her treatments for the first time, and is awarded with one year of free treatments! If only this treatment had been available years ago! MJ, Arthur Wright, and the others wouldn’t have had to suffer in seclusion!
Now, let’s look at the case the prosecution made for the admittance of the Bashir documentary as evidence in their MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF MARTIN BASHIR’S DOCUMENTARY “LIVING WITH MICHAEL JACKSON” AS EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE AND INTENT IN CONSPIRING WITH OTHERS TO COMMIT THE CRIMES ALLEGED IN COUNT ONE OF THE INDICTMENT. (Whew! That was a long title, huh?) In a nutshell, the prosecution wanted to show the jurors the documentary – and not the British version, but the American version, which had additional commentary from Bashir and Barbara Walters – in order to show MJ’s motive to engage in a conspiracy to hold the Arvizos hostage at Neverland. Here is an excerpt from page 33:
C. Statements Admitted For Non-Hearsay Purpose
Evidence of defendant’s motive to engage in a conspiracy is surely relevant in this case. The broadcast of “Living with Michael Jackson” and the critical running commentary of Bashir and Barbara Walters provoked distress and the felt need to mitigate the damage done to Jackson’s reputation and to limit further adverse commentary.
Motive may be proved by competent evidence when motive is relevant to the jury’s consideration of the defendant’s guilt or innocence.
Many of the statements by Jackson and all of the statements of others, in “Living with Michael Jackson” and in the commentary on 20/20 concerning the documentary would be hearsay if offered for the truth of the matters stated. (Evld. Code, § 1220, subd. (a).)
With the exceptions noted above for admissions, nothing that was said by anyone in “Living with Michael Jackson” or in commenting upon it in the “20/20″ rebroadcasts will be offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
If a given statement is otherwise relevant and it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, it is not “hearsay” and is admissible. An out-of-court statement is properly admitted if a non-hearsay purpose for admitting the statement is identified, and the non-hearsay purpose is relevant to an issue in dispute. [Citations.]” (People v. Turner (1994) 8 CaL4th 137, 189.)
Here is an excerpt from the PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF CERTAIN STATEMENTS BY DEFENDANT ON “LIVING WITH MICHAEL JACKSON” AND “60 MINUTES” AS EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE, page 43:
Evidence Code section 1220 provides, in. pertinent part: “Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered against the declarant in an action in which he is a party ” CaUTC 2.71 instructs the jury that “An admission is a statement made by the defendant which does not by itself acknowledge his guilt of the crimes for which the defendant is on trial, but which statement tends to prove his guilt when considered with the rest of the evidence.”
Defendant’s admissions include his acknowledgement that the Doe brothers shared his room with him for night. The Doe brothers agree this statement is true as to the first night they stayed at Neverland back in 2000. At that time the brothers slept in the bed and Defendant slept on the floor. As to all of the nights in February and March of 2003, where the defendant and the two brothers were all present at Neverland at the same time, they shared the same bed until James Doe witnessed the first act of molestation and then sought residence elsewhere. Thereafter Defendant slept with John Doe only. Defendant’s admission that he shared the room with the boys is admissible in that it establishes that the John and James Doe were in an intimate setting with the defendant when they said they were.
Defendant’s statement that he has slept with many boys is admissible as corroboration of the Doe brother’s allegation that he slept with them. Certainly the admission that he has slept with many boys clearly shows his willingness to sleep with boys, his acknowledgement that that type of conduct as permissible and even appropriate, and as evidence of his intent to continue to share his bed with children.
Did you guys notice the intellectual fallacy that Sneddon used in that excerpt? He intentionally quoted Jackson’s use of the words “sleep” and “share” out of context in order to confuse and prejudice the jury, and that falls under the fallacy of equivocation, which means to “deliberately use words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand”. (We discussed this fallacy in this post.)
Sneddon inferred that the words “sleep” and “share” had a sexual connotation, and he conveniently substituted the word “boys” for “children”. Here is the actual transcript of what MJ told Bashir in the documentary:
Bashir: Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?
Jackson: No. But I have slept in a bed with many children. I slept in the bed with all of them. When Macauley Culkin was little, Kieran Culkln would sleep on this side, Macauley Culkin was on this side, his sisters in there. We all would just jam in the bed. And we’d wake up like dawn and go in the hot air balloon. You know, we have the footage. I have all that footage!
Notice how he said he slept in the bed with many CHILDREN, NOT BOYS! And there was no sexual connotation whatsoever with his statement! If there was, would he be so willing to show Bashir (and the world) the footage that he offered?
Now, on beginning on page 59, Sneddon makes the case for Bashir to be forced to testify about what he knows about MJ’s so-called “relationships with young boys” in his REQUEST FOR ATTENDANCE OF OUT OF STATE WITNESS, MARTIN BASHIR:
Martin Bashir is a reporter who lived and traveled with Michael Jackson for about seven months for the purpose of producing a documentary about his life. The documentary titled “Living with Michael Jackson” aired in England and in the United States in February 2003.
Bashir narrated the documentary and frequently commented on Mr. Jackson’s relationship -with children. He found particularly worrisome Jackson’s practice of sleeping in the same room with children, often in the same bed.
Conversations with the Defendant concerning his sleeping arrangement with children, and particularly with the victim of the current case, are clearly material, relevant and necessary to the prosecution in Santa Barbara County.
It is believed that Mr. Bashir had numerous conversations with Mr. Jackson about his relationship with young boys, and with the victim in particular. The documentary ”Living with Michael Jackson” as presented is less than two hours in length, meaning seven months of interviews and film were substantially edited. Mr. Bashir is a necessary witness to establishing the foundation for the admissibility of the documentary. He will also clarify the extent to which the documentary was edited and whether or not the statements were presented out of context.
Of course those statements were taken out of context! And it’s ironic that Sneddon would ask that, considering that he’s the one who is presenting them out of context to the court and jury!
On pages 65-90, Bashir’s lawyer Theodore Boutrous makes the case for Bashir to not be called to testify. I’ll spare you all of the boring details, especially in light of the fact that Bashir’s request was denied and he testified, but I’ll give you an excerpt of his declaration:
9. In July 2004, I left Granada Television to become a correspondent for ABC News and its 20/20 program. As part of my responsibilities, I will be reporting on the upcoming criminal trial of Michael Jackson and related matters.
10. I believe that if I am called as witness in this case, it will significantly interfere with my ability to gather and disseminate information to the public about this case. I also believe that it would create the false impression that I have been and am an arm of the prosecution, casting doubt not only on my future journalistic activities, but raising questions about my past work as well. For a journalist to pursue his work, he cannot be perceived as an agent of either the prosecution or the defense.
Typical Bashir! Only showing concern for his own worthless career, and no concern whatsoever for Jackson’s career or life! He claims that he doesn’t want to create the “false impression” that he’s an arm of the prosecution, but had no problem airing his second hit piece “MJ’s Secret World” just before the start of the trial! (The link to my rebuttal to that piece of trash is at the end of this post.) If he really cared about MJ, and felt remorse for his actions, he would have jumped through hoops to testify that “he never saw any wrongdoing”, just as he claimed on the day that MJ died!
On page 179, the ruling of the Broadcasting Standards Commission that upheld a complaint of unjust and unfair treatment against Bashir. Here is a copy of their ruling:
Here is what Bashir had to say about it under oath:
1 Q. Do you consider yourself to be a
2 professional journalist because you’re educated in
3 the world of journalism.
4 A. My academic studies were not in journalism.
5 They were in the arts and humanities. So I don’t
6 have a formal qualification, if that’s what you’re
7 asking, sir, but I have the experience that comes
8 with working in the profession.
9 Q. Now, as a journalist in England, you are
10 regulated by a certain administrative agency,
11 correct.
12 A. Could you repeat the question.
13 Q. Sure. Is there an organization or an
14 administrative agency that goes by a title somewhat
15 like British Broadcasting Standards Board.
16 A. There is an organization called the
17 Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Would you be
18 referring to that.
19 Q. I think I am. Do you work with that
20 organization in any capacity.
21 A. That organization doesn’t employ
22 journalists.
23 Q. Have you been sanctioned by that
24 organization.
25 A. Could you repeat the question.
26 Q. Have you been sanctioned by that
27 organization.
28 A. By the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. 235
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. The answer to that question is, three
3 complaints were made against me. Two of the key
4 complaints were entirely rejected, and they were to
5 do with balance and fairness. One of the three was
6 upheld. This is — sir, just so I can explain so
7 people understand, because they –
8 Q. Certainly.
9 A. — because they may not understand.
10 The Broadcasting Standards Commission is not
11 a legal body, and it has no particular merit in a
12 legal setting.
13 Q. Nevertheless, a complaint against you as a
14 journalist was upheld, true.
15 A. As I said, sir, three complaints were made.
16 The two key complaints were entirely rejected. One
17 complaint was upheld of the three.
18 Q. Let’s talk about the one that was upheld,
19 sir. There was a complaint against you that was
20 upheld by that agency, correct.
21 A. There was, sir, yes.
22 Q. And what did they complain about, Mr.
23 Bashir.
24 A. The complaint related to — to what — to
25 what — to how I described what I was doing with the
26 story that I was working on.
27 Q. And what were you doing, Mr. Bashir.
28 A. I was doing journalism. 236
1 Q. Could you put a little teeth on that and
2 just tell the jury what we’re talking about.
3 A. In relation to?
4 Q. You don’t know what we’re talking about.
5 A. Do you mean the specific program. Sorry, I
6 don’t know whether — sorry, I apologize. Are you
7 asking me about the complaint, or are you asking me
8 about the story, the reporting that I was doing.
9 Q. Why don’t you tell the jury about both.
10 MR. BOUTROUS: Your Honor, I’m going to
11 object. Mr. Mesereau is now inquiring about
12 unpublished information or unbroadcast information
13 about another matter. Same objection.
14 THE COURT: Well, it’s a compound question.
15 Sustained.
16 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
17 Q. Please describe for the jury the subject
18 matter of the complaint you just identified, Mr.
19 Bashir.
20 A. The story was about a teenaged prodigy, a
21 mathematics genius, who had run away from
22 university, had legally emancipated herself from her
23 family. And the story was to describe what had
24 happened from both sides.
25 Q. You were accused of misrepresentations,
26 true.
27 A. No, that’s incorrect.
28 Q. You were not accused of misrepresenting 237
1 anything in that complaint.
2 A. I was accused of unfairness, which was
3 entirely rejected. I was accused of breaching an
4 agreement, which was entirely rejected. I was
5 accused of not representing the entirety of what I
6 was doing with that broadcast to one of the
7 individuals.
8 Q. Kind of what you’ve been accused of here,
9 right?
10 MR. BOUTROUS: Objection.
11 MR. SNEDDON: Argumentative, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Sustained.
Here is the story of Bashir’s unethical tactics which got him sanctioned:
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Bashir rapped over prodigy interview
TV journalist Martin Bashir, who made the controversial Living with Michael Jackson documentary, has been reprimanded over an interview he conducted with the father of a child genius.
Farooq Yusof complained to the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) over a programme fronted by Bashir about his daughter Sufiah and her relationship with her family.
Sufiah hit the headlines when, at the age of 15, she ran away from Oxford University where she was studying for a masters degree in maths.
She was found safe and well after two weeks and Bashir was the first journalist to gain an interview with the family, although they had not been reunited at that point.
The Media Guardian website reports that Mr Yusof told a BSC hearing that Bashir had promised to give him information about the whereabouts of his daughter in return for an interview.
The BSC upheld a complaint about the way the interview with Mr Yusof was obtained.
It ruled that Bashir and the Tonight with Trevor McDonald team misled Mr Yusof about the nature of the programme so that he would agree to be interviewed.
‘Travesty’
But the BSC dismissed two further complaints that he had been denied a promised opportunity to view the programme before transmission and that it was biased in favour of his daughter.
Bashir’s documentary about the life of Michael Jackson, in which he was given permission to follow the star over an eight month period, is also subject to a complaint.
The US singer complained to the BSC saying that he was misrepresented in the documentary after commentary from Bashir said his Neverland ranch was a “dangerous place” for children.
He has submitted his own footage to the commission in an attempt to prove his point.
Jackson said the Granada programme was a “travesty of truth” but the TV company is standing by Bashir.
That complaint is currently “on hold” pending the outcome of legal action started by the singer against Bashir and Granada Television.
Later on during his cross-examination of Bashir, Mesereau got pretty angry, and wanted to have Bashir’s testimony and his documentary stricken from evidence! But unfortunately his request was denied:
21 Q. And how many hours of footage did you obtain
22 during the time you spent with Mr. Jackson.
23 MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor.
24 Unpublished information, covered by the shield law
25 and the First Amendment.
26 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
27 Do you wish to answer.
28 THE WITNESS: No, I don’t. 238
1 THE COURT: Next question.
2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You don’t know at all.
3 Can’t even estimate.
4 THE COURT: He doesn’t –
5 THE WITNESS: That’s not what I wish to
6 answer.
7 THE COURT: He chose not to answer.
8 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I would move that
9 the entire testimony be stricken and the
10 prosecution’s evidence be stricken.
11 THE COURT: That’s denied.
12 MR. MESEREAU: I would ask for contempt,
13 Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: The procedure that I’m going to
15 follow I already outlined.
16 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Okay. For the record,
17 Your Honor, could I have a running objection if he
18 refuses to answer a question, or shall I make my
19 request each time.
20 THE COURT: No, you don’t need to do that.
21 Let me just understand what we’re having a running
22 record about.
23 MR. MESEREAU: Yes.
24 THE COURT: If he — if his attorney objects,
25 and he declines to answer based on his attorney’s
26 advice, I will review that question for contempt
27 proceedings without further necessity on your part
28 to request that. Your motion to strike his entire 239
1 testimony and evidence is denied.
On pages 181-185, a transcript of an online chat that Bashir had with viewers is included, and as you read it you’ll see the pure audacity, temerity, and all out gall that Bashir displayed as he utterly refused to show any remorse or contrition for what he had done to MJ!
ITV.co.uk.
Online Chat with Martin Bashir
2/12/03 12:08pm PST
Alastair Coyles, Finvoy: was it your most interesting interview ever?
Martin Bashir replies: What was special was that it wasn’t just an interview – il was an observational documentary and very challenging. I have an innate curiosity about people. Each story we approach in the same way with curiosity and interest and determination to get behind the image. It was a challenging experience and I’m looking forward to a break.
Damian Kuti, Bristol: Do you think Michael Jackson can recover from this interview?
Martin Bashir replies: It wasn’t a traumatic experience. Press coverage has been difficult for him. If concerns are expressed about the way he behaves with children and if it makes him careful in the future then that’s a good thing. I’m sure he’ll bounce back, he’s a talented musician, he continues to make songs and he wants to get into the movie industry, and I don’t think his life has been in any way disfigured by the film. The film did disclose some difficult facts.
Samantha Delancy: Did you get to see Michael’s children without their masks on?
Martin Bashir replies: Yes. On a number of occasions and I got on really well with them. They are lovely children. When we were in Berlin, Prince, his 5 year old son, challenged me to a water gun fight. We raced around this huge suite and had a fantastic water pistol fight and I beat him. They don’t wear their masks at home and in controlled surroundings. One of the things that we did, he was very concerned about his children potentially being kidnapped or attacked and that’s why they were covered up. When he went to Berlin zoo there were 200 photographers. We never showed their faces because he was so concerned about the matter.
Martijn Ubink, the Netherlands: Is there ever going to be a chance to see the parts of the documentary that were cut out because of the confidentiality agreement?
Martin Bashir replies: By way of explanation, I asked him very detailed questions. I read out to him part of the statement from the child and challenged him on the specific facts. It was not possible to broadcast any of that because of an agreement between Jackson and the family. Our legal advice was that we could not broadcast it. Circumstances may change, but at this point in time we will not be broadcasting it. This was almost 2 hours of factual documentary. In our audience ratings, barely no-one left the program. The whole of his life is so fascinating, and people kept watching for that reason.
Julie Atkinson, Brighouse: Why didn’t you push him further when he said he hadn’t changed his face?
Martin Bashir replies: If you watch the film the first time I ask him about it, have you had your cheekbones raised, have you had your nose changed – he denied it all; I went back to it later on. I was asking him to compare his face with what it looked like years ago. If somebody’s not prepared to answer the question, you can keep asking, but he gave us what he believes to be the truth. I believe if I asked him questions about his face for two hours there would be no change. He was going to hold firmly what he wanted to say, but what’s important is that when you compare the two interviews, by the second interview it had gone up to 2.
Leon Warren, Ipswich: Did he ever take strong offence at any of the questions you posed him and did you leave on good terms? There was no goodbye scene between Michael and yourself in the interview.
(Note: Bashir did not answer this question.)
Jennifer Chigwende, London: You had eight months’ worth of footage, how did you pick the parts that you decided to show?
Martin Bashir replies: We wanted to do 3 things. Be true to the narrative of the way things developed in the relationship. We wanted to make sure that the film covered the main issues of his life, musicianship, and appearance. Those were the 3 criteria we would use to decide what would be in. Didn’t believe we would end up with a 3 hour long film. We gave this the biggest possible canvas to convey the most accurate, fair representation of what it was like to live with MJ.
Seth Mason: Do you feel that his statement saying that you betrayed him or his children is true or reasonable in any way?
Martin Bashir replies: Not at all. I agreed that we would make an honest film about his life. It was almost 2 hours of television which is an unprecedented length of time for a single factual documentary and over that period, there were aspects of Michael which were wonderfully charming. At the end of the day, we stand firmly by the film. There was no betrayal at all. A number of articles have drawn on allegations in the past, what happened in 1993 when he was accused but never found guilty of abusing a child. A number of people said to me he came across in a liar way. The film was fair to his musical achievement and gave him every opportunity to explain himself. He was never prevented from explaining what he was doing.
Martin Bashir says: I never saw anything that would qualify as a criminal activity. As we got to know each other, I became concerned about the fact that he did appear to have relationships with children, and they were not related to him in any way, and as with the case with Gavin, he said he had been helped to be healed from cancer. Without prompting, he simply said I slept in his bed. By the end of making the program it was a deep concern. An individual who is 44 years old, sleeping in the bed of children who have no biological relationship with him. One childcare expert raised this issue. She said “If this was happening in an area where poverty might be high, and if an individual of no musical status was sleeping in the bed of 12 year old boys what would the authorities have done?” I did not set out to ensnare him with a child I was curious about the relationship and they volunteered this aspect of their relationship. I became more disturbed by that. I think that is reasonable. I am not – I repeat – not accusing anyone of being a child molester.
Pete Goodman, Cardiff: Do you think Michael Jackson’s outward childishness enables him to relate better to children than to adults?
Martin Bashir replies: You say he’s childish, but he’s incredibly astute. He reads contracts with clarity, he’s very professional about business transactions- He does have an affinity with kids. There has been this 16 second clip mentioned where I’m talking about his children. He is brilliant with, his children. They have water fights together. He is a marvelous father to his own children, but there is a concern about the way he relates to children who are not his own. I said earlier that he was sharing his bed with Gavin and I have to correct myself, he was sharing his bedroom.
Kelly Wallace: I sensed your fear about Michael Jackson’s obsession but why didn’t you stop the project and go to the authorities?
Martin Bashir replies: Obsession with what?
Barbara Bennett: Does he have any contact with his brothers and sisters or any member of his family?
Martin Bashir replies: He forgave his father for the violence in his childhood. I think he still speaks to some of his family – he certainly speaks to Janet Jackson and has a high regard for Jermaine and Tito. I never had the opportunity to meet any members of his family at the house. He would say that he still has a great deal of affection for his family.
Tessy, Nigeria: He mentioned women around his house, taking care of the children? Who are they?
Martin Bashir replies: The most hardworking child carers I have ever met, and they are brilliant with the children. When we drove down to his home, I was in the car with both the nannies and the children get on very well with the nannies. Michael Jackson has some contact with his mother. I never had the opportunity to speak to her, but I know she is involved with the children. There is a large number of people though from zoo-keepers, cleaners, through to cooks, and there is a large number of women, and he is referring to them when he says the children has contact with women.
Rhys Ingram, Bristol: Did Jackson’s entourage seem uncomfortable or unhappy with his behavior? Was there ever a time where you felt so uncomfortable with the situation that you felt you had to leave?
(Note: Bashir did not answer this question.)
Rachel Johnson: What did you think of him when he went into his favorite shop and spent $6 million?
Martin Bashir replies: He was simply interested in purchasing what took his fancy. The Thriller album is still the biggest album of all time. That is still returning huge royalty checks. It was a remarkable shopping trip – it was a revelation to me, as I would be bothered about paying for all those things but to him it wasn’t a concern.
As you can see, Bashir had no remorse for his betrayal of Jackson. In fact, he had the nerve to say that it was fair to MJ, and that the negative press coverage would make him more careful with other people’s children! Did you notice that he ignored the questions of whether or not he left on good terms with MJ, and if there was a goodbye scene between the two? The answer to those questions is HELL NO! MJ tried desperately to reach Bashir and get a chance to review the film before it aired, but Bashir avoided MJ as if he was a debt collector!
Also, did you notice how Bashir lied and said that Gavin wasn’t prompted to talk about where he slept, but in the video below you clearly hear Bashir lead him in that direction!
In this radio interview from April 2010, you’ll hear Aphrodite Jones disclose the fact that it was Bashir’s idea for Gavin to hold hands with MJ, and place his head on MJ’s shoulder! (You’ll hear this at 19:00 and 23:30 mark.) That fact contradicts Bashir’s claim that he “did not set out to ensnare MJ”!
But I’ll give Bashir credit; he used the equivocation fallacy earlier in the chat when he said that MJ was “sharing his bed”, and he later corrected himself by saying that MJ shared his BEDROOM, which puts everything into proper context.
Bashir didn’t answer Kelly Wallace’s question about why he didn’t go straight to authorities with his fears of MJ’s obsessions with children. He sarcastically replied to her question with “obsession with what?”, but in the video above, at 3:25, you’ll clearly hear him say that he wanted to confront MJ about his obsession with children!
After reading through this post, you can see that the depths of Bashir’s treachery is like a bottomless pit! And he still holds a lot of animosity towards Mesereau! Here is the cheapshot that he took at Mesereau on November 7th, 2011, the same day that Murray was convicted! While discussing the attorneys who defended Murray, Bashir said the following:
Bashir: Jamie, if I could start with you, Ed Chertoff, defense attorney or Conrad Murray, repeatedly said “This is not a reality show. This is reality. And you must not find his doctor guilt of actions perpetrated by Michael Jackson.” How effective was Ed Chertoff?
Jamie Floyd: I think he was extremely effective, not a celebrity attorney of the sort that we might have expected to see in this case.
Bashir: Like a Mark Geragos or Thomas Mesereau!
So Bashir just implied that Mesereau is an ambulance chaser! That couldn’t be further from the truth! Let’s look at what attorney and media hack Dan Abrams had to say about Mesereau’s community service at the 2005 Harvard Law seminar:
First, before I talk about the Jackson case, and before I talk about media coverage of trials, etc., in terms of the Jackson case, I don’t think that Tom Mesereau is giving enough credit to Tom Mesereau. He’s talking about the evidence, and something about trial tactics, etc. But Tom Mesereau is, and I’m going to attack him for something in a moment for some of the things he just said, he is one of the few lawyers in the country who puts his money where his mouth is. He is a guy who doesn’t just talk about pro bono work, he doesn’t just talk about the community, this is someone whose face should not be known for the Michael Jackson case, but should be known for all of the work that he does pro bono, and in the communities, and for underprivileged defendants, etc. That’s why Tom Mesereau should be the famous attorney that he is, and he deserves every bit of the attention and the compliments that he gets, and that’s not the case, I would not be saying that with many lawyers who would be sitting here. I don’t feel any obligation to compliment Tom.
And here’s another post on Mesereau’s community service and activism!
That pretty much summarizes Bashir’s testimony, and now you have a gist of what he said, as well has his feelings about his work after it aired, and in the years since. For more information on how Bashir was able to con MJ into filming the documentary, read this post, and for a rebuttal to his 2005 hit-piece “Michael Jackson’s Secret World”, read this post.
Now, here’s the bombshell information on Bashir that recently came to my attention, thanks to my good friend LunaJo67! Make sure you’re sitting down, breath slowly, and calmly soak in what you’re about to read:
MARTIN BASHIR RELEASED AN ALBUM ON SONY!
Yes, that’s right! Bashir released a reggae album in December 2010 titled “Bass Lion”. Here is an article that describes Bashir’s musical “talents”:
Mi2N.com – MarilynMusic Works On MSNBC Anchor Martin Bashir’s Upcoming Album
Few people realize that in addition to being a respected journalist and media personality, Martin Bashir also plays bass reggae. The ‘Dateline’ contributor and MSNBC afternoon anchor, has been working on his upcoming 14 song reggae album called “Bass Lion.” Produced Gary Haase and mixed by Marilyn Music’s Casey Conrad, the album is slated for Fall 2010 independent release. Mixed in August at Headman’s Studios, “Bass Lion” offers a combination of traditional and contemporary Jamaican music, with all 14 tracks having been recorded in Jamaica. Selected songs from the album will be used in his upcoming daily hourly investigative reporting show on MSNBC.
Bashir plays the bass, and (to my knowledge) does not sing or have any vocals on the album. I listened to a 90 second preview of each song on iTunes (none of his songs are on Youtube), and I didn’t hear his voice at all, and I wasn’t terribly impressed with the quality of the songs (but of course I’m biased!).
Another interesting piece of information that I discovered through my research is that Bashir produced the 2005 album “String Theory”, which was recorded by Gary Haase, the producer of Bashir’s album! What goes around comes around!
Bashir’s album was released on the IODA (Independent Online Distribution Alliance) label, a subsidiary of Sony Music! Sony partnered with them in July 2009 in order to “leverage combined worldwide online retail distribution networks. Who would have thought that Bashir would ever release an album on Sony? Well, we know he wasn’t the first enemy of MJ to try to do that! (Cough, cough, Evan Chandler, cough, cough…)
Perhaps we should add this tangled web of cronyism to the flowchart on the Veritas Project?
Update! January 29th, 2012
Here is Bashir disrespecting MJ’s fans by saying that we view him as “messianic”, meaning that we see him as a messiah that should not have been questioned about his lifestyle! This is how Bashir spins his documentary to the general public: “I didn’t do anything wrong, but I get criticized by those rabid MJ fans who view him as a God!”
Just when you thought that there was no limit to the depths of Martin Bashir’s deception during the 2005 inquisition of Michael Jackson, think again! As I read the Declaration of Brian Oxman in support of Order to Show Cause re: Contempt Against Martin Bashir, I was utterly stunned at the revelations of Bashir’s cowardice and treachery! I’ll summarize everything that is contained in this massive 185 page document, as well as his testimony from the trial, and at the end of this seriesI will reveal additional BOMBSHELL information, so let’s get down to business!
Before we begin, let me tell you about a new project that I will begin working on. Due to the appalling lack of knowledge by so many “hardcore” fans about the facts of the allegations, I have decided to summarize each and every person’s testimony from the 2005 trial. I want all fans to know who testified, and what they said. Everyone’s testimony will be analyzed, and extra attention will be paid to the “major players” of the trial, which includes (but is not limited to): the Arvizo family, Jason and Blanca Francia, June Chandler, Bob Jones, Stacy Brown, Kassim Abdool, Adrian McManus, Ralph Chacon (Abdool, McManus, and Chacon were part of the “Neverland 5”), the detectives who interviewed the Arvizos, Stan Katz, Larry Feldman, and of course Martin Bashir. I will put all of their lies in chronological order (e.g. Lie #1, Lie #2, etc.), list them as bullet points at the end of each post, and do each post as a daily summary, similar to what is on the MJ Upbeat site.
I was already working on this post about Bashir when I decided to embark on this endeavor, and it will take me well into 2013 to complete this task, but in the end it will be worth it because everyone will have an easy reference to research everything that happened during MJ’s inquisition. I’ll admit that when I began my research after MJ’s death, I made the mistake of blowing off the trial as one big joke, and I focused on fact checking and refuting other negative sources of information, instead of summarizing the trial. But there are a lot of diehard fans (many of them know every song and dance) who need to be educated, and if I don’t do this, nobody will!
With that said, let’s analyze Bashir’s testimony from the trial!
Here is a summary of Oxman’s declaration on behalf of Michael Jackson, and a few excerpts of his complaints against Bashir. (You can read the entire list on pages 1-7.) The heart of the matter is the fact that Bashir refused to answer 21 questions asked to him by Mesereau while under cross examination, and the defense requested that he be cited for civil contempt and incarcerated until he complied with the Court’s Order that he answers the questions. Unfortunately, Bashir was neither charged nor incarcerated!
DECLARATION OF BRIAN OXMAN
Brian Oxman fraternizing wth the enemy! Would Mesereau ever do this? I don't think so!
I, Brian Oxman, declare and say:
1. I am an attorney law admitted to practice before all the courts of the State of California and I am the attorney for Mr. Michael Jackson. I submit this Declaration in support of Mr. Jackson’s Order to Show Cause re Contempt. Mr. Jackson requests a contempt citation be issued against Contemnor Martin Bashir based on the following:
(1) Contemnor Bashir is guilty of a direct civil contempt of court by refusing to testify when the court overruled all of Contemnor’s claims of privilege, and Contemnor’s refusal to testify was a willful violation of the of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1209(a)(5) and (9);
(2) Neither the California Shield Law nor the First Amendment apply to Contemnor Bashir because he is a percipient witness who waived all privileges by publishing the information to third parties.
(3) Mr. Jackson’s rights to cross-examination and confrontation outweigh Contemnor Bashir’s Shield Law and First Amendment privileges and Contemnor should be held in contempt.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2. Plaintiff filed this action on December 18, 2003, charging Mr. Jackson with seven (7) counts of Lewd Acts Upon a Child in violation of Penal Code section 288a and two (2) counts of administering an intoxicant to a minor in violation of Penal Code section 222. Plaintiff soon abandoned the Complaint and sought a Grand Jury Indictment which, not only changed the nature of the claims, but also changed the dates on which they took place. The April 26, 2004, Indictment charged Mr. Jackson with a vast conspiracy to falsely imprison, abduct, and extort the complaining witness family along with unindicted co-conspirators including Mr. Jackson’s attorneys, employees, and friends of friends Mr. Jackson hadn’t ever met.
3. Plaintiff claims the vast conspiracy was precipitated by the television program “Living with Michael Jackson” which aired in England on February 3, 2003, and in the United States on February 7, 2003. According to plaintiff, this program, which was an interview with Mr. Jackson conducted by Witness Martin Bashir, was supposed to be so devastating to him that he decided to kidnap a family depicted, in the program, extort them, and falsely imprison them from February 4, 2003, to March 13, 2003. In addition, despite a very public investigation being launched by the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office into Mr. Jackson’s possible child molestation on February 6, 2003, Mr. Jackson is alleged to have molested the children, not before the events of February 3-6, 2003, but rather only afterward, in an apparent effort to hand the District Attorney a case which never existed before, and in fact has never existed at all.
5. However, not only does the Bashir Program not contain any such “admissions,” but also plaintiff sought to misconstrue the actual language where Mr. Jackson and the complaining witness denied any such conduct. Undaunted nevertheless by the truth, on February 10, 2005, plaintiff filed a Motion for Admission of Certain Statements by Defendant on “Living with Michael Jackson” and “60 Minutes” as exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. (Exhibit “B”). Plaintiff claimed the statements made in September, 2002, constituted “admissions” within the exceptions to the hearsay rule that Mr. Jackson “shared his bed” with the complaining witness, (Exhibit “B,” Plaintiffs 2-10-05 Memo, p. 3, lines 11-24).”
8. Witness Bashir’s Motion stated pursuant to the First Amendment and the California Shield Law contained in Evidence Code section 1070, he was protected against forced disclosure of any information before the Court (Exhibit “D” Bashir 1-18-05 Motion, p. 2, lines 3-9). He claimed that he could not be compelled to be a witness nor to provide any testimony before the court (Exhibit “D,” Bashir 1-18-05 Memo, p. 7, lines 1-3).
9. On January 27, 2005, the Court denied Witness Bashir’s Motion. However, the Court modified the “gag” order of January 23,2004, and thereby permitted Witness Bashir to engage in conduct which defamed Mr. Jackson in two and one-half (2 1/2) hours of national television broadcasts which are the subject Mr. Jackson’s separate Motion to Dismiss for invidious discrimination. (Sec Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Permit Broadcast Response filed 2-23-05).
10. Witness Bashir then communicated with the District Attorney’s Office stating that despite the Court’s ruling, he intended to assert his privileges under the First Amendment and the California Shield Law and refuse to testify to anything not published in the television program itself.
11. “When Mr. Jackson sought to cross-examine the witness, Witness Bashir refused to answer questions regarding misrepresents he made to Mr. Jackson, how the television program was made, the number of hours of film that was taken, what statements he made to Mr. Jackson to obtain permission to film the program, who was present during the filming, what the process was whereby the film was edited, and a host of other questions regarding the depictions in the film. Witness Bashir invoked the First Amendment and the California Shield Law as the basis for his refusal to testify. When the Court overruled the objection and instructed the witness to answer the questions, Witness Bashir continued his recalcitrant refusal to testify just as he had informed plaintiff he would do before he was called as a witness.
12. Attached to this Memorandum is the Order to Show Cause re: Contempt against Contemnor Bashir that outlines each of the questions Mr. Jackson’s attorney asked of the witness, Contemnor Bashir’s objection to the questions, the Court’s overrule of the objections, and the witnesses’ refusal to answer. In the face of such recalcitrance, the Court stated that it would review the transcript and determine whether an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt should be issued against the witness. (Exhibit “E,” 3-1-05 Tr. p. 276, In 18-21). Mr. Jackson hereby requests the Court to issue the Contempt Citation because Witness Bashir refused to answer the questions without justification, and that refusal has destroyed Mr. Jackson’s rights to a fair trial.
13. Contemnor Bashir was a witness to the events of September, 2002, when Mr. Jackson made statements to him which the prosecution now wishes to introduce as so-called “admissions.” Contemnor Bashir was the one who induced Mr. Jackson to make the statements, and any trickery, deception, misrepresentations, play acting, coercion, or other numerous possible types of conduct which were perpetrated against Mr. Jackson at the time are not only relevant, but also essential to determine the authenticity, voluntariness, and trustworthiness of the recorded statements. As a percipient witness to the so-called “admissions”, Contemnor Bashir does not qualify for Shield Law protection.
14. Without justification, Contemnor Bashir refused to answer the question of what other statements Mr. Jackson made to him during the filming (Exhibit “E,” 3-01 -05 Tr. p. 259, In 28 to p. 260, In 19). He refused not because of his feigned constitutional privilege, but rather because Mr. Jackson told Contemnor Bashir that Frank Casio was present in the bedroom at all times the complaining boy was present. The information was deliberately edited out of the Bashir Program, and the statements contained in the Bashir Program were fraudulently edited as a misrepresentation of Mr. Jackson’s statement.
15. Witness Bashir refused to answer the question of how Mr. Jackson signed the interview agreement with him or if an attorney was present (Exhibit “E,” 3-01 -05 Tr., p. 242, In 21, to p. 243, In 26). The fact is Witness Bashir forged Mr. Jackson’s signature to obtain the interview with him. Attached as Exhibit’ F” is the forged document witness Bashir produced to Mr. Jackson’s management and to Independent Television in London claiming it was Michael Jackson’s signature in order to obtain what would become a fraudulently edited interview with Mr. Jackson.
18. The Shield Law only permits a journalist to maintain “unpublished” information confidential. Contemnor Bashir has published claims about agreeing to be fair, that he was honest, that there was no betrayal. Mr. Jackson’s questions at trial inquired into these claims and Contemnor may not make such statements to the public and then refuse to answer questions about them. Contemnor waived his Shield Law and First Amendment privileges and he could be held in contempt of court.
Let’s go over a few points:
In bullet point #2, Oxman mentioned how the prosecution completely changed the charges and dates in between the filing of the initial complaint and the grand jury indictment. In the initial complaint, filed on December 18th, 2003, MJ was charged with:
- 7 counts of lewd acts upon a child
- 2 counts of administering an intoxicant
However, in the grand jury indictment that was filed on April 21st, 2004, the dates of the alleged offenses shifted to February 20th through March 12th, 2003, and the charges were materially altered as follows:
- 4 counts of lewd acts upon a child
- 1 count of an attempted lewd act upon a child
- 4 counts of administering an intoxicant
- 1 count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion
This is what Oxman summarized in this motion, and it is indicative of Sneddon’s desperation to railroad MJ into a criminal trial at all costs! When he realized that one of the videotapes that was illegally seized from Geragos’ private investigator Bradley Miller’s office was the “rebuttal tape”, and that MJ was not even in California during the alleged dates in the initial complaint, he rearranged the dates of the alleged crimes and added the conspiracy charge to circumvent MJ’s alibi, and the fact that he kept receipts of the numerous shopping sprees that he treated the Arvizos’ to!
Mesereau recently gave an interview to Positively Michael, and in this excerpt from that interview he discusses the reasons Sneddon added the conspiracy charge:
First of all this was a very complex, confusing, terrifying situation. What Sneddon did, the DA who was after Michael as everyone knows, what he did was he brought these conspiracy charges for many different reasons. One of them was to terrify away witnesses that can help Michael Jackson.
And what he did was and it was very strange, he had the grand jury indict Michael on various counts the first one being conspiracy. But the only one in the alleged conspiracy charged was Michael. He called everyone else an unindicted co-conspirator which is a giveaway right away that he had a nefarious purpose for bringing a conspiracy charge.
So Michael was charged with conspiracy. Remember a conspiracy is an agreement among various individuals to commit a crime. the agreement can be in writing or it can be not in writing. It can also be an understanding. But nevertheless conspiracy involves more than one person and it requires a form of agreement to commit a crime. But the only one charged was Michael Jackson. So that ought to tell you something right there something is wrong.
Everyone else was called an unindicted co-conspirator. Frank Cascio, Vinnie Amen, Dieter, Konitzer, Marc Shaffel. What I think he did was he wanted to scare the daylights away from these potential witnesses for Michael Jackson because they were there when Arvizo’s was around. And to do that he sort of hang the possibility of charging them over their heads, he forced them all to get lawyers and he terrified them. Let’s face it.
As I said in other discussions there were other technical reasons he brought that charge. It would allow the Arvizo’s to testify about Cascio, Shaffer, Amen, Dieter and Konitzer and at the same time scare them away so Michael couldn’t bring them in to contradict or refute what Arvizo’s said. It was very very sinister in my opinion.
So Frank Cascio and the rest all got lawyers, you would expect them to. They were looking at the possibility of felony charges of conspiracy and years in prison. We were sort of preparing our defense and trying to figure out who everyone was and what they can contribute to our defense and what they had to say and what they said to other people, have they talked to Sneddon and company. You know this is what criminal defense is. This was a huge case, everything was magnified a million times.
So Frank Cascio got a lawyer and I did not want Michael talking to him or him talking to Michael because this would open up the door to types of examination by the DAs in the trial. Although I believe they were talking anyway because they were friends for many years.
And Cascio’s lawyer Joe Tacopina from NY started calling me and asking me what was going on and what I thought. I would tell him what I could and I would ask him what Frank was up to. My impression was Frank was listening to his lawyer. His lawyer was going very carefully, very professionally, very delicately through the evidence and trying to find out how to protect his client. That was what his job was. So his lawyer wasn’t right away saying “he’ll do whatever you want”, he was being careful about it and I think Frank was listening to his lawyer. I don’t know what he said to Michael or what Michael said to him. I know his family members were talking to Michael , I wasn’t privy to those conversations. You know they are all very close friends.
At some point a perception that Frank was not being cooperative had developed. I’m not so sure why it might have developed. It might have been just his lawyer being cautious and careful. But I can say this in the end he was willing to testify. His lawyer told me he was willing to testify , he had a lot of conversations. What I think happened was he was scared, he was listening to his lawyer , his lawyer was being cautious that may have been construed as him not being cooperative but I will say this in the end he was willing to come in and testify. That’s what I think really happened with Frank Cascio.
Now you know I can’t blame him for being terrified. He does say in his book that I have to point out that Sneddon offered him immunity from prosecution. What that meant was if he came forward and cooperated with Sneddon and the DA’s office he could not be prosecuted. He also had to be willing to testify against Michael and he refused it. Even though that would have been a very safe way to go to make sure that you aren’t charged. You gotta give him credit for that. Gotta give him credit for that, gotta understand how terrified they were about being charged with felony conspiracy going to prison. You gotta appreciate he was listening to his lawyer who was going on cautiously and carefully to figure out how to best protect his client. So I don’t think anyone should blame Frank. Really don’t.
Now other people weren’t as terrified as he was. For example Chris Tucker and Maculay Culkin were not unidicted co-conspirators. They were never facing charges. So they came right out and told their lawyers and agents and managers and advisers “we are testifying for Michael whenever he needs us. You know there’s no doubt about it”. And they did that. I sat with Maculay Culkin and his entertainment lawyer and his entertainment lawyer was scared to death. Whereas Maculay was cool as can be said “when Michael needs me I am there”. I met with Chris Tucker and his lawyer at his lawyers home and his attitude was exactly the same “When Michael wants me I don’t care what I’m doing I’m there”. But they weren’t also facing the possibility of a conspiracy charge. So I’m not hard on Frank, I understand the whole situation, in the end he was willing to testify.
And as he correctly said in his book, and I read it and I enjoyed the book, I decided that I didn’t need to call him. I wanted to get this case to the jury, I actually shortened our witness list, and we initially expected the trial to last a few more months. But I wanted this to get to the jury, I thought we really rocked their world so to speak and I thought this case was ready for an acquittal. That’s what happened fortunately.
In bullet point #5, Oxman describes how the Prosecution wanted MJ’s statements about sharing his bed admitted as evidence, and how they wanted jurors to consider the interviews in the documentary “only to the extent that those statements may tend to explain the conduct of defendant and the alleged co-conspirators as alleged in Count One of the Indictment, and the motive for that conduct.” This will be discussed later in this post.
In bullet point #9, Oxman describes how the Court made a complete fool of themselves (in my opinion) by applying the Gag order to Bashir, but subsequently granting him an exception so that he could air the trash-umentary “Michael Jackson’s Secret World”, which I fact checked in this post.
In bullet points #11-14, Oxman describes the types of questions that Bashir refused to answer, even after his objections were overruled by the Court. Pay close attention to #14, where he points out how Bashir deliberately edited out of the documentary MJ’s statement that Frank Casio was always present with him and Gavin Arvizo!
That’s typical Martin Bashir!
Bullet point #15 contains a piece of bombshell information! Bashir forged an “Agreement for Filming and Broadcast” contract (page 174) in order to advance his agenda! So that tells me that he knew from the start that he would smear MJ in the worst way! Here is a photo of the contract, and I transcribed the contents of the contract below, to the best of my ability:
The contract that Bashir forged to get his documentary broadcast on television.
Granada Television
Agreement for Filming and Broadcast
This statement, signed by both parties, is to formalize an agreement between Michael Jackson and Martin Bashir, who represents ITV and GTV.
I, Michael Jackson, grant permission for Mr. Bashir and his team to film various scenes and interview me at my home (Neverland Valley Ranch) and elsewhere, and to make the film available for broadcast both cinematic and televised. I do not seek any financial return, nor do I pledge conditions on him. The only condition that I seek is that the film is a faithful representation of the truth as I experience it in my life.
I will show another example of Bashir forging documents at the end of this post, and I will include a link to another post on Bashir that discusses how he used a forged letter from Princess Diana to trick MJ into doing the documentary. For now, let’s look at what one of MJ’s lawyers, David LeGrand, had to say about the contract shown above:
Former Jackson lawyer to testify
Another lawyer says pop star was exploited
In testimony Thursday, Jackson’s former business attorney said the pop star had been exploited by unscrupulous business associates and misled by British journalist Martin Bashir.
It was Bashir’s documentary “Living with Michael Jackson” that turned into a public relations fiasco. The piece showed Jackson holding hands with a 13-year-old boy — the accuser in the case against the entertainer — and admitting he allowed underage children to sleep in his bed. David LeGrand said he viewed the boy’s family “as a personal liability” to Jackson and urged the entertainer’s business partner, Marc Schaffel, to find a way to “wean away” the family from Jackson. LeGrand also insisted he knew of no plot to control the family or hold them against their will, as the prosecution alleges.
He told jurors Jackson was “highly ill-liquid” and faced the possibility of bankruptcy in early 2003, with heavy debts and more than $10 million in unpaid bills. At the time, Jackson was exploring possible marketing opportunities, including a perfume, gambling machines, a movie of his life’s story and a TV special with the late Marlon Brando.
The contracts that Jackson signed with Bashir were “terrible,” said LeGrand. They consisted of two one-paragraph documents that gave Bashir and Grenada Television the rights to the footage shot at Neverland Ranch, including an interview with Jackson, LeGrand said.
Bashir never followed through on a promise to let the pop star “screen and edit” the final product, LeGrand said. And he told jurors he believed Bashir “had misrepresented to Mr. Jackson what they were going to accomplish in this production.”
Alleged exploitation
LeGrand testified that after being hired in 2003, he quickly became “suspicious” of Jackson associates, who he believed were trying to control Jackson’s business and financial affairs.
“It seemed everybody wanted to benefit from Mr. Jackson in one way or the other,” LeGrand said.
One associate, Ronald Konitzer, had obtained power of attorney to act on Jackson’s behalf, said LeGrand, and with another associate, Dieter Weizner, had developed a new business plan that was “disturbing” and “amateurish.”
LeGrand said he was fired in March 2003, two weeks after sending a letter to Konitzer demanding to know where certain money went.
He said an audit of Jackson’s finances and an investigation by private investigators found Konitzer had diverted $960,000 of the $3 million in fees paid by the Fox network to Jackson for a program rebutting Bashir’s documentary.
The defense has argued that Jackson was disengaged and unaware of what his associates might have been doing.
It was during February and March 2003 that the prosecution alleges Jackson conspired with Konitzer, Weizner, Schaffel and two other men to control and intimidate the family of Jackson’s accuser in the weeks after the Bashir documentary aired. The allegations include holding the family against its will at Neverland. And it was during that period the accuser, now 15, says Jackson molested him on overnight stays in the singer’s bedroom suite.
LeGrand said he met the accuser’s family during that period and they did not appear to be held against their will. He said during conversations with the accuser’s mother, “She seemed satisfied to be there.”
Bullet point #18 describes a transcript of a chat session that Bashir had with fans after the documentary aired. We will analyze this later on in this post.
Let’s look at how Judge Melville handled the situation regarding Bashir’s desire to hide behind the Journalist Shield Law:
4 Q. First of all, Mr. Bashir, I did ask you a
5 question, and that question I’ll repeat: In order
6 to produce what the jury has just seen, you had to
7 make contact with Mr. Jackson, correct.
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And you made numerous attempts to contact
10 Mr. Jackson, true.
11 MR. BOUTROUS: Again, Your Honor, I object
12 on the grounds that that’s unpublished information,
13 and it’s also unclear from the face of the tapes
14 that he had contact with Mr. Jackson.
15 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I have
16 correspondence from Mr. Bashir. It’s pretty obvious
17 that, in a nonprivileged context, he was trying to
18 make contact and say what he wanted to do.
19 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
20 Do you wish to answer that question, Mr.
21 Bashir.
22 MR. BOUTROUS: I’m going to leave it to
23 Mr. Bashir. It puts him in a difficult position.
24 Because there’s a very important legal principle
25 that’s taken. It does not matter whether Mr.
26 Mesereau claims to have correspondence or that
27 there’s other documents. That’s the limits of the
28 permissible — 232
1 THE COURT: I think I understand the legal
2 parameters.
3 MR. BOUTROUS: — information…. I just
4 want to make sure I preserve the record and that
5 the —
6 THE COURT: You are doing an excellent job.
7 MR. BOUTROUS: Thank you, Your Honor.
8 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, my preface is to
9 simply stand by the film as you’ve seen it and to
10 testify as to its contents.
11 THE COURT: All right.
12 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll object, Your Honor, and
13 move to strike his comments. They were not in
14 response to any question.
15 THE COURT: Well, actually they were a
16 response to my question if he wanted to answer the
17 question.
18 THE WITNESS: Sorry, sir. That –
19 THE COURT: So I won’t let you strike that.
20 All right. He is following his counsel’s
21 advice and he’s not answering that question. Next
22 question.
23 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I would move for
24 sanctions against the witness. Or I would move to
25 strike all of his testimony, including the
26 prosecution’s playing of this tape, if he refuses to
27 be cross-examined.
28 THE COURT: The way I would like to proceed 233
1 with this is that he — he does have some protection
2 under the shield law that his counsel has been
3 pointing out. That protection is against contempt
4 of court.
5 What I think I’ll do is let you ask him the
6 questions, let his attorney make the objections, let
7 him decide whether he’s going to answer. And then
8 I’ll make a record — we have a record of those
9 questions, and then I’ll review them later to
10 determine whether or not I feel a contempt charge
11 should be issued. It’s really a ticklish area of
12 the law.
13 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.
Here is a summary of the 21 separate refusals that form the basis of Michael Jackson’s request for contempt against Bashir, and for Bashir’s incarceration until he complied (which, as we all know, he never did!). I compiled the list of questions asked by Mesereau, each objection by Bashir’s lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous was overruled, and Bashir’s refusal to answer each question. You can read the entire transcript of questions on pages 8-18.
1. Q. First of all, Mr. Bashir, I did ask you a question, and that question I’ll repeat In order to produce what the jury has just seen, you had to make contact with Mr. Jackson, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you made numerous attempts to contact Mr. Jackson, true?
MR. BOUTROUS: Again, Your Honor, I object on the grounds that that’s unpublished information, and it’s also unclear from the face of the tapes that he had contact with Mr. Jackson.
2. Q. And how many hours of footage did you obtain during the time you spent with Mr. Jackson?
MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor. Unpublished information, covered by the shield law and the First Amendment.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Do you wish to answer?
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t.
3. Q. Mr. Bashir, you communicated with Mr. Jackson’s assistant by letter before you began filming this show, correct?
MR BOUTROUS: Again, Your Honor, I object It’s unpublished information created and prepared in the course of news gathering and covered by the shield law and the First Amendment.
THE COURT: Do you wish to answer?
THE WITNESS: No.
4. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, you had Michael Jackson sign an agreement without a lawyer present, true?
MR. BOUTROUS: Again, Your Honor, beyond the scope of the direct and covered by the shield law.
5. Q. Are you covering this case as a correspondent who is paid?
MR BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor, beyond the scope; and again, requiring him to cover news gathering activities is covered by the shield law.
THE COURT: Overruled. “Do you wish to answer that question?
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t, Your Honor.
6. Q. Mr. Bashir, in the show you prepared, which we’ve just seen, Mr. Jackson made statements to the effect that nothing sexual was going on in his bed, correct?
A Correct.
Q. To obtain the interview you had with Mr. Jackson when he made that statement, you told him that he was underappreciated, true?
R. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor, on the shield law grounds ad First Amendment grounds, unpublished information, and the tape that the jury has seen speaks for itself.
7. Q. Mr. Bashir, in the show about Michael Jackson, Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual went on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement, you told Mr. Jackson that your romantic development was partially shaped by his records, true?
MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor. Same grounds. First Amendment; shield law.
THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that question.
THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor.
8. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, on the show we just saw in this courtroom, Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual goes on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement from Mr. Jackson, you told him that when you looked at his relationship with children, it almost made you weep, correct?
MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor. California shield law and the First Amendment. And I object to that questions as being ambiguous as well, the first phrase, lo obtain that statement.’ Object to that.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled. “Do you wish to answer that?
THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.
9. Q. MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, on your show, Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual ever went on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement from him, you told him that you believe in his vision of an international children’s holiday, correct?
MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor. The shield law and the First Amendment
THE COURT: Overruled. Do you wish to answer that question?
THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.
10. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, in this interview you did of Michael Jackson, he says that nothing sexual went on in his bedroom.
To obtain that statement, you told him, ‘Neverland is an extraordinary, a breathtaking, a stupendous, and an exhilarating and amazing place. I can’t put together words to describe Neverland., True?
MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor. First Amendment and the California shield law.
THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that question?
THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.
11.Q. Mr. Bashir, to prepare the show you’ve just shown the jury where Michael Jackson says nothing sexual went on in his bedroom, you told him that you had an abiding sense that he is selfless and a most generous person, correct?
MR., BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that question?
THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.
12. Q. Mr. Bashir, to obtain the statement from Mr. Jackson that nothing sexual goes on in his bedroom, you described Neverland as a beautiful landscape encouraging all of us to become a little children again, true?
MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor, and 1 want to repeat my objection on the leading question ground, and I believe the improper form of the question, and again, reassert the California shield law’s protection of unpublished information prepared and gathered in news gathering, and the First Amendment.
THE COURT: The objection’s overruled. Do you wish to answer?
THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.
13. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, to obtain Michael Jackson s statement that nothing sexual goes on in his bedroom with children, you complimented him for what he does for disadvantaged children from the ghetto, true?
MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you wish to answer?
THE WITNESS: I don’t Your Honor.
14. Q. Mr. Bashir, to obtain the statement from Mr. Jackson that nothing sexual went on in his bedroom with children, you told him that you were going to arrange a meeting with Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United nations, and would plan a trip to Africa with Mr. Jackson and Kofi Annan to help African children with AIDS, true?
MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Do you -wish to answer?
THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.
15. Q. Mr. Bashir, to obtain Mr. Jackson’s statement that nothing sexual ever went on in his bedroom with children, you told him that you had great admiration for his visiting sick children in hospitals in England, true?
MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection’s overruled. Do you wish to answer?
THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.
16. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, I would like to ask you further questions about how you obtained Michael Jackson’s statement that nothing ever goes on in his bedroom that is sexual with children. Do you intend to not answer any questions along those lines?
MR. BOUTROUS: Let me just say that I intend to continue making the same objections, if Mr. Mesereau is seeking to short-circuit the process — the First Amendment, the shield law — if that’s helpful
THE COURT: Do you intend to follow your counsel’s advice on those issues?
THE WITNESS: I do, Your Honor.
17. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, in the process of attempting to obtain statements from Mr. Jackson, you called him ‘the boss,’ Didn’t you?
MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections.
THE COURT: The objection’s overruled. Do you wish to answer that?
THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.
18. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, do you intend to not answer any question I ask you on cross-examination in this trial?
MR. BOUTROUS: To preserve the record, Your Honor, I will continue to object on the grounds which we believe arc well-founded, and Mr. Bashir is acting on my instruction and ray objections under the California constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
THE COURT: Do you intend to follow his advice on all questions relating to this interview and the trial?
THE WITNESS: I do, Your Honor.
19. Q. Okay. Now, while you were obtaining statements from Mr. Jackson, someone named Hamid Moslehi was present, true?
MR. BOUTROUS: I reassert the objection I made during direct Your Honor, which was First Amendment and California law. It’s unpublished information. Observations of a journalist during the journalistic process is protected under the California shield law, including people who are in public places.
THE COURT: Do you wish to follow your counsel’s advice ?
THE WITNESS: I do, Your Honor.
20. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Bashir, in how many locations did the filming take place that appears in your show?
MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor, Again, the film speaks for itself. It was on screen. The jury’s seen it anything else is unpublished information covered by the shield law.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Do you wish to answer that?
THE WITNESS: The evidence of where we were filming was clear from the film, from the documentary which has just been shown.
21. Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you fly to these locations with Mr. Jackson?
MR. BOUTROUS: Same objection, Your Honor, first Amendment; shield law.
THE COURT: The objection’s overruled. Do you wish to answer?
THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor.
Since Bashir was too much of a coward to answer Mesereau’s questions, I’ll answer them for him!
1. Yes, Bashir made NUMEROUS attempts to contact Mr. Jackson! Bashir spent at least 5 years trying to court MJ into doing the documentary. In fact, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (on page 39 of his book, screenshot below) wrote about how he was contacted by Bashir in 2001 to serve as an intermediary between he and MJ. He didn’t speak to Bashir personally; someone from his office called him. He utterly rejected the idea of MJ doing ANY type of documentary, but not because of Bashir (as nobody knew what type of treachery he was capable of at that time), but because he felt that MJ’s life wasn’t ready to be scrutinized. He assumed that the project was dead…………….until it premiered in February 2003!
If only Uri Gellar could have used the same good judgement regarding Bashir's "offer"!
I know that Rabbi Boteach is a controversial figure in the fan community, and has some serious character issues (which you can read about here and here), but as you can see, he had the wisdom and the foresight to see that MJ should not do ANY documentary that would expose him to more media scrutiny, and for that reason alone I wish he and MJ could have remained close. In this instance (unlike with his book “The Michael Jackson Tapes”), Rabbi Boteach was NOT thinking about cashing in on MJ by “advising” him to trust Bashir and then subsequently getting a cut of the profits (as Uri Gellar did); he genuinely cared about MJ’s well-being and wanted what was best for him (in this instance!). Just imagine if they had never fallen out, and Rabbi Boteach was around to tell MJ not do the documentary in 2002?
2. Bashir recorded 10 hours of footage over the course of 8 months.
Bashir said a 16-second clip was being used to portray him as being unfair when he had interviewed Jackson for more than 10 hours.
“The film was fair to his musical achievement and gave him every opportunity to explain himself,” he said.
3. Yes, of course he did! Here is an excerpt from the witness statement of Evelyn Tavasci, who served as the Executive Administrator of Productions at MJJ Productions (beginning on page 28):
3. My first contact with Mr. Bashir was in the following circumstances. At some time before 23 July 2002 I received a telephone call from a person whose identity I cannot now recall to say that Mr. Bashir was coming to the Ranch to do some filming. I had not previously heard of Mr. Bashir. Mr. Bashir rang me on or about 23 July 2002 and told me that he was proposing to come to the ranch to do some filming and that he would be accompanied by a film crew. He told me that he had been speaking to Mr. Jackson, who had agreed to this. I asked for the names of the film crew and said I would need to check with Mr. Jackson.
5. At about the end of July, I spoke to Mr. Jackson by telephone. I was aware that Mr. Bashir and his film crew were already at the Ranch. I asked Mr. Jackson if there was any protection in place in respect of what Mr. Bashir was proposing to do. I told him that I was concerned, because Mr. Bashir and his film crew were already at the Ranch. I asked him about protection, because although Mr. Jackson’s talents as a musical artist and performer make him a celebrity, he is nonetheless anxious to protect his private life. At the time, he said leave it with him.
6. Later that day, however, he telephoned me and told me to contact Karen Langford, of the law firm Ziffren, Brittenham, Branca, Fischer, Gillbert-Lurle & Stiffelman LLP, to make sure that he both owned and controlled the film master tapes and had editing rights as well as the right of final approval of the documentary. On the same day, I spoke to Karen Langford and told her to draw up an appropriate document to ensure that Mr. Jackson owned the film footage and had the editing and approval rights that he had indicated to me. I was not aware at that time that Mr. Bashir had in fact visited the ranch in June and had signed a confidentiality agreement on 20 June 2002. I am now formed by Mr. Jackson’s legal advisers that this was the case.
4. After looking at the vague, one page, one paragraph “contract” that Bashir allegedly forged, I think it’s safe to assume that MJ had NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER as he signed those two contracts! Let’s look at what David LeGrand had to say about those contracts on the witness stand:
8 Q. And you mentioned that there were very few
9 documents involving the Bashir documentary. What do
10 you mean?
11 A. The only — there were only two pieces of
12 paper that Mr. Jackson provided to the lawyers with
13 respect to the Martin Bashir broadcast. They were
14 basically two separate pieces of paper signed at two
15 different times, consisting of a little over a
16 paragraph on each piece of paper, and that
17 apparently represented the total contractual
18 arrangement with respect to the production of the
19 Bashir/Granada video.
20 Q. Did it appear that Mr. Jackson had gotten
21 any legal advice before he entered into this project
22 with Bashir?
23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Speculation;
24 foundation.
25 THE COURT: Sustained.
26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was it your understanding
27 that Mr. Jackson had had any legal representation
28 when he entered into any arrangement with Mr. 9983
1 Bashir?
2 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Same objection.
3 THE COURT: Sustained.
4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know whether or
5 not, before Mr. Jackson did the Bashir documentary,
6 any lawyer had represented him?
7 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Same — same
8 objection.
9 THE COURT: Overruled.
10 You may answer that “yes” or “no.” If you
11 can’t answer that “yes” or “no,” tell me.
12 THE WITNESS: It’s difficult to answer “yes”
13 or “no,” Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: All right. Then I’ll sustain the
15 objection to the question.
16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Had you yourself
17 documented any transactions involving television
18 documentaries in your career before representing Mr.
19 Jackson?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you have any understanding of what kind
22 of documents one would typically execute and sign
23 before doing a T.V. documentary at that time?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And what was your understanding about the
26 typical types of documents one executes before doing
27 a television documentary?
28 A. There are typically fairly extensive 9984
1 agreements that would document ownership of
2 copyright, licensing, you know, national,
3 international royalties, you know, method — there’s
4 just a host of issues that would typically be
5 addressed with a persona of the magnitude of Mr.
6 Jackson and a production of this type.
7 Q. And when you began to represent Mr. Jackson
8 and when you started looking into the circumstances
9 surrounding the Bashir documentary, did you see any
10 of those documents you just described?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did you form an opinion about the kinds of
13 documents Mr. Jackson had signed before he did the
14 Bashir documentary?
15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; calls for a
16 conclusion.
17 THE COURT: Overruled.
18 You may answer.
19 THE WITNESS: The two documents reflecting
20 Mr. Jackson’s agreement with Granada were terrible
21 contracts. They were vague. They lacked, you know,
22 precision, detail. There were numerous provisions
23 that simply were not addressed. They were very
24 simple, you know, one-paragraph documents.
25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever determine who
26 had drafted those documents?
27 A. I believe Martin Bashir drafted them.
28 Q. Was it your understanding that Mr. Bashir — 9985
1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object and move to
2 strike. Lack of foundation.
3 THE COURT: Sustained.
4 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No personal knowledge.
5 THE COURT: Sustained. Stricken.
6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever learn who had
7 drafted those documents?
8 A. I honestly don’t recall today.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. I’m sorry.
11 Q. You reviewed — was it two documents?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And what were those two documents?
14 A. They were one-page — they each consisted of
15 one piece of paper, one page each, and they, you
16 know, to my recollection, were one, maybe two
17 paragraphs. They were very short. And they
18 basically granted the rights to Granada to make a
19 televisual production based on the life of Mr.
20 Jackson as he knew it.
21 Q. Did it appear to you that Mr. Jackson had
22 been taken advantage of by Mr. Bashir?
23 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Improper
24 opinion; calls for a conclusion.
25 THE COURT: Sustained.
26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you looked at these
27 documents and you learned about the circumstances
28 surrounding the development of the Bashir 9986
1 documentary, did you form any conclusion about
2 whether or not Mr. Jackson understood what he was
3 doing?
4 A. I found it hard to believe that this — that
5 these two pieces –
6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object to the answer
7 being more than “yes” or “no.”
8 THE COURT: Sustained.
5. Yes! Bashir was hired by ABC in May 2004. I think it’s very likely that hiring Bashir was a requirement of the “deal” that ABC signed when they paid millions to broadcast “Living With Michael Jackson” in 2003. For more info on Bashir’s hiring, read this bullet from MJEOL.
For questions 6-21, the answer to each is obviously yes. Mesereau intentionally asked loaded questions because he knew that Bashir wouldn’t answer them, so he wanted to give the jury the impression that Bashir was hiding behind the Shield Law to cover his rear end! You’ll hear Bashir make many of those statements in the rebuttal documentary “Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant To See”, which is based off of the footage shot by Hamid Moslehi.
What’s interesting to note is that Bashir was so cowardly in his appearance that he didn’t speak in his normal, “journalistic” tone of voice during his testimony, and he was repeatedly asked to speak up. In fact, here is where MJ himself told Bashir to speak up!
27 MR. SANGER: I’m sorry, Your Honor, it’s
28 hard for Mr. Jackson and for us to hear the witness. 243
1 THE WITNESS: I apologize. It’s my fault.
2 Sorry. I’m sorry.
3 THE DEFENDANT: Speak up!
4 THE COURT: And, yes, you don’t need to. I’m
5 going to review all of the questions.
6 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.
7 Q. Mr. Bashir –
8 THE COURT: If you want to, you can.
9 MR. MESEREAU: Okay.
10 Q. Mr. Bashir, you have been accused in England
11 of forging signatures, correct.
12 A. Incorrect.
13 Q. No one has ever made that accusation, sir?
14 MR. BOUTROUS: I’m going to object, Your
15 Honor. Hearsay; lack of foundation; beyond the
16 scope of direct examination.
17 THE COURT: Sustained on beyond the scope of
18 direct.
Yes, Bashir was accused of forgning signatures! This article from April 1996 summarizes the accusations:
WHY DID DIANA’S INTERVIEWER FAKE THESE BANK DOCUMENT?
Byline: NICK FIELDING; JASON LEWIS
IT WAS undoubtedly one of the great journalistic coups of recent years. On November 20 last year a virtually unknown reporter, scarcely recognisable even within the BBC, pulled off the now-notorious Panorama interview with the Princess of Wales.
To the amazement of Britain and the world, Princess Diana spoke freely to Martin Bashir about her problems with Prince Charles and her adulterous affair with James Hewitt.
The interview sparked the Queen’s insistence on a speedy divorce, months of speculation about the crisis in the Royal Family, and made the BBC millions of pounds in overseas screenings.
Today a Mail on Sunday investigation raises questions about Martin Bashir’s methods.
It shows that Bashir commissioned the faking of two pages from a bank statement, purporting to be from the private account of the former head of security for Earl Spencer, Diana’s brother.
The Earl was in a legal wrangle with Alan Waller, the security chief, and had issued an injunction against him.
Two further questions arise from this. Did Bashir intend to show the faked documents to Earl Spencer? And, if he did intend to do so, was he hoping to convince Earl Spencer he was the right person to interview his sister?
The BBC, and Panorama, confirm the documents were ‘created’ but were not sanctioned at high editorial level and not used in the programme. Bashir too has stated that he ‘never used’ the fake documents, and Earl Spencer has told The Mail on Sunday that ‘it would not be helpful, for him to comment.
It was in early October, just weeks before the programme was recorded on November 5,that Martin Bashir phoned a BBC graphic designer and …
In part 2, I will further analyze Bashir’s testimony, and drop some bombshell information on you guys that will make your jaws drop! Stay tuned!
I am finally posting the transcript of Arnold Klein’s conversation with Harvey Levin on TMZ Live on November 5, 2009. The huge job of transcribing was done by reader BG whom I am very thankful to – without the transcript I would have been totally unable to understand what Arnold Klein is speaking about.
And I was curious to know it. Though Dr. Klein is considered a pariah in Michael Jackson’s community my perception of him is somewhat different and for some strange reason I feel it a duty to write about him.
Why Klein and why the need to talk about him at all?
Because he was one of the closest people to Michael and was with him in the last crucial days of his life. Also because Klein regarded Michael as his friend and tried to be helpful to him in the way he thought it best. And because the reason why Klein repeatedly gets involved in everything concerning Michael is his lack of indifference to the man and his fate.
Why else?
Because Klein’s emotions and talkativeness are both the worst and best Klein’s features. Because the things he often does are outrageous but the motivation for his actions is mostly good. And because Michael probably shared with him his thoughts and feelings, and if we manage to separate them from the torrent of Klein’s ramblings his memories of Michael may be priceless.
There are also a couple of things I respect Dr. Klein for. One of them is that he never shifted the blame for Demerol onto Michael’s shoulders and always said it was solely the drug of his (Klein’s) choice.
The second thing I thank him for is his disclosure of the extremely painful procedures Michael had to go through as a result of the “balloon skin stretching” of his scalp. This made me realize the extent of physical pain Michael was going through for weeks or months after the burn and showed how the Demerol nightmare started. Since this was also the time when the immense physical pain was coupled with the unjust and horrible 1993 accusations this helped me to imagine the hell Michael was going through and why he had to go to a rehab as a result.
Dr. Klein often exasperates me, but despite all that I feel a certain attachment to him. He is sincere, trusting and emotional. His main problem is that he does not often understand what he is saying and doing. He likes talking, speculating, fantasizing, sharing information, recalling, reflecting on this and that – and in the process does not unfortunately see that the conversation he is so thoroughly enjoying is taken advantage of by the very people whose company he is enjoying so much. He gets carried away and does not realize that he is being used.
In short I sympathize with him though he annoys me very much indeed. His own lifestyle and sexual preferences, impulsiveness and trusting the wrong people often misguide him and make him an easy target for fraudsters, beguiling media and the critical public. He often means well, but his good intentions take him to so many extremes that you often find yourself wishing he had better kept silent instead.
And his interview with Harvey Levin is a good illustration of all that.
Harvey Levin speaks to ARNOLD KLEIN
TMZ Live – November 5, 2009
Levin Okay, so, welcome to TMZ Live, and we talked about this a couple of days ago and we said that Dr Arnold Klein had agreed to come to TMZ Live and talk to us about all things Michael Jackson, and at the very last minute we got word that Dr Klein was not going to show. He called me yesterday and said, “I am going to do this” and, sure enough, he was a man of his word and he came here agreeing to talk about a lot of things involving Michael Jackson.
We’re going to be talking about Michael Jackson and his drug history, we’re going to be talking about the doctors who treated him, including Dr Klein, we’re going to be talking about propofol, Michael Jackson’s family, how he got along with the family, the 1993 molestation case in particular, something that we published the other day that got a lot of…captured a lot of interest, we’re going to be talking about the police investigation, a lot of things involving Michael Jackson.
Dr Klein, first of all, thank you.
Klein Well, thank you, and I just want to say I’m sorry I didn’t show up but a lot of people got in my way. You know, I do have lawyers who do think that I’m certainly crazy to do this but I think it’s important to get out to the public the truth. I mean, I think you can fight everything by being honorable.
I mean, you were very interesting to me, you compared everything to “Rashomon” and “Rashomon”, to people who don’t know it, is a Japanese movie by Kurosawa, which is about people all seeing the same event from a different perspective, whether the tree chopper or.. and it’s starring Toshiro Mifune. It’s a very great movie. I think that’s not what this is. This is really about the difference between good and bad because I think what we have here is a lot of bad medicine. We have some good medicine but I think we have a whole bunch of bad medicine. I think we have some good behaviours and I think we have some disastrously horrible behaviour, and I think that the running thing that we’re going to talk about today is there’s a lot of greedy people out there, a lot of people who didn’t care whether Michael lived or died as long as they made money off of him, and I think that was the biggest thing that this whole story’s about, that we’ve seen the loss of integrity in many fields, and I see that in entertainment, especially in this area. I’m very worried how greedy the people were because I think that’s what ran this whole situation.
Levin Okay. Let’s start with the patient. Was Michael Jackson a drug addict?
Klein I think yes, Michael Jackson, at periods in his life, was addicted to drugs. Now once someone’s addicted, according to Bill Wilson, who founded AA, who I knew, because remember, I wrote the book on heroin addiction in England, that you’re a drug addict but you’re not always addicted to drugs.
Now let’s say, for example, you’re a drug addict and you’re going to have your appendix out, okay? Do you think you should go and they should give you a silver bullet and you have your appendix removed? No, I think you need anesthesia at times when you’re having procedures done, but I think you have to be very cautious about what medication you give and I don’t think you give people recreational medication or over-medicate people. So I think that there are such people who become drug dependent. I don’t think there’s any question that Michael was a drug addict. I made two personal interventions on him, remember that. I got him off the drugs twice in my lifetime, so there was an ongoing problem with him in the use of drugs. Now, when you’re rich and you’re famous inAmerica, you can get anything you want, and they’re selling drugs on the street corner here. You can buy Oxycontin. If we go down to east LA, you go to the playgrounds you can buy Oxycontin. So, I mean, I think there’s a whole host of drug addicts but I think that he was, yes, a drug addict. There’s no question.
Levin There are…you know, you were his doctor for decades…
Klein Yes, twenty, over twenty years. I think we met in 1984.
Levin …and you saw that he was a drug addict during periods of his life yet you prescribed Demerol numerous times…
Klein I never prescribed Demerol.
Levin You administered.
Klein I administered Demerol because you have to understand that the procedures I do are painful injections and I would give him…I would say I would take an hour-and-a-half to inject him and I would do somewhere around… oh, well over a hundred facial injections on him and unless I sedated him… He was very, believe it or not, needle-phobic when you got to needles on his face, and I mean, did you ever have injections in your face?
Levin Not really.
Klein Okay. It’s really a painful procedure, so, I mean, you had to stop him from squirming. You had to go to his eyes. The scalp injections were very, very painful, which I had to do because also I had to reduce a great deal of scarring on him. So what I used drugs for, it was not to give him drugs. I mean, I used drugs to relieve the pain when I did a procedure. So we have to make a big difference. If you’re having a surgical procedure, and these are really minor surgical procedures, with my length of time it takes for me to do it, it’s not minor, you have to use some amount of drug but when you look at how much I used, it’s not anything compared to the amount that some other doctors give. I didn’t give him bags of it to take home as some doctors do.
Levin
Dr. Klein's records for Michael Jackson on April 27, 2009 (two injections of Demerol were made - 100 and 200mg)
But repeated dosage of Demerol over a period of time.
Klein Yeah, but you have to take the total dose of Demerol that I used over the period of time I used it on him and it was not an immense dose because we went down finally…when I got him back from Las Vegas he was on a little higher dose and I twiddled him down to getting a very small, hardly therapeutic dose of Demerol over the period of time that I saw him because he’d developed some tolerance and I told him he couldn’t have it. Now I had no idea…
Levin Why’d you tell him he couldn’t have it?
Klein Because I think that what people do is build tolerance to drugs, you understand? That’s why heroin addicts require larger and larger amounts of heroin as time goes by and that’s how we lost people like Janis Joplin from speedballs, being large amounts of drug. So what I thought, what I kept telling him I wanted to do was reduce the amount of medication he required because he had developed tolerance because I knew…
Levin Tolerance or an addiction?
Klein Well, tolerance and addiction are two different things. Tolerance is from using massive amounts of drugs when he was there. Now when you take a heroin addict off of heroin or you take a patient off Oxycontin, you reduce the drug dosage. I don’t know if he was addicted because I never saw withdrawal symptoms whatsoever from narcotics, ever, and narcotics have set withdrawal symptoms. So if I would have saw addiction to narcotics, which is what I was using, he wasn’t addicted to narcotics.
Levin 
My understanding of Demerol, correct me if I’m wrong here, is that it almost operates like a poison in the body, that over time it literally takes over the…
Klein Okay, I reviewed forty-eight articles on this. If you give me that statement and I reviewed it, I would say, contrary to what you say it’s non-toxic because what it has in the body are active intermediates and these active intermediates are non-toxic to the body if they’re done in a sterile fashion. What they do is they stimulate the body and that’s the good thing about Demerol, is Demerol becomes a stimulant once you give it to them, so they don’t have the narcotizing effect. It’s not like Morphine or Dilaudid or those drugs, and that’s what I like about Demerol. And also it’s active in the body over forty-eight hours, it’s about forty-eight hours it remains in the body so it takes a long time for the body to metabolise it but in all forty-eight articles on Demerol addiction, which I read very specifically, there was not any article about toxicity. Now I’ve treated heroin addicts for a long period time in England, where they get sterile heroin to use. They’ve used sterile heroin for decades, they’ve never gotten sick from it. So if someone can show me a toxicity or toxication that’s present during the metabolism… It’s metabolized by the liver. Now you have cytocromes in your liver, which are little enzyme things that work overtime metabolizing things and those cytochromes are not toxified by the Demerol. It wasn’t in any of the forty-eight articles I read.
Levin Okay. Did you ever administer propofol to Michael Jackson?
Klein Never.
Levin Did he ever ask you for propofol?
Klein Yes. He called me one weekend and he asked me if I would administer propofol and I told him he was absolutely out of his mind.
Levin Why did he say he wanted it?
Klein Because he wanted to have propofol, he said he couldn’t sleep.
Levin When was this?
Klein This was about, I would say about four years ago. [2005]
Levin Four years ago?
Klein Yeah. Now I’ll tell you our biggest problem we had. I knew Michael had a problem with propofol. But let’s go way back, okay? He was under the hands of a plastic surgeon. Can we talk about which plastic surgeon? Will you say his name?
Levin This is no holds barred so you…
Klein You say his name.
Levin Well, there were…honestly?
Klein Yeah. Who was the main one who gave him nose procedures in…
Levin There were several doctors who gave him propofol, and tell me if I’m wrong here, Michael Jackson doctor-shopped for propofol.
Klein Yeah, but which was the one who started doing all the nose jobs, all the plastic surgery. Can’t you use his name?
Levin Your stage.
Klein I’m asking you. You didn’t mention his name yesterday?
Levin It’s your stage. You can say what you want.
Klein Okay. According to Associated Press, Steve Hoefflin, when he operated on Michael Jackson, did close to…it doesn’t say there but he did close to twenty nose procedures. He put him under anaesthesia and according to the article in Associated Press, he would put the time of the clocks forward and wake him up and say he did a nose job. You understand? He was also accused of playing with the genitalia of patients and also he used so much anesthesia…
Levin Well…
Klein Let’s just go ahead with this.
Levin But, I mean, look, here’s the thing about that..
Klein No, we’re not done yet.
Levin Well, but that’s, that’s nothing provable that’s been…
Klein No, but I’m just saying…okay?
Levin I know but I would rather not get into…
Klein We’re not going to get into…
Levin …blind accusations.
Klein No, this is not an accusation. I’m just quoting an article, okay? In the article the doctors were frightened about the amount of anesthesia he used. That’s in the article.
Levin And that’s the issue. Were you frightened about the propofol when he came to you four years ago and said, “I need propofol to sleep”?
Klein I wouldn’t want to give him propofol because I knew that this very doctor had gone on tours with him.
Levin But there…you had to know that there were other doctors who were giving him propofol.
Klein At that point in time… Propofol is a very short-acting drug…
Levin Right.
Klein 
…and you can be on propofol and you would never know it. Now you remember the Frankie Lymon story – when he got off of heroin and he was with his final wife, who was a teacher, he suddenly died one day and she had no idea that he was doing heroin. Well, heroin’s not quite like propofol but propofol is very short-acting. I mean, if you got off propofol in the morning and you went to see a doctor three or four hours later, you’re not going to have any lingering effects of propofol.
Levin But that’s my point – that if Michael Jackson said to you, “I need propofol to sleep”, that means he’d have to take a large amount of propofol in order to get a long period of sleep because it is such a short-acting drug. So when he said to you, “I need…”
Klein It’s not a large amount. He had to be maintained on it over a long period of time.
Levin Right. Well, that’s 50mg every 15 minutes, so….
Klein Right. It’s according to body weight and also there’s a certain amount of enzymes again you induce in the body, which you need more of it. So I told him…he said, I had one bag of it and I should start. [2005] And I said I don’t know how to give propofol, I would not give it to him…
Levin But wasn’t that an alarm that this guy is calling you up…?
Klein Oh, absolutely. I told him that he was absolutely insane but what I’m telling you is, you cannot go and stay at house arrest with every single patient.
Levin Right.
Klein What I eventually did is got rid of the plastic surgeon who began. You don’t want to talk about all the propofol because he had a cease and desist against this plastic surgeon in 2003 because this plastic surgeon did a television show about Michael Jackson, and I bring up this plastic surgeon for many good reasons and I’ll explain to you, that he would not want anything to do with him. He issued a cease and desist order against Hoefflin because Hoefflin’s the one who’s gone down to the police…just remember that with me, and he’s told the police and the medical examiner that I taught Murray how to give propofol, which I never have given.
Levin 
Did you know Murray?
Klein No, I never met him. I didn’t know he existed.
Levin Ever talk to him on the phone?
Klein No. I only knew he existed from Michael telling me he’d met him in Las Vegas.
Levin Met him through..
Klein Through his father.
Levin …Joe Jackson?
Klein Yes. We both know that. Through his father.
Levin And am I correct? That this was probably in October of 2008?
Klein Somewhere around then. Yes.
Levin And he was treating his kids?
Klein Yeah, he primarily told me…he wanted to know, very strangely…he called me up and he said what I thought of 
Afro-American black doctors and I said I don’t really judge doctors by color, and he said, “What do you think? Are they good doctors”? I said anyone could be a good doctor. The great doctors are black doctors. I mean, orange doctors, yellow doctors, white doctors. I mean, it doesn’t matter the colour, it matters the quality of the doctor. Is he a good doctor? And he said, “He’s a cardiologist” he tells me. He was a heart doctor. I said, “Are you sure that he’s a good doctor?” He said, “Well, I think he’s a great doctor.” I said, “Fine, then he’s a good doctor” and that’s the last we ever discussed Dr Murray until I read his name in the newspaper when everyone knew about him.
Levin So, you didn’t know that Murray was at his house nightly?
December 24, 2008
Klein No, and the strange thing was we were over there Christmas Eve, because we went over there Christmas Eve and we celebrated Christmas Eve with Michael, and we saw no presence whatsoever of Murray. I mean, the people I used to see in the house, there were all these waiters, people who worked there. There was Grace, the nanny, who I saw at the house and I mean, I never saw his family. I mean, in all the years I’ve known Michael I’ve never…I met Janet once and I’ve never seen a member of his family at the house and I’ve only ever heard him call a member of his family in my presence once, and don’t forget he’s lived at my house.
Levin But you were such good friends with him, he lived at your house, he asked you four years ago for propofol – the subject of propofol never came up again in four years?
Klein The only thing he knows from me is I told him the dangers of propofol because it was more than that because, you know, when I knew that he was having… There was one time when he was on tour and getting propofol, that I went on tour specifically myself. I stood guard over his room with my nurse and with two of my assistants, two bodyguards I brought with me, to make sure the doctor who was giving him propofol on that point of the tour, wouldn’t give it to him. Now I had heard that, and see this is where you got a little thing screwed up, but he was getting propofol in Germany. That’s the most recent tour. And that was being arranged…I’m not going to mention the doctor…by another doctor in Los Angeles, and I told the doctor, I mean I just thought this is totally insane, this doctor’s arranging a German doctor to give Michael propofol. I mean, this is like giving someone the drug they want.
See, every drug addict has a drug of choice. Do you know what I’m saying?
Levin And he was, indeed, asking you for certain drugs?
Klein Yeah.
Levin Did he ever ask you for Demerol?
Klein No.
Levin He never said, “I want Demerol”?
Klein No, because I wouldn’t give him what he wanted. You don’t give a person what they want.
Levin There was a lot of talk that Michael…it was almost the cart before the horse…that Michael would come to you for procedures, not because he necessarily wanted the procedures but he wanted the drugs that would put him under.
Klein No, because I did the procedures frequently with no anesthesia, I mean, no prior anesthesia, and if you wanted an amount…I mean, he could take all the Demerol I gave him at one time, it wouldn’t do that much because I just am so wary of anyone who’s a drug addict because you know, when you’re dealing with very high profile people…a large portion of my…Keith Ledger is not one person who’s isolated. How many people in this city are addicted to drugs?
Levin A lot.
Klein What number are addicted to drugs? So, I mean…yesterday a patient wanted Oxycontin from me. It was a patient with HIV positive, who I’d really rebuilt the whole area under his eyes and his cheeks, this is an actor, and he said he wanted Oxycontin. I said I don’t give Oxycontin, and he said he wanted something else, and I said I don’t give any of those drugs, I don’t carry triplicates, because you have to be very defensive around you. Now there are certainly doctors who give all these drugs. I don’t happen to be a drug doctor, only because I’ve seen the dangers, I’ve lived with heroin addicts and it’s not a pretty picture, and also, I don’t want this to happen to people. When Keith Ledger died, he had everything, including the kitchen sink in it and when the family members say they found black tar heroin at the house…this is what’s strange, who the heck, other than someone who used drugs, understands what black tar heroin is. It’s not something we casually talk about.
Levin By the way it was not black tar heroin.
Klein It was marijuana that was in a bag. But I don’t think, I mean, Michael was not a person like that. I mean, Michael was a person who usually…you know what, was really dependent, more or less, on prescription drugs. But I think he was much more than just a drug addict. I think if we just sit here and we talk about the drugs, it’s a terrible thing. I think the horror of this whole thing is that AEG hired Murray, and we will agree with that, will we not?
Levin Well, what do you know about that? I mean…
Klein It was…I read the article in People magazine that AEG hired Murray and I think that if I would hire a doctor for a very famous person I would make sure that the doctor was qualified to be the physician to this patient.
Levin So you had told me something earlier about Dr Murray and Michael Jackson, that at a point Michael Jackson said, “I need an anesthesiologist.”
Klein Okay, this is not what I said. You heard it from someone else but I’ll tell you what my feeling is on this, because I didn’t tell you that because I didn’t know that until a long time after…
Levin An associate of his.
Klein Somebody told me that, that Michael called two weeks before he passed away saying he needed an anesthesiologist, which makes no sense when he has Murray there who’s giving him this anesthesia. What you have to understand, when you read the records of the last part of his life, he was giving propofol IM, okay? Propofol was never meant to be given intramuscularly, it’s meant only to be given intravenously, okay? It evens burns when you give it in that manner. So the other thing is you begin to worry about this doctor administering in this manner. Now I…
Levin But he was administering it IV.
Klein We don’t know that for sure.
Levin Well, he was found with… he had an IV the day he died.
Klein Okay, but we also know…
Levin And, if I may, he also…
Klein Was giving an IM. We knew that from his statement. He stated that he gave it to him intramuscularly, which is absolutely incorrect.
Levin But he was sleeping for eight hours sometimes, and to sleep eight hours you have to give about 800mg of…
Klein I absolutely understand that.
Levin …of propofol and you can’t do that intramuscularly, you have to do that intravenously.
Klein But here’s a problem with it. The problem with the whole picture on the last day was he administered the drug intramuscularly. You can’t get a constant level. Let’s just talk about a few things. He didn’t have a pulse oximeter and an EKG going. You can’t administer drugs like this unless you can properly monitor the patient. That’s another problem. And the other thing is that when you take propofol, who else could get some of the propofol breathed out by the patient? The doctor. So the doctor can be sedated at the same time the patient is and that’s really a big problem because a lot of doctors…
Levin So you’re saying that even if someone gets an IV of propofol, when the patient is breathing, what he exhales…
Klein Is propofol.
Levin …is propofol and the doctor around him can suffer the impact of propofol?
Klein Absolutely, and they’ve shown that doctors have gotten addicted from patients exhaling it. So I mean a doctor…
Levin Could that sedate you?
Klein 
Absolutely. So that’s the question you wonder – was the doctor giving the propofol sedated at the time and put to sleep by the exhaling of the propofol by Michael? We don’t know that. Or did Murray fall asleep there because Michael was…because if he was sitting in a room with someone exhaling propofol for eight hours, that’s how the doctors supposedly got addicted to those drugs.
Levin How is it, if Murray was…we know that Murray said he was administering propofol nightly for six weeks. We have reason, at TMZ, to believe it was a lot longer than six weeks, but take the six-week period. If Jackson is getting this night after night after night, why suddenly would he talk to somebody in your office and say, “I need an anesthesiologist?”
Klein Because I believe that he had nurse anesthetists who started the IVs. I don’t think that Murray was starting IVs on him and I think he was looking for someone else to use an intravenous line in him.
Levin Why?
Klein Because I don’t think that Murray was capable of starting his IVs because doctors themselves, who are not, you’re not surgeons, remember this man was not a surgeon. He was supposedly just a general doctor. He’d had problems in San Diego, had he not?
Levin He had problems in San Diego, problems in Houston.
Klein Everywhere he went he had problems and I don’t think that he was the most gifted person with his hands and if you’re going to start IVs… Have you ever had a person who couldn’t start an IV try to start an IV on you? And some nurses who are trained to do it will put in a line. Now if this doctor was really good and was going to give him a drug nightly, he would put in a cath, a hep cath, you know, something, a line to put this drug in on a nightly basis, which Michael didn’t have. And Michael showed up, and we didn’t see him there for two months, with all these marks all over his body. I tell you, I think there were nurses along with Dr Murray, administering this drug to Michael because we saw his body, ah, let’s say before May and he didn’t have these marks all over his body, and then suddenly he shows up with all these marks all over his body.
Levin And I have to stop you there because one person of people we talked to and I’m 100% on this, that he was riddled with injection sites.
Klein I knew that.
Levin Riddled. And I’m talking his neck…to this extent, so much so that when the paramedics came to try and revive him and gave him…is it benzo…um, oh gosh, I wrote this down…is it benzo…?
Person in studio Benzodiazepine?
Levin No.
Klein It’s not benzodiazepine.
Levin It’s sodi…
Klein They use anti…he used anti-narcotic, I think, like narcan. They can give them.
Levin No. You know what I actually wrote this…
Klein Benzodiazepines are other sedatives. Those are like valium.
Person in studio You don’t know what they used to revive him with or attempt to?
Levin It was a sodium bicarbonate…
Klein Okay.
Levin …that they gave him, that they actually had to inject it in the back of his knee because they said his veins had so collapsed from the repeated IV injections that they literally couldn’t find a vein in his body, and they said that the marks were literally all over, I mean, all over his body. Some fresh…
Klein Did anyone here see the movie? Anyone here see the movie?
Levin Several people saw the movie.
Klein Who’s seen the movie?
Person in studio Yeah, I saw it.
Klein Did you see his neck in the movie? Do you see his neck in the movie? You do.
Person in studio Yeah, you do see it, you do see it.
Klein You don’t see any marks on his neck in the movie. You don’t.
Person in studio No.
Klein No, you don’t see any body marks at all. Did they show any…because I haven’t seen the movie, did they show any shirt…
Person in studio No.
Klein Does he do any of this (indicates opening of shirt)?
Person in studio No, never seen that.
Klein You see his neck and you don’t see any…one single mark on his neck.
Levin How can you explain this.
Klein Because I’m telling…you want me to tell you how I explain it?
Levin Yeah.
Klein Because I’m telling you he had someone administering this intravenously I believe and he wasn’t doing it so he took up the skin popping because I’ve dealt with skin poppers. Those are people who give muscle…intra-skin injections intramuscularly, and I think that he really was destroying every vein because you see this in people who don’t know how to start IVs because I’ve seen people start IVs where they don’t leave any mark.
Levin But wouldn’t that happen…I mean, if it’s that severe, wouldn’t that have happened over a period of time so that you would know? I mean, you’ve seen Michael without a shirt on…
Klein We didn’t see him in May, we didn’t him in June. Remember that. We had a two-months period where we didn’t see him. So, I’m telling you, before that there were no marks.
Levin But Murray was administering this before then.
Klein With a nurse though. I believe there was someone else there. I don’t think this is the whole story. I think the story is that, if you look into this more deeply than you have, you’ll find that there was some type of nurse anesthetist involved in this, or a nurse who knew how to start an IV because you have to be well with an IV. If you’re going to be good with an IV, because I’ve dealt with heroin addicts, remember this, my whole life. When I lived in England, you know, for a year I lived, you know, with heroin addicts, who were giving themselves heroin. If they knew how to administer the stuff properly they didn’t have any collapsed veins anywhere. You know, I’ve seen people give drugs all the time, you know, when they put in these lines, for, kidney, you know, dialysis. You don’t get those veins collapse. You only will collapse a vein when you infiltrate usually and you use a product very badly, and you usually don’t see this unless a person is very bad at starting an IV.
Levin But you’re saying that you think this happened in the last six weeks of his life…
Klein It had to because I saw him with…
Levin …that he was clean before the six weeks?
Klein He wasn’t clean. He was on propofol.
Levin Well, clean in…well, but if he was on propofol it had to come in some way and there’d be marks.
Klein 
We didn’t see it because he was with one of the members of my office, who you’re very well aware of, totally without a shirt and my nurse, Alan, saw him without a shirt and without…with pants, and we didn’t see any marks. If we saw marks, I mean, that would be the first question I would ask. You have to understand that if he had a flaw in any part of his body he didn’t…it didn’t matter whether it was his face or his leg, because he had an infection in his leg, he had a staph infection on the right leg, so I had to deal with that staph infection in the right leg when he couldn’t go to court in England.
So we had to look at all his body to make sure that he didn’t have any other infections because of the fear of MRSA, Methicillin-Resistant Staph. So it wasn’t a simple thing. But I think he’s much more than just a drug addict. I think what we have here though is a situation where this Dr Murray existed and I feel this man is responsible for his death. I think though, that the family really honestly, wants to just shift the blame and they got a hold of this Dr Hoefflin, who decided that they were going to shift the blame to me.
Levin Why do you suppose?
Klein Well, I…for several reasons, I’ll give you several reasons – because they needed a scapegoat to take…
Levin Why wouldn’t they have Murray?
Klein Why wouldn’t they have Murray as a scapegoat? Because he’s not enough a scapegoat and the other thing is they wanted to have someone to share the blame with because AEG hired Murray. Now, I’ll just tell you what I think. I’ll give you a great example of it. You came to my office, okay, the day Winters was there. All I see is helicopters, and you all arrived before Winters got there, okay? Now that means that Winters told you he was coming to my office, right?
Levin It doesn’t necessarily mean that.
Klein It means it, you know it means it. You can tell me what you want to but I know from your facial expressions.
Levin My facial expressions?
Klein I know what you’re saying. You know that Winters told you.
Levin No, no, I mean, what…
Klein You’re going to tell me he didn’t say that to you?
Levin I’m going to tell you…
Klein How do you…
Levin I’m going to tell you I’m not going to tell you how we find out anything.
Klein So you’re telling me the answer there, that you knew…
Levin No.
Klein You got there before he did, so you knew. Now, he was sitting in the third row of the memorial. Do you know that?
Levin I did not know that.
Klein Okay. He was in the third row of the memorial. So he had a special relationship with someone, which may be a special relationship with the family, because I didn’t get an invitation to the memorial and I was his closest friend. Let’s just go through some of these stories.
So I’ve turned my records all over to the police, okay? And they go through my records and they don’t find anything, and Murray…you know, Dr Winter, Mr Winter, excuse me, he’s not a doctor, if he wanted to be a real human being he would park under my building, walk the elevator, come to my office, if he wanted to be like a human being.
He wanted to turn this into a spectacle, but you know what? I’ve seen enough spectacles, I’ve seen Ben Hur, and we know the truth is he told you, he told every news source.
The authorities are focused solely on Klein and no one asks what Murray has done to HIS records? Strange, to say the very least!
I’ve had helicopters there, I had everyone in front of my office, that he’s going to come to my office doing nothing, because he had the records.
And this was the problem I had, because I have a patient down at the Medical Examiner’s office, who died from Botox and Artofill, Botox being one agent you’re using and Artofill being a filler, due to an infection after having them, that I would like them to report to the FDA but they have more time doing this. We have kids dying, getting Oxycontin on the street and he’s doing a spectacle in front of my office.
So what I’m saying to you is I wish the Coroner would stick to doing important things rather than feeding their own narcissism. And that’s what this whole thing bothers me because you get a famous person who dies and everyone wants to be in front of the spotlight and it becomes really abhorrent to me. I mean, you have everyone doing this.
You have, you know, you have to know that Steve Hoefflin also spoke for the family. He said he was a representative, witness now, and with the family, together with the police.
But did the police ever speak to me? Ask me that. Have the police ever spoken to me?
Levin My understanding is that the police are not investigating you, that the…that there are two investigations going on. One is Dr Murray with the LAPD, the second is with the DEA. The police have nothing to do with that and the DEA is looking at the various prescribing practises and you’re one of the doctors they’re looking at.
KleinYeah, but I’m telling you that if you go to my prescribing practises, you go to Mickey Fine Pharmacy. Now Mickey Fine Pharmacy is a fabulous pharmacy. They decided to put every drug that was ever prescribed to me, by any doctor, under my name as if I prescribed it to myself. You understand that?
Levin They said that there were 27 self-prescriptions by you.
Klein They never made a self-prescription by me. They did it to every doctor in my building.
It is totally amazing that within a span of 12 days they visit Klein's office twice, but will go to Murray for the first time only at the end of July. Someone definitely considered Klein the root of all evil. I recall that in their "riot act" to Michael AEG Live promoters demanded that he stopped seeing Klein
And you know, who runs Mickey Fine pharmacies? A pharmacist? No. Jeffrey is an accountant, so he’s very thrifty in the amount of pharmacists. I’ve never self-prescribed any of those medicines to myself.
We now have a letter from my physician, my treating physician, that none of that was ever self-prescribed. And if I ordered Demerol for office use, they would put it under my name. So I never ordered an office use prescription because they were sloppy. Now see that’s the problem. It was the greediness of that pharmacy and their sloppy behaviour that got them into trouble. I’m in no trouble. And you know what happens? They came up to my office and tried to get the name of my doctors. You want to know why? Because they wanted to know who was prescribing the medicine because they were saying I was self-prescribing. You know what I did? I refused to give them the name. Let them live with the mistakes they made.
But you want me to guarantee you something on the grave of my mother? Which is a big deal for me because my father was an orthodox rabbi, is I never gave that medicine. So they wanted me to look bad, so everyone thinks that I should look bad. But you know what? I’m good, I’m not a bad guy. And I’ll tell you something, I tried to help Michael to the best of my ability but some people are beyond your help. Ask me a strange question. Would I do it again? Yes, because you know what? I can’t refuse anyone…
Levin Well, I think we have to go back to that because what I really did ask you when I met you Sunday was that you were friends with him and you were best friends with him and you were also his doctor, and I asked you if there’s a danger of blurring the line, and if you could go back twenty years, would you elect to treat Michael Jackson as a patient?
Klein I don’t have many friends. You know that. My friends are my patients. I mean, we know someone, a mutual friend of ours, okay? My patients are my patients 24 hours-a-day. You know, they call me at three o’clock in the morning, they call me four o’clock in the morning. You know, I’ve flown as far as Tokyo to see a patient, I’ve flown to the Middle East to see a patient where Jewish wouldn’t go. So I’m telling you, when you say what I do is medicine, the practise of medicine, I mean I’m not a shrink, I’m not, you know, Freud, but I think that you do blur the lines because you’re available 24 hours-a-day, seven days-a-week.
Levin But that does raise the issue that you’re not a shrink, you’re a dermatologist, yet you, at times, prescribed things like Xanax and other medications…
Klein But that was once and let me just tell you about the Xanax prescriptions. You have to understand that there’s another person in the mix, okay? First of all I’m not a dermatologist, just a dermatologist. I happen to be a Professor of Medicine also. Are you aware of that? So I’m also an internist and I’m also a dermatologist, so I’m more than just a little dermatologist.
Levin I didn’t mean it that way by the way.
Klein No, well I’m just telling you this. Now let’s…
Levin You’re a famous dermatologist. Well, you are.
Klein I’m the best dermatologist…
Levin Fair enough.
Klein …because I don’t see anyone who can do it better than I can. I mean they may think they can but I’ll do it better than they can because we’re horribly competitive, even with myself – that’s the worst thing, that’s the person I compete with.
So I think what we have to look at is, look at right now. Now Debbie Korman was in today, in my office. You know Debbie Korman? Harvey Korman’s widow. They had to change his name at UCLA. You want to know why? Because they couldn’t use the name Harvey Korman because the information got out and people started harassing him, so he had to use a pseudonym.
You can’t start using these real names of these patients, the medicine’s going to end up...those prescriptions sold. [evidently to the media]. And we didn’t even have HIPAA laws back there. I knew back there, and even in those periods of time, there were problems. Now if you want to look at my prescriptions and my charts, you have to understand if you viewed both my charts with the first medical…you know, with the first city attorney from Los Angeles, Gil Garcetti, remember it? When he came into my office with no search warrant and I had the…
Levin District Attorney.
Klein District Attorney. And where were the records? Not in the trunk of my Rolls Royce. I didn’t have a Rolls Royce then, I had a Mercedes convertible.
Levin Well, this…no, no. But in ’93 you did put the medical records…
Klein In the back of my car.
Levin …of Michael Jackson in the back of your Bentley.
Klein No, I didn’t have a Bentley, I had a Mercedes.
Levin Well, I got the car wrong but you put it in the back, in the trunk.
Klein You want to know why?
Levin Yeah.
Klein Because I felt that was the only safe place because I didn’t trust the records then.
Levin Did you do it this time?
Klein This time the records…for this time, no, the records existed in the office.
Levin Did you ever move those records outside of the office after Michael died?
Klein I don’t know where the records are right now because I’ve given the records away to so many people, that right now if someone has the records, it’s one of the city authorities and they’ve not returned them to me.
Levin But did you…
Klein I never hid them. I never hid these records.
Levin You never took any of the medical records…
Klein No.
Levin …outside of your office?
Klein No, because all of the records I gave the City Attorney of Los Angeles and Sneddon up in Santa Barbara, they’re long gone. But I have to tell you something. When the sisters moved all the stuff out of the house this time, they said they found lots of bottles with my name on them. They found one bottle of muscle relaxants with my name on it.
Now the other thing is, Michael used to hoard a lot of money in his house. We know this, right? I would like to know where all that money went. Did the sisters take that money? There’s rumours that they got some of the money out of the house, because he used to keep valuable jewellery in the house, he showed me jewellery that was amazing, he used to keep a lot of cash in the house.
Levin He had five million dollars, yeah.
Klein Up to five million dollars. And I don’t think that…you think that Tohme Tohme took all the money…
Levin No I…
Klein I still think that there was more cash there…
Levin I don’t know who took the money.
Klein …but we know one thing, that for two days after Michael died we know La Toya stayed in the house. Don’t we know that?
Levin I know she was there, I didn’t know she…
Klein She stayed overnight in the house.
Levin I did not know she lived there.
Klein 
She stayed overnight in the house. So I’m saying this, we have a crime scene here. But why do the police contaminate the crime scene? Is this how they usually work, they’re allowing contamination? Or do they allow it because it’s famous people? Are famous people allowed certain behaviour patterns during situations like this, than non-famous, because I’m sure that… Why did the police talk to the Jacksons? Now what…let’s talk about 2008, let’s go back a ways.
Levin Before we do, I want to go into something that you had mentioned, that you talked about Mrs Korman, about that he used an alias, which I get.
Klein …Forrest used an alias.
Levin You used the name Omar Arnold. By the way, is Arnold you?
Klein Yes.
Levin The Arnold was for your name?
Klein Yeah, I mean, it’s not for Benedict Arnold, it was for me.
Levin Right, okay. But there were other names – Josephine Baker. Did you ever use that?
Klein Let me tell you about these names. Debbie Rowe sent me an email about these names and she said that she blamed Cindy, who worked for Randy Rosen, for creating these names, and Cindy didn’t know half these names, okay?
Levin There were nineteen of them.
Klein Yeah, I mean… I will tell you one thing, that, you know, I can’t…we know that Debbie treated Michael at Neverland, correct?
Levin Right.
Klein Debbie Rowe treated Michael at Neverland.
Levin Well, she treated… Debbie Rowe treated Michael Jackson in your office in 1993 and gave him repeated injections of Demerol.
Klein I don’t know if I was even there. You have to understand this is according to records of Steve Hoefflin’s trying to say…
Levin No, no, no, no, no, I can tell you that that’s not true. This is according to records from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department investigation where Debbie Rowe is quoted by one of the officers, because I’ve seen the report, and the report talks about Debbie Rowe repeatedly injecting Michael Jackson in the buttocks, in your office…
Klein Okay, I have to tell you one thing…
Levin …for acne treatments.
Klein No, we don’t give…I don’t give Demerol for acne, ever. She could have done it. You want to know why? Because she treated Michael at different times. Don’t forget she posed for…
Levin She said acne by the way.
Klein Listen to me. She posed for nude pictures in my office. Do you think I allowed that to happen? Do you think I really ran a Playboy thing?
Levin Probably not.
Klein Okay. So what I’m telling you is you have to consider your source and when…I’m telling you, when you consider the source, this person who really doesn’t like me whatsoever and, you know, who’s with this Marc Schaffel right now, who I don’t think is a most wonderful person either at this point in time.
You have to consider your source, that she wrote me this email saying she was not the mysterious woman who gave these names, that it was this Cindy character. Well, excuse me, this Cindy character didn’t know these names. She worked for Randy Rosen. The only one who knew of these, so that essentially tells me Debbie Rowe gave these names. And when we used to be missing things that Debbie would leave from the other nurses, took and gave them to Michael Jackson. So anything she might have done in my office I cannot be held responsible for because I didn’t do it.
Levin I will not belabor this but I do have one other thing on that.
Klein Sure, ask me anything you want to.
Levin The LAPD has some of the records…
Klein Yes.
Levin …that the Coroner took from the office. At least one of the records involves…it talks about you filling acne scars and putting him under with Demerol.
Klein Yeah. You know how many acne scars he had?
You know how terrible his acne was, that he wouldn’t go to school? You know, he used go to this clinic out in the Valley, near Grenada Hills. He used to have cortisone injections in his face and he used to tell me how he used to love to go.
And he would scrub his face with brillo because he thought it would get rid of his acne. And he had some really severe acne scarring when I met him.
He had really severe acne scarring and he had lost all the volume from his cheeks, so he had these very big shadows on his cheek, and sure I filled lots of acne scars but I also filled lupus scars. I also filled the scars around his nose. I also filled the scars around his scalp from having discoid lupus. So am I going to start talking about discoid lupus scars in a record like this that it’s going to liable…end up in someone else’s hands? No. So I called all scars, acne scars because they’re scars.
Levin Okay. And you know what, it kind of allows me, just for a breathing moment, just to say, you know, when…I’m looking at this, obviously differently from the way you are because I don’t have the history you have and that’s why, when we talked before, to me it was like “Rashomon” because, at least from my point of view when I look at this, what I see, if I may, I mean what I see is…I see a patient who is deeply addicted to drugs and propofol.
Klein No, he was deeply addicted to propofol. Let’s put it in perspective. You can’t…not all drugs..
Levin He’s deeply addicted to anesthesia.
Klein No. Not all drugs are created equal.
Levin Right.
Klein You have to understand people have drugs of choice. Do you think if I took an alcoholic from Ireland and gave him propofol he’d be happy?
Levin No.
Klein No. So we’ve…let’s talk about…
Levin Do you think it was only propofol that Jackson had a problem with?
Klein No, I think he had problems with different drugs or addiction.
Levin Demerol?
Klein I don’t think he had a terrible problem with Demerol because you didn’t find tons of narcotics. Now I went over his house once and in his house I found all this Dilaudid that he got from his favourite plastic surgeon and I flushed it all in the toilet, you know? But you can’t flush his whole life in the toilet because there’s just too many bathrooms. But I’m telling you, if’s there a bottle of drugs they find in his house and it’s not used, right? There’s these bottles that were not used. It means he didn’t use that drug because it was not important to him. If it was important to him he would have used it.
Levin Yet you had enough alarm that you flushed it down the toilet.
Klein Dilaudid is milligram for milligram ten times stronger than Morphine.
Levin But it seems like the spectre surrounding this guy was he had a drug problem. He had a propofol problem.
Klein Yeah but you can’t…
Levin If I may. So I’m just saying, you know, just, one of the reasons you wanted to come on and I want you to address this.
Klein But I don’t think you understand addiction. I think you should study addiction because I think you don’t understand that if you had your appendix out and you had a history of addiction with propofol, you don’t think they should give you some anesthesia?
Should they just give you a silver bullet and take out your appendix? That when you’re giving a person injections in their face straight for an hour-and-a-half, you have to sedate that person because I’m going right near the eyes.
Levin Or you say, “I’m not going to fix the problem in your face because of the bi-product that it has on your drug problem.”
Klein No. The small amount of medicine that you’re going to use is not what he’s having a problem with. Do you understand? And you know if you can sedate him with this much, you have to know that he’s not addicted.
Levin Do you think Dr Murray should be prosecuted?
Klein Of course he should be prosecuted I feel, but I think also…
I think the people responsible for hiring him are culpable also because I think they didn’t do a background check to know enough.
But I really have to clear your idea on addiction because I think you should really understand that his main drug of addiction was propofol, that Michael was put to a point where he couldn’t sleep without it and that’s only from continuous use. You understand? You only get to that point of propofol addiction once you start getting continuous use.
You develop severe insomnia as a result of being taken off from it. So the culprit in the beginning is the person who uses this anesthetic continuously on the patient. And I think if you want to widespread every drug he got, you can say, you know, any drug is possibly addicting. I mean, what…is methamphetamine physically addicting?
Levin I would think so, although I don’t know.
Klein No, it isn’t. Speeds aren’t addicting. However, if I gave him meth, if I gave him crystal meth, it was the wrong thing to do?
Levin Yes.
Klein Okay, you would say yes, but he’s not a meth addict, remember that. So I’m trying to tell you, drugs… Anyone here ever been a crystal addict or ever used crystal?
Person in studio Yeah.
Levin Everyone’s raising their…no.
Klein Or anyone ever met a meth addict? You ever met a meth addict? What? Have you ever met a meth addict?
Person in studio Yes.
Klein And they’re the worst addicts in the world. They’ll sell their mother to get drugs. Right?
Person in studio Rob, cheat and steal, yep.
Klein But they’re not interested in getting other drugs than meth. That’s their drug of choice. You know that. So, I mean, you have to begin to understand, because I lived with addicts so long in my life, remember, I spent a whole year of my life with addicts, that they have drugs of choice.
Michael was absolutely a person who wanted propofol, but to widen the range, that he wanted every single drug in the world is not correct.
Levin You knew him for decades. Is the only time he ever asked you for a specific drug four years ago, when he asked you for propofol?
Klein No. If you want me to say drug by name, yes. If you want me to say that he wanted some sedation when he had procedures, yes. Did I do…
Levin Did he name the drug?
Klein A drug that he wanted? No, he just wanted a drug. He didn’t care if I gave him five Percocet, you know, that he could have sedating him, or three Percocet which sometimes I would sedate him with when I gave him injections, but I didn’t inject him that much.
But when he came to me when he came back from Las Vegas, do you know what he looked like? He looked like he came from Auschwitz. He had no body fat in his face. You understand? He looked terrible. He looked haggard, if you see the pictures beforehand, and I rebuilt his face. Now you may…hear you say, “Don’t you think he looked good.” You saw the concert, right?
Person in studio Right.
Klein What did you think he looked like in the concert? Be honest with me.
Person in studio At different times. Sometimes he looked pretty good but there were times you could tell his face was…
Klein I mean, his face was not perfect…
Person in studio …reconstructed.
Klein You know why? Because we blew it up because you know what? He had done so much surgery on it that I rebuilt his nose. His nose looked normal, did it not? It didn’t look perfectly normal…
Person in studio For Michael Jackson.
Klein …for Michael Jackson it looked like a nose. At least he had a nose. You know, when I started rebuilding his nose, it was totally recollapsed and so I reconstructed his nose. You know, it’s not like rebuilding the Babylon but you have to do a lot of work to do this. I did it very seriously because you know what? I knew they’d be wanting to try to rebuild his career.
Levin The guy used nineteen aliases with the help of some doctors and some of those you used, and I understand that sometimes you do it for privacy but there nineteen aliases.
Klein Well, I didn’t use nineteen out of them.
Levin No, no, not you but..I can list them but there are nineteen aliases.
Klein He may have used nineteen aliases but I didn’t use all these aliases for one reason. I had one real important reason I used an alias for him, because I didn’t want anyone stealing his records. Much like Harvey Korman did. I didn’t use it to prescribe drugs to him. That was not my idea of using it.
Levin But the thing that’s hard to believe is that…I mean, I knew when Michael Jackson was alive that he was a drug addict from the people I knew in town and it just seems like everybody knew he was doctor-shopping, who was involved in his life and I was, at the time a reporter and I knew this from people I was talking to.
Klein But I would say that he was not the addict that he became with the use of propofol, that the drug that he was in search of mainly was propofol, of all drugs, which people didn’t know.
Levin Did he repeatedly come to you and ask for drugs?
Klein No, not at all. Because when he stayed at my house he didn’t ask me for drugs, when he brought his kids to my house he didn’t ask me for drugs. I mean, he didn’t…he was not…
Levin But yet he was using drugs every single night with Dr Murray for months.
Klein But you know, you have to understand one thing, that he was over my house some of those nights, he was not on propofol unless he got propofol after he returned home, and he used to stay at my house overnight remember, not during that period of time but before, so I did not know anything about this propofol insanity with Murray. There’s no way I could have known because it was gone out of his body.
And so, you know, and we saw his body, so he didn’t act strange. I mean, there was lots of people at my house at that time , one very famous actor, so we didn’t see him strange, but I think if we spend this whole time just discussing…
Levin I think you’re right.
Klein ...his addiction, we’re just going to go nowhere. But I’ll just tell you one thing…
Levin What about…can I…I do want to switch gears for just a second.
Klein We have to go away, only from addiction only for one reason.
Levin Okay.
Klein I think the key thing in him is the drug propofol. I think you can go anywhere you want with any other drug but the key thing was propofol. I think propofol is a drug that someone must know how to administer. Now we know this doctor was incompetent in the manner in which he administered. Where was the EKG? Was there an EKG there? No.
Levin No.
Klein And we know that he could have fallen asleep during the exhalation of propofol from Michael. So if anyone really wants to run into a problem here, it’s that.
Levin Is that criminal?
Klein I think it’s...there’s no question it’s criminal to me.
Levin Do you think it’s manslaughter?
Klein I think it’s manslaughter. See, I don’t know enough. Remember when I discussed with you whether it’s homicide versus manslaughter, I’d put it more as manslaughter. But I really feel I would hit him over the head if he was here.
I’m very angry. I mean, I really loved this guy because I mean, he was the ... he defied gravity. He was the best performer of our age that I know of, and we’ve lost so many great performers because of drugs. Look at how many we’ve lost. Jim Morrison we lost because of drugs. Janis Joplin we lost because of drugs.
Levin Heath Ledger.
Klein And all these people…Elvis Presley we lost because of drugs. And you see all these incredible performers and you see all these child actors die with drugs. There are some who live longer who still take drugs, you know?
Levin But the common thread is there were a lot of doctors who enabled all of the people you just mentioned.
Klein Remember Dr Feelgood in New York who gave everyone amphetamine, including John F Kennedy?
Levin Yeah.
Klein So I’m telling you, there’s always…when there’s a need, there’s always going to be someone to fill that need. But I would tell you that the vast majority of my patients, I never use anything on because I don’t have to really sedate them, but you have to know that he was needlephobic. I mean, there’s a number of people – Michael Jackson is needlephobic. You couldn’t go anywhere near his eyes, where I had to go near his scalp, and the scalp hurts like hell with shots, unless you would sedate him a little bit. But if we just stick on this…
Levin Was he obsessed with his face and…
Klein Oh, there’s no question. There’s something called the body dysmorphic disorder. Has anyone here ever heard of that? Anyone here? Are there any women right here? Women? Any women here?
Levin Yeah, we have women here.
Klein I’m going to have to find one woman who can stand up and talk to me.
Levin They’re all hiding.
Klein Don’t hide. I have a question. How many hours does… Where? Back there?
Levin They’re hiding.
Klein I want women. Okay. Women can spend up to two hours-a-night on their eyebrows. Are you aware of that? And that…
Person in studio Sure.
Klein You’re aware of that? Do you spend any time on your own eyebrows? Do you?
Levin Clearly not.
Klein You don’t? I have a question. Is there any man here who trims his own eyebrows? Okay. Is there any man here who trims his eyebrows? Do you know what…?
Person in studio Jacks(?)
Jacks You guys are jerks. I don’t trim my eyebrows.
Klein No, you can trim…it’s not a problem. Do you?
Jacks No, I don’t.
Klein Why are you so frightened with my question.
Jacks Because I don’t trim my eyebrows.
Klein What two body parts are men worried about…
Levin You gotta help me out here. Don’t go there.
Klein But I want to tell you one thing. There’s people who are obsessed with the way they look. Now what areas are men obsessed with? Do you have any idea?
Levin Their hair?
Klein No. Two areas. They don’t want their chest feminine-type and their penis should not be small. This is true. This comes from a book called “The Adonis Complex”. And women are obsessed, often times, with their eyebrows. But people can take this obsession to abnormal consequences, meaning they develop what’s called the body dysmorphic disorder. Now you can go to any restaurant and you’ll see the breasts and lips enter before the woman does. So you know these people when they walk down the street, they’re obsessed with the way they look, to the point where they distort themselves, and these are people who go after doctors, end up having facelifts after facelifts, they look tighter and tighter ‘til they don’t look human anymore. And these are the people you really have to deal with, these body dysmorphic people. And what percentage of the patients I treat does it represent? Eighteen percent of people are dysmorphic.
Levin Is it like on a scale where he was an extreme?
Klein Extremely. But he really viewed his face as a work of art. You have to understand. It’s hard to take…understand this, but he really viewed his face as a work of art, an ongoing work of art. Now there’s a very famous French artist who does surgeries on their face as an artistic form. There’s another French artist who implants objects under their skin. And there are Americans here who, you know, like tattoo art is a big art. Do we all know about tattoo art is all very big? We know a very famous actress who has tons of tattoos now, do we not?
Levin Right.
Klein Who is it?
Levin Angelina.
Klein Angelina Jolie, and she proceeded to buy another one. So she has tons of tattoos. Do you think that’s attractive on a woman?
Person in studio Personally?
Klein Yeah.
Person in studio No.
Klein Neither do I. I mean, I’m Jewish, we don’t have any tattoos, you know, because they tried to tattoo numbers. So I’m saying when you want to get into aesthetics, it’s a whole different world we have…
Levin So was his about aging or was it about…?
Klein It was about pure beauty and he wanted people to see him and pee in their pants. That’s what he told me. He wanted to appear on stage and take people’s breath away. Even in the movie you saw, and you saw the movie over there?
Person in studio Yeah.
Klein Didn’t some of his performances take your breath away? The way he performed? The way he danced? He had the greatest dancers in the world with him but he still was the better than all of them. And I haven’t seen the movie, that’s what I understand.
And Fred Astaire told me that he was the greatest dancer of our time. I’m just telling you that. That’s what he told me. So I mean, here we have a great artist and we have a great artist of the realm of a great artist, whether you want to call him equivalent to an artist like Stella or Lichtenstein…you saw I liked Lichtenstein..?
Levin Yes.
Klein …or that. But he was an artist and we had an artist and he was a drug addict. And they usually go hand in hand, artists and drug addicts, but he also was a performer. But he also could manipulate himself to get anyone to give him anything practically, because he once called me up…
Levin Which is one of the signs of a drug addict.
Klein 
Absolutely. He called me once from New York where this doctor had given him the inappropriate drug, remember? He was running down the street and he had swallowed his tongue because the doctor had given him a phenothiazine. I had to reverse it with benadryl. So I’m telling you, he was a bit high-maintenance, but I’m telling you that he was extraordinarily talented. But I blame a lot of this in that I wasn’t watch…or looking at him. But the family didn’t have a lot of contact with him. We have to go into that too.
Levin I want to get into that. The family actually…it’s interesting. I do want you to get into the relationship because they gave the LAPD a list of doctors that they felt were mis-prescribing and you were on the list. What about the family? His relationship with the family?
Klein He had no family relationship. I mean, you have to understand that in 2008, you saw the article that none of his brothers were really that employed whatsoever, none of them, that the father we know has multiple children we know that were not his, correct? We know his father has multiple children that are not his. His father, he told me, was a thug. He used to beat him. And we know that everyone thinks his mother is good and we know that La Toyahas said some very strange things.
But for some reason Katherine Jackson gave a letter to Steve Hoefflin, who is not quite with us, I mean, remember he’s been in two mental institutions and was found shooting people from a tree, that he could speak about me when he doesn’t know anything about me except a letter he wrote me where he thought I was the best dermatologist in the world.
Levin What did Michael think of Katherine?
Klein Michael loved Katherine but the strange part of it was he never talked to her on the phone when I was around but, I mean, he told me he loved his mother and I think..his mother, he said, he only really blamed his mother because during the beatings his mother would say she couldn’t stop the father from beating. So I’m telling you that while everyone thinks this woman is so perfectly pure, when there…you know, it’s like good cop, bad cop, but a mother like that, I would take the kids and leave.
You understand? I would leave. But I mean, you know, I would think that there’s a problem when a man beats his children. Now they made fun of Michael’s nose, terribly. You know that? They used to call him tomato nose and they made fun of his nose all the time, including his father, and he got beaten quite often, with a leather belt. I mean, he told us in the Oprah interview, if you remember this correctly.
Levin Right.
Klein And so I really think that they really had a lot to blame but they’re trying to appear flawless now. You suddenly hear all these people are flawless. Now the one who Michael did absolutely not get along with was Jermaine and Jermaine is singing Smile at that whole memorial. I mean, the memorial seemed too planned to me to be…and I wasn’t there. It really bugged me.
And then when AEG has every satellite truck around the place, rented, every satellite space rented and then wants to charge us, the City of Los Angeles, it’s totally ridiculous. Then AEG films the funeral and they feed it to CNN, don’t you begin to think about how much AEG was involved in this? I’ll probably get shot on the way out but, I mean, how much is their money involved in this whole thing. And then they own the movie, which they released through John Branca.
Levin You’re not suggesting there was foul play here?
Klein No, I don’t think there’s foul play but I think they’re making a lot of money there and I don’t think they should have the City of Los Angeles pay for the funeral. That’s what I’m saying. Why should we pay nickels and dollars for the funeral when AEG’s making money off of this whole thing and rented out the satellite spaces all around the Staples Centre when they filmed this. So I don’t think there’s anything here but I think they’re culpable in this because they should have known the background of Dr Murray when they hired him.
Levin Would you settle something once and for all? Are you the father of any of Michael Jackson’s kids?
Klein To the best of my knowledge, absolutely not.
Levin Yet you donated sperm.
Klein I once donated sperm but I don’t think absolutely I’m the father. I don’t think so. What’s wrong with giving sperm?
Levin Nothing, but you would think at a point your best friend would say, “Oh by the way, that’s your kid.”
Klein They didn’t want to do a DNA test. I’ll do a DNA test. I don’t care. But let me tell you one little thing about this. I promised Michael Jackson one little thing. I said once, he was at my house and all the kids were at my house and the kids really like me and they gave me two little…a bunch of toys, he said, “If I ever go I want you to be responsible.” My greatest fear with these kids, and I don’t about the father, the schmather, that’s not important, I’m worried about whether their money is going to be taken, so what I made sure of is that they had their own legal representation. I went to court over that.
Levin That’s right.
Klein I don’t want children. I mean, I understand why guppies eat their young. You know, that’s the school I come from. I’m serious, I do. I’m really not… You want children?
Levin I don’t feel the way you do, let me tell ya.
Klein Children are alright for about one day.
Those kids though, I’ll tell you one little thing, those kids are great kids, they’re brilliant kids. He’s raised really good kids, which is an indication of how much he loved the kids and how much the kids really loved him. I mean, there was an immense love affair.
I mean, they would never pass their father without saying, “I love you Daddy.”
And they were very happy to wear the masks and that’s the one thing I can never forget. Martin Bashir wants to interview me, right? He thinks I’m going to be an idiot and allow him to do that when he destroyed Michael with that one interview that Uri Geller sold Martin Bashir…sold that interview to Martin Bashir for like, $50,000. Remember the guy who would bend spoons with his mind, and for him to do that interview was horrific because what basically he did was destroy Michael Jackson in that one interview, because the kids never wore those strange masks, they wore Hallowe’en masks. And why did they wear masks? Because he did not want his children recognized and kidnapped.
Levin Yet they’re now showing their faces full on.
Klein I think what they did at the funeral was absolutely horrific because Michael would not want those children on the stage. Michael would not want his children recognizable. That’s one thing he didn’t want them to be.
Remember once he was over my house. It was Hallowe’en last year, and he came over to my house, he brought the kids with him and Blanket got out from in back and they snapped some pictures, and he said, “Get your face out of it Blanket. I want to get you. I don’t want you to have any pictures.” Because he really wanted to protect his children.
He was an incredibly loving father. So yeah, he had bad qualities, a drug addict, right? [OMG, please choose your words, Dr. Klein!] But he had some really wonderful qualities. He was gifted as a musician and he was an incredible father, a much better father than I would ever have been. And I think as a person…my house loves him…listen, my housekeepers want me to get the kids but you know, I’m not going to get the kids, I don’t want the kids, but the welfare of the kids I was worried about. I was worried that the family would steal all the money because I think that’s what they’re there for.
Levin Yet Katherine was the one who was really kind of the gatekeeper, so why would you be that concerned if it was Katherine and Michael loved Katherine and she loved him?
Klein Because, I would tell you one thing. She keeps going asking for more money, doesn’t she?
Levin Yeah.
Klein She does. So would you…
Levin Do you think ultimately Katherine’s greedy?
Klein I think…if she’s asking for more money, what do you think?
Levin I’m asking you.
Klein I’m asking you.
Levin No, I’m asking you.
Klein You get to answer this one first.
Levin You know her, I’ve never met her.
Klein You know. You don’t want to say that she’s greedy.
Levin No, I don’t know. I’m telling you what I…
Klein Let me tell you…
Levin No, no, no…
Klein Here’s the person. Katherine, this is Katherine (holds up walking stick) and this is a person that keeps coming back asking the Will for more money. That person, forget what her name is.
Levin But you just said that they’re broke, so if they’re broke she needs to keep the ship afloat.
Klein Does she have to keep the ship…the whole group, every one of them? Doesn’t Janet have a few shekels?
Person in studio They’re Michael’s kids.
Klein Yeah, and Michael’s kids have their own income now. They have their own amount of money.
Person in studio She’s got to take care of them.
Klein What?
Person in studio But she’s got to take care of them, right? That’s why she needs the money.
Klein Yeah, but they have enough money to take care of themselves.
Levin I guess, you know, you’re kind of dancing around it.
Klein I’m not dancing around. But you know, I think the whole thing is about greed because I think they’re only interested right now, the brothers and the father, in money. And it’s all about money. The father announced his new record label with thumbs up on the day his son died. Is that what you would do if your son died?
You know what, let me tell you something. I was close to him and I had to go through all this crap I went through, in mourning. And I had to read all the crap you wrote on TMZ about me – that I was this monstrous person. I had to hide behind a Botox pillow and, you know, I said I would never do this. God knows, it’s so strange to know I’d be a friend of yours because I really respect you, you know that and I must be an idiot to respect you but I do, because I think you’re a really good reporter, you’re a really honourable reporter. And I don’t want to talk about his urination anymore because that’ll probably end up on Howard Stern.
Levin No, that’s our next subject.
Klein Oh, we’re going to talk about urine now?
Levin You had said that…you had actually given me a segue. You said that Michael wanted to be so beautiful that the audience would look at him and pee in his pants, which raises then the issue…
Klein Of the urine.
Levin …of 1993, that the accuser in the 1993 molestation case, we know, was able to identify, in great detail, discolorations and markings on Michael Jackson’s genitals because he had vitiligo.
Klein Do you think he studied his penis, the kid would study the penis? Like we would study the map of…maps?
Levin Well, he gave such…
Klein I know he gave a description but it was not…
Levin Dr Klein, Dr Klein, so descriptive…
Klein You can call me Arnie by now by the way, Arnie.
Levin Oh, fair enough. But so descriptive that some think it was what triggered the nearly $20 million settlement.
Klein Let me tell you what triggered the $20million settlement. Let me say something. I rode up with Howard Weitzman on my left and Johnnie Cochran on my right, in a helicopter, noticing Johnnie Cochran had a facelift, as I would only notice because I saw his facelift scars. Okay? So you should all know that. So we went up there to the thing…
Levin If you say that, I must say then, one of the great lawyers of all time.
Klein Johnnie Cochran?
Levin Yes.
Klein He was very good at getting money out of people.
Levin Great lawyer.
Klein Yes. Was he a great lawyer or was he a greedy lawyer?
Levin Great lawyer.
Klein Okay, but we know he was greedy too a little bit because he got money out of UCLA.
He would threaten people. He signed the settlement and Howard Weitzman never did, for Michael Jackson. Howard never signed the settlement for Michael Jackson in that case and Johnnie Cochran did to get the $20million, and if Michael had not settled the case, which he would have won in court, he would have never have had all these problems with being accused of being a pedophile.
Levin So what was it that allowed this child to identify in such great explicit detail…
Klein Michael pees in what’s ever available. He always has. I’ve known him all this time. You know, he pees in a cup. I mean, he has a way of…I guess he was raised in a situation where they used to pee in a cup. I mean, I know a very famous country singer who used to pee in the bed because that’s the only way she could keep herself warm at night in the country. I’m telling you the truth. And I mean, he used to pee in a cup, and so my nurse could describe his penis well. So I think the description of penis is not a room for conviction. I really don’t think so. So I think you have to really look past all these things…
Levin Can I just get back to peeing in the cup part?
Klein I mean I don’t pee in cups.
Levin Why?
Klein Why? Because he didn’t want, he didn’t have time…he didn’t really want to have to run off to the bathroom because he didn’t like to walk in hallways and be recognized.
Levin Did he know he was shocking people who happened to be there?
Klein I think he could’ve known he was shocking people but I don’t think he really cared. It got to a point in his life where he really didn’t care but I think if there was a woman standing right there…but there was my nurse there, he was peeing in a cup in front of her and she asked me, “Does he always do that?” And I said he’s been known to pee in a cup. So it didn’t really bother me, you know, because I just figured he was peeing in a cup. I don’t think it’s worth…
Levin Does it seem a little inappropriate to do in front of children?
Klein To pee in a cup?
Levin Well, to expose your genitals in front of children and pee?
Klein I don’t think Michael viewed himself as an adult. I think Michael viewed himself partially as a child. There was a part of Michael that you would play with because he had rooms full of video games. You know, he loved to play video games, he loved toys. God knows how many toys he’s given me. I mean, he’s given me tons and tons of toys, you know, to play with. I mean, you know, Hart gives me lots of jewellery and this is better than that, you know, when I get jewellery and stuff, canes, seats. But I mean, Michael liked toys and he would give me more toys.
So I would have more toys, more cameras, more things that I would never know how to operate because I can never…I would get bored by reading the manuals. So he used to have this video game room full of all these video toys, and he loved to have a carnival and you know what he would do, when he took me on the ride of a carnival, this big ship that rode back and forth? He’d throw gumballs at me, he’d throw M&Ms at me.
So I mean, it felt like I was in high school again or even elementary school. So he really liked, he liked the child inside of you. He loved Disneyland and one of the greatest thrills he ever had was when I introduced him to Mrs Disney because Mrs Disney was my patient and he only wanted to meet Mrs Disney, because she still lived in the house of Walt Disney with the remnants of the train. So I introduced him to Lillian Disney and so when I brought him up there, the guy said, it’s so nice of Michael to visit this poor little old lady. Excuse me, he was dying to see her and to see all the, you know, awards, Academy Awards that Walt Disney had gotten. So I mean, he was religiously a fan of Disney. And so it’s really interesting, I mean, the things…
And we saw the premiere of Black and White, the video, at their house. You have to understand that we saw it on a little television that was about18 inches. This was a color television because that’s what the Disneys had at their house. But she was a wonderful woman, because, I mean, eventually she built Disney Hall and, you know, with Frank Gehry’s building. But I think it’s really interesting to know him because he was very much a child there too.
There was a big child there who played with the children. He was desperately frightened of dogs, okay? And I had Newfoundlands. You saw one of my Newfoundlands and I have a boxer, but I have big dogs and he would run away from my dogs because when he was a Jehovah’s Witness, you know the dogs would always bite him, or he’d think they’d bite him.
Levin When he went…
Klein When he went from door to door.
Levin Door to door?
Klein Yeah.
Levin I did not know that.
Klein There’s so many great stories. In fact, the story of Bad…I’ll give you a great story of Bad. Bad – you know who was supposed to sing on Bad with him?
Levin Who?
Klein Prince.
Levin I did not know that.
Klein Yeah, no one knows this. And so Prince wanted to go up and see Michael Jackson. So Prince went up to Havenhurst to see Michael Jackson and he comes up there with a box of chocs and some lacy thing that he gave Michael, and Michael starts talking to him, “This is what we’re going to do, this is what we’re going to do, this is what we’re going to do…” And Prince stood there in the corner and didn’t say a thing. You understand that? Wouldn’t say a thing. Michael went on and on and on. After a while he left and they never did it but it was supposed to be a duet between Prince and Michael Jackson, which would have blown everyone’s socks off…
Levin That would have been amazing.
Klein …the two of them performing together.
Levin That would have been amazing.
Klein But there’s so many things about him that I know that eventually I’ll write. But I mean, the truth be known, I think it was an honor to have known him and I mean, a lot of things I still do, I still want to do eventually what he wants me to do and he wants me to get involved in this thing charitably, about the inner cities, you know? And I really still want to do that because I think AIDS is a really epidemic thing in the inner city. You know it’s 80 times more frequent, 80 times among black women than as white people. He really got me interested…you know, like this big thing with me and the FDA, they think I’m nuts but if you take an agent like Botox, for example, a vial of Botox, and people…it’s a single-use vial, you have to know that, but the FDA is allowing doctors to use it on more than one patient which means the chance of it causing infection is really severe. So you know, they should really package it in single-use vials or why should they let just anyone use this one vial on multiple patients.
And so he really, you know, he really got…he’s a very righteous person. I have to tell you, strangely, in that manner. And he was very religious in certain matters too but yet he was this child and he really got me into thinking in different ways in different situations. It could have even been myself, gotten into thinking in these different ways.
Levin I want to ask you something. You had told me a story of Sunday that was almost chilling, almost premonition-like, about the last time he visited your office.
Klein Yeah. He said goodbye to everyone and I really felt very weird about that.
Levin When was this?
Klein This was the last time I saw him. I don’t even remember what the date was, because I mean, he was…
Levin Roughly.
Klein When did he die?
Levin The 25th of June.
Klein It was about five before that, the last time he came to the office. He went around to everyone in my office and said goodbye.
Levin Was that unusual?
Klein Yeah, he never does that. He went round, even to the file clerk and, you know, the file clerk, Luis, who’s from Jamaica, almost fainted because he never talked to Michael before. Michael went around to every single person you know. And I have a brother who’s learning-disabled, who’s schizophrenic, you probably don’t know that, and I take care of him and Michael always would come to my house and ask me how my brother was and want to see my brother.
And, you know, Michael was that way and Michael carried around a lot of money because he didn’t have credit cards, and he would give people on the street, who were living on the street, hundred-dollar bills. I mean, it was strange what he would do but he was so generous. And he always felt bad about children who had any predicament whatsoever because I couldn’t tell him about it because he’d give them money, you know? So, I mean, he had a great heart. I mean, there are so many qualities about him that were good and I know there’s bad things but I guess people what, in the end, what this is about and what this is about is a very good person who had a very bad habit, and a person who I love very deeply, so as you said, “Do I really want to have him as a patient?” Can I tell you something, I have to tell you, with Michael the good really outweighed the bad. I mean, he was really amazing but I think…
Levin Yet you had said to me on Sunday, at a point you said, “I probably would have done that part differently.”
Klein You know what, I would try to make…if we had a retrospective–scope of my life, I would have tried to have changed a lot of things. But you know what, I try to be the best possible doctor I can be. I can’t be anything else other than that.
Levin Is it a good idea for doctors generally to be friends with their patients?
Klein I can’t help it because you know what? They become part of my life because they’re all part of me, every single one of them. I love them.
Levin Yet when you occasionally get the drug addict, who specializes in manipulating people, it must become tough.
Klein It becomes tough but there’s one very famous one who I’ve never given drugs to, and for the most part, I never give anything to. But if I have to do a procedure on some patients… I have some patients who can only have procedures done under general anaesthesia. You know, I have to even put them out to do it.
Levin Because they’re so tolerant?
Klein No, no, because they cannot tolerate any injections whatsoever because they’re so phobic of needles. It’s very rare, but I have other patients like Michael. So I wasn’t giving Michael drugs because he was a drug addict, I was giving Michael drugs because the procedures to rebuild his face were very arduous. And I have to tell you something, you want to get calls at eight o’clock in the morning? It wasn’t just one wrinkle but he had scars all over his face, his cheeks had fallen in, he looked like a man out of Auschwitz.
Levin Okay. Just a couple more questions and we’ll call it.
Klein Sure. We don’t have to call it, we can go on for weeks.
Levin Listen, you’re invited back any time.
Klein Okay.
Levin What…do you think he had a premonition that he was going to die?
Klein I think in some weird way he did and I don’t know what it was but I mean, the day that he said goodbye to us all, I felt very strange about the whole situation. I felt very, very terrible about the whole thing because I said he was really…I mean, I had a feeling that he was saying goodbye to us and I got very sad.
But when he died I couldn’t move for eight hours. I mean, I was a wreck and I mean, if it wasn’t for people like Elizabeth, you know, Taylor and Carrie Fisher, my dear friends, I couldn’t have made it through this whole event now, that I’ve gone through. But they’ve been very supportive of me, and I have a friend right now, Penny Marshall, who’s out doing…who’s had a little illness but she’s doing much better and I feel really good and I send my love to you.
I want to say that there’s been a lot of people who’ve been highly supportive of me and I want to thank you for that, and I’ve had millions of calls, lots of flowers and stuff, and I’m just trying to tell the world that I’m not quite the person they think I am, that I feel just like everyone else does and, you know, the thing about this is that, you know, I never asked him for money because money is not my object in life. My object is to be the best doctor.
I mean, I’ve got to be honest, I never asked him for a nickel and I you say my bill was a lot and I just want to tell you about my bill. You know I used to spend three days with him, you know, I used to fly back and forth on helicopters when he called me. So, I mean, when you put all that money together, flying around in helicopters all the time to see him and spending three days with him at a time, your days, over three days, is worth a lot of money.
Levin It is but that does raise an issue and that is you filed a creditor’s claim against the…
Klein Because I didn’t get paid a nickel.
Levin I got it. But here’s the thing about that and, you know, and I’m not trying to put myself in your shoes here, but it strikes me and it struck other people that by submitting a bill, by saying that you repeatedly did these IM injections, which is presumably Demerol…
Klein I didn’t repeatedly give anyone…
Levin Well, there were 51 IMs in three months.
Klein Okay. Let me explain to you one little thing. You say an IM but you don’t say how much was in the intramuscular injection because it depends what the dose was. It’s not how many shots you…
Levin But if he could tolerate this it would have to be something significant enough so you could do the procedure.
Klein Yeah, but it wasn’t that much in the way of a dosing…go ahead, because the last dose I gave him was 100mg – that’s not a lot. Let’s go ahead…and that was the last two doses. But go ahead, continue your story why I’m asking for the money.
Levin I’m not trying to be presumptuous here but you are an extremely successful, presumably wealthy man and you submitted a bill for just under $50,000 that put this in the spotlight with 179 procedures in three months and 51 IM injections. Why?
Klein Because…
Levin I mean, and I’m not saying you should give up your…
Klein …my lawyers were silly, they should have hid the bill and secondly, I’ll donate the money to charity. But you know what, he’s made $100million worth of records. Michael’s not here anymore and I think I have a right to that money and I’ll donate to a charity in his name. But I have a right to the money for the work I did because I would take my whole weekends off. Do you know how many weekends I spent with him doing this, and just working on his face, trying to rebuild a face? It’s not easy. And, you know, I had to rent helicopters because he decided that he wanted to do it that day and I was 200,300 milesaway. I can’t make it by car, I have to come by helicopter. And that’s what he wanted. I said, “Michael this is insane”. He said, “That’s what I want”. So when push comes to shove, at the end of it, at the end of it, should I give everything away for nothing because he passed away. I mean, it seems to me…
Levin But did you know you would take some heat for the bill, for submitting the creditor’s claim?
Klein I did not even know the creditor’s…can I be honest with you?
Levin You didn’t know it was being filed?
Klein I did not know it was being filed. It was done behind my back and I think it was stupid to file it in the manner in which they filed it because it wasn’t filed with my knowledge.
Levin So you had no…you found out on TMZ?
Klein I had no knowledge at all. I found out on TMZ that I had a creditor’s claim because you have to understand, do you think I run my business?
Levin What was your reaction when you saw this?
Klein My reaction was this. First of all, my attorneys had to be very stupid to submit this in this manner because usually you submit something closed like this if they owe me something. Why are you submitting this open like this, and I didn’t know he didn’t pay any of his bills as he’s going along.
Levin But, you know, it opens up what could be a Pandora’s box where The Estate could have jacked and say, “Justify these medical procedures and…”
Klein Can I tell you something? They’ve hurt my business so much with the crap they’ve done now. You understand? I could open a creditor’s claim against them because they’ve taken me away from my patients with these…with your good friend Ed Winter, who invites everyone to appear at my office, along with you and a helicopter patrol.
Levin That’s slightly presumptuous of you.
Klein It’s honest to me.
Levin No, it’s…
Klein It’s not, it’s honest to me. How’d you get there? Do you have crystal balls?
Levin We have good sources, don’t we?
Klein Yeah, it’s called a telephone call. You know, I’m not stupid. What? Do you think I was born yesterday?
Levin Okay. Can I just…?
Klein You can ask me another question.
Levin Well, I just want to kind of go through my notes.
Klein I want to know just one thing…
Levin As you speak… What?
Klein I don’t want you to write nasty things about me. I’m a good guy, okay? I’ve given away a lot of money to charity, over $300million so I’m not some person who’s trying to steal money from people. I have also a breast cancer center that I set up. That pays for breast cancer treatment. So I any time you’re asking me, I can’t give money away any more.
Levin Okay.
Klein Ask me some more.
Levin Okay, Debbie Rowe. What’s your opinion about her?
Klein I have no opinion of her because I don’t…I feel that she’s hostile to me.
Levin Why?
Klein Because she’s hostile to me because… You know why she’s hostile to me? Because I was still friends with Michael and she wasn’t. That she really is actively hostile. You’ve seen how she acts in public?
Levin When we’ve covered her.
Klein …that she sits in the corner of the coffee shop of my office, downstairs, you know, Mickey Fine’s, and eats there and drags all the paparazzi and all the people possible there. She comes into my office, she doesn’t see me as a doctor, she sees my associate. So my opinion of Debbie Rowe is very bad at present because all she does is harass me. So, do I have an opinion of her? No.
Levin Why? I mean, why would she do that? I mean, what happened?
Klein What happened with me and Debbie Rowe is that I remained friends and close to Michael and she didn’t.
Levin Is it jealousy?
Klein I think there’s a tremendous amount of jealously with her, a tremendous amount and she’s not nice now. She used to be a very honourable person but I don’t think she’s being very nice. And I mean, you know someone else who knows her a long time and knows that she’s changed violently. You know that from your description of what your friend’s told us, because we have someone mutually who knew her then. She’s not the same Debbie Rowe I remember, and I think it’s very sad. But she writes me these nasty emails, which I have these nasty emails, she screams at me on the telephone and she says that this Roger Friedman is going…or Robert Friedman… What is the name, her friend the reporter?
Levin Roger.
Klein Roger is going to write a book, the true book about how I took Omar away from her. And you know what, give me a break. I didn’t take Omar away from her. I mean…
Levin Did you refer to Michael Jackson as Omar.
Klein She did in a letter to me and in an email to me, she referred to how I took Omar from her. And I’m telling you she said all these names you got from Cindy. Cindy was a friend of hers who worked for Randy Rosen and she’s the mystery woman who gives away all the names.
And I think that her behaviour towards me has been abhorrent because not one time has she ever come up to my side. Don’t forget she met him in my office, okay? And she had his child in my office, okay? She did all those things in my office. She had her pictures, photographed nude or whatever, wrapped up in whatever leather, in my office. So if anyone has any complaints here, it may be my complaints against her, rather than her complaints against me. But why does use my office as a photo studio for herself. But I’m very cautious with my nurses presently. I’ve got a long history of them. But I’m tell you she’s very angry at me and she’s very close to Marc, you know, Marc Schaffel, who wrote me another lovely email I sent you today. So I think this whole thing is rather strange and I don’t want to comment on it other than what I’ve told you.
Levin Okay. Do we have questions from people who are watching?
Person in studio Yeah. First question is did Michael Jackson want the kids to go to college?
Klein He wants the kids to be highly educated, absolutely, because he wants them to have the chance of education that he didn’t have. Now I have to tell you that his children, his son, you know Prince, is brilliant when it comes to photography and anything making movies. I mean, he could make a movie now. He knows how to stage it and everything. So I think that, who knows? I think they’ll outgrow college before it’s time for them to get ready for college. He wants them to be educated the way he was not. That’s what he told me. Absolutely, no question. And they’re brilliant children and their wonderful kids. And I don’t like children, remember that.
Person in studio Somebody said: Do you think it’s possible that MJ overdosed himself with propofol because he wanted to sleep so bad?
Klein No. I don’t think he would overdose himself purposefully whatsoever.
Person in studio One person wants to know, this is from Jason: Was Michael Jackson still under the influence of propofol at his trial in 2005 when he had to be helped into court in his pyjamas?
Klein He came to court in his pyjamas, remember? He didn’t have to be helped to court in his pyjamas.
Levin I believe he had gone to the hospital and the judge had said he was going to hold him…
Klein Right, and so he showed up in his…
Levin …in contempt if he didn’t show up in time, and he showed up in his pyjamas.
Klein And so I’m telling you that he was in the hospital and he came… in the pyjamas.
Person in studio Was he under the influence of any…?
Klein I don’t know, who knows. I wasn’t there at the hospital…
Levin Well, you know, but you were in contact with him at that time.
Klein Not at that time. Not during the whole second trial. I was not.
Levin You never talked to him?
Klein Not during that trial.
Levin You had a falling out?
Klein No, it wasn’t a falling out but he was up there in that trial and I never talked to him during that trial whatsoever. There were periods of time, vast periods of time, from 2003 to now that I never spoke to him. You know that. I hadn’t spoken to him since 2003…
Levin Who was treating him if you had been treating him consistently? When you weren’t, who was?
Klein I have no idea but I can tell you, whoever it was they weren’t doing a good job, else his face wouldn’t have been caved in when I saw it. But, I mean, I wondered that but, I mean, when he called me from Las Vegas and said he was coming to see me and we talked on the telephone, he didn’t mention anyone but I’m sure that he must have seen someone.
Levin There’s a guy named Chris Carter, who’s a bodyguard, who was a bodyguard for Michael Jackson, who said that he saw, and he told the sheriffs this in Santa Barbara, that he saw when Michael Jackson would go to offices, and I believe he was referring to yours as one, but offices in LA, New York and Florida, that he would go in very lucid and come out looking totally out of it.
Klein Now one, it was not in my office, okay. Can I tell you why? Because the one he went to in New York, I know he came out crazy because he was running down the street, swallowing his tongue, okay? I told you that already.
Levin Right.
Klein I’m telling you, in LA he would have large doses of propofol but it wasn’t in my office. I mean, I would walk him out and I’d walk him out with Jason, you know, we’d walk out together, and he was totally lucid. There was one day he came to my office when I felt he had something on him, okay? But I didn’t know what it was and he didn’t seem quite normal. But this is towards the last time I saw him.
Levin You said to me that the last couple of weeks of his life you saw a radical change in him.
Klein Absolutely. And I didn’t know what it was but there was a radical change in his behaviour and I couldn’t really put my finger on it but there was something really strange going on, and I just felt…
Levin How did that manifest itself?
Klein He just didn’t seem as comfortable with himself, in his own skin, as he was before, and he was a little nervous and I couldn’t figure it out. I mean, I couldn’t pinpoint what it was, and it really was one visit more than any other visit.
But he used to… he started dancing for all my patients and singing, and he would go and meet them. And there was one girl, who was a Charlie’s Angels girl, she’s now Kevin Spacey’s manager, Joanne Horowitz, who came into the office and he danced for her for a long time, and he danced for Laurie Stark from Chrome Hearts(?) too, in my office.
He would always like to dance and sing with all the patients and can you imagine what this did to my patients? Here they’re coming in and suddenly Michael Jackson comes in the room, because he, you know, they always wanted to meet him, and I’d introduce him and then he’d start dancing around the room, doing all these body movements. So I thought that was extraordinary but he would do that in my house too because I live in, you know, that house I live in is, what? It was built in 1940, and I bought it by the way, this luxurious house, for $325,000 in ’74.
Levin That is sick by the way.
Klein I know, it’s18,000 square feet. It’s the old Rigby house, but it’s a neat house.
Levin I was there on Sunday when we met and it’s shocking.
Klein Isn’t it?
Levin But I want to get into the manifestation of why he was so…
Klein So he was like this all the time, but then I kept looking at his eyes and the eyes were a little glassy, you understand and there’s little things you’d pick up because I look at the body very closely, you know, and I just picked up little things about him that told me that, you know, something was not quite right and I couldn’t figure out what it was but he was not stoned, he was being stoned, he just didn’t feel right. And I felt that he didn’t really want to go to England. That’s how I read the whole thing.
Levin The London concert?
Klein The London concert. And it’s very…you have to know, have you ever been back stage of a performer before they go on stage? Well Tom Petty’s a really good friend of mine and I love him too and his wife Dana, and I used to sit back stage with him and they go through this whole rigmarole before they go on stage. Michael does yoga, he does meditation. So, I mean, they go through this…
It’s a big stress to do a concert and I just assumed he was going through the stress of doing these concerts but it just seemed a little bit off kilter to me, and then he was going to do fifty concerts. I was sure that he was in good physical shape. He was not the string bean they describe, you know that, when we saw him, because he had muscles everywhere when we last saw him.
Levin But he was, see that’s…
Klein How could they say he was emaciated when he weighed135 pounds.
Levin Well, my understand, and I maybe wrong, but my recollection is that it was115 pounds…
Klein No, that’s what I thought, it was135 poundsis what he weighed. I mean, I know the weight very well because I remember it very specifically.
Levin …riddled with injection marks at the time he died…
Klein Yeah. I haven’t seen the pictures so I don’t know that.
Levin Riddled, riddled.
Klein And I think that is because, what I’m telling you, is that they had lost whoever was starting the IVs, that’s what I’m trying to tell you repeatedly, and they started giving intramuscularly and that’s what we know from Murray, that he was giving multiple IM injections. The problem with IM injections, again, is propofol is very controllable as you get it intravenously. Now if you, remember when Saeed got the, gave it as a demonstration on CNN and he gave him a bolus of it and they guy stopped breathing, remember that? So they had to use an ambu bag on him and try to get him to breathe again.
Levin I do. But when he died there was an IV in his arm, there was an IV in him.
Klein Was it clogged or was it open?
Levin It was open. I’m told it was open.
Klein Well, I don’t…you know, then why did they start one in the back of his knee if it was an open IV?
Levin I don’t know.
Klein You see, that’s what doesn’t make sense to me. They say it was open but they had to start an IV in the back of his arm. That meant to me…
Levin Knee. It was in the back of his knee.
Klein Knee. That means the IV wasn’t open. If they had an open IV, why did he give an IM shot of propofol?
Levin I don’t know the answer to that.
Klein So I’m saying… I’ll tell you what the answer is to that – I don’t think we have the truth here, well, it only exists in one form and that’s the truth and I think the truth is that, I mean, he was very, he was in the hands of a doctor who didn’t know what he was doing. I mean, that’s obvious to me. And I think that the doctor was not competent in doing this and what you should have had if this is what he wanted, you should have someone who was very competent as a physician.
And if you wanted me to give someone propofol, I would never do it for a hundred years. You know why? It’s like telling me to do an appendectomy, I don’t know how to do it, I’ve never done it, nor would I do it for money.
Levin I do have something else that came up when we talked on Sunday…
Klein Sure.
Levin …about a phone call that came to your office during the emergency when Michael Jackson was taken to the hospital, by one of Michael Jackson’s people.
Klein Yes. Frank Dileo called the office. Now here’s the question that always remains. Who was called by Dr Murray? We know I wasn’t called, contrary to what a certain doctor said. Again, this lovely doctor said I was called. But who was called? And, I mean, is it public who was called? Do people publicly know who was called?
Levin No.
Klein Okay. But there’s been conjecture about many people who’s been called.
Levin Right.
Klein And one was a conjecture was that the head of AEG was called. That’s a conjecture. One was Frank Dileo, who used to be his manager, was called and whoever the third call was, was supposedly a patient who was suing Dr Murray. Okay? That was supposedly what the third call was about and that’s my knowledge. I can’t say for a fact and it maybe a big lie but that’s what I was told.
I was told one call went to a patient who was suing Dr Murray – that’s the first person he talks to after his patient has died, next thing went to the head of AEG, then they talked to Frank Dileo and those were the three calls. And I know fairly well, I was assured yesterday that the first call was to this patient who was very angry. So I don’t know where these calls…
Levin What happened when Frank Dileo called to your office?
Klein Well, he was telling us that it didn’t look very good. Now I didn’t take the call. I mean, Jason, who’s my office manager, took the call.
Levin And what did he say.
Klein He said that it didn’t look very well, it didn’t look very good.
Levin Did it…my understand is there was something said about what caused Michael Jackson to have an emergency.
Klein Yeah, and I mean you have to repeat it…I mean, I wish Jason was around to repeat it but he’s not here right now to repeat it…
Levin Okay, fair enough.
Klein …unless he’s in front of us because I didn’t take that call.
Levin Fair enough.
Klein And I can only repeat what I hear in my own ear.
Levin Fair enough.
Klein But you remember what he said, don’t you? You probably remember better than I do.
Levin Well, there was so much said that I don’t want to put words in…
Klein Well, why don’t we do this sometime again because this hasn’t been horrible and unless I get some horrible things happening on your…
Levin That’s the TMZ review – “It hasn’t been horrible.”
Klein No, no, what do you want me to…I think it’s been great you know. What do you folks think?
Levin “It hasn’t been horrible.”
Klein Do you folks have any questions for me?
Person in studio There are two more questions that kept popping up from the fans, from the audience.
Klein From the fans?
Person From the TMZ audience. The first. People want to know about Michael’s relationship with Janet. It’s a popular topic.
Klein Janet’s relationship was very, very interesting, with him and Janet. He used to talk to Janet but never in front of me, and he’d tell me what Janet would tell him she would do and whether he thought it was good or bad. But I think he had a decent relationship with Janet, much better than he had with La Toya because he didn’t… to me La Toya was the woman who was doing the things about the secret minds. What was that thing she was doing about the…?
Person Psychic…
Klein Psychic healing, psychic…on the internet. Then she did that thing in Playboy and then she said he was a pedophile.
Person Did Janet know that he was on drugs?
Klein Did Janet know he was on drugs. I think the whole family knew he was on drugs.
Levin Well you had talked about an intervention.
Klein They made an intervention. You know, they called the doctor to make an intervention.
Person When?
Klein We know that they called him at least two days before. But we also…
Levin Two days before he died?
Klein Yes. We know that. We had that phone call and we also know that Grace was at the house. Correct? And we know that Grace talked to the family. Remember Rebbie and Grace got into a…
Person Grace is the nanny.
Klein The nanny. Got into a slugfest, remember that.
Levin But this was a while before he died.
Klein Yes, but we know that Grace knew what was happening in the house. Correct? Grace talked to the family.
Levin Yes, but Grace…I just happen to know that Grace was in Switzerland when Michael Jackson died.
Klein There are telephones.
Levin Right.
Klein I talked to Grace at that time. I called Grace, you know that? Afterwards. I talked to her all about a minute. But she lived in the house. She obviously knew what was happening in the house because Grace…he fired Grace and then re-hired Grace, remember that. So Grace obviously knew. And the family was aware. The family is not saying. They’re aware that something happened. For them to tell you that they were totally not knowledgeable of what was happening in the house…I mean, we know that Murray knew Joe Jackson, right?
Levin Joe Jackson introduced Dr Murray to Michael Jackson.
Klein Do you think that Joe Jackson never talked to Murray once he came to Los Angeles?
Levin Well then, who staged the intervention? You’re saying two days before Michael Jackson died.
Klein They called the doctor to do an intervention.
Levin Which doctor?
Klein I don’t want to say his name.
Levin Not Dr Murray, clearly.
Klein No. They called a doctor, a drug addiction specialist. And they called, all over the city, drug addiction specialists and no one wanted to intervene because once before they tried…attempted an intervention, that his plastic surgeon attempted to do with him and it was a total failure because they went up there and he had fentanyl patches all over him. So they attempted two interventions. And remember this also, they attempted to do an intervention once in Las Vegas. Remember they went to the house in Las Vegas?
Person Right.
Klein They attempted to go in and they couldn’t even go in the house and that’s not that long ago.
Levin The guards kept them out.
Klein Yeah, the guards kept them out.
Levin But I want to go back to this two days before. So you’re saying that two days before… What caused them to be so alarmed that they would call…?
Klein Because I think they were aware that something was happening, that there was problems with drugs in the house and they called a drug specialist, and I have that email and I can’t reveal who that name is. You have that email. Please do not say who the doctor is because I swore I would never say it. But it’s a call…that the doctor said he was, in fact, called and that they had called many doctors in the city to do an intervention on Michael prior to his death, okay? And we have that letter.
Levin But if they were estranged essentially, from Michael Jackson, how would they be in a position to know enough that they would think there’s a problem.
Klein I don’t think they were totally estranged to the point that I think he did, at times, talk on the phone to his mother, or to whatever, and also don’t forget, the people who worked around him talked a lot. We know that. So we certainly know that he may have been talking to members of the family. We know that Grace talked to various members of the family at various times. So we do know that people surrounding him talked to members of the family. But they attempted, the family, an intervention prior to his death. I know that.
Levin And what happened?
Klein The doctor refused to do anything because it had been so ineffective in the past. And so I tried to get more information out of him…
Levin Did you know this prior to the death…
Klein No, no. This I found out after he died.
Levin But, you know, with all due respect, if they knew there was a problem and you’re a doctor and he was coming to see you, how come you didn’t know?
Klein Because I didn’t go to his house at night. So I didn’t know what was happening at night in his house. Don’t forget Janet stayed at the house overnight, two days, for two days after he died and so they…and don’t forget Janet…
Levin La Toya.
Klein La Toya, excuse me. And La Toya lived right down the street from him, did she not? And so she’d obviously been over to the house, so La Toya must have had some knowledge of what was happening. You can’t go over to the house at night and not know that something’s happening when you meet this strange doctor there. So don’t forget…where else does La Toya have a house…so she was losing it because of money.La Toya has a house in Las Vegas.
Levin Did the…I mean, did the kids say anything? I mean, there were oxygen tanks in this house, you had a chef there. I mean, there was this regular routine where Dr Murray… Michael Jackson would come down at 9.30 inthe morning I believe, that, you know, the doctor was in the house during the night but not in the day time, he was there every day. I mean, when you saw these oxygen tanks, did anybody say anything?
Klein Not to me. But I’m telling you one thing, those children were in that house, correct? But we don’t know if the children understood what the oxygen tanks represented. They could think they…remember Michael used to…
Levin Oh, I’m not suggesting that they’re to…no, what I’m saying is that you have children in the house who might raise an alarm by saying, you know, “Daddy has oxygen tanks.”
Klein Remember when he was in the oxygen chamber years ago?
Levin Yeah.
Klein And they took pictures of him in an oxygen chamber?
Levin And they thought it was more…?
Klein Who knows what they thought. I can’t tell you what they thought but we know we have pictures of him in an oxygen chamber.
Levin You have a chef there that sees what’s going on day-by-day-by day.
Klein If I was there and I saw something happening I would obviously call the authorities because we know something is really wrong here and, I mean, you know, you have to know one thing, that he would come down at 9.30 every morning and have breakfast, and on the day he died he didn’t come down. So I think there’s something terribly wrong in the situation but I think we can’t use a retrospective-scope and analyse it without knowing exactly what happened on that given day.
Levin Okay. We’re going to do one more question and call it.
Person We’re getting a lot of people writing in, saying that you twittered yesterday, and I don’t know if it’s your twitter, that you saw the movie, and you’ve been telling us you haven’t seen the movie.
Klein Let me tell you something. I saw the movie but I couldn’t…I saw the movie and what I saw of it was sensational, okay? I couldn’t find myself…I got really emotional during it because I’m really an emotional person. I mean, I may look strong but I don’t do well with these types of things and I had to leave, you know, so I haven’t seen every part of the movie, but I have to tell you, from what I saw, and don’t forget, I saw him wearing my clothes in the movie, which is really interesting. So if anyone finds my coat out there, it would be nice to get it back, actually two coats he was wearing of mine. But you know…
Levin Well, that one, I apologise, because when we spoke on Sunday I thought, what I understood was you had not seen the movie.
Klein No, I’d seen the movie and I didn’t see the whole movie because I couldn’t emotionally stand it, I really tell you one thing, I really…
Levin Okay, sorry about that.
Klein I’ll tell you one thing. Let me tell you something…
Person You left in the middle?
Klein I couldn’t make it through it because, I mean, I was far too involved with him as a person, as a human being. So here’s the thing, imagine if someone…
Have you ever lost a relative here? Have you ever lost your brother? I lost my brother and my father when I was in medical school. My mother was left on welfare. So I haven’t always been this ritzy person that you know. I put myself through Penn on a full scholarship, under grad at Penn. It wasn’t easy. You make it in the end, you somehow make it in the end and you find that people keep kicking you and the Botox case, and I kicked again when I go speaking to the FDA against all the drug companies because they’re so terribly dishonest, and you get kicked again by this Michael thing and you’ve lost someone. So you’re going through this terrible loss period of your life and you’re getting kicked in your face, it’s not really comfortable at all.
So I went to this movie and I really wanted to enjoy it. The first thing I ran into was someone who knew me there, which was the first mistake because I can’t really go out anymore because my face is recognizable. And the second thing is I found myself too emotional in the whole thing because when he started singing the song, and he was one of my close friends, I couldn’t go see a movie about Carrie or someone, you know, because I’m really close to her, if she, God forbid, something happens to these people because they’re my friends. I don’t have a lot of close friends but if you saw something, a movie, a family movie, after you’d just lost a family member, you don’t want to see it.
And also, I kept think of what you said, could I have prevented it, could I have stopped this, was I in part, responsible for this whole thing, could I have somehow recognized something I didn’t see, you know, could I have, like, really gotten into this and figured it out. And the answer is, and I’ve thought about this a lot since I saw you because I didn’t sleep well one night after I saw you, and the answer is, no, because there was nothing that really gave me a big [clue]…and I’m a good person who lives on clues. Like, I look at your mouth and I can tell you slight gnaw your teeth and things like that, which you don’t want to hear it from me but I can see that. I can live by clues…no he does because, you know…
Levin Okay, okay.
Klein Let’s not go there. I mean, I’ll tell you something, this is a very bright man, I’ll tell you this. You’re very good at what you do and I’m very impressed with what you do and I really…this turned out much nicer than I thought it was, because I was very frightened to do this, you know that?
Levin And I, listen, and I appreciate you doing it for whatever…
Klein And I hope it was informative to all of you folk…
Levin It was really informative.
Klein Now do you have any questions of me. Do you folks have any questions.
Person Did you cover the question about the sleep drugs. Why…?
Levin Yeah.
Person Yeah, you did. Okay.
Klein What was the question about?
Person No, you covered it.
Levin I had asked you the question about…
Klein No, I mean, let me tell you one thing. We have to consider him as a gift. He was one of the greatest performers, if not the single greatest performer ever of our time. I think you’ve done an excellent job of really showing the public what we know because I told you, there’s nothing I hid from you, there’s nothing I have to hide from you. The movie’s sensational what I saw of it but to ask me to go sit through that movie right now…ask me in a year, okay? It’s better that I… I went out and brought the video of Transformers2, avideo of that and watched that at home because I really can’t…
Person I’m sorry. (Laughter)
Klein I didn’t mind that little car that turns into a monster, you know. But I have to tell you the honest-to-God truth, it’s a very tender subject with me right now because I have been crucified for it. You feel like you’re a jewel in a cross again, you know? And I didn’t do anything wrong. I tell you the best thing is that I’ve done nothing wrong.
Person Someone had a question about Jesus juice – how much you knew about the alcohol.
Klein Jesus juice is how he referred to alcohol. It was how he referred to alcohol. But I’ll tell you something. They say he was an alcoholic but I never saw Michael drunk. So I’m telling you he would walk around his house…now he had a wine room and friends of mine found the wine room, which is under the costume…which was under the video game room and they took his wines and he had ancient wines and he never drank it all the time, so he called…Jesus juice was wine to him and he used to drink it and he thought there was nothing wrong with giving everyone in the house the wine to drink but he didn’t drink to the point of inebriation.
Levin What about giving kids that?
Klein I mean, giving kids that is not right.
Levin Did he? Or did you see it?
Klein It was written about, I never saw it.
Levin Yeah, I mean it was written about extensively in the criminal case.
Klein Yeah. In the criminal case it was written that he gave them Jesus juice…
Levin Right
Klein …gave them wine and they drank wine to him. But you have to understand, raised as a Jew… How old were you when you first had wine? At first Passover, how old were you?
Person in studio I got grape juice in a cup.
Levin Yeah, I got grape juice in a cup.
Klein My father was a rabbi, I got Man o shevitz.
Levin Yeah, I remember. Man o shevitz almost made me alcohol free for a long time.
Klein I thought all wine tastes like Man o shevitz.
Levin Yes.
Klein I mean, that was the same thing with me. So, I mean, being raised with the juice…
Levin This is turning into the Jewish hour.
Klein The Jewish hour. Yeah, Molly Goldberg will show up right away. But I have to tell you the truth being that I did an alcoholic survey in high school. I wrote a book, I think, on alcoholism and when you did a survey of all the people who drank, the Jews drank the youngest because, you know, we were drinking wine but we don’t…
Levin Except for the French.
Klein …we don’t make up a large amount of alcoholics. Current juice, people with traditions, but we don’t have the same traditions so they do all the drugs that we didn’t do, you know.
Levin Okay. You know what, let’s call it right now. Thank you very much for doing this. I so appreciate it. You’ve been great.
Klein I really appreciate doing it in the manner in which you did. You’re an honest man and I really can’t thank you enough for really allowing me to say what I feel.
Levin And we all thank you for coming here. I mean that was…
Klein You know, I really think it’s important to get the real story out there. I think it’s important to show the people out there what’s happening because I think that we have something…we have a family who I think is trying to blame everyone for everything wrong, they use a doctor who I think is, who did things that I think was very wrong, and I’m talking about this plastic surgeon.
And he’s trying to blame everything on me and I didn’t do that and I think everything will eventually come out of this and I just don’t want to be tortured anymore by this. I mean, it really…with all the paparazzi my office was shut down for a long period of time and it was very difficult. But I think right now, I think I’ve told you everything I know and if I think of a few more things we could do this again if questions come in.
Levin I would like to.
Klein …question come in because I enjoyed doing it. You’re easy to talk to and you’re easy to tell the truth to and that’s what I have to offer you, nothing more than the truth, okay?
Levin I appreciate it, I really appreciate it.
Klein Me too. You really have a good day.
Transcribed by Bev
The Sentencing Memorandum filed by Steve Cooley, District Attorney of Los Angeles County, David Walgren and Deborah Brazil, Deputy D.A., is so splendid a summary of Murray’s case and is so marvelous a document that I would like to post it here in a Word format so that people could read and translate it into other languages.
What is extremely good about this document is that the judicial system has finally thought of a way to put Murray’s outrageous disrespect for law, justice and human ethics to a proper use.
Click to enlarge
Previously the office of Judge Pastor told us that Conrad Murray had found a loophole in the legislation which did allow him to give interviews for a documentary and let it air all over the world even after his conviction.
There was simply no way to stop those interviews from being shown as at the time he was giving them he was still a free man and this is where the loophole was.
This essentially means that not only was Murray allowed to feed us with his lies for two and half years before the trial, but he also found a way to go on with them even after he was found guilty of a crime!
If felons turn into highly paid stars after they are convicted and are allowed to influence the public by telling their stories unchallenged after the guilty verdict, the process of seeking justice will become totally unnecessary and will turn into a complete farce.
It is clear to every normal person that despite all loopholes in law no convict should continue to brainwash the public as to his alleged ‘innocence’ after his guilt has been proven.
However, as could be easily expected, the media naturally made an exception for Michael Jackson’s killer. They sought for Conrad Murray’s false revelations while the trial was still on, allowed him to sing as a bird in his interviews and evidently handsomely rewarded him for the chance.
Murray could have stated his case in court of course, however he chose not to, as telling lies there could be dangerous and result in complications. From what we know of Murray’s fairy tales and the examination skills of Deputy D.A. David Walgren, the Leading Prosecutor would have ripped Murray into shreds and sent him walking over the world’s TV screens a naked liar he is.
So over there Conrad Murray was cautious and used his right not to tell his story in court.
However telling lies about Michael Jackson to the media has always been a safe and most welcome thing to do. Michael’s detractors were always dear guests on TV and were met there with enthusiasm and a sympathetic ear for every crazy lie told about Jackson to the sheer delight of journalists and their chewing public.
No matter what Michael Jackson did – even if it was his own death – he was always to blame for it. Well-tested and polished media methods of trashing Michael’s name were ready to prove even the very opposite of the jury’s verdict. These methods were tried during and after the 2005 trial so there was nothing standing in the way to doing the same for the impossible Murray lies. All was in waiting for the documentary to overturn the verdict and deliver Michael Jackson the final blow.
However this time something went wrong.
The Sentencing Memorandum is a splendid summary of Murray's case. Click to enlarge
The wonders started at the very beginning of the trial when the Prosecution – whom after Tom Sneddon no one really expected to ever stand by Michael Jackson’s interests – presented a cast-iron case and provided overwhelming proof that it was a crime committed against Michael Jackson, and not by him as the public would generally expect it.
The only thing the Prosecution did not have a chance to do is cross-examine Conrad Murray as he took his 5th Amendment right not to self-incriminate himself in court.
When the jury brought in a guilty verdict, the media tried to make up for the harm done by immediately producing a rebuttal documentary and giving the public a chance to listen to the good old guy.
The goal was the same as after the 2005 trial and on all other occasions concerning Michael Jackson – to seed doubt in people’s minds, undermine the jury’s verdict and portray the ‘poor doctor’ as an innocent victim of the very man the poor doctor killed.
Murray’s version of the story told from behind prison bars promised to be a sensation. It was to air all over the world simultaneously and for several days running.
But now that this event is over and has miraculously not produced the effect it intended to, it is again the Prosecutors’ turn to have their say.
They have also watched the documentary and decided to use the evidence contained in the interview against the felon.
They approached the judge with a sentencing memorandum regarding Murray showing that this is a hardened criminal who has no remorse for what he has done and who should therefore get the highest term possible. The highest term is of course a mere joke of 4 years (same as for shop-lifting), but this is the most we have, alas.
And now comes the most interesting part of it.
Just in case Conrad Murray hopes to live a happy life on some islands – after serving his term in prison – with the money he gets from that slanderous documentary, the Prosecution is pointing to certain clauses in the California Constitution and Penal Code which may thwart these beautiful plans.
page 3
If the amendment on restitution is indeed applied to Murray it will strip him of the sum exceeding $100mln. for the “economic loss to the victim’s descendants as a result of the defendant’s conduct”.
The sum was calculated on the basis of the 50 shows projected for the tour (even the number of 50 shows came in handy here!) with the burial costs added to it.
And if the law on restitution does really take effect in Murray’s case, the sum of $100ml. to be paid to the children of Michael Jackson until the rest of Murray’s life will be the real and best possible punishment for him because it seems that this man is capable of understanding the language of money only.
Let me add only one more point to the above.
The situation with Murray’s documentary is a mirror image of Ray Chandler’s behaviour during the 2005 trial – only the outcome of it is somewhat different.
Same as Conrad Murray Ray Chandler also told numerous lies about Michael Jackson in his book “All that Glitters” and give interviews about it in the press and on TV.
And same as Murray he never took a chance to speak at the 2005 trial to prove the veracity of his words.
When the book was published Ray Chandler claimed he had priceless documents proving that Michael allegedly molested his nephew Jordan Chandler. However when Michael’s defense subpoenaed Ray Chandler to present his unique documents in court, the man twisted and turned as if being fried on a frying pan and stubbornly refused to go to court and tell his ‘truth’ there.
A big number of legal papers ensued and finally Ray Chandler sought refuge from the subpoena under the Shield Law covering journalists and publishers (he self-published the book).
Despite his unwillingness to tell his story in court and be cross-examined there he made rounds of numerous TV shows still telling lies about Jackson and complaining that he was being “harassed” by Michael Jackson’s defense team. And since no one knew that he was even subpoenaed and by the defense team too, the public easily believed his lies.
In short Ray Chandler was a tremendous success in 2005 in reaching two goals simultaneously – he unabashedly spread lies about Michael Jackson in public and escaped the need to go to court to prove his lies there (for posts about Ray Chandler please go here).
page 4
In 2011 Conrad Murray wanted to do the same – tell his lies freely both before and after the trial and simultaneously evade telling them in court for fear of aggravating his case during the cross-examination.
But the same old proven pattern of behavior which worked so well for Ray Chandler suddenly backfired for Murray. Now it seems that our good old doctor will have to pay even a dearer price for his unashamed lies, total lack of conscience and complete disregard for ethics and human decency.
Let us keep our fingers crossed and hope that he will not only serve his term in prison but will also part with his fee for the documentary (and other funds on his bank accounts) to recompense over $100 million as restitution to Michael Jackson’s children.
The sentencing is to take place on November 29, 2011.
The Sentencing Memorandum filed by Steve Cooley, D.A. of Los Angeles County on November 23, 2011:
Source: http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/1123_murray.pdf
STEVE COOLEY
District Attorney of Los Angeles County
David Walgren
Deborah Brazil
Deputy District Attorney
Major Crimes Division
page 5
210W. Temple Street, Room 17-1130
Los Angeles,
CA
90012
Attorney for Plaintiff
NOV 23 2011
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
Case
No:
SA073164
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff, SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
vs.
CONRAD MURRAY,
Defendant.
TO: THE HONORABLE MICHAEL PASTOR, DEPARTMENT 107, LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, DEFENDANT CONRAD MURRAY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.
Please take notice that on November 29, 2011, at 8:30 am, or as soon thereafter as this matter can be heard in Department 107 of the above entitled court, the People will move this court to sentence the defendant to state prison, impose all requisite fines, and impose an appropriate order for restitution.
This motion will be based upon this sentencing memorandum, the pleadings in the above entitled matter, the trial transcripts, victim impact statements, and upon any such further evidence as may be introduced at the sentencing hearing.
End of page 1
1 I.
2 INTRODUCTION
3 On November 7, 2011, a jury convicted the defendant of Penal Code section 192(b),
4 involuntary manslaughter, for causing the death of Michael Jackson.
6 II.
7 FACTS
8 On April 6, 2009, the defendant ordered 35 vials of propofol to administer to Michael
9 Jackson. On April 28, 2009, the defendant ordered another 65 vials of propofol. On May 12,
10 2009, the defendant ordered an additional 65 vials of propofol. Finally, on June 10, 2009, the
11 defendant ordered another 90 vials of propofol. In total, the defendant ordered over 4 gallons of
12 this anesthetic drug and, according to the defendant, he administered it to Michael Jackson on
13 a nightly basis for over two months.
14 On June 25, 2009, the defendant again administered propofol, as well as
15 benzodiazepines, to Michael Jackson. The defendant then abandoned the victim and
16 proceeded to make phone calls to various individuals. When the defendant finally bothered to
17 direct his attention back to the victim, Michael Jackson was no longer breathing. However,
18 instead of immediately summoning emergency personnel who could have rendered appropriate
19 resuscitative care, the defendant spent his time concealing evidence and focusing on his own
20 well-being rather than the well-being of Michael Jackson. In fact, the defendant waited at least
21 20 minutes before instructing anyone to summon emergency aid.
22 Then, when emergency help arrived, the defendant lied about the drugs he had
23 administered to Michael Jackson. Still again, upon arriving at the Ronald Reagan UCLA
24 Medical Center, the defendant lied about the drugs he had administered.
25 At his jury trial, the defendant personally chose not to testify on his own behalf.
26 However, prior to and during trial, he chose to conduct multiple media interviews. In each of
27 these interviews, the defendant has very clearly stated that he bears no responsibility for
End of page 2
1 Michael Jackson’s death. Moreover, the defendant has continued to express concern only for
2 his individual plight and portrays himself, not the decedent, as the victim.
3 Specifically, the defendant, when asked if he felt guilty that Michael Jackson had died,
4 stated “I don’t feel guilty because I did not do anything wrong.” (Exh. A, clip 1). Then, when
5 asked if it was reckless to abandon Michael by leaving him alone in the room, the defendant
6 responded “no, no.” (Exh. A, clip 2).
7 During his media interview, the defendant goes on to explain his lies to the police by
8 saying that he never mentioned being on multiple phone calls because the police “never asked
9 me” and he (the defendant) “did not think it was important” (Exh. A, clip 3).
10 Finally, the defendant consistently blames the victim for his own death, even going so far
11 as to characterize himself (the defendant) as being “entrapped” by the victim (Exh. A, clip 4),
12 and as someone who suffered a “betrayal” at the hands of the victim. (Exh. A, clip 5).
page 6
III.
16 THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE SENTENCED TO THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE OF 4 YEARS IN STATE PRISON
18 Penal Code section 192(b) provides for a sentencing range of a low term of 2 years, a
19 mid-term of 3 years, and a high term of 4 years.
20 Pursuant to Penal Code section 1170(b) and California Rules of Court 4.420 — 4.422, the
21 court has discretion to impose one of the three authorized prison terms. In determining the
22 appropriate sentence, the court may consider circumstances in aggravation and mitigation, as
23 well as any other factor reasonably related to the sentencing decision. In considering the
24 available options and the relevant factors, the People request this court impose the high term
25 of 4 years in state prison.
End of page 3
page 7
1 A. The crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or
2 other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness (California
3 Rules of Court 4.421(a)(1)).
4 Every single night the defendant administered propofol, which by the defendant’s own
5 admission took place nightly for at least two months, the defendant was acting with a complete
6 disregard for the well-being of Michael Jackson. The defendant was literally risking
7 Mr. Jackson’s life every night. Unfortunately, the defendant’s disregard for Mr. Jackson continued
8 and, on June 25, 2009, the defendant’s criminal negligence killed Michael Jackson.
9 This tragedy occurred because of the defendant’s callous and dismissive treatment of
10 Michael Jackson’s well-being. The defendant acted with his own interests in mind and completely
11 abandoned Michael Jackson in every sense of the word. The defendant’s extreme disregard for
12 the risk of death that his actions created and his extreme callousness toward the safety of
13 Michael Jackson justifies the high term of 4 years in state prison.
15 B. The victim was particularly vulnerable (California Rules of Court 4.421(a)(3)).
16 Due to the actions of the defendant, Michael Jackson was a particularly vulnerable victim
17 at the time of his death. The defendant had repeatedly subjected Michael Jackson to a
18 dangerous, unprecedented pharmaceutical experiment whereby the defendant provided and
19 administered propofol on a nightly basis for over two months. Moreover, the defendant was
20 simultaneously administering various benzodiazepines throughout this period. All the while, the
21 defendant failed to provide any of the proper monitoring equipment or additional personnel that
22 would have been able to save Michael Jackson’s life, Instead, the defendant created an
23 extremely dangerous situation for the victim. Once the defendant administered this potentially
24 lethal cocktail of drugs, Michael Jackson’s life was literally in the hands of the defendant.
25 However, while Michael Jackson lay in this most vulnerable state, the defendant abandoned
26 him. The victim’s vulnerability, compounded by the fact that the defendant directly created the
27 level of vulnerability, justifies imposition of the high term of 4 years in state prison.
End of page 4
1 C. The manner in which the crime was carried out indicates planning, sophistication, or professionalism (California Rules of Court 4.421(a)(8)).
3 Although this crime occurred as a result of criminal negligence, the evidence reveals in
4 no uncertain terms that the defendant knew what he was doing was wrong and took multiple
5 steps to hide his activity.
6 For example, the defendant requested the propofol be shipped to his medical clinic in
7 California when, in fact, the defendant did not have a clinic in California.
8 Instead, the evidence revealed the propofol was being delivered to the apartment of one of the defendant’s girlfriends.
9 Additionally, the defendant intentionally failed to maintain medical records so as not to have any
10 written record of his criminal negligence. Once the defendant discovered he had killed
11 Mr. Jackson, he then proceeded to clean up the crime scene rather than focus on proper
12 resuscitative efforts for Michael Jackson. The defendant then repeatedly lied about what he had
13 done. Still later, when interviewed by LAPD, the defendant made no mention of the various
14 emails, text messages, or phone calls that were taking place at the time Michael Jackson was
15 dead or dying. Instead, the defendant claimed he only left Mr. Jackson for two minutes to use
16 the restroom. All of these actions display planning and sophistication both before and after the
17 crime that was utilized for the sole purpose of protecting the defendant and hiding the truth.
18 This planning and sophistication justifies a high term sentence of 4 years in state prison.
20 D. The defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the
21 offense (California Rules of Court 4.421(a)(1 1).
22 The doctor-patient relationship is a special relationship premised on the patient’s trust
23 that a doctor will act with sound medical judgment to do what is best for the patient. The
24 defendant repeatedly violated this trust. The defendant acted with his own interests in mind.
25 Specifically, he agreed to provide and administer propofol to Michael Jackson with the
26 expectation of receiving a paycheck of $150,000 a month. While doing so, Michael Jackson
27 was under the belief that he would be safe so long as he was appropriately monitored.
End of page 5
1 However, this monitoring never took place. Instead of utilizing his medical knowledge and
2 training to provide Mr. Jackson with proper medical care, the defendant acted as an employee
3 and as a drug dealer and completely corrupted the trust necessary in a proper doctor-patient
4 relationship. These actions mandate a sentence of 4 years in state prison.
6 IV.
7 RESTITUTION
8 A. Legal Background
9 On June 8, 1982, the ‘Victim’s Bill of Rights” was passed. This initiative amended the
10 California Constitution to read:
12 It is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to seek and secure restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer. California Constitution, art. I, section 28(b)(13)(A).
14 Additionally, California Constitution, article I, section 28(e) defines a crime victim as:
16 Any person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act. The term “victim” also includes the person’s spouse, parents, children, siblings, or guardian, and a lawful representative of a crime victim who is deceased…
19 Finally, pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4(f), the defendant is required to pay
20 restitution whenever the victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s
21 criminal conduct.
23 B. Factual Background
24 In order to ascertain the appropriate amount of restitution due to the victim in this case,
25 the People requested information from the Estate of Michael Jackson. Specifically, the People
26 requested the projected personal earnings of Michael Jackson for his 50-show sold out concert
27 series. Additionally, the People requested the amount of money expended for the memorial
End of page 6
1 service, funeral, and burial of Michael Jackson.
2 The Estate has complied with that request and has submitted a letter which is attached
3 as Exhibit B. The Estate estimates Michael Jackson’s projected earnings for the 50-show 02
4 concert series to be $100,000,000.
5 Additionally, the Estate estimates the costs of the memorial service, funeral, and
6 associated expenditures to be $1,821,871.65.
8 C. Michael Jackson’s three minor children, Prince, Paris, and Blanket, are victims and are entitled to restitution
10 Michael Jackson’s three minor children are victims under the law and are thus entitled to
11 seek and secure restitution from the defendant.
12 1. Wages or lost profits
13 Prior to his untimely death, Michael Jackson was preparing for a 50-show, sold out
14 concert series at the 02 Arena in London. Michael Jackson’s minor children are entitled to
15 “wages or profits lost due to injury incurred by the victim.” (Penal Code section 1202.4(f)(3)(D)).
16 Accordingly, the People have attached Exhibit B to assist the court in fashioning an appropriate
17 restitution order.
19 2. Burial and funeral expenses
20 Additionally, Michael Jackson’s minor children are entitled to recover restitution for
21 burial, funeral and related expenses. The People again ask the court to utilize Exhibit B in
22 fashioning an appropriate order.
23 3. Interest and attorney fees and collection costs
24 The defendant should also be ordered to pay interest, at the rate of 10% per annum, that
25 accrues as of the date of loss. In the case at hand, this 10% rate of interest should accrue as of
26 the date of June 25, 2009. Additionally, the defendant should be ordered to pay attorney’s fees
End of page 7
1 and other costs of collection accrued by a private entity on behalf of the victim. (Penal Code
2 sections 1202.4(f)(3)(G) and 1202.4(f)(3)(H)).
3 V.
4 CONCLUSION
5 As this court correctly noted on the date of the jury’s verdict, “Dr. Murray has been
6 convicted of a crime involving homicide. This is not a crime involving mistake of judgment. This
7 is not a crime involving administration of drugs, per Se. This is a crime where the end result was
8 the death of a human being.” (Trial Transcript, November 7, 2011, p. 10516).
9 The defendant has displayed a complete lack of remorse for causing Michael Jackson’s
10 death. Even worse than failing to accept even the slightest level of responsibility, the defendant
11 has placed blame on everyone else, including the one person no longer here to defend himself,
12 Michael Jackson.
13 Due to the actions and decisions of the defendant alone, Michael Jackson is dead. Due
14 to the actions and decisions of the defendant alone, Michael Jackson’s family lost a son, a
15 brother, and a father. Due to the actions and decisions of the defendant alone, justice requires
16 the defendant be sentenced to state prison for 4 years, be ordered to pay appropriate restitution
17 to Michael Jackson’s children, and be ordered to pay all requisite fines under the law.
19 Respectfully submitted,
22 David Walgren
Deputy District Attorney
25 Deborah Brazil
Deputy District Attorney
Howard Weitzman
Direct Dial:
Direct Fax:
E-Mail:
File Number: 10386-00002
November 23, 2011
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
David Walgren, Esq.
Re: Michael Jackson
Dear Mr. Walgren:
This letter will confirm that the Estate incurred costs and expenses for Michael Jackson’s memorial service, funeral and associated expenditures in the approximate amount of $1,821,871 65.
If Michael Jackson had survived, and performed all 50 concerts scheduled at the 02 for the period they were booked, he was projected to make $100,000,000 in revenue.
The above information is a combination of monies actually spent and some very sophisticated projections on the anticipated revenue stream from a concert that had been sold out before Mr. Jackson’ death.
Very truly yours,
Howard Weitzman
I 0386.00002/93713.1
* * *
The sentence is 4 years. But legal analysts already say that under the California law Conrad Murray will serve only 2 years. And since prisons are overcrowded even the 2 years term may be reduced.
No restitution has yet been determined because the judge said he could not take a decision on the basis of the three lines he received from the Prosecution asking for restitution of $100 mln. This sum will have to be itemized and broken down into concrete figures of lost wages and earnings. The restitution hearing is set for January 23, 2012 and will take place in the absence of Conrad Murray.
When pronouncing the sentence Judge Michael Pastor said it wasn’t the case of medical malpractice – it was a homicide involving criminal negligence, which is much more than ordinary carelessness. Dr. Murray’s behavior amounted to disregard for human life and was an insult and disgrace to the medical profession. It wasn’t just an isolated mistake but gross continuing deviation of medical care.
Judge Pastor made extensive use of Murray’s documentary. Nine days before the verdict and in the face of irrefutable evidence of his guilt Murray said in his interview, “I don’t feel any guilt because I didn’t do anything wrong”. The judge noted that Murray showed no responsibility, no remorse, and had absolutely no sense of guilt or fault – and these factors caused his tremendous concern.
“Murray is offended by his patient dying”, “he feels betrayed”, ‘”he talks about blaming the victim!”, the judge exclaimed. He described Murray’s behavior as that of a bystander who came upon the scene of crime and said that Conrad Murray is a threat to the community.
‘Dr Murray engaged in a recurring, continuous pattern of deceit and lies,’ the judge said. ‘Dr Murray abandoned his patient.’ ‘Dr Murray created a set of circumstances and became involved in a cycle of horrible medicine’.
‘The practice of propofol for medicine madness, which violated his sworn obligation, for money, fame prestige and whatever else may have occurred.’
Judge Pastor singled out one aspect standing out in Murray’s case – it was the recording done of Michael Jackson when he was in his most vulnerable state. One could not help wondering, ‘Why did this happen? For what reason?’ The judge concluded that the tape recording was Dr. Murray’s insurance policy. ‘It was designed to record his patient surreptitiously at that patient’s most vulnerable point.’ It was a horrible violation of trust.
The judge wondered, ‘What value would have been placed on that tape recording had there been a conflict between Conrad Murray and Michael Jackson?’
During the press conference David Walgren also said that blackmail was a very possible explanation why Murray made and kept that recording. Let me add that making this tape was especially striking in the absence of medical records concerning treatment of Michael Jackson. It wasn’t Murray’s habit to make medical records by leaving them on tape, so recording Michael while he was falling asleep under propofol was a totally extraordinary thing to do – and the only purpose for doing it could be blackmail.
Watch the full video of the Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor sentencing Conrad Murray on November 29, 2011:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=8448449
And here is the Estate’s statement:
- “Michael Jackson’s death was a huge loss to his children, his family, and his fans worldwide. A jury determined Michael’s untimely passing was caused by Conrad Murray. Dr. Murray in pre-trial statements and in a post-trial documentary expressed no remorse or responsibility for Mr. Jackson’s death. The Estate of Michael Jackson believes that the sentence imposed on Conrad Murray by Judge Pastor was appropriate and called for. The egregious conduct of Dr. Murray when “treating” Michael Jackson was bad enough but when coupled with his outrageous lies in trying to cover up his wrongdoing after Michael was dying and/or had died only served to magnify his criminal actions. Michael Jackson was the one of the greatest entertainers that ever lived and he will be missed by millions”.
Judge: Murray’s secret recording designed to blackmail Jackson
November 29, 2011In sentencing Conrad Murray to a maximum of four years behind bars, Judge Michael Pastor had particularly harsh words for the doctor for the surreptitious iPhone recording of a heavily drugged and slurring Michael Jackson.
Jackson can be heard on the recording, taped a month and a half before the pop star’s death and first played during opening statements in the case, rambling almost incoherently about his plans for a comeback.
Deputy Dist. Atty. David Walgren argued that the recording was proof Murray was aware of the singer’s “state” but continued providing him drugs.
But Pastor had an even harsher assessment of the secret tape, calling it the piece of evidence against the doctor that “stuck out the most.”
“I have repeatedly asked myself why did this happen and for what reasons,” Pastor said. One conclusion, he said, was that Murray kept the recording to blackmail Jackson in case they had a falling out. “That tape recording was Dr. Murray’s insurance policy…. It was designed to record his patient surreptitiously at that patient’s most vulnerable point.”
Pastor called the recording “offensive” and said it violated the doctor-patient relationship between Murray and Jackson.
He cited it as one of the reasons why he denied probation to Murray, saying it was another failure of Murray’s character.
Pastor sentenced Murray to four years behind bars — the maximum punishment possible — for his part in Jackson’s death, saying the doctor’s role in the singer’s fatal overdose was “money-for-medicine madness.”
In blistering and lengthy remarks, Pastor lambasted Murray for failing to express any remorse for the pop star’s death and suggesting in a recent documentary that Jackson bore responsibility for his own demise.
When Judge Michael Pastor sentenced Dr. Conrad Murray Tuesday morning, he gave him the maximum of four years in jail for killing Michael Jackson. And Murray didn’t seem the least bit surprised. But why should he? He knew this day was coming.
Murray walked into the courtroom looking like a man ready to face his fate. From what I observed, he looked like he was not expecting a slap on the wrist.
Murray’s team presented no witnesses; the doctor offered no statement on his own behalf. The only person who spoke for Murray was his attorney, Ed Chernoff, who begged the judge to consider what Murray has done with his life, not just this one incident that resulted in Michael Jackson’s death. Chernoff argued that Murray was an illegitimate child who grew up without electricity, yet put himself through college and medical school to become a doctor who served the underprivileged. This story of “beating the odds” was one that justified probation, Chernoff said.
Pastor wasn’t buying it. Addressing the court, the judge focused on Murray’s lies and deceit. He chided him for lying repeatedly on the day Jackson died, especially to paramedics and doctors — the very people that could have saved his patient’s life. What appeared to irk the judge more than anything was Murray’s lack of remorse. He talked about how Murray’s self-serving documentaries and interviews surrounding this trial showed a man who seemed outraged at the victim for putting him in this situation. He talked about how Murray seemed to show no sensitivity for a man who lost his life. And for Pastor, the taped conversation of a drugged Michael Jackson was the ultimate insult; he viewed it as “an insurance policy” in case Murray’s relationship with MJ went south.
During the sentencing, I looked carefully at Dr. Murray. His eyes became wet with tears when Chernoff spoke about his past. He was stoic as the Jackson family lawyer talked about Michael’s children growing up without a dad. Murray’s behavior throughout seemed arrogant. In the documentary filmed during the trial, Murray never seemed to show outward sorrow or empathy for his role in Michael’s death. And he had the gall to visit Jackson’s gravesite with camera crews, forsaking good sense and empathy.
The lying, the hiding and the horrible medical conditions we heard about during the trial are unforgivable. However, Murray’s utter failure to own up to his role in all of this is inexcusable. When his opportunity came to speak to the world about his role, maybe he should have offered some words of kindness to the Jackson family about the death of their son, brother and father. But he didn’t say a word.
Maybe Murray wasn’t surprised at the judge’s comments, or the sentence he received. But then he also shouldn’t be surprised at those who vilify him. Even in failing to appear as something more than a bystander in this case, he didn’t just fail Michael Jackson as a doctor; he failed as a person.
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2011/11/30/ryan-smith-murray-was-arrogant
Part 1:
Part 2. Here is a partial transcript of the video concerning Conrad Murray’s recording of Michael Jackson when he was falling asleep under propofol:
Q: When you first heard the tape what was your reaction?
Walgren: It had a profound effect on me. It was sad. It was very sad. It was also repulsive to me that Conrad Murray would be sitting presumably by the bedside making his recording while Michael Jackson as a patient was in that type of condition and Conrad Murray’s thought process would be that it was proper to record him.
I would just like to highlight – this was an iphone application on the phone. It needed to be opened up and activated. The button to how to record had to be pushed and then it needed to be recorded and then stopped and saved at an appropriate time.
I’ve heard someone mention to the media this may have been accidental and I find it absolute nonsense. … I think it was clear that Conrad Murray was seated next to Michael Jackson and was recording him for purposes known only to Conrad Murray.
I found it really sad and very troubling that Conrad Murray as a medical doctor would be recording his patient in that manner. And then to just continue two days later with another huge volume of propofol being ordered and shipped to his girlfriend’s apartment..
Q. Conrad Murray’s civil attorney said he inadvertently recorded it. He didn’t even realize it was on his phone. But the judge made very harsh statements why he believed that it was his “insurance policy” – that if anything had gone wrong in his relationship with Michael Jackson that he would have used it. He didn’t use the word “extortion” – but for the purposes to benefit himself. What do you think?
Walgren: I don’t know too many other possible explanations. The recording was not made accidentally. I think it was absolutely intentionally made by Dr. Murray.
This was, remember, a doctor who did not even keep medical records or notes because he didn’t want to document what he was doing with this propofol treatment. So certainly he would not be making this audio recording for any type of legitimate medical notation or record-keeping. So you are left with kind of determine for what reason did Dr. Murray make this recording and not only make it but clearly keep it on his phone. The recording was made in May and was not recovered until some months later.
I don’t know any other plausible explanation. The judge was quite convinced that that [extortion] was the reason for to be made and I haven’t heard or been offered any other explanation that makes sense to me.
Part 3. Here are some questions and answers from this part:
Q. Do you think Conrad Murray’s statement was truthful at all about anything?
Walgren: Certainly he acknowledged giving propofol for over two months. He indicated it was to assist Michael Jackson in sleeping. I think that was the case.
As far as the particular events of June 25, 2009 it is very hard to say what he said was truthful and what he said was not. I think most of it was not truthful. It was very likely he was out of the room for a great period of time and that he completely abandoned Michael Jackson. In the interview to the police he said he just went into the restroom and was gone for two minutes. I think that’s absolutely not truthful. I think his attention or his physical presence had been gone for a very lengthy period of time and quite frankly we do not know how long Michael was in the bed not breathing before Conrad Murray even noticed him.
…The propofol shipments, the benzodiazepine shipments do not support any theory of “weaning him off” [ in the last two days as Conrad Murray claimed]. We know that benzodiazepines were ordered consistently and had not just been recently ordered as part of a “weaning off” process. So there are a lot of holes in that story.
Q. If he had testified what would you have wanted to ask him?
Walgren: There were so many contradictions in his statement to the police that any questioning of Conrad Murray would have been extremely lengthy and there would have been many areas I would have gone into. But I think one question would be whether there had been an “accident area”, a “near-miss” with Michael Jackson previously.
In other words, “Had there been a moment when Michael had almost died prior to that evening?“
But the [main] question would be, “How could you as a doctor be so completely reckless when you have someone else’s life in your hands?”
How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used By Michael Jackson Haters, Part 5 of 5
I will close out this series by examining the well-intentioned but ineffective ways that fans try to defend Michael Jackson. Also, take note: you can follow me on Twitter @sanemjfan.
Now that we have dealt with how to handle MJ haters, let’s take a look at how some fans, despite their well intentions, have truly dropped the ball in vindicating MJ by using some of these same fallacies in their defense. Let’s take a look at some of the most widely used defenses by fans (I won’t repeat the definitions here):
Name-calling and Ad hominem arguments: A crucial mistake that I see many fans making is attacking anyone who is skeptical about MJ’s innocence as a “hater”, and that’s why I differentiated between a hater and a skeptic in the first part of this series. Calling someone names is very immature and childish, and will get you nowhere. If you want people to respect your views on MJ, you must conduct yourself as a mature adult who is capable of engaging civil dialogue with someone who doesn’t agree with you, instead of having a temper-tantrum like a two-year old who doesn’t get his way. That argument goes both ways! We can’t reduce ourselves down the level that most MJ haters reside!
Another mistake that I have heard over and over again is when fans reference MJ’s childlike personality or charitable endeavors when discussing the allegations. When you make that argument, you give the impression that you are just some “crazy, rabid” fan who is so “in love” with MJ that they don’t want to take the time to thoroughly research the facts, so instead you have to try and tug at people’s heartstrings and get them to feel sorry for MJ. This is no different than the parade of so-called “character witnesses” that have testified for Conrad Murray! No matter how nice he was to them, and no matter how many lives he saved, it doesn’t excuse what happened on June 25th, 2009, and whatever good deeds MJ accomplished cannot and will not ever rebut the allegations; only the presentation of exculpatory evidence through sound research into the facts will do that.
Ad hominem and name calling attacks can also be classified as red herrings, non sequitur attacks, and snow jobs, which were discussed in part 4.
Let’s look at what this legal analyst – a true analyst, not an entertainer! - Tamara Holder had to say about MJ after his death. She met him briefly in 2007 at a birthday party for Rev.Jesse Jackson:
There’s no question Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, leaves behind a legacy. He was considered the most famous man in the world. I had the opportunity to privately meet MJ in November 2007 at Rev. Jackson’s 66th birthday party at the Beverly Hilton in LA. Michael was sweet and genuine. He complimented my dress. I did, however, get the sense that he was empty inside and full of pain. It was at this meeting I believed there was no way he ever touched a child inappropriately or intentionally harmed anyone. Michael was a good man. And his love of Rev. Jackson as a longtime friend and advisor was obvious.
- Michael Jackson and Tamara Holder
We all know that she meant well, but as a lawyer, she should know better than to say that! Don’t get me wrong, I’m not mad at her, but I’m just trying to point out the inherent weakness in her assertion. For her to say that she believes he was innocent because she met him ONE TIME at a birthday party will not get any skeptics to change their minds! And to prove that she’s a true legal analyst, as opposed to just another talking head, here is a post she wrote on July 28th, 2009, where she contrasted MJ’s death and Elvis Presley’s death and predicted that Murray would be charged with murder (which, as we all know, wasn’t the case, but she had the right intentions!)
Appeal to Heaven: This is another weak defense that I’ve occasionally heard from MJ fans, although not as often as some of the other aforementioned fallacies. Some fans have said things like “MJ was a gift from God, who was sent here to show us how to L.O.V.E. each other through the power of his songs and his charitable work, he united the world with his message, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, etc.” This is a weak, ineffective, and unconvincing argument (just like every other fallacy we’ve discussed). There are many hypocrites in ALL religions that are extremely pious, loving, philanthropic, and yet they have committed all types of crimes, so merely being a Believer doesn’t refute the allegations. There is no reason to invoke MJ’s religious beliefs or philanthropy as a defense of him. In fact, with so much sexual abuse in organized religious organizations, this may make MJ look even more guilty!
The same thing applies when you refer to MJ’s personality, or his good works, or any other reason that doesn’t directly refute the facts!
I could go on and on, but you guys get the point (especially the long time readers of this blog). Now, let’s look at some video examples, and take note of how NOT to defend MJ! In this video clip from July 2nd, 2009, pop culture columnists Toure and David Wilson discuss whether or not there is too much coverage of MJ, and of course the host of the show, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, had to include those biased statistics to insinuate that whites cared less about MJ than blacks. (Another ad populum attack!) I transcribed the interview, just in case the video is ever removed.
Dr. Nancy Snyderman: And of course, the Jackson coverage raises a question: has the media been spending too much time covering the Michael Jackson story? Certainly it’s something you can’t get away from right now.
A new poll from the Pew Research Center shows that 64% of people surveyed thinks that the coverage of the Jackson story is excessive, 3% think too little, 29% just about right. But let’s take a look at the coverage, and how it’s seen through different eyes: African-Americans vs. White Americans. 70% of Whites thought there has been too much coverage, compared to just 38% of African-Americans, and another way of breaking down these numbers, and more than half of African-Americans said the coverage has been just right, compared to one in four whites, 25%.
Toure: Michael Jackson was the biggest star – not black star, the biggest star, period – of his period. He still in a moment of his fame, and we were already talking about him, and he’s still in the moment of his fame.
Dr. Nancy Snyderman: The bubble is still there.
Toure: So, sudden death, and the chair is pulled out from under us, so we’re in shock, and we need to talk about it. I don’t understand why all these white Americans are saying “it’s too much!” It’s a major American story. It’s not like the media is shoving it down; people want to hear about this.
David Wilson: He’s been around for 45 years, in American homes, for 45 years, so he’s an American icon, and he’s a treasure, so I think that, like you said (pointing to Toure) the fact that we lost him so suddenly pretty much shocked everybody.
Dr. Nancy Snyderman: Maureen Orth, who contributes to Vanity Fair and NBC, was pretty damning in what she said. “This man was a pedophile, this man had drug abuse, and we are, forgive the pun, whitewashing all of this……..
David Wilson: He never was convicted of anything, ….
Dr. Nancy Snyderman: No he was not, he was exonerated …..
Toure: He was repeatedly exonerated, that is correct. I think Maureen Orth, in particular, has been inappropriate at this time. He just died. Let us grieve as a nation. Let his body get into the ground. Let his spirit rest. Let’s take a moment, even a couple of months, if not a couple of years, before we come back to say, ‘OK, there are other parts of this story.’”
You’ve got to be kidding me, right? Dr. Snyderman mentions the comments that tabloid trash peddler Maureen Orth said shortly after MJ died, and the only thing they can say is “he was never convicted of anything”? Do you guys see how PATHETIC that defense is? MJ was accused multiple times of child abuse, and several of his employees claimed to have seen this child abuse, and he settled two civil lawsuits out of court, and he was stripped search, yet (according to Toure) we should “wait a couple of months, if not a couple of years” before we get to the truth of the allegations?” Has he lost his damn mind?!!
Let me take a moment to inject something into this conversation that I think needs to be said: these are two BLACK MEN who are essentially saying that we should “trust” the justice system. This is the same justice system that, over the years, has REPEATEDLY failed the black community by convicting innocent black people charged with crimes against whites, acquitting guilty white people charged with crimes against blacks, punishing black men with harsher and longer prison sentences than their white counterparts who are convicted of the same crime (look no further than drug convictions), but when it comes to Michael Jackson, the system all of a sudden “worked”?
When those four white cops were acquitted of beating Rodney King to a bloody pulp, no black person in America said that we should “trust the system”! (In fact, many blacks rioted after this verdict in 1992!) What about all of the Ku Klux Klan members who were never convicted of killing and lynching blacks? When it comes to Michael Jackson, all of a sudden we’re supposed to trust the justice system because he was exonerated? The same justice system that recently allowed an innocent black man named Troy Davis to be executed?
Also, did you notice Toure’s egregious error? He said that MJ was “repeatedly exonerated”, which is FALSE! Once again, I know he meant well, but that assertion simply isn’t true. Sneddon and Garcetti NEVER closed the 1993 case or exonerated MJ; they merely left it “open but inactive”. Here is a quote from Sneddon in February 2001:
Charges Against Jackson Stand, Says Prosecutor
Michael Jackson is not out of the woods.
So says Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon, the man who brought child molestation charges against the singer in 1993.
Jackson is scheduled to deliver a speech tonight at Carnegie Hall on behalf of his Heal the Kids initiative. Although Sneddon can’t be there in person, he’s definitely arching an eyebrow from 3,000 miles away.
“The case against Michael Jackson was never closed, and he was never exonerated,” Sneddon says. “It’s in suspended animation and can be reopened at any time.”
Think about this for a moment: if you’re someone who has serious doubts about MJ’s innocence, and you heard those two idiots on TV say those things in response to Orth’s comments, would you be persuaded to believe MJ was innocent? Of course not! They didn’t provide any facts, and Toure acted like he wanted everyone to bury their head in the sand like an ostrich, and just pretend that those allegations didn’t exist. Their reactions VALIDATE Orth’s comments in the eyes of most skeptics, and definitely in the eyes of haters. They will say “Hey, why should Maureen Orth have to wait months or years to trash someone who she thinks is guilty of child abuse? How many years do we have to wait until we trash O.J. Simpson after he dies?”
Here is an excerpt of what she said the day after he died:
“He was surrounded by sycophants,” Orth continued, “He isolated himself so much, but honestly I think a lot of that isolation was self-imposed so he could play with little boys and do whatever he wants.”
“His celebrity got him off the charges when he had that trial,” Orth said of 2005. “As big a genius he was with music he was also that big a failure as a human being, in my opinion.”
“I think this ending is great for Michael,” Orth said when asked about his death and the outpouring of emotion and media blanketing. “He would have wanted to go out this way.”
Man, I WISH this video was still available, but unfortunately it has been removed (and this is why I transcribe videos before they’re deleted). What amazing analysis of the trial, huh? She summarized the trial in a single sentence, and gave the entire world the real reason that he was acquitted!
Nobody attacked Orth on her day of mourning! So why did she have to attack MJ?
What’s truly sad is that her husband was the late, great Tim Russert, a highly respected political journalist and host of “Meet The Press”, and when he died there was an outpouring of prayers, condolences, and well-wishes from all over the world. Yet, she couldn’t extend that same courtesy to the Jackson family? She truly showed how callous, heartless, and classless she really is! And let me be clear about something: when she went on that show to make those comments, it was 100% premeditated! It’s not like she was already scheduled to be a guest on the show, and just happened to be asked about MJ’s death; she got up to be on that set when the show aired at 6:00am on Friday, June 26th, 2009 so that she could spew her venom at MJ while the fan community’s wounds were still fresh.
And if you think Orth’s views on MJ have changed over the last few years, think again! Here is an excerpt from an article written about her on March 15th, 2011:
Orth became a special correspondent in 1993 and since then has interviewed countless celebrities and political figures such as Vladimir Putin, Margaret Thatcher, Madonna and Michael Jackson.
Orth commented on how the increasing accessibility of celebrity news and the pervasiveness of the internet largely contribute to “one besotted planet feeling that connection to celebrity.”
“The celebrity industrial complex has grown rapidly like the fallout of the atomic bomb,” Orth said, giving the example of how Michael Jackson “was so addicted to fame he was willing to dangle his baby out the window.”
Michael Jackson was a subject of particular interest for Orth. Over a period of 12 years she interviewed hundreds of people concerning him and wrote a series of five investigative pieces about his life. This included investigations into his career, drug addictions, accusations of child molestation, the resulting trial and his death.
As you can clearly see, the authors of this article used the “blind loyalty” fallacy to trick gullible readers into thinking that her “research” is above reproach. They emphasize the title of “special correspondent” (as if that means anything), and the fact that she interviewed “hundreds” of people about MJ (which they fail to mention that those “hundreds” of people included Victor Gutierrez, the Hayvenhurst 5, the Neverland 5, Ray Chandler, former advisors who had been fired, etc.)
Even when she writes about her charitable endeavors with the Peace Corps, she STILL cannot miss an opportunity to throw in MJ’s name and bash him for no reason! Here is what she wrote in an LA Times op-ed on February 25th, 2011:
Just trying to fit in at any level as one constantly has to do in the Peace Corps has served me in good stead, whether I was listening to heartbreaking tales of naive, star-struck parents allowing their little boys to spend too much time with Michael Jackson or uncovering Arianna Huffington’s fierce loyalty and reliance on her odd guru, John-Roger, to cite just two examples.
See what I mean? There she goes again, playing the “phantom victim” card! She and her buddy Diane Dimond spoke to all those parents who were sooooooo afraid of pressing charges against MJ for fear of media attention, but they were brave enough to tell (or possibly sell?) their stories to two tabloid journalists? Gimme a break!
Let’s look at some examples of how some fans have valiantly tried to defend MJ by discussing his childlike personality, and how it has backfired and been misconstrued! Once again, here is Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Rep. Peter King, and let’s listen to what they say at 4:00:
O’Reilly tried to play “devil’s advocate” by asking King to react to fans’ defenses (or as he perceived it, excuses) of MJ’s behavior by saying “the people who know Jackson say that he was the product of an arrested development, and he was a child in his own mind, and I think that speaks to the way that he conducted his life. He was not an adult in an emotional way.” He then goes on to MISQUOTE MJ by saying that MJ said that he “slept with children only because he loved them and wanted to be close to them, and there was no sexuality involved.” (Michael NEVER said this! He merely said he gave the bed to the kids when they asked for it.)
As you can see from King’s reaction, he wasn’t having it! To him, it sounded like a copout from some crazy fan, and he completely dismissed it. That is the last thing you want a hater or skeptic to do! Your defense of MJ must be unassailable, and King cut through that argument like a hot knife through butter! What most fans don’t realize is that when you say things like that about MJ’s personality, it doesn’t exonerate him; instead, it makes him look even MORE guilty because skeptics and haters are likely to believe that he truly did abuse children, but out of ignorance or curiosity instead of a sexual desire!
Think about this: when quack psychologist Stanly Katz described MJ as a “regressed 10-year-old” to a police detective in a taped phone interview, did that exonerate MJ of the allegations, in their minds? Of course not! The cop sat there and acknowledged that he AGREED with Katz, and yet the so-called “investigation” continued! Here is an excerpt:
In a taped June 2003 telephone interview, Katz, 55, gave a Santa Barbara sheriff’s investigator his “off the record” opinion of the 46-year-old entertainer.
Jackson, Katz told Det. Paul Zelis, “is a guy that’s like a 10-year-old child. And, you know, he’s doing what a 10-year-old would do with his little buddies. You know, they’re gonna jack off, watch movies, drink wine, you know.
And, you know, he doesn’t even really qualify as a pedophile. He’s really just this regressed 10-year-old.”
“Yeah, yeah, I agree,” replied Zelis.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jackson-case-psychologist
Whenever you’re discussing (or arguing) with someone about the “he sleeps with kids” issue, follow Mesereau’s example! Let’s look at what he said shortly after the trial, beginning at 4:50:
Notice that all he did was refute the myth that MJ didn’t have girls around, and he clarified the facts, and THAT’S IT. He didn’t sit there and give MJ a mental diagnosis as if he was MJ’s personal psychiatrist! That is ALL you have to do! Just debunk the myths, state the facts, stay away from giving a psychiatric evaluation of MJ, and you’ll be fine! Because, as you have already seen, the “he never had a childhood” spiel can get twisted and distorted very easily!
And not only that, but when you “misdiagnose” MJ ‘s personality like that, it validates that belief that some people have of MJ being “mentally disturbed”, and therefore not deserving of any honor or respect!
Here’s another example: Jermaine’s well-intentioned but awful interview with Piers Morgan. Let’s listen to how he described MJ allowing kids to sleep in his bed, beginning at 3:15:
And in case that video is ever deleted, here’s the transcript:
MORGAN: I remember — I remember all that. And it just always struck me that I didn’t know enough about the reality of the truth, certainly not in the position that you were. It just seemed to me that Michael, he did stuff that was — to the public, just looked a bit inappropriate, especially as he got older. Did you ever think as his big brother of warning him, it may not be a good idea to have sleep-overs with young boys, because people won’t get it? They won’t understand what you’re doing.
JACKSON: See, but I’m the same way, because what’s wrong with sleep- overs? What’s wrong with sleep-overs with — with kids? It’s only the demented mind that thinks something different. It’s like Michael said it best, why do you — why do you relate the bed to sex? We can have sex standing up. We can have sex in the car, outside, on the ground. And during those times when he was sharing his bed, he was on the floor. But at the same time, these are people’s minds who were demented. Like they were saying Neverland was used to bring in kids and to molest them. And when you go to Neverland, the wheelchair ramp going up to the rides. He was concerned about bringing the joy to kids who were terminally ill, who were dying of all types of diseases. This is — this is a man who lived his life according to God’s will. This is a man who really cared about people. And it’s so sad, because this world didn’t look at that until after he was dead. And he was trying to say this all along while he was alive.
MORGAN: But when you watched the Martin Bashir interview, the infamous interview, clearly Michael did that to try and set the record straight, and, if anything, made it 10 times worse. When you watched that, what did you feel about that interview?
JACKSON: Well, first of all, Martin Bashir needs to be slapped and he never should have been around Michael. And there again, Michael trusted. And — and see, why this — there’s a question for us, why does people in the media want to say the most horrible things about someone, knowing that they have all the right intentions to do good?
MORGAN: I guess the answer, if I’m putting my media hat back on, because I worked in newspapers at the time of all that, is that it’s not normal — I use that word in, you know, just in a straightforward way — for a guy of, say, 44, to be sharing a bed with a boy of 12. That — it’s not what most men of 44 do. So when the public hear about this —
JACKSON: But how do you know that?
MORGAN: — or the media —
JACKSON: How do you know that?
MORGAN: I just —
JACKSON: How do you know that?
MORGAN: I just guess — I don’t anybody like that.
JACKSON: No, but you can’t just guess, because see, that happens all over the world and people don’t think of that as people —
MORGAN: But do you believe that?
JACKSON: Yes. Yes.
MORGAN: You do?
JACKSON: Absolutely. Absolutely.
MORGAN: I don’t think it does.
JACKSON: Yes, it does, because —
MORGAN: And I’m not casting aspersion over Michael. I’m saying I don’t think it does happen all over the world. Was Michael too innocent for this modern world, do you think?
JACKSON: Absolutely.
MORGAN: You really believe that, that he was just from a different era?
JACKSON: He was from the era that — that we were from. I wish that we were around him more to tell him, Michael, get this person away from you because they have a hidden agenda, whether it was the — all the people who accused him of — of the — of the child molestation, but at the same time, he saw the good in people, the good.
Oh boy, where do I start? Yes, I know Jermaine loves his brother, and tried to defend him the best way he could, but (to use a baseball analogy) he completely struck out! Just imagine if he said that to Bill O’Reilly instead of Piers Morgan, who was very easy on him! O’Reilly would have eaten him alive! He would have pounced on Jermaine’s “what’s wrong with sleepovers with kids?” comment by saying “You set yourself up to be accused of misconduct, that’s what’s wrong!”
When you compare Mesereau’s eloquence to Jermaine’s inarticulateness, the results couldn’t be more disparate!
Just imagine what a skeptic would say after watching that clip? They would say “If MJ and his family felt that cavalierly about him sharing his bed/bedroom, especially after what happened in 1993, then he got what he deserved! I’m so sick of these lunatic, crazy, rabid MJ fans telling me that I’m supposed to care about clearing his legacy, and getting justice for his murder!”
This mentality is something that conservative commentator Matt Drudge discussed on his radio show in 2005, and at 7:56 he gave a valid reason why people should care!
At the very moment they’re making this wonderful video, and they said they were coached, the problem is the guy making the video was German, and he barely spoke English! How did he coach them for an hour and tape the whole thing? This is a disaster! Sneddon is a disaster, as far as I can tell. And you can say “Why do you care so much about this Drudge? What’s in it for me? Why should I be worried about Michael Jackson? Every time I see his face I get creeped out, the music sucks, maybe if he gets back with Quincy Jones we’ll listen again”, you know, that whole rap. Because what can happen to an individual, when you have overzealous prosecutors in this country, is frightening! And this is the story of the Michael Jackson case, in my opinion. 100 search warrants. Photos of his genitalia and his arse. And I know many of you don’t want to think of Michael Jackson in those terms. But Sneddon photographed his privates! Sneddon did! And if he did it to Michael Jackson, he could do it to you! Think about that!
Drudge is 10,000% correct in his assertions! It truly is frightening what can happen when not only overzealous prosecutors, but corrupt judges and police officers too, decide they want to make an example out of somebody for their own personal gain! And if you don’t believe me, then go ask those Duke Lacrosse players!
So, in closing, when you defend MJ, just stick to the facts, remember those questions and talking points that I gave you in a previous post, avoid using the fallacies that I’ve discussed in this series, and follow Mesereau’s example whenever you discuss MJ’s bed sharing, and you’ll be able to hold your own against any MJ hater or skeptic!
Now, let’s end this series on a happy note! Over the past 2 and a half years, I’ve heard nearly every ridiculous excuse as to why MJ is guilty, and I’m at a point now that whenever someone tries to convince me that MJ is guilty, the video below perfectly illustrates all that I hear!
And I also experience the same physical reaction that Peppermint Patty experienced in the clip, too!
How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used By Michael Jackson Haters, Part 4 of 5
In this post I will show how notorious Michael Jackson detractors Bill O’Reilly and Maureen Orth use numerous fallacies in their arguments, and I will give examples of the types of questions that all fans should know to ask when debating Jackson’s innocence!
Lying with Statistics: Using true figures and numbers to “prove” unrelated claims. (e.g. “When taken as a percentage of the national debt, filling up at your corner gas station is actually far cheaper today than it was in 1965!”). A corrupted argument from logos. (See also Half-truth, Non Sequitur, Red Herring.)
This is very similar to the ad populum argument stated in a previous post in this series. Here’s another example for you: The MJ Facts Info hater’s site recently updated its site, and they added a new section on how to debunk the “myth” that MJ wasn’t a pedophile. They use all of these useless statistics that prove absolutely nothing, and are totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.
And in case you’re wondering, yes, I have already fact checked their site!
Name-Calling: A variety of the “Ad Hominem” argument. The dangerous fallacy that, simply because of who you are, any and all arguments, disagreements or objections against your standpoint or actions are automatically racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory or hateful. E.g., “My stand on this issue is the only correct one. To disagree with me or even question my judgment in any way would only show what a pig you really are.” Also applies to refuting an argument by simply calling it a fallacy or declaring it invalid, without proving why it is invalid. See also, “Reductionism.”
Think about this: how many times have you seen or heard MJ fans referred to as “rabid”, “fanatical”, “crazy”, “deranged”, “delusional”, “lunatic”, etc.? It’s a way of robbing us of our credibility as we attempt to advocate, defend, and seek justice for MJ, and it’s used by haters to marginalize fans in the eyes of skeptics. For example, look at what conservative commentator Sean Hannity had to say about fans in front of the court house for the Dr. Murray trial (and I’ll give him credit because at least he also attacked the Dr. Murray supporters too!)
Non Sequitur: The fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand (e.g. “The reason I flunked your course is because the government is now putting out yellow-tinted ten-dollar bills!”). (See also Red Herring.)
Red Herring: An irrelevant distraction, attempting to mislead an audience by bringing up an unrelated, but usually emotionally loaded issue. E.g., “In regard to my recent indictment for corruption, let’s talk about what’s really important instead–terrorists are out there, and if we don’t stop them we’re all gonna die!”
Snow Job: The fallacy of “proving” a claim by overwhelming an audience with mountains of irrelevant facts, numbers, documents, graphs and statistics that they cannot be expected to understand. This is a corrupted argument from logos. See also, “Lying with Statistics.”
The snow job, red herring, and non sequitur fallacies are also very popular with haters, even though most haters are too dumb to even realize that they’re using these fallacies! We’ve all heard them before: “Michael Jackson is a grown man who’s never been in a real relationship with a woman, he built an amusement park in his backyard, he butchered his face, he bleached his skin, he likes to hang out with animals, he took female hormones, so therefore he’s guilty!”
Another common snow job, red herring, or non sequitur tactic that haters use is when they bring up the MJ’s “bed sharing”, and try to focus EXCLUSIVELY on that non-issue. They like to argue over the propriety of MJ allowing non-related kids to sleep in his bed/bedroom, and insinuate that MJ forced or cajoled children to do it without their parent’s permission, which couldn’t be further from the truth. This is a very emotionally charged issue (and thus could also be labeled an ad hominem attack), and over the years haters (especially those in the media) have used this to insinuate that MJ was a sick predator who couldn’t control his “urges” to be around young boys, and invited them into his room to sleep in his bed in order to satisfy some perverted sexual fetish (and yes, I’ve heard people use this argument before, too).
The reality is that Michael Jackson did what millions of people around the world do when they have company, be it friends or family; he let them sleep in his bedroom! Nothing more, nothing less! As we have discussed in this post, and in this post, there wasn’t anything sinister or abnormal about his bed sharing, and this entire issue is really all about making a mountain out of a molehill to distract people from the facts which clear MJ of the bogus charges.
Let’s look at what the late, great Rick James (a successful, yet underrated R&B/funk singer) had to say about this issue in November 2003:
They both had their own style!
PHILLIPS: You’re looking good. Now, you and I were talking yesterday, we were talking a little bit this morning. You’re in support of Michael Jackson. Tell me why.
JAMES: Because I love him. I think he’s fantastic. I love his whole family. I’ve been knowing Michael since he was a kid. I’ve know his whole family. I know his mother. I know his father. I know the brothers. I know the sisters. And I have nothing but complete love, and respect and admiration for the whole family.
It's a good thing that Rick James was never accused of child abuse! They would say he's so "weird" that he must be guilty!
PHILLIPS: So, Rick, why do you think authorities are going after Michael Jackson?
JAMES: Because he’s black, he’s rich and he’s famous, and they got nothing else better to do.
PHILLIPS: Has Michael ever talked openly with you about his relationship with children, or his love for children, or even Neverland?
JAMES: Look, Michael loves children, OK? I mean, to be — I mean, I look at it like this. I mean, all this pedophile crap, you know, why didn’t they go after Elvis Presley? He was the biggest pedophile at all. He had Priscilla when she was 14, 15. Why didn’t they go after Jerry Lee Lewis. He the second biggest pedophile of all. He married his first cousin. She was 13 years old. Why don’t they go after Santa Claus? Why don’t they do psychology references on him? They don’t know who he is. He’s 100,000 different cities and kids sit on his lap, telling him what they want for Christmas.
PHILLIPS: I don’t know, Rick, I’ve sat on Santa Claus’ lap, I’ve never had any issues with Santa Claus.
JAMES: But never mind, Santa Claus, what about Elvis? They didn’t do anything to him. He had Priscilla when she was 14, 15 years old. Nobody said a damn thing. Then as soon as you get famous and black, they go after you.
PHILLIPS: Well, let me ask you, let me ask you, you know the documentary that came out, OK, on BBC with Michael Jackson. He talked openly about, hey, I love children, we sleep in the same bed, it’s nothing sexual, I just love them and like to take care of them. Is there anything wrong with that? Do you see anything wrong with that?
JAMES: There ain’t nothing wrong with that. Look, I have a house, 8,000 square feet. I have children come by. I have grandchildren. They come by and they bring their friends. They sleep in my room. I got a great big giant bedroom. They watch TV. They lay on the floor. Sometimes I wake up, kids are laying in my bed because they’re scared or something, whatever. I have candles going. What, what does that make me, a pedophile, because kids follow my bed, fall to sleep, whatever? I love kids. I’m (UNINTELLIGIBLE) pedophile as Larry King. I mean, come on now.
After reading that, would you consider Rick James a child molester? I wonder why Gloria Allred didn’t try to take HIS kids away? Oh, that’s right, he’s not a big enough star for her!
Here is an excerpt from Frank Cascio’s new book “My Friend Michael”, where he puts the bed sharing issue into proper perspective, beginning on page 261:
“In Bashir’s interview, Michael was shown holding Gavin’s hand and telling the world that kids slept in his bed. Anyone who knew Michael would recognize the honesty and innocent candor of what he was trying to communicate. But Bashir was determined to cast it in a different light…
What Michael didn’t bother to explain, and what Bashir didn’t care to ask about, was that Michael’s suite at Neverland, as I’ve said before, was a gathering place, with a family room downstairs and a bedroom upstairs. Michael didn’t explain that people hung out there, and sometimes they wanted to stay over. He didn’t explain that he always offered guests his bed, and for the most part slept on the floor in the family room below. But, perhaps more important, he didn’t explain that the guest were always close friends like us Cascios and his extended family.
One of the biggest misconceptions about Michael, a story that plagued him for years following the Bashir documentary, was that he had an assortment of children sleeping in his room at any given time. The truth was that random children never came to Neverland and stayed in Michael’s room. Just as my brother Eddie and I had done when we were younger, the family and friends who did stay with Michael, did so of their own volition. Michael just allowed it to happen because his friends and family liked to be around him.
What Michael said on Bashir’s video is true. “You can have my bed if you want. Sleep in it. I’ll sleep on the floor. It’s your’s. Always give the best to the company, you know.” Michael had no hesitation about telling the truth because he had nothing to hide. He knew in his heart and mind that his actions were sincere, his motives pure, and his conscience, clear. Michael innocently and honestly said, “Yes, I share my bed, there is nothing wrong with it.” The fact of the matter is, when he was “sharing” his bed, it meant he was offering his bed to whoever wanted to sleep in it. There may have been times when we slept up there as well, but he was usually on the floor next to his bed, or downstairs sleeping on the floor (in the family room that was part of his bedroom suite). Although Bashir, for obvious reasons, kept harping on the bed, if you watch the full, uncut interview, it’s impossible not to understand what Michael was trying to make clear: when he said he shared his bed, he meant he shared his life with the people he saw as family.
The bottom line: Michael’s interest in young boys had absolutely nothing to do with sex. I say this with the unassailable confidence of firsthand experience, the confidence of a young boy who slept in the same room as Michael hundreds of times, and with the absolute conviction of a man who saw Michael interact with thousands of kids. In all the years that I was close to him, I saw nothing that raised any red flags, not as a child and not as an adult. Michael may have been eccentric, but that didn’t make him a criminal.
The problem, though, was that this point of view wasn’t represented in the documentary. Listening to Michael talk, people who didn’t know him were disturbed by what he was saying, not only because his words were taken out of context but also because Bashir, the narrator, was telling them they SHOULD BE disturbed. The journalist repeatedly suggested that Michael’s statements made him very uncomfortable. Michael was quirky enough without the machinations of a mercenary newshound, to be sure, but there’s no doubt that Bashir manipulated viewers for his own ends. His questions were leading, the editing misguided. As I watched the broadcast, it seemed to me that Bashir’s plan all along had been to expose Michael in whatever way he could in order to win the highest ratings he could for his show.
Here is another example of those three fallacies: earlier this year, a very well-known MJ hater intentionally tried to distract us by throwing a red herring in our direction. She accused MJ of being gay (another ad hominem attack), and her “proof” was the fact that the DNA of 3 males were found on MJ’s mattress. Additionally, traces of cocaine were found ON the blood stains (but not IN the blood stains) of a dirty pair of underwear, so the hater naturally accused MJ of being a “drug addict”. That so-called evidence was refuted in this post, among others, but her goal of temporarily throwing us off course by throwing irrelevant junk science in our face was a smashing success! We wasted so much time on that non-issue!
Post Hoc Argument: (also, “post hoc propter hoc” argument, or the “too much of a coincidence” argument): The classic fallacy that because something comes at the same time or just after something else, the first thing is caused by the second. E.g., “AIDS first emerged as a problem during the exact same time that Disco music was becoming popular–that’s too much of a coincidence: It proves that Disco causes AIDS!”
To put it in simpler language, this fallacy states that because Event A precedes Event B, then that unequivocally means that Event A CAUSED Event B! This is used when describing the effect that the strip search had on the decision to have a $15.3 million dollar settlement, and the effect that the settlement had on the Chandlers. In the eyes of most haters, because the “accurate” description given by Jordan Chandler preceded the settlement, and because the settlement preceded the Chandler’s decision to stop cooperating with police, therefore the “accurate” description was the CAUSE of the settlement, and the settlement was the CAUSE of the Chandler’s decision to stop cooperating! (i.e. it was hush money!) That nonsense was thoroughly shot down in this post that analyzes the hypocrisy of the media’s reporting on MJ’s settlements vs. the settlements of other celebrities, who were NEVER accused of paying “hush money” with their respective settlements! Also, this post explains Jordan’s so-called “accurate description”!
Here is an example of the Post Hoc fallacy in action: On January 30th, 2004 FOX News host Bill O’Reilly interviewed Geraldine Hughes about her book “Redemption”, which fully exonerates MJ of the Chandler scandal. He tries to make the connection between the settlement and the collapse of the criminal case:
HUGHES: Well, okay — well, basically, it’s — my contention is that it was an elaborate — elaborate, meaning it was multifaceted. Multifaceted means I can throw you one thing and it’s really not going to matter until you pull it all together. Minus physical evidence, you have to look at the whole picture. You can’t just — one thing is not going to do it for you.
O’REILLY: All right.
HUGHES: But I will say this. I will say this. We have the finest police, law enforcement agency in the nation. There were four police agencies that went looking for evidence to corroborate with the little boy, and they found nothing. That really should be your biggest thing right there.
O’REILLY: Well, here’s what swayed me to disagree with you, and maybe you can put this in perspective for us. During the settlement hearings…
HUGHES: Okay.
O’REILLY: The father, Dr. Chandler, all right, and your boss presented a scenario whereby the 13-year-old boy would identify marks on Michael Jackson’s body that nobody would have known about unless they had seen his intimate parts.
HUGHES: Right. Yes, okay.
O’REILLY: Now what say you, Madame?
HUGHES: I said did they bring him — did they arrest him based on their findings? Because had he accurately described parts that only someone could have described if they had seen it, that would have been — that was really what they were looking for, the mere fact that they didn’t bring him up on charges after that. And Michael even said the only reason why…
O’REILLY: The boy — after the $20 million changed hands, the boy then wouldn’t testify. And that’s how it went.
Notice how O’Reilly cut Geraldine off before she could finish her sentence? Absolutely typical! We’ll analyze this interview again later on in this post.
Reductionism: (also, Oversimplifying, Sloganeering): The fallacy of deceiving an audience by giving simple answers or slogans in response to complex questions, especially when appealing to less educated or unsophisticated audiences. E.g., “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must vote to acquit.” Often involves appeals to emotion (pathos). E.g., “Moms! If you want to protect your little kids from armed terrorists, vote for Smith!”
Have you ever asked a hater why they think that MJ should have been convicted, and instead of giving a substantive, cogent argument, they instead give you some crap like “Well, OJ Simpson was acquitted too!” That’s probably the best example of a reductionist fallacy. Another example of reductionism is the following quote that Diane Dimond used in her roundtable discussion from a few weeks ago:
But in my book, I outline several years’ worth of interviews that I did, with lots of young boys, and their families, that were too afraid to come forward and press charges, that all told the same story! Of how the child was manipulated to come and see Michael Jackson, manipulated to be alone with Michael Jackson, maybe the adults in their lives were over-protective, or over-reacting, but Michael Jackson made the first charges “go away”, as I outline in the book, by paying $30 million dollars! Who does that? And don’t tell me it’s because he had a lot of money back then, because he wasn’t working at that point!
She took the complex subject of the 1993 settlement, and reduced it to “MJ must have been guilty, because innocent people don’t pay millions of dollars to their accusers!” What Dimond and her ilk are clinging to is the erroneous belief that the settlement was a sign of guilt, instead of the pertinent facts of the case. My suggestion to anyone who is in a debate with someone who uses this fallacy is to ask them to describe the exact timeline of the allegations, beginning in May 1993 and ending on August 17th, 1993, the day the police got involved. By limiting the haters to the timeline of events that took place BEFORE the settlement, they are forced to explain and justify Evan Chandler’s refusal to hand over Jordan to June Chandler, his questioning of Jordan only AFTER his tooth was removed and he was under the influence of drugs, his demand of a $20 million dollar film deal on August 4th, 1993, etc.
This line of questioning usually shuts them up really quick!
Maureen Orth used this same fallacy in her defense of her five Vanity Fair articles by basically saying “Hey! He never sued me for slander or libel, so obviously that means that everything I wrote is true!”
In August 1993, I was on the beach in Nantucket when I was told that Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter was trying to reach me: Michael Jackson had just been accused of child molestation by a 13-year-old boy. Thus began an odyssey of 12 years in which I wrote five lengthy articles for the magazine about the trials and tribulations of this music icon whose fame had literally deformed him. I spoke to hundreds of people who knew Jackson and, in the course of my reporting, found families who had given their sons up to him and paid dearly for it. I found people who had been asked to supply him with drugs. I even found the business manager who told me on-the-record how he had had to wire $150,000 to a voodoo chief in Mali who had 42 cows ritually sacrificed in order to put a curse on David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, and 23 others on Jackson’s enemies list. I sat through two trials and watched his bizarre behavior on the stand when he said he did not recognize his publicist of a decade. One of the reasons I endured this not-fun circus was that, when I began, I was the mother of a boy roughly the same age as the ones Jackson was so interested in spending the night with. His behavior truly troubled me. Understandably, in the wake of his death, there are those who do not want to hear these sad facts. Yet nothing that Vanity Fair printed was ever challenged legally by Jackson or his associates.
A man who made great music and entertained brilliantly has died. I’ve been told that he had endured an eight-hour rehearsal and was in rare form on the stage the night before his death. I’ve also been told that the lawyers swooped in yesterday to retrieve all the videos that had been made of these rehearsals. I believe the aftermath of his death will probably be as messy as his life was. I loved his music. Offstage, he could not escape his tragic flaw.
And notice how in the last paragraph she used what I call the “Trojan horse” fallacy, which is when a hater pretends to be a fan in order to gain your trust (which is analogous to the way the Greeks entered the city of Troy) and fools you into thinking that they’re being objective. They always talk about how they “used” to be fans, and how they still “love his music”!
By the way, it’s funny how Orth said that MJ paid $150k dollars to put a curse on Geffen, Spielberg, and others, yet they are all still alive and doing well. Did MJ ever get a refund on his money? I sure hope he had a money back guarantee written into the contract he made with that voodoo chief!
Finally, if you’re dealing with someone who wants to play the “MJ’s settlement as a sign of guilt” card, you can ask them if they think that corporations who settle lawsuits are also guilty! A few examples of corporate settlements are (of course!) JC Penney’s settlement with the Arvizos, Texaco and Best Buy’s settlements of their respective racial discrimination lawsuits, and Wal-Mart and Microsoft’s settlements of their respective sexual harassment lawsuits, just to name a few. Tell the hater that they should boycott each of those companies to show that they disapprove of racism and sexism!
Shifting the Burden of Proof. (see also Argument from Ignorance) A fallacy that challenges opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument. E.g., “Space-aliens are everywhere among us, even here on campus, masquerading as true humans! I dare you prove it isn’t so! See? You can’t! That means you have to accept that what I say is true.”
This is something that haters absolutely LOVE to do, and unfortunately this is a fallacy that we as MJ fans and advocates MUST accommodate! It’s not up to us to prove that MJ was innocent; it’s up to THEM to prove that his is guilty! In a perfect world , we could just sit back, rest on our laurels, and demand that haters write books, post blogs, or upload videos to factually prove that MJ was guilty, but they’ll never do that, because that requires research, which is a foreign concept to them! Instead, we as advocates have to be proactive in our defense of MJ by seeking out and destroying any misinformation that can (and has been) used to poison the minds of an impressionable, gullible public who don’t know how to tell fact from fiction. One of the reasons that we must do this is because there is a perception among the general public that because the Arvizo’s allegations made it all the way to criminal court, there must have been some truth to them. Many people believe “If those boys were lying, the cops would have caught them in their lies!” So as a result of Sneddon and his goons enabling the Arvizos in their lies, and exploiting them in order to achieve their devious desires, we must, in fact, prove that MJ was innocent.
The admins of this blog have done an excellent job doing just that. Similar to a school of hungry piranhas, whenever we sniff even the slightest bit of blood in our waters (i.e. rumors and lies about MJ), we refute them with facts, and only facts. If we waited for the day when haters stopped shifting the burden of proof unto fans, and instead took it upon themselves, then those lies would continue to go unchallenged in the media, and on the internet (because that day will never come!). This is why all fans must step up their knowledge of the facts, and learn how to effectively refute the lies and defend MJ. Look no further than the abysmal performance of Steve Manning and Mike Garcia in their roundtable with Diane Dimond to see what happens when you’re not equipped with facts! (And please don’t get me wrong, because I’m not angry with them, just disappointed.)
Here is an example of someone shifting the burden of proof: once again, our good friend Bill O’Reilly rears his ugly head! Here is another excerpt from his interview with Geraldine Hughes:
O’REILLY: In the “Impact” segment tonight, 45-year-old Michael Jackson will be arraigned next week on child molestation charges in California. As you know, the case is the subject of endless speculation, but there is a story you might not have heard. In 1994, Jackson settled child molestation charges with a 13-year-old boy and his family for millions. At the time, a lawyer named Barry Rothman was representing the boy. Joining us now from Los Angeles is Geraldine Hughes, who was Rothman’s legal secretary during that case. She is the author of the upcoming book “Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations.”
All right, I want to walk through this, Ms. Hughes. I want to be very specific. All right, you contend that the boy’s father, Dr. Evan Chandler, was behind this whole thing and that Jackson did not molest the boy. Is that correct?
GERALDINE HUGHES, “REDEMPTION” AUTHOR: That is absolutely correct.
O’REILLY: And you base that on what?
HUGHES: Well, basically, I was on the inside. So I was able to witness behaviors. I was able to witness what was going on the inside. I knew from the very onset of the allegation that Michael Jackson was absolutely innocent and that it wasn’t a case…
O’REILLY: All right, now give me one — your biggest convincer. You’ve got millions of people watching you right now.
HUGHES: Okay.
O’REILLY: All right? The biggest reason you felt Jackson was innocent was?
HUGHES: I guess, if I were to give one — there were a lot — but I will try and pull one. Basically, it was — I actually recall the letter that went to Chandler, where he was advised about how to report child molestation by using a third party without liability to a parent. And that was like three weeks prior to the actual launching of the allegations.
O’REILLY: All right, now Ms. Hughes, if I am a parent, and my child is molested, all right, I immediately go to my attorney for advice. If my attorney advises me to take a certain course of action, as Dr. Chandler’s did, all right, because you worked for the man…
HUGHES: Right.
O’REILLY: …all right, why would that mean that this didn’t happen? Why wouldn’t this be just the methodical, orderly way to place the complaint?
HUGHES: I guess if that was the only thing I had that I could say made me believe that, you would probably be right and I would probably look into it further based on your view. But there’s many occasions…
O’REILLY: All right, but I asked you for the big gun. And the big gun hasn’t convinced me. Give me something else.
Notice how he condescendingly told her that he wanted her to be “very specific” (as if she was going to speak in generalities), and asked her to give him her “biggest convincer” (i.e. the “Smoking Gun”), and when – in his eyes – she failed to do so, he told her to give him “something else”. He then went on to say that Jordie gave an “accurate description”, which Geraldine rightfully refuted by saying that MJ would have been arrested if it had been accurate, and O’Reilly had to cling to the “pay off” myth to make his point. (That part of the interview is presented earlier in this post.) Essentially, because Geraldine didn’t “convince” O’Reilly of MJ’s innocence right then and there, he felt he was able to continue to smear MJ as guilty.
And for O’Reilly to sit there and tell a bold face lie and say that if his son was molested he would “immediately go to his attorney for advice” is absolutely ludicrous! When you consider the many valiant crusades that he has led against child abuse (such as Jessica’s Law), and his attacks against judges who are lenient on convicted child molesters (see the video below), it is utterly laughable to think that he would call an attorney instead of the cops!
Let’s look at a more rational explanation of what someone would do if they suspected their child was molested: here is Joe Tacopina, the attorney who represented MJ’s close confidant and “unindicted co-conspirator” Frank Cascio, describing to Martin Bashir, in his second hit piece “MJ’s Secret World” (which I fact checked here) what he would do if he was in that situation:
Martin Bashir (narrating): The mother says that Neverland had become a nightmare. She says they were threatened by Jackson’s aides, not allowed to leave the property, and that she and her family were being held hostage.
Joe Tacopina : During the period of time that they were allegedly held hostage, we have receipts that will show the mother and her teenage daughter getting manicures and pedicures, shopping at stores. I mean, it’s laughable!
Martin Bashir (narrating): Jackson’s supporters say they are confident that they’ll be able to destroy the credibility of the accuser’s story at trial.
Martin Bashir (speaking to Joe): You’re fundamentally saying that this cancer victim, and his entire family, are liars.
Joe Tacopina : Yes. If you want to attribute a reason, or a motive, I don’t think it’s hard to find one. It’s financial. Michael Jackson has a bulls-eye on his back. He’s a one-man lotto ticket.
Martin Bashir: What evidence do you have that this is a shakedown?
Joe Tacopina : Who do they go to first? A lawyer. Not the police. You see, if my child had been molested, and I believed my child had been sexually abused by someone, I’m not looking for a personal injury lawyer. I’m looking for a police officer. Or a baseball bat!
(Unfortunately, as we’ve learned through recent events, there are some people who witness child abuse, yet turn a blind eye, which is absolutely UNCONCIONABLE!)
Finally, let’s look at how O’Reilly violates one of the fundamental principles of American jurisprudence; that a defendant is innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law! The prosecution must PROVE guilt beyond a reasonable doubt! The defendant doesn’t have to prove anything!
O’REILLY: Whoa, whoa, whoa. I will cede you one point, Madame. You’re not making your case for me, I have to be quite honest with you. I’m not believing…
HUGHES: That’s fine.
O’REILLY: …you know, I’m not going to get it, Bill.
O’REILLY: Well, look, I mean I’m not — if I’m on the jury and I’m listening to you, he’s not exonerated. But I will tell you this — I do believe that this Dr. Chandler, okay, wanted the money rather than the criminal prosecution. Instead of going to the authorities first and backing into the civil suit, he didn’t. He went for the civil — he wanted the money and then the criminal prosecution be damned. I do believe that. And that’s wrong.
HUGHES: But we live in a state where you can have both. You can have criminal prosecution and the money.
O’REILLY: Now, but not then. Not yet. You could have.
HUGHES: Oh, then you could too.
O’REILLY: Now here’s motivation you may be right about but…
HUGHES: He could have had both. He didn’t have to go just for the one. And you tell me somebody molests your child, you’re going to take money and not go after the prosecution?
O’REILLY: I wouldn’t do it. I know people who would sell their children for $20 million. Ms. Hughes, we thank you very much for appearing.
HUGHES: Thank you.
O’Reilly said that if he’s on a jury listening to Hughes’ explanation, then MJ’s “not exonerated”, thus implying that the burden of proof is on the defense, which is totally and absolutely wrong! This is another scare tactic that people like him like to use against MJ’s fans; it’s similar to a “gotcha” question. They like to ask us to prove MJ’s innocent, and if we don’t, then it’s “Gotcha! MJ’s guilty! I knew you couldn’t prove he was innocent!”
And while we’re on the subject of O’Reilly, he and many other haters have tried to sympathize with Evan Chandler by saying “Well, maybe he didn’t want to deal with the media circus, so that’s why he decided to just stop cooperating after he received the settlement.” And to that I say BULL! Whenever you hear someone try to rationalize Evan’s refusal to go to trial, remember these two important facts:
1. Within two days of the1993 scandal going public, Ray Chandler actually moved in with his brother Evan, and lived there until December 1993. Together, they wrote the book “All That Glitters”, with the hope of releasing it under Ray’s name in order to circumvent the confidentiality agreement of the settlement. They were unable to get a book deal, so Ray just let the book collect dust until the Arvizo allegations became public, and he finally published the book in September 2004. He was subpoenaed to testify in court about the facts stated in the book, but not by Sneddon, but by Mesereau! Ray, being the coward that he is, successfully quashed Mesereau’s subpoena, and he was able to freely promote the book in the media. In July 2009, book publisher Judith Regan confirmed that Ray and Evan tried to publish the book and intentionally violate the confidentiality agreement. (For more info, read this series of posts.)
2. On May 7th, 1996, Evan Chandler filed a $60 million dollar lawsuit against MJ, Lisa-Marie Presley, Diane Sawyer, ABC Television Company, Walt Disney Company (the owners of ABC), Sony, and if that wasn’t enough, unidentified “John Does 1 through 300”. He claimed that MJ violated the terms of their confidentiality agreement by proclaiming his innocence in his July 1995 interview with Diane Sawyer (which is why ABC and its owner Disney were sued), and on his “HIStory” album (which is why Sony was sued). I guess all of those John Does were unindicted co-conspirators, eh? In addition to the outrageous dollar amount requested, Evan also wanted Sony to help him “repair his reputation” by publishing a rebuttal album titled “EVANstory”, which would consist of such songs as “Truth”, “Duck Butter Blues”, and “You Have No Defense For My Love”! This frivolous lawsuit was dismissed in 2000, and (ironically) according to “All That Glitters”, Evan was nearly broke from having to pay for all of his legal fees associated with the lawsuit, and had to depend on an allowance from Jordan for the remaining years of his life. For more information on the lawsuit, and its absurdity, read this post. Also, here is great column written by a journalist in June 1996, who challenges Evan to present the facts in a court of law, instead of trying to get a record deal!
In summary, the notion that Evan didn’t pursue justice because he was afraid of attracting media attention to his family is UTTERLY REFUTED by his own actions! People who want to avoid media attention do not try to publish tell-all books or release albums! And keep this in mind: Evan Chandler filed his frivolous lawsuit in May 1996, almost a full year after MJ’s interview with Diane Sawyer, so that proves that his desire to get an album deal from Sony was premeditated! It wasn’t something that he did on a whim after seeing the interview. He and his lawyer spent many months preparing that lawsuit, and going through who they would sue, and what they would sue for. He knew what he wanted to name the album, and what songs he wanted to record for the album. His desire to have that album recorded and released by Sony was absolute.
Whenever you’re dealing with someone who wants to shift the burden of proof unto you, and force you to prove MJ is innocent, ask them to COGENTLY answer these questions about the allegations:
1. If Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation in 1993, why was he not arrested and charged with a crime?
2. If Sneddon and Garcetti had so much inculpatory evidence against Jackson, then why were they unable to secure an indictment from two independent grand juries, located in two different counties?
3. If Michael Jackson “paid off” the Chandlers, then why was he not arrested and charged with obstruction of justice?
4. If Michael Jackson was guilty, then why didn’t he capitulate into Evan Chandler’s demand of a $20 million dollar film deal on August 4th, 1993? He could have avoided the entire media circus had he done so!
5. Why did Michael Jackson fight to have the case tried in criminal court first (where Jackson could be sentenced to prison if convicted), while the Chandlers fought to have the case tried in civil court first (where Jackson could be ordered to pay millions if found liable)? Wouldn’t Jackson want to avoid criminal court at all costs? (See question #4.)
6. Why did Jackson’s legal team cite the case of “Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court” as legal precedent in their motion to get the civil trial delayed until after the pending criminal trial? (Pay attention to the last sentence in the second paragraph of Section IV, beginning with “To allow prosecutors to monitor the civil proceedings…”.)
The questions about the 2005 case are far more complex:
In the Statement of Probable Cause, dated November 17th, 2003, Det. Paul Zelis described an interview he did with Star Arvizo, who claimed the following (on pages 15, 23, & 50):
When asked, Star said Michael Jackson touched him inappropriately. The incident occurred when they were in a golf cart. Star was driving the golf cart and Michael was next to him. Michael then reached over and touched Star’s “testicles and penis” over his clothes with Michael’s left hand. He did not say anything to Michael and continued driving the golf cart.
Yet, Michael Jackson was never charged with molesting Star. Instead, when Tom Sneddon filed his initial felony complaint against Michael Jackson on December 18th, 2003, it consisted of the following allegations by Gavin, which allegedly occurred from February 7th through March 10th, 2003:
- 7 counts of lewd acts upon a child
- 2 counts of administering an intoxicant
However, in the grand jury indictment that was filed on April 21st, 2004, the dates of the alleged offenses shifted to February 20th through March 12th, 2003, and the charges were materially altered as follows:
- 4 counts of lewd acts upon a child
- 1 count of an attempted lewd act upon a child
- 4 counts of administering an intoxicant
- 1 count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion
Based on those facts, here are the questions that you should ask:
1. How do you explain the discrepancy in the alcohol and molestation charges between the initial felony complaint and the grand jury indictment?
2. How do you explain the addition of the conspiracy charge, especially in light of the fact that the Arvizos went on numerous shopping sprees while at Neverland, and constantly asked to be returned to Neverland after leaving?
3. Why wasn’t Michael Jackson charged with conspiracy in the initial complaint? Sneddon investigated Michael Jackson for almost 6 months before raiding Neverland in November 2003. Shouldn’t he have known then about the alleged conspiracy?
4. Why weren’t the 5 unindicted co-conspirators charged, even after they refused immunity for their testimony against Michael Jackson?
5. Why wasn’t Michael Jackson charged with molesting Star, in addition to Gavin? In the statement of probable cause, he claimed to have been molested while riding a golf cart. Wouldn’t Sneddon want to use as many accusers as possible against Jackson?
6. Why did the start date of the alleged crimes suddenly shift by almost 2 weeks, and the end date shift by 2 days?
7. Why would Michael Jackson begin to molest Gavin and Star only AFTER the documentary aired? Why didn’t he molested them between 2000 and 2002?
8. Why would Michael Jackson begin to molest Gavin and Star AFTER he hired Mark Geragos in early February 2003? Why would he hire a lawyer to defend him for a crime that he had not committed yet?
There you go MJ haters! Put up or shut up!
Recently, a reader of this blog told me that it’s very hard to explain and refute the accusations of the 1993 case, due to the fact that it never made it to court, and the Chandler’s were never cross examined under oath. As a response to her question, I came up with a list of 16 talking points that fans should memorize (to the best of their ability) so that they can explain what really happened in 1993. I will discuss these talking points in more detail in an upcoming post tentatively titled “21 Questions For Michael Jackson Haters”:
1. Evan and Jordan’s background as the screenwriters of “Robin Hood: Men in Tights”.
2. Evan’s jealously of Jordan spending more time with MJ than him., and his anger at MJ over being rejected as a 50/50 partner in MJ’s film company.
3. The taped telephone call between Evan and Dave Schwartz. (MJJ Justice Project did an EXCELLENT analysis of it! Here’s part 1, and part 2.)
4. Evan coercing Jordan to admit to being abused right after a dental procedure, when Jordan was still heavily sedated.
5. Evan’s demand for a $20 million dollar for a film deal on August 4th, 1993, and MJ’s refusal to give in.
6. June Chandler obtaining custody of Jordan, and Evan’s decision to bring Jordan to a psychiatrist rather than surrender custody of him. He did not mention his suspicions of child abuse to the courts. Evan did this so that the psychiatrist Mathis Abrams could report the alleged abuse, and Evan couldn’t be charged with filing a false claim.
7. Evan’s firing of Gloria Allred for her refusal to sue MJ before criminally prosecuting him, and his replacement of her with Larry Feldman, who filed a frivolous civil lawsuit in September 1993. MJ countersued for extortion.
8. Feldman’s motion to have the civil trail precede the criminal trial, and Fields’ and Weitzman’s counter-motion to have it delayed until after the criminal trial (which subsequently failed.)
9. The fact that MJ was not arrested immediately upon the completion of his strip search, and Larry Feldman’s request to have MJ strip searched again or bar the original photos from court, which confirms it wasn’t an accurate match. (I would also compare Jordan’s description to MJ’s actual description so viewers can see how disparate they are, as we did in this post.)
10. The settlement money was not offered or paid by MJ, nor did it prevent the Chandlers from testifying in a criminal case. The Chandlers refused to cooperate with authorities, and Garcetti was so desperate that he urged state legislators to amend a law that prohibited him from forcing victims to testify. (Read the “Officials Desperate to Nail Jackson” article in that link.)
11. After the settlement, two different grand juries in two counties refused to indict MJ, and the investigation stopped in September 1994.
12. In May 1996, Evan filed a $60 million lawsuit against MJ, LMP, ABC, and Sony, and he wanted to record and publish a rebuttal album called “EVANstory”. The lawsuit was thrown out in 2000, and Evan’s finances were depleted by the legal fees.
13. In September 2004, Ray Chandler successfully quashed Mesereau’s subpoena for him to testify in court about the validity of his book “All That Glitters” (read this series for more info), which was ghostwritten by Evan Chandler, and was originally intended to be released in Spring 1994. Book publisher Judith Regan confirmed this in July 2009.
14. In August 2005, two months after the trial, Evan tried to murder Jordan by hitting him from behind with a 12.5 pound weight, macing him, and choking him. Jordan obtained a permanent restraining order as a result.
15. In November 2009, Evan committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. Nobody attended his wake, and he was subsequently cremated.
16. In December 2009, the FBI released their files on MJ, as a result of requests under the Freedom of Information Act, and they confirm a meeting in September 2004 with Ron Zonen and Jordan Chandler, who threatened legal action if he was subpoenaed to testify because he “had done his part”.
Hopefully, each of these 16 talking points will be incorporated into a possible future biopic on Jackson’s life. I’m fed up with so many MJ documentaries and biographies that omit all of these exculpatory facts! For the complete story of 1993, read this three part series “HIStory vs. EVANstory”, beginning here.
Here’s an example of what can happen when you present the facts to haters who are so stuck in their anti-MJ delusions that they refuse to engage in civil discourse! One of our readers named Ashley left the following comment describing the reaction she received from a friend when discussing MJ’s Vitiligo:
I had an incident the other night on Facebook with someone I know who pretty much laughed at me for saying something about Michael having vitiligo. Her response was “you don’t actually believe that, do you?” Even when I provided her with the fact that it was determined by autopsy that he did in fact have it, she was still set in her tabloid-following mindset. It’s so sad. And of course, when I pointed out other facts to her, she defended herself by insulting me and saying she had a life and didn’t have time to read the facts. I merely responded that people shouldn’t talk about things they don’t know the facts about.
If you think that’s funny, just wait until you read this exchange between Tahlia, one of our dedicated readers, and her mother Sue, as they debate with Chris, Terri, Tash, and Sue over whether or not MJ was a drug addict!
“This is long, and I’ve already edited it to shorten it, but here’s another example of hater fallacies. I know I didn’t do the best job either, if you have any constructive criticism on how I can do this better next time please let me know. I use the same name on Facebook as on here. Sue is my Mother, she’s not used to being in debates.
Chris – I love MJ, but lets not forget that Dr Murray or not, he was a junkie and thats what killed him…
Terri well said chris
Tash So true Chris But….we live in a society that florishes on passing blame!! Heaven forbid mj was actually responsible for his own ultimate demise
Sue Just because the media said it doesn’t mean it’s true. Do your own research. Autopsy report said he was healthier than most men his age. Drug addicts aren’t healthy.
Sue Proof that he was NOT a junkie: (see autopsy report pages 5-10) For toxicology report see here:http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/toxicologyreport.pdf And: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/09/mj_autopsy.pdf Again I say research the facts instead of blindly believing the crap that the media come out with. Did any of you watch the live trial? Particularly the testimony from the medical experts? I think it’s pretty stupid to believe the media over the experts!
Terri OMG everybody is entitled to their own and opinion and are allowed to believe what they want, your opinion is that he wasn’t a junkie so leave it at that, if you are not happy with what others are saying then don’t comment and stop trying to shove it down our throats, so all in all GET OVER IT.
Tahlia This isn’t about opinions Terry it’s about facts. That’s what the autopsy report link and toxicology link is there for. Nobody is shoving anything down your throat.
Sue Terri we are merely trying to direct people to the truth, that’s what the links are there for. If you want to ignore the truth and believe the lies I think that’s pretty sad. I’m sure you wouldn’t like people believing things about you that weren’t true. I’m not shoving anything down anybody’s throat, I’m simply supplying links to the facts!
Seran Oh please, why is everyone in an uproar about this? He’s dead. Who cares how. It wasn’t like he was doing anything amazing anyway and really. You believe things cast on the internet and call it research, any wording can be changed ever so simply. You’re not that naive surely
Terri Tahlia my name is right above and yet you still spell it wrong and that’s A FACT. Also are you going to believe that everything on the Internet is CORRECT? Now that is sad have you never heard of evidence being changed? And you can think i am sad for believing what I want I really couldn’t care less. And you are shoving it down people throats because you are telling them that their opinions are wrong.
Sue Again I ask, did you watch any of the live court case? I did and it matches with the links.
Terri No sorry i didn’t I have more important things to do like look after my child and do the house work.
Tahlia Tell that to his kids. He was doing rehearsals for his upcoming 50 concerts, which is pretty impressive at his age. By your logic should nobody care if a person dies, say, a stay at home mum because she ‘isn’t doing anything amazing?’ You should look at the evidence before you call it fake. The coroner’s report and toxicology report on the internet is the same that was used in court. You clearly haven’t researched this at all and you call me naive? Interesting. I’ve researched this for 2 years, I’m well aware of what’s fake and what’s not. Believing the media without question is what’s naive. I would also appreciate it if you would drop the attitude, it isn’t necessary. The prescription meds Michael was using were not being abused, and they were for depression, insomnia, and vitiligo. Michael also suffered from Lupus. Again, the coroner stated that Michael was healthier than most men his age. The coroner has much more credibility than any newspaper does.
Seran . No I haven’t researched it… you know why… because I DON’T CARE. I have better things to do in my life than worry about how a dead guy died
Sue Seran, again you believe what the media said. If you don’t care about how or why he died, why do you continue to attack us? Get back under your bridge troll!
Terri that is just plain rude Sue you obviously can’t take other people’s opinions and NEED TO GROW UP
Tahlia Why are you telling other people to grow up when it was you who exploded because you were provided with evidence that was different to your opinion? You are not being attacked, just educated.
Whenever you debate someone about MJ, and they change the subject, or attack you personally, or they stop talking to you altogether, simply because you stated the facts, then you know you were effective and convincing in your defense of MJ. Good job Tahlia and Ashley! You stood your ground, and made them admit the REAL reason they are so uneducated about MJ; they’re TOO LAZY to do any research!
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire (also Hasty Conclusion, Jumping to a Conclusion). The dangerous fallacy of quickly drawing a conclusion and/or taking action without sufficient evidence. E.g., “My neighbor Jaminder Singh wears a long beard and a turban and speaks a funny language. Where there’s smoke there’s fire. This is war, our country is in danger, and that’s all the evidence we need to string him up!’” A variety of the “Just in Case” fallacy.
Do I really need to give examples of this fallacy? It’s something that we’ve ALL heard a gazillion times before; “If all of these people are making allegations, then they must be true!” But once the dust settles, so to speak, all of the smoke quickly dissipates into the air! This blog is living proof of that! Ironically, one of the best researched and most detailed blogs on the net is aptly titled “Smoke Without Fire”.
In the final part in this series, I will give examples of how NOT to defend Michael Jackson…….
Thank you to all of the readers of Vindicate MJ!
We have hit a major milestone! The blog has recently topped 500,000 all-time views! This is a groundbreaking achievement for us, and we couldn’t have done it without the support of the thousands of readers!
500k hits!
The authors of the blog (who are listed at the bottom right hand corner of the page) have put in thousands of man-hours of research into eradicating these false charges against Michael, as well as the “drug addict”, “skin bleaching”, “homosexual”, “self-hating black man”, and “female hormones” myths, among others. We’ve read thousands of pages of official court pleadings and testimonies, hundreds of articles, dozens of books, watched hundreds of videos and documentaries, all in our attempt to clear his name and clean his legacy of the stain of all of the lies that were peddled about him through both the mainstream and tabloid media (which are hardly distinguishable anymore).
Since I know that enquiring minds want to know, here is the complete breakdown of the number of views each post has received (with the home page getting the most hits, as it’s the page that people bookmark). The “Porn” post is obviously the most viewed post for obvious reasons, mostly because of the title! Many people have probably stumbled upon that post by doing an internet search, and opened it expecting to find pornographic photos or something!!
Here are the top search terms that people have used to find the site. Notice the number of people who have found this site by doing a search of my name and MJ. I must be a pretty popular guy!
513 people found this blog by searching for me?!!
Our busiest day was November 10th, 2011, the day we exposed the whereabouts of Gavin and Star Arvizo, and the connections they have with so many of MJ’s enemies! We received a record 2,899 total hits, and that particular post received 1,254 hits! (What we usually receive in a day!)
Here, you can see the posts with the most comments:
Here are the summary tables, which show the average number of hits per day, week, month and year. For example, in calendar year 2011 we have a total of hits, at an average of per day. Notice the study uptick in the average number of hits over the last few months!
Unfortunately, with success comes hate, and I’ve been attacked by some idiots who are obviously jealous of this blog’s success and influence. Here is what the notorious Bonnie Cox (who has also attacked Charles Thomson) has had to say about me recently:
Well Bonnie, I’m still waiting on my check! Maybe I should sue the Estate for failure to pay me the salary that they promised me!
And you can read this post of hers to see what she said on her blog last year. If you do a search of my name on her blog, you’ll find many more inaccurate things written about me, and many others!
Here is what some idiot told me after a recent spat that I had with her a few weeks ago a facebook:
I've never been so insulted in my life!
As you can see, she admits that she doesn’t follow the blog, has only read it “a few times”, and what she read was “interesting, but not very relevant”. Isn’t that a contradiction? There must have been some relevance to her if she found it interesting, right?
I asked her if she knows everything there is to know about the allegations, and if she has read all of the tens of thousands of pages of official court documents and transcripts, and if she has read every single book that has been written about the allegations. If so, I was willing to recommend her to Helena that she be offered a chance to write for this blog, since her knowledge of the allegations is so vast that she finds this blog irrelevant to her? Needless to say, she never answered my questions, and we haven’t spoken since!
She’s the type of fan who is obviously too lazy to do any sort of substantive research on MJ to debunk the allegations (“Why should I read all of those books and testimonies and court pleadings if I already know he’s innocent?”); instead, she’s one of those groupies who would rather watch “This Is It” for the 100th time, or go to some fangirl site and talk about how sexy MJ looks in his gold pants! I still can’t believe she had the audacity to tell me this blog is irrelevant, just because we had a minor disagreement! We’ve done more for MJ than she ever will!
I decided to be the bigger man in all of this, and blacken out her name, so nobody will be tempted to send her angry messages. Maybe one day she’ll read this post and realize how STUPID her comments were! Those aforementioned stats completely validate how relevant and valuable this blog really is to the fan community!
With that said, let’s hope the next 500,000 hits come a lot faster than the first 500,000! At this rate, they surely will!
Update!! December 12th, 2011
We received the following email today from a reader who is using our blog as a source for a research project. To me, this completely validates this blog, and epitomizes my purpose of writing blog. When I first started researching the allegations after MJ died, I looked high and low for a blog or website where I could find all of the information that I needed in one place, but alas those places were few and far between. I only found a handful of decent sites, and Vindicate MJ was one of them, and when I started writing for this blog, I wanted to do my best to make this blog a one-stop repository of information about the false allegations for serious researchers, and the email below is only one of many that we’ve received over the last few years. This was sent to us a few days ago, so I decided to post it as visual proof of how relevant we are!
Thanks for all of your support!
This is proof of how relevant this blog really is!
Hello! I’m writing a research paper on Michael Jackson and I wanted to site this wonderful webpage as source. But I do not know any of the authors names. I’m using the pages written about Michael Jackson’s 1993 and 2003 REAL STORY. Is it okay if I use this as a source? Could I have the author’s name to site the source?
Update!! January 9th, 2012!!
Here is further validation of how influential the blog is becoming! Look who’s following me on Twitter!
Let’s keep up the good work, guys!
How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used By Michael Jackson Haters, Part 3 of 5
Let the takedown of Gloria Allred begin……………….
Allred should do this more often!
The Half Truth (also Card Stacking, Incomplete Information). A corrupt argument from logos, the fallacy of telling the truth but deliberately omitting important key details in order to falsify the larger picture and support a false conclusion (e.g. “The truth is that Ciudad Juárez is one of the world’s fastest growing cities and can boast of a young, ambitious and hard-working population, mild winters, a dry and sunny climate, low cost medical and dental care, a multitude of churches and places of worship, delicious local cuisine and a swinging nightclub scene. Taken together, all these facts clearly prove that Juarez is one of the world’s most desirable places for young families to live, work and raise a family.”)
This is probably the second most used fallacy (behind the aforementioned Big Lie and ad hominem techniques). Dimond repeatedly used this technique in her roundtable discussion with TruTV’s “In Session”, as well her partners in crime Nancy Grace, Maureen Orth, and Gloria Allred.
Speaking of Allred, I scanned the chapter of her 2006 book “Fight Back and Win: My Thirty-year Fight Against Injustice” that is dedicated to MJ and the 2005 trial, and I almost fell out of my chair when I read her “analysis”! She should be utterly ASHAMED of herself for peddling such biased trash to her gullible readers! Here is a verbatim copy of everything she had to say about the trial, beginning on page 254 (my commentary is in red):
THE MYSTERY OF MICHAEL JACKSON
In December 2002, Michael Jackson, hobbling on crutches (reportedly from a tarantula bite), made his way through the press crowd outside a Santa Maria, California, courthouse for an appearance in a $38 million civil case—a contractual dispute filed against him by a concert promoter.
“Michael! What do you think of Gloria Alfred?” called out Jane Velez-Mitchell from TV’s Celebrity Justice.
From underneath a black umbrella held by his security guard to shield him from the sun’s glare came the response, delivered in his trademark breathy baby’s voice.
“Who’s Gloria Allred?”
The question drew chuckles from some of the press corps. How could Michael Jackson not know who I was? I had briefly represented a young boy in 1993 who accused him of child molestation. More recently, on November 26, 2002, I had filed a complaint with authorities in Santa Barbara, California (the jurisdiction that includes his Neverland estate) after seeing him dangle his nine-month-old baby, Prince Michael II, over the side of a fourth floor hotel balcony in Berlin, Germany.
Mitchell replied, “She’s the attorney who’s filed a complaint against you with Child Protective Services.”
Again, the voice came from under the umbrella: “Ahh . . . tell her to go to hell.”
Some reporters told me later that they were stunned by the response—not by the words, but by the tone in which they were delivered. The baby voice was replaced by a deep, angry adult male voice no one had ever heard before in public. I suspect that the real Michael Jackson temporarily peeked through the crack in his carefully maintained facade.
His “tell her to go to hell” comment played over and over on the evening news and reporters called me for a response.
I said, “While Michael Jackson wants me to go to hell, I want him to go to parenting class to learn how to protect rather than endanger his baby. My hope is that, upon reflection, he will realize that this is not about me, but about his behavior.”
Michael Jackson needed a wake-up call. He appeared to live a sheltered life surrounded by people who might only tell him what he wanted to hear. He seemed to think that what he did was okay. Well, I wasn’t a member of his entourage. I didn’t think that he deserved special treatment or that he should be allowed to take advantage of his fame to engage in actions that endangered a child—actions which, if engaged in by a non-celebrity, would have been condemned and investigated.
Dangling his baby over the side of the fourth floor balcony was reckless and irresponsible conduct. It demonstrated a complete lack of parental awareness of the substantial risk of great bodily harm or death that could have resulted had he dropped the baby. I told reporters that if Michael Jackson was truly sorry, he should demonstrate that in deeds not words by voluntarily submitting himself to a Child Protective Services investigation into whether he had endangered the baby and whether the child should be removed from his care. I said that children of celebrities deserve no more and no less protection than any other child. Rather than attacking me, Michael Jackson needed to address the problem. I felt that he needed to recognize that his baby was not a toy and that he had a duty to keep the child safe. I said that he should attend parenting class as soon as possible to learn how to become a responsible parent.
That he was able to avoid many of the consequences of his questionable treatment of children is disturbing to me. Acting as a private citizen following the child-dangling incident, I wrote to Child Protective Services and the district attorney of Santa Barbara County, Tom Sneddon, asking that they investigate Jackson’s behavior toward children. This was not the first scandal involving Michael Jackson and children, but it made me wonder why the system seemed to give the one-gloved wonder the kid-glove treatment. The mystery behind this apparent special treatment for Jackson dates back to a 1993 incident in which a young boy accused him of sexual abuse.
Law enforcement has publicly confirmed that the child made serious allegations against Jackson and cooperated with police and the district attorney’s office by providing statements. In fact, I took that child to the district attorney’s office in Los Angeles myself when I briefly represented him, and the child gave extensive and detailed answers to those who questioned him. At least one law enforcement officer involved in that investigation said publicly that he found the child to be credible.(As you can see, she’s trying to validate Jordan Chandler’s claim by reminding her readers that the police believed him; this is the fallacy of blind loyalty.)
At the time, I noted that children everywhere were watching to see how this child, who had bravely come forward with allegations against a celebrity, would be treated. Other children might fear what could happen to them if they accused a celebrity or other powerful person of child sexual abuse. Many people loved and trusted Michael Jackson. This thirteen-year-old boy loved and trusted him as well. Unfortunately, that trust was destroyed. At the time, I waited to see if Jackson would be held to the same standards of conduct as any other person. I wondered if he thought that he was above the law.
The outcome was disturbing. In 1994, while the criminal investigation was being conducted, a settlement was reached in a civil lawsuit brought by the boy against Jackson. Another attorney represented him at that time. Although the amount was confidential, reports put the possible settlement at between $ 15 and $20 million.
After that settlement, Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti and Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon announced that there would be no criminal prosecution of Jackson. They said that the child in question now refused to testify, and without his cooperation, the case could not be proven. Was there a connection between Jackson’s civil settlement payment and the sudden implosion of the criminal case? That mystery would take almost a decade to unravel. (Allred just used the “post hoc” fallacy, which will be discussed later.)
In the ensuing years, Jackson married twice and became the father of three children. His 1994 marriage to Lisa Marie Presley ended after twenty months. During his three-year marriage to Debbie Rowe, from 1996 to 1999, she gave birth to a son and daughter, Prince Michael I and Paris. The mother of the third child, Prince Michael II, is unknown.
Just months after the baby-dangling incident, in January 2003, ABC aired a British documentary about Jackson that was taped with interviewer Martin Bashir. Its contents were shocking and ultimately set off Jackson’s latest legal battle. Jackson said that he had slept in his bed with young children unrelated to him and admitted to sleeping on the floor while a child named Gavin slept in his bed.
Bashir asked Gavin, “When you stay here, do you stay in the house? Does Michael let you enjoy the whole premises?”
Gavin replied, “There was one night, I asked him if I could stay in his bedroom. He let me stay in the bedroom. And I was like, ‘Michael, you can sleep in the bed,’ and he was like ‘No, no, you sleep on the bed,’ and I was like ‘No, no, no, you sleep on the bed,’ and then he said, ‘Look if you love me you’ll sleep in the bed.’ I was like ‘Oh man. . .’ so I finally slept on the bed. But it was fun that night.”
Jackson then interjected, “I slept on the floor.”
Later in the interview, Jackson said, “I have slept in a bed with many children. I slept in a bed with all of them when Macaulay Culkin was little. Kieran Culkin would sleep on this side, Macaulay was on this side, his sisters in there—we all would just jam in the bed . . .”
My concern deepened when Jackson said during the same interview that he would allow—and even condone—his own children sleeping with unrelated adult males.
Bashir said, “But Michael, I wouldn’t like my children to sleep in anybody else’s bed.”
Jackson responded, “Well, I wouldn’t mind if I know the person and, well, I am very close to Barry Gibb. Paris and Prince can stay with him anytime. My children sleep with other people all the time.”
I was extremely upset by these new revelations and by Jackson’s seeming total lack of understanding of the true significance of his behavior. I believe it is highly inappropriate for a young child to sleep in the same bedroom with Jackson, in light of the prior accusations of child sexual abuse made against him. A vast number of child psychologists would recommend against such behavior.
Jackson’s apparent condoning of it flew in the face of what many would approve and of common sense.
Jackson’s conduct once again demonstrated a lack of good judgment and a failure to appreciate appropriate adult/child boundaries. Once again, I filed a complaint with the Santa Barbara County Department of Child Welfare Services and forwarded a transcript of the interview. I also sent a complaint to Child Protective authorities in Los Angeles. I urged them to “interview the child named Gavin and any other child who has been in Mr. Jackson’s home and/or bedroom without the presence of their parents.”
Although I received a letter from the Santa Barbara authorities acknowledging receipt of my letter, I had no idea if they acted on it because that information is kept confidential. During Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial, however, a social worker from Los Angeles testified that my name was on her referral—and that this was the reason she went to interview Gavin.
There was another part of the Bashir interview that I believe offered new insight into the sudden implosion of the 1993 child sexual abuse criminal case.
Bashir asked Jackson: “The reason that has been given for why you didn’t go to jail [in 1994] is because you reached a financial settlement with the family?”
Jackson responded, “Yeah, I didn’t want to do a long drawn-out thing on TV like O. J. and all that stupid stuff, you know, it wouldn’t look right. I said, ‘Look, let’s get this thing over with. I want to go on with my life. This is ridiculous, I’ve had enough. Go.’”
To me, Jackson’s comments answered the question that had been hanging in the air since 1994: Was there, at a minimum, a connection in Mr. Jackson’s mind between payment to the child to settle a civil suit and his being spared from a criminal prosecution which might have resulted in his going to jail? (In this example, Allred is using the post hoc fallacy to try and show a connection between the settlement and the collapse of the criminal case.)
The answer, if one listened to Jackson’s own words in the Bashir-Jackson exchange, seemed to be yes. The “long drawn-out thing on TV like O.J.” to which Jackson was apparently referring was the criminal trial of Mr. Simpson, since the civil case was never televised. Arguably, in this context, the only way that Jackson could go on with his life when he’d “had enough” was for the criminal case to “go” or disappear. That is exactly what happened after the settlement.
I took my concerns to Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley in March 2003. I asked him if the payment of the civil settlement might be viewed as an effort on Michael Jackson’s part to obstruct justice in the criminal case. California law makes it a felony to bribe a witness not to attend trial or withhold testimony. The purpose of these laws is to assure that the justice system can operate fully and fairly, without improper interference. It must not be corruptible. While civil settlements may be reached in cases that may also allege acts that could be criminally prosecuted, those agreements may not include promises not to testify in a criminal case. If they do, the settlement itself would be void and parties to it might be subjected to obstruction of justice criminal charges.(Gee Gloria, if MJ was never charged with obstruction of justice, shouldn’t that tell you that the settlement wasn’t “hush money”, and that it didn’t include any promises not to testify?) I felt that a grand jury should have been impaneled years ago by former DA Gil Garcetti to determine whether or not there was an obstruction of justice or an attempt by Michael Jackson to obstruct justice.
DA Steve Cooley and I agreed that victims of child sexual abuse should know that civil settlements can’t preclude a victim or witness from talking to law enforcement about a crime. A person cannot enter into a legally enforceable contract to conceal illegal activity, such as child abuse. In other words, a person accused of such a crime can’t buy a child’s silence. (Thanks for letting us know that, Gloria! You just answered your own question! All that money you spent on law school really paid off, huh?)
Unfortunately, even if a crime had been committed, it was now too late to prosecute—the six-year statute of limitations on the case had expired. I was concerned that Jackson had left the impression that the rich and powerful can buy their way out of the criminal justice system. The public might have been left with the impression that the system allowed poor defendants to be prosecuted for child sexual abuse, while it spared the rich, who could afford multimillion-dollar civil settlements.
I appreciated the opportunity to meet with District Attorney Cooley to discuss these important issues with him and I vowed to continue to be alert to both public and private reports about Michael Jackson and his behavior with children.
In November 2003, those reports became very public indeed. Jackson was arrested on seven counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under the age of fourteen, and two counts of using an intoxicating agent to commit those acts. An article in Vanity Fair suggested there might be evidence that Jackson placed alcohol in the soda pop cans of the minor and showed pornography to him.
I again filed a formal complaint asking the Santa Barbara Department of Child Welfare Services to open an investigation into whether Michael Jackson’s children should be removed from his care and custody and whether the Juvenile Court should immediately assume jurisdiction over the children for their protection.
California law provided that the Juvenile Court could step in when “there is a substantial risk that a child will be sexually abused by his or her parent or by a member or his or her household.”
In light of the criminal charges against Jackson, coupled with the 1993 sexual abuse complaint and his own admission that he has slept with young children in his bed, I felt there were more than sufficient grounds for such an action. Authorities have the right and responsibility to protect children who are at substantial risk or harm, even before a conviction or acquittal in a criminal case. Protection of children is always paramount. Many people feel that if Jackson were not a celebrity, but had the same history with children, his own children would have been temporarily removed from his care long ago.
On January 14, 2004, after Michael Jackson moved his legal residence from Neverland in Santa Barbara County to Beverly Hills, in Los Angeles County, I filed a similar complaint with the Los Angeles County Department of Child and Family Services asking that it temporarily remove the children from his care. The next month I filed a formal application with department director David Sanders, asking that Juvenile Court proceedings be started.
In March I was notified that the department would not be taking any court action. Based on that decision, I felt it was absolutely necessary for me to file directly with the Juvenile Court, which I did on March 17, 2004. The Court now had to review the decision of the social worker who had decided not to remove the children, and it could either affirm his or her decision or order the social worker to commence Juvenile Court proceedings. The response of the Court was that that matter was still being investigated. It remains a mystery to me why Jackson’s children have not yet been temporarily removed from his care, in light of the known facts.
I was happy to hear in April 2004 that Jackson would go to trial. All of the facts could now come out in a court of law, where Michael Jackson would not be able to hide behind his fame, money, or power. The public would finally be able to see the face behind the mask and the life behind Neverland’s closed doors. “Mr. Jackson, the gloves are off!” I said at the time.
Michael Jackson went on trial in March 2005. As it unfolded, we saw and heard a great deal of new and deeply troubling evidence in regard to his behavior around children. The alleged victim, first seen in the Martin Bashir TV interview, claimed under oath that Jackson molested him on a minimum of two occasions when he was thirteen years old. According to the child, the two were alone in the master bedroom suite of Neverland when Michael Jackson offered to teach him how to masturbate. The child testified that he hesitated, but Jackson explained to him that men who did not masturbate could become unstable and rape women. He said that Jackson told him “It was okay—it was natural .. . that’s when he put his hand down my pants.” The child went on to relate in some detail his allegation that Jackson molested him that night, and again on the following night.
The child’s younger brother testified under oath that he personally witnessed Michael Jackson masturbating his brother on two occasions, in Jackson’s bed. “I saw Michael’s left hand in my brother’s underwear and saw his right hand in his [own] underwear,” he testified. “He was masturbating. He was rubbing himself.” The younger brother also testified that Jackson had provided him, his brother, and other boys with wine, adult-oriented magazines, and access to sexually explicit Internet sites.
Both brothers testified that on one occasion Jackson appeared in front of them naked, with an erection. The alleged victim testified that [the brothers'| response was, "Euwwww! . . . [because] we never really saw a grown man, like, naked before.”
They also testified that Michael Jackson provided them with wine and hard liquor on multiple occasions. The alleged child victim said that Jackson routinely gave him wine in soda cans, encouraging him to drink it and referring to it as “Jesus Juice.” He described his feelings when he drank vodka that he testified Jackson supplied: “. . . it smelled like rubbing alcohol … I chucked it back really quick … it really burned. And then like two or three seconds later my head started . . . like it looked like the room was spinning, so I put my head inside the couch.”
The alleged child victim testified that he’d had concerns about all the liquor he was drinking with Jackson, because it might show up on routine urine tests he underwent as part of his treatment for cancer. The child said he asked Jackson what to do about it and Jackson replied, “Doo-doo, just don’t take the test.”
A former Neverland housekeeper and former Neverland house manager testified that they had seen children intoxicated on the estate on multiple occasions. The former house manager testified that he once saw three boys whom Mr. Jackson had taken on a tour of the wine cellar come out “drunk.”
A twenty-four-year-old man gave emotional testimony that Jackson had molested him multiple times when he was a young boy staying at Neverland while his mother worked as Jackson’s personal maid. After the first incident, which the man testified began as a “tickle session” but escalated into unwanted sexual touching by Jackson, the pop singer allegedly slipped the boy a $100 bill and said, “Don’t tell your mom.” Similar incidents of tickling-into-sexual-touching by Jackson continued for approximately three years, until the child was ten-and-a-half years old, according to the witness.
The same man’s mother, the former personal maid, testified that she had seen multiple boys spend the night in Michael Jackson’s bedroom. She had seen one young boy she could identify taking a shower with Jackson, as their underwear lay together on the floor. She had also once seen Jackson in bed, nude from the waist up, watching TV with a boy. She also testified that child actor Macaulay Culkin had spent nights in Jackson’s bed with him during her employment there.
A man testified that he was once called to bring French fries to Jackson and Macaulay Culkin at around 3:00 A.M. When he arrived with the snack, he testified, he saw Jackson fondling the child: “Jackson’s left hand was inside the pants of the kid , . . down in the pants … in the crotch area. I was shocked. I nearly dropped the French fries.”
Macaulay Culkin denied that Michael molested him, but a former security supervisor at Neverland testified that he witnessed a late-night Jacuzzi session with Michael Jackson and Culkin, after which the two disappeared behind a locked restroom door, then emerged wearing only towels, with Jackson carrying the child “piggy-back” style into the house and locking the door behind them. The security supervisor noted that in the past he’d “never recalled Mr. Jackson locking the house.” He later observed two pairs of swimming trunks about two feet from each other on the stone floor of the restroom. A former Jackson security guard also allegedly witnessed this incident; he testified that, out of curiosity, he peeked into the restroom containing Jackson and Culkin and observed Jackson kneeling down to perform oral sex on the boy.
Still, Michael Jackson was acquitted on all charges on June 13, 2005. (Gee Gloria, would you mind explaining to your readers WHY he acquitted? How about being a little fair and balanced, you know?)
Several of the jurors said later that they believe molestation had occurred. Juror Raymond Hultman said on the Today show that he believed Michael Jackson has a pattern of molesting young boys, although he was not persuaded of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. (We debunked them in this post, and in this post.)
Given the serious and substantial new evidence provided under oath during the criminal trial, I again sent a complaint to Santa Barbara Department of Child Welfare Services requesting that they initiate a much-needed investigation into Michael Jackson’s activities with children at Neverland. I urged that the Jackson children be immediately removed on a temporary basis from his custody during the investigation.
Although in a criminal case the prosecution is required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction, the burden of proof for removal of children by Child Protective or Child Welfare Services is much less. There must be clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if left in parental custody, and there must be no reasonable means of protecting the minor’s physical health without removing the child from parental physical custody.
Therefore, whether or not Michael Jackson was convicted is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not his children should be temporarily removed from his care and declared dependent children of the court. Given the testimony at trial by the alleged child victim in the criminal case, his brother, and other witnesses, I believe that the Department of Child Welfare Services of Santa Barbara County should have immediately intervened in order to protect the health and welfare of Jackson’s three minor children. I am convinced that they would have done so if that parent had not been a celebrity.
Children of celebrities should not receive less protection than children of non-celebrities.
You’ve got to be kidding me, right? This should prove, once and for all, that MJ’s haters are not ignorant of the facts; they know EXACTLY what they’re doing when they smear MJ! She researched the case well enough to be able to describe the testimonies of the Arvizos, Jason Francia, the Neverland 5, etc., yet she didn’t devote a single sentence to Mesereau’s demolishment of them under cross-examination! This is the very definition of not only a half-truth, but also the blind loyalty fallacy as well! Her readers will proudly admit that they believe her analysis solely because of her extensive legal record (as if that makes her analysis above reproach!)
For more examples of Allred’s treachery, look no further than her involvement with Daniel Kapon, one of the many “phantom victims” whose claims of molestation dissipated like smoke in a summer breeze once they were scrutinized! For more information, please read this post on MJ’s phantom victims, and this post on how MJ’s settlements were not signs of guilt. This post deals with Allred’s minor involvement with the Chandler family in 1993, prior to their decision to FIRE HER for trying to thwart their plan of suing MJ first by going for a criminal trial. Here is an excerpt from All That Glitters, page 167, where Ray Chandler describes the rationale of Evan’s decision to fire her:
By the conclusion of the meeting, June and Dave, like Evan before them, had no doubts about switching from Gloria Allred to Larry Feldman. The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement. Avoiding the trauma that a lengthy criminal or civil lawsuit would bring to the entire family, especially Jordie, was a no-brainier.
Gloria Allred's Termination Letter from the Chandlers
If you want to see something truly hilarious, look no further than this interview Allred granted to Hollywood TV on July 29th, 2009, where she reminds everyone that Conrad Murray is entitled to the presumption of innocence, a fair trial, blah blah blah, yet certainly she didn’t give MJ that presumption, as evidenced from her book!
Ironically, a few weeks ago she gave an interview to Radar Online, and she proudly proclaimed that the public should “remember” the allegations against MJ! Click here to listen to it. (The interview is around 40 minutes long.)
And for additional laughs, let’s look at this literal TRIFECTA of MJ haters sit there and pretend that they give a damn about who gets custody of Prince, Paris, and Blanket! Allred, her daughter Lisa Bloom, and Wendy Murphy (who once called MJ the “Teflon Molester”) go toe to toe with each other over the appropriateness of Debbie Rowe getting custody!
Here is a recent tweet from Lisa Bloom, who criticized the Jackson family for what she perceived as hypocrisy from them. If you think her feelings on MJ have changed because he’s dead, think again! You can see how she used the Blind Loyalty fallacy to make her followers think that MJ’s refusal to testify was a sign of guilt!
This is typical from a Michael Jackson hater!
In Part 4, I will give readers a list of bulletproof questions that they can ask to any skeptic who is willing to engage in civil discourse about the allegations……
The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree!
Update January 5th, 2012
Here is the transcript of Gloria Allred’s interview with Bill O’Reilly on February 10th, 2003, just a week after the Bashir crockumentary aired! The executive director of Prevent Child Abuse America, Sid Johnson, was also a guest that night. The main topic of discussion was the leaking of Jordan Chandler’s declaration (not a deposition, as we clearly delineated in this post), and it’s interesting to note that both Bill O’Reilly and Sid Johnson expressed their doubts about Jordan’s claims, due to the fact that his words didn’t sound like a typical 12-year old, thus implying that he could have been coached to lie (which he was!). My commentary is in red!
Personal Story: Interview With Attorney Gloria Allred, Prevent Child Abuse America’s Sid Johnson
The O’Reilly Factor (Fox News Network)
February 10, 2003 | Bill O’Reilly
00-00-0000
O’REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I’m Bill O’Reilly.In the “Personal Story” Segment tonight, a Web site called thesmokinggun.com has released a 1993 court document by a 12-year-old boy alleging a sexual relationship with Michael Jackson.
You may remember Jackson, according to “The New York Times”,” paid the boy $25 million to settle the case. The deposition’s very graphic, very disturbing. I’m not going to go further than that.
Joining us from Los Angeles is attorney Gloria Allred, who was involved in the case, and, from Chicago, Sid Johnson, the executive director of Prevent Child Abuse America.
Gloria, I’m going to start with you. I was going to start with Mr.
Johnson, but something caught my eye here, and I want to start with you.
On August 30, 1993, you were retained by the boy, and then, about 10 days later, you quit the case. Why did you quit? (She didn’t quit; she was FIRED!!!)
GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY: Well, I really can’t comment on that. But I am concerned about Michael Jackson and his admission in the documentary last week that he sleeps with young children, and I think it’s highly inappropriate that an adult male like Michael Jackson, who’s 44 years old and who has prior accusations against him of child sexual abuse, be sleeping with young children…
O’REILLY: OK. All right.
ALLRED: … and…
O’REILLY: But we all know that. We all…
(CROSSTALK) ALLRED: … lack of judgment.
O’REILLY: That was — we covered that last week ad infinitum.
But you’ve got to give me some kind of hint, Gloria, here because it’s important. It’s important for the nation to know and be fair to Michael Jackson. I mean, I don’t want to — I’m not here to ruin anybody. (O’Reilly obviously had a change of heart in 2005 during the trial, and after his death!)
Now you quit this case. I know you very well, all right. You have very high standards, and you represent your clients very aggressively.
Everybody knows that, Gloria.
For you to walk away from a case, there had to be something there that disturbed you. Can’t you give us some kind of parameter here?
ALLRED: You know, I really can’t comment on that. All I can say is that I am concerned about his present conduct…
O’REILLY: All right. Let me — let me ask you…
ALLRED: … and I have been concerned about his past conduct.
O’REILLY: All right. Fine. The — do you, in this case — are you comfortable with the deposition that was released today as being true?
ALLRED: You know, I can’t comment on whether it’s true or not. It was a court filing, and I think it speaks for itself. We don’t know what the exact settlement. We — that the confidentiality…
O’REILLY: All right. If you were my producer…
(CROSSTALK) ALLRED: … involved in the settlement would…
O’REILLY: If you were my…
ALLRED: But we don’t know that…
O’REILLY: If you were my producer, Gloria — look, if you answer my questions, you’re not going to get in any trouble, and you’re not going to violate anybody’s confidence. If you were my producer on THE FACTOR tonight, would you tell me to be very skeptical of that deposition?
ALLRED: Well, I think everybody has to judge for themselves.
O’REILLY: But we can’t because we don’t know. We don’t — the 12- year-old boy says things that are very beyond a 12-year-old boy. We know that. I mean, the deposition’s beyond a 12-year-old boy — what an ordinary boy at that age would say, but I don’t know whether this kid was making this up or not, you know.
ALLRED: Well, it’s obvious that Michael Jackson by his own admission says he sleeps with young children. So, if an adult male like Michael Jackson sleeps with young children, this is the kind of harm that one is worried about and adults would be worried about would occur if…
O’REILLY: All right. Now I’m going to assume…
ALLRED: … an adult is sleeping with young children.
O’REILLY: I’m going to assume, Gloria, since you are still speaking out on this case, since you are still anti-Michael Jackson, all right, that what you learned in the 10 days that you were a part of this case, did not give you any reason to feel sorry for this man, Michael Jackson. I’m going to assume that. Is that OK if I assume that?
ALLRED: I think it’s fair to assume that I’m always concerned about protecting children from child sexual abuse…
O’REILLY: All right.
ALLRED: … and that’s what I’ve been doing for 26 years…
O’REILLY: OK. Good. I think we’ve got it.
ALLRED: … and I do have concerns about Michael Jackson, about a substantial risk of harm if children are in his bed or in his bedroom or at Neverland without the presence of their parents. (This is false! Parents -who were close friends of MJ, not strangers - always gave their permission for their children to sleep in his bedroom, and many times they slept there with them! JC Agajanian explains this in this post.)
O’REILLY: All right. We got it. Now that wasn’t hard, Gloria. It only took me two-and-a-half minutes to drag it out of you.
Now, Mr. Johnson, you heard Gloria Allred, all right, who, obviously, knows things that we don’t know. She’s involved with this case for 10 days, saw things, interviewed people, talked to the little boy who’s now 22 years old, OK. What should be done now? Because the Santa Barbara D.A.
doesn’t look like he’s going to do anything.
SID JOHNSON, PREVENT CHILD ABUSE AMERICAN: Clearly, Bill, there should be an investigation, and we wrote to the district attorney and asked for one. He decided not to do it. If he’s unable to do it, child protective services in Santa Barbara should start an investigation.
O’REILLY: All right, but you know what a bureaucracy that is, and, basically, the D.A. out there — and he’s a cocky guy, this guy Tom Sneddon. He said, oh, it’s not against the law to sleep with any — with a child, you know. That’s a stupid statement. He should be ashamed of himself. But, anyway… (The PDF of Sneddon’s press release is included below.)
ALLRED: And…
O’REILLY: Wait a minute, Gloria. I’ll — I’ll give you…
But, anyway, look, you need a complainant here, Mr. Johnson. You need somebody to come forth and say, look, I want to press charges. It looks like this kid and his family had been bought off for $2 million to $25 million.
JOHNSON: We wrote the district attorney because that ’93 case, which was settled out of court, is still active. It has not been closed, and we thought the district attorney might investigate. If he doesn’ t feel he has the facts to investigate, child protective services can investigate without a victim coming forward.
O’REILLY: Yes, but they won’t.
JOHNSON: Here’s a fundamental question. If you knew your neighbor was engaged in this kind of activity, wouldn’t you report that for an investigation?
O’REILLY: Of course you would. But, look — look, we filed a complaint — Mr. Johnson, we filed, you may know this, against Whitney Houston…
JOHNSON: Right, right.
O’REILLY: … for using drugs or — you know, in front of her kid or saying she did and having this chaos. Jersey social services – - they don’t care. They didn’t do a thing because they’re afraid of the rich people, aren’t they, Gloria?
ALLRED: Well, I am always concerned, as I know you are, Bill, with whether there are two standards of justice — one for celebrities and one for everybody else — and there should only be one standard of justice and the same standard for everybody, not better or worse for celebrities. But sometimes it does seem that celebrities get the benefit of the doubt…
(CROSSTALK) O’REILLY: Absolutely. They’re afraid of them.
Now this guy Sneddon — he’s not going to do it. You’ve talked to him, Gloria, have you?
ALLRED: Well, I’ve — I’ve communicated with him and he’s communicated with me by letter.
But let me just say over the baby-dangling incident — let me just say that, of course, if there’s not a full investigation, then there can’t be a prosecution and there can’t be a conviction, which is not to say that Michael Jackson has committed a crime.
But you’re right. Children’s protective services, which is known as children’s welfare service in Santa Barbara should investigate. That’s what I asked them to do when I faxed them a letter early Tuesday morning and gave them the entire transcript of the documentary where Jackson admits sleeping with young children.
O’REILLY: They’re not going to do it. They’re just…
ALLRED: And they don’t — they’re — they don’t have to believe that there was a crime for them to investigate. All they have to do is believe there’s a substantial risk of harm, and I think that Michael Jackson has demonstrated that through his conduct.
O’REILLY: All right. What do they…
JOHNSON: And it’s everybody’s…
O’REILLY: Go ahead, Mr. Johnson.
JOHNSON: … best interests. It’s in the best interest of knowing the children are protected or it’s in the best interest of clearing Michael Jackson if nothing happened.
O’REILLY: All right.
JOHNSON: But there are four reasons that this — this is not an isolated example. The deposition with the graphic and disgusting information…
O’REILLY: It was. And wasn’t that far beyond a 12-year-old, Mr.
Johnson? You’re an expert here.
JOHNSON: It certainly was.
O’REILLY: It was way beyond a 12-year-old~!
JOHNSON: And then there was Michael Jackson dangling his infant from a balcony over…
O’REILLY: Yes. All right. Let’s — that’s been…
JOHNSON: Then…
O’REILLY: Look, let me — I’ve got to stop you because I’ve got to go. We’re going to put in a call to the head of the California social services child protection agency.
But I guarantee you they’re going to say, well, it’s private, we can’ t — they’re going to do the dance. They’re going to do the dance they always do.
But both of you stay on this…
ALLRED: And they’ll say that because, in the law, it’s confidential.
O’REILLY: OK. Let’s stay on the story, and we will see if anything happens.
ALLRED: Thank you.
O’REILLY: Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Here is the press release from Prevent Child Abuse America that was issued on February 6th, 2003, asking for MJ to be investigated after the aftermath of the Bashir documentary:
Here is the press release from Sneddon that Bill O’Reilly said was a “stupid statement” for which Sneddon “should be ashamed of himself”:
And here is the DCFS report’s report following their investigation that Prevent Child Abuse America lobbied so hard for. It speaks for itself!
It was quite refreshing to see O’Reilly actually be fair to MJ, but it’s too bad it didn’t last very long! As for Allred, she was her usual pathetic, dispicable, vindictive self, as always…………………………….
Here is an interview of Gloria Allred conducted by Geraldo Rivera on November 21, 2004 in which she discusses the upcoming trial. At the beginning of the video, an editor of The Smoking Gun discusses the leaking of the above DCFS report, and how they were attacked for being on MJ’s side!
sanemjfan
Deborah
lynande51
thetis7
lisathelawyer
sara101mj
rockforeveron
