Skip to content

“PORN” found in Michael Jackson’s home 4

July 20, 2010

SPREAD THIS NEWS

We are coming to the end of the list of ‘evidence’ seized at Neverland in 2003 at last. Just one final touch and I’ll be free as a bird…

The list was long and for some reason several books were reviewed by the police twice – for example “Taormina” by Wilhelm Von Gloeden which is found in the last part of the police review again. Well, since they are repeating it let me also add a couple of details to the description given earlier.

“Taormina” is a collection of photographs from a famous photographer (who was born in the 19th century and died in 1931) made in a spot called Taormina somewhere in Sicily. The main fun of the book is that the photographer took pictures of young Sicilian peasants as Roman and Greek gods. None of those photographs depicted the individuals “in sexually explicit activities”, according to the police.

The point I’d like to add here is that now that it is clear that Michael used those photography books for his work it seems very much likely that Taormina (as well as Parrish’s painting of 1922) inspired Michael to include some antique scenes into his “You are not alone” video with Lisa Maria Presley. See what Wayne Isham who directed the video (videostatic.com interview) says about it:

“We had planned out all these elements for the video and then Michael had this idea where he wanted to use this Greek, classical-styled, artistic imagery. And, he wanted to appear in it naked with his wife, Lisa Marie Presley. Like they were Greek gods. It had nothing to do with the video we were doing, but I said, “OK, that’s cool. We can shoot it.”

Oh, I can very well understand that – when people are in love they do feel like gods with no one around because true love is something really HEAVENLY.

The next book on the police list is titled, The Golden Age of Neglect, by Ed Templeton. The police officer says about it:

“This book appeared to be signed by Ed Templeton in 2003. The signature was on the inside front cover. This book appeared to be a compilation of photographs which pertained to problem issues with adolescents and teenagers. These issues seemed to focus on antisocial behavior on the part of adolescents including alcohol consumption and sexual behavior. Specifically, the sexual behavior depicted in this book contained photographs which depicted  male and female subjects, in various stages of undress, including full nudity…. It should be noted the subjects who appear in the photographs which depicted the sexually explicit poses, appeared to be within the age range of late adolescence to young adults. However, I was unable to accurately determine whether the subjects were under eighteen years. Therefore, I was unable to determine with any accuracy if material within this book could be considered child pornography”.

The Golden age of Neglect

The main thing here is that the book was signed by its author which automatically turns it into a present and closes  discussion of this book once and for all. However my curiosity led me to the Amazon.com to see their “product description” for the book. This is what they say:

  • “There are teenage smokers and drinkers. There are those whose despondence reads clearly as they confront the camera with vacant eyes. This is a classic example of Ed Templeton’s work which is deeply anchored in street life and street style, music (rock, punk, and rap), and graphic culture (wall paintings, murals, tags, and graffiti). A fixture of the Los Angeles skateboarding scene, Ed Templeton has been producing photographs, documenting a real story of his life, international tours, and encounters in the skateboarding world for over 10 years. This book is the reprint of the original version, which quickly rose to cult status shortly after its first printing in 2003.”

The Age of Neglect

The above makes The Golden age of Neglect our second book about adolescent behavior (the first one was The Fourth Sex, Adolescent extremes discussed in previous parts).  Don’t they form a certain pattern when taken together? EXTREME behavior of  adolescence and NEGLECT as one of the reasons for it?

Is it a terrible surprise that Michael Jackson was interested in these problems? Absolutely not. Michael was very much concerned about parents’ neglect for their children and the harmful effect it has on the younger generation. He spoke of this problem on numerous occasions, even proclaiming (in his Oxford University speech) that Friday evening should be the time when children must have their parents all to themselves, adding a somewhat sad and funny note that children should NOT be the ones to compete with the evening news for their parents’ attention.

The Age of Neglect

So if these two books are an “evidence” of anything at all, the only thing they speak to is that Michael was very much concerned about the problem of adolescent defiant and often criminal behavior and that he was a top responsible parent himself, as he was getting ready well in advance for the adolescent age his own children would one day naturally reach too.

The last and the worst book in our list is exhibit 596 titled “Man, a Sexual Study of Man” with text material by Larry Stevens. This book was at the very top of the prosecution hit list during the 2005 trial. The police officer described it as ‘a compilation of photographs and writings, which pertained to homosexual activity between men. The photographs depicted naked males engaged in sexually explicit activities including oral copulation and anal sex.’

I honestly tried to find it in the internet but couldn’t – which is probably a sign that the book is indeed breaking all decency rules… The only thing I was able to find is its description on one of the websites: http://music.mylounge.com/showthread.php?p=698090

  • Burbank, CA: DSI. MAN from the publishers of DSI A Sexual Study of Man illustrated with photographs and art prints. Text Material by Larry Stevens. Undated. This is an early gay publication that masquerades as a scientific study of the sexuality of man, but is really erotic fiction.  More photo and illustration than science by far. A large folio sized book of 300 pages with at lest half being illustrations or pictorial in some manny. Condition is Good, some moisture damage to the front cover and the first 20 pages or so causing a minor warp to the  first section. A small 1″ length of the cover is missing right at the bottom of the spine. A fair amount of tanning inside, but otherwise clean and unmarked text.  First Edition. Good. Catalogs: Rare, Out-of-Print, Antiquarian, Gay & Lesbian. (Inventory #000942)

So the book  is an early, rare and now antiquarian gay publication with photographs, art prints and some text masquerading as a scientific study? Interesting…

  • Could this rare copy be a present from somebody? Yes, it could.
  • Could Michael buy it as a scientific study of male sexuality as the title and text of the book innocently suggested it? Easily.
  • Could he buy it to learn of the roots of male same-sex love to avoid some mistakes in upbringing a boy? He naturally could (I did study similar material for this reason too).
  • Could he buy something more contemporary and probably more explicit than this out-dated material if the only thing he wanted was a collection of photographs on homosexual relations? Sure, no problem.
  • Could he be guided by curiosity about “what male sex is all about” or “what the gay movement started with” since the book was one of the first gay books and had long been out of print? He could, why not?

Who knows under what circumstances and for what reason this only one book on homosexuality came into Michael’s possession? I sometimes shudder at the thought what people might think of my own preferences in reading if they look into my computer – after all those posts about pedophilia and Tom O’Carroll’s writings which are left as bookmarks there… OMG, I must erase all that to avoid possible questions and all the embarassment…

Our Suzy spoke about Michael’s curiosity in an admirable way:

  • What straight man would have a book like that? Well, a curious one. As far as I understood from the police document it is a study book on homosexuality, with photos and also with text.  So he had tons of heterosexual porn dated from 1991 to 2003, the date of the house search, tons of heterosexual material on the hard drives of his computers, traces to straight pornographic websites only, but the odd art and study book should reveal the real truth about his sexual orientation? Is that what the haters say? Then I wonder if they would say the same, had it been the other way around: if they had found gay porn magazines instead of heterosexual ones, traces to gay websites instead of heterosexual websites – and the odd art book about naked women and one study book about the heterosexual act. I’m sure they would scream “gay” then, and in that case they would be right. However it was the other way around….. But then again, let me remind you: Michael was not on trial to determine his sexual orientation. Fact is he had nothing illegal in his possession!

So there was ONE  homosexual book and LOTS of ‘sexually explicit’  heterosexual material  in Michael’s possession – absolutely legal and commercially produced. We could leave the discussion at that but as the heterosexual materials were so many I would want to ask one more question which is probably none of my business at all (I am just being curious too) – Are  all those heterosexual materials a sign that elaborate sex shown there was necessarily something he was very much bent on?

I know, I know – this is a question which is beyond the subject of that police list but the reason why I am asking is because I sincerely think he collected all those materials not so much for practising “those tricks” but for educational purposes mostly - you know, just to be knowledgeable of things and learn the subject in all its perfect entirety.

Why am I making such a bold conclusion on the issue which is none of my business at all? Because I remember Michael speaking to Rabbi Shmuley about his preferences in love and sex in those notable tapes which were never meant for the public eye and which are therefore a great source of genuine and first-hand information about his true inclinations. This is what he said there:

  • SB: The women you have dated, the ones who were smart enough not to throw themselves at you, were they the ones that you were more interested in, the ones who weren’t always available and you had to chase them a bit?
  • MJ: The ones who were classy and quiet and not into all the sex and all the craziness because I am not into that.
  • SB: They are the ones that you are more interested in?
  • MJ: Aha. I don’t understand a lot of things that go on in relationships and I don’t know if I ever will. I think that is what has hurt me in my relationships because I don’t understand how people do some of the things they do.
  • SB: Mean things?
  • MJ: Mean things and vulgar things with their bodies. I don’t understand it and it has hurt my relationships.
  • SB: So for you love is something very pure?
  • MJ: Very pure. It shocked me some of the things……….

Michael was pure in his very essence and knowing things for him was not equal to practising them. I’ve also learned a lot of filth since the time I started clearing Michael’s name of it, but it does not mean that it has become part of my life.  Sorry for this off-topic observation – just wanted to share some of my views with you…

Our story would be incomplete if we didn’t look at the way our list of “evidence” (evidence of what, I wonder?) was discussed at a cross-examination during the 2005 trial.

The witness being cross-examined here is Wade Robson who became friends with Michael Jackson at the age of 5, who often accompanied Michael but was never molested by him and who never took a shower with Michael though that Francia maid claimed otherwise.

Wade Robson’s testimony is an interesting read as it provides some more detail on the books already discussed here and the two fiercely opposite points of view from which these books were regarded by the prosecution and the defense:

Mr. Zonen of the prosecution:

Q. Exhibit 596 [Man: A Sexual study of Man], please. Take a moment and look at that book. Let’s stop there for a moment. That’s the first, in fact, picture in that book; is that correct?

A. I didn’t notice, no. Do you want me to go to the first picture?

Q. You know, no, you can pick any picture, actually. Just go ahead and open the book at random. Right there.

A. Oh, sorry.

Q. Is it a fact, as you look through that book, what is depicted in that book throughout that book are a series of photographs of two men engaged in sex acts with one another?

A. Yes.

Q. And in fact, the sex acts are all acts of either masturbation, oral sex or sodomy; is that right?

A. From what I saw, yes.

Q. And sodomy, as you understand, is an act of anal sex; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you be concerned about a person who possesses that book crawling into bed with a ten-year-old boy?

A. Yes, I guess so.

MR. ZONEN: No further questions.

MR. MESEREAU:  May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

Q. Mr. Robson, I want to show you Exhibit No. 841. It says, “Boys Will Be Boys.” Do you see this?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, I’d like you to read the inscription on that book, okay? Read it out loud, if you would.

A. Okay. “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ.”

Q. Having read that inscription and having looked at this book, would you have any concern being in bed with Michael Jackson if you knew this book was found in his home?

A. No.

Q. Let me show you Exhibit No. 842. Please read out loud the inscription on that book.

A. Is that, “To Michael”? Yeah. “To Michael, from your fan. Kiss, kiss, kiss, hug, hug, hug. Rhonda. 1983.”

Q. You’ve looked through that book – okay? – and it says, “The Boy; A photographic Essay,” right?

A. I didn’t look through that book.

Q. Okay. Why don’t you look through this book the prosecutor showed you, and please say whether or not you would have a problem being in the same bedroom with Michael Jackson based upon what you see in that book and the inscription.

A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, let me show you — let me show you Exhibit No. 596 that the prosecutor showed you. Just read the cover, if you would.

A. “Man, A Sexual Study of Man. Illustrated With Photographs and Art Prints.”

Q. Okay. Now, you’ve seen those photographs, and you’ve said you were somewhat disturbed by the pictures, right?

A. Well, I wasn’t disturbed by the pictures.

Q. Well, if you — if you read this book, and it appeared to be a book dealing with male sexuality in all different areas, and you knew that this book existed with hundreds of editions of Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse –

MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as leading.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: — would that bother you?

MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as leading.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Can you repeat it?

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU:  Sure. Let’s assume that you learned that Michael Jackson had ten years’ worth of Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse – okay? – magazines, heterosexual-type magazines, and let’s assume that — have you ever seen Mr. Jackson’s library?

A. Yes.

Q. How many books do you think are in there?

A. Thousands.

Q. And let’s suppose in the middle of all those books you found, “A Sexual Study of Man, Illustrated With Photographs and Art Prints,” okay?

A. Yes.

Q. Putting all this together, would being in bed with Mr. Jackson concern you?

A. No.

MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

Q. BY MR. ZONEN:  Mr. Robson, the three books that are in front of you that you’ve already taken a look at, I’d like to go back over the inscription that — 842 is a book, and you were asked to read that inscription out loud. Take a look at that inscription again, would you, please?

A. Do you want me to read it again?

Q. No, you don’t need to read it again. Go to the last word, which is the name. What is the name on that?

A. Rhonda.

Q. Notice anything unusual about the name?

A. No.

Q. Do you notice it’s written with quotations on both sides of it?

A. Yes.

Q. Doesn’t that usually mean that that’s not the name when somebody writes it in quotation marks?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Have you ever written your name in quotation marks?

A. No.

Q. That’s actually from somebody who’s not named Rhonda, right?

MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. ZONEN: The three books I’ve given you so far to take a look at, they all feature either boys or adult men, predominantly nude, and the one on adult men is engaged in sex acts; is that correct?

MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. ZONEN: The three books I’ve given you so far to take a look at, they all feature either boys or adult men, predominantly nude, and the one on adult men is engaged in sex acts; is that correct?

MR. MESEREAU: I’m going to object; asked and answered. This is cumulative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I’m going to show you three additional books now, if I could. Let’s start with Exhibit 578, if you’ll take a look at that one, please.

MR. MESEREAU: Same objection. Cumulative; it’s not character; it’s beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I’ll start with the first picture. What do you see right there? A. I see in the center of the picture, it’s a drawing. And there’s a naked man with his genitalia exposed, and  there’s kangaroos on either side [Camp Cove Sydney men, by an Australian photographer)] .

Q. Okay. Go ahead and proceed. You can keep going. Just keep going through it. You can stop. What you’ve seen so far are all pictures of naked men; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Exhibit No. 590-B, take a look at that, please. Tell us the title.

A. “Before the Hand of Man.”

Q. Go ahead and take a look at the content of that book. That’s enough. Pictures of naked young men; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you consider that to be homoerotic material?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. I look at this more as sort of – it’s about the photography and it’s more of an art book, to me.

Mr. Robson, are you concerned about a man possessing these seven books being in bed with a 12-year-old boy?

A. If it was a man I didn’t know, maybe. But not Michael.

Q. Is that because you view Mr. Jackson as being, for the most part, asexual?

A. No.

Q. Because you believe that he doesn’t really have a sexual interest?

A. I believe that he has a sexual interest in women.

Q. In women?

A. Yes.

Q. These books don’t suggest otherwise?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. All right. Let’s go to some other side of the counter. Exhibit No. 575, have you ever seen this magazine before?

A. No.

Q. Not that specific one. A magazine of that nature?

A. Of that nature, yes.

Q. Okay. And go ahead and turn through it. You can stop there. You don’t need to go too much further.

A. I never thought I’d have a room of people watching me do this.

Q. That’s enough. You would agree that this is a depiction of a man and a woman engaged in virtually every variation that a man and woman can do with one another; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. The collective material that you have just been shown does not cause you a moment of pause when you think about the prospect of this person who possesses all of this crawling into bed with a ten-year-old boy?

A. No.

Q. And you would allow a child to crawl into bed with such a person?

A. If I knew the person, yes.

Q. If you knew them?

A. If I knew the person, yes.

Q: When you were a young child, did Michael Jackson ever show you any sexually explicit material?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see Michael Jackson show sexually explicit material to any child?

A. No.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, let me show you again Exhibit No. 841. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Let me show you again Exhibit No. 596. It says, “A Sexual Study of Man.” Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And let me show you again Exhibit No.842, “A boy; A Photographic Essay,” okay? And that’s the one with the inscription, “To Michael, from your loving fan, Rhonda,” okay?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, you see young children with rather innocent photographs of young boys, correct? Innocent photographs of young boys in various situations, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You see a young boy hanging from a tree, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You see a young boy sitting outside a door, right?

A. Yes.

Q. See young boys on a beach, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, let’s go to — quickly, to the material the prosecutor for the government showed you, okay? He showed you some magazines with heterosexual activity, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Have you seen one book that depicts child pornography in that group?

A. No.

MR. ZONEN: I believe there was a Court restriction on the use of that word, Your Honor, one initiated by the defense. Unless that reservation is finished.

MR. MESEREAU: He’s correct. And I made a mistake using the word. I’ll withdraw it, and I apologize… In those books that the prosecutor for the government showed you, you see books about men, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You see one book that says, “A Study of Male Sexuality” and shows some sexual acts between men, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And he [Mr.Zonen] showed you a number of magazines involving sexual activity between men and women, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Has he shown you one book involving children having sex?

A. No.

Q. Has he shown you one book where a man is having sex with a child?

A. No.

Q. The prosecutor tried to suggest that Mr. Jackson is asexual. Do you remember that question?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe he’s asexual?

A. No.

Q. Have you seen Mr. Jackson with women in your lifetime?

A. With what kind of woman? A woman that he’s in a relationship with?

Q. That he’s been married to.

A. Yeah, with Lisa Marie.

Q. When you were at Neverland, did you ever see anything that suggested pedophilia?

A. No.

Q. Ever see any magazine or poster that suggested pedophilia?

A. Never.

MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.


MR. ZONEN:

Q. Mr. Robson, when did you first learn that Michael Jackson possessed material of the nature that’s before you right now?

A. Right now I did.

Q. All the years that you have known Michael –

A. Actually, no one’s told me where this came from.

Q. Assuming this comes from Michael Jackson’s residence.

A. Assuming it does, this is the first I know.

Q. All right. And you had never, ever known that Mr. Jackson collected sexually explicit material?

A. No.

Q. This is something new that you’re learning just today; is that right?

A. Yes….

Wade Robson’s surprise is genuine…. You can’t fake it. He never expected Michael Jackson to possess such materials. And all the other witnesses also showed the same kind of surprise. Not that it disturbed them much. They just never saw it before - the court was the first time they ever saw it.

Wait, so for all those twenty years Wade Robson was Michael Jackson’s friend he never saw any of those magazines or books lying around in his home?

And he never saw Michael reading any of them?

And Michael never showed anything of that type to him or other witnesses who displayed the same surprise at the witness stand?

But if  none of them ever saw those materials before WHAT “GROOMING” NONSENSE DID THE PROSECUTION TALK ABOUT AT ALL?

Oh la la….

P.S. Here is a link to that police “evidence’ list once again to refresh your memory of its utter ridiculousness (don’t forget to note the odd socks, underwear of different sizes left behind by Michael’s numerous guests and loose pieces of paper in addition to the above list of books): list of items from Neverland or the source it was originally taken from: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/060804sdcontsheet.pdf

And here is the hit list of the choicest “evidence” out of all that trash which finally made it into the court room: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/041905minuteorder.pdf

256 Comments leave one →
  1. March 23, 2014 3:09 pm

    And here is information about Omer Bhatti and his friends being on a secret visit to Neverland right at the time when Michael was away. They were there with Michael’s consent – he was actually paying for their trip (as usual):

    Norwegian boys in USA on Jackson’s tab

    Three Oslo teenagers have been on a secret private visit to pop idol Michael Jackson at his pleasure park Neverland Ranch in California. After police raided Neverland Tuesday morning with a warrant for Jackson’s arrest on suspicion of sexually assaulting a young boy worries have run high in Oslo, newspaper VG reports.

    Two youths were invited along to California by Jackson’s Norwegian-Pakistani friend Omer Bhatti, 19.

    Since then they have been close friends, and Bhatti and his family have been frequent guests of Jackson’s. Bhatti was most recently photographed with Jackson at the star’s 45th birthday celebrations in Los Angeles.

    VG’s sources claim that the Oslo trio’s USA holiday is bought and paid by Jackson and was a secret to all but their nearest family members. The trip to Neverland should have lasted a week, but the boys have now been gone nearly four weeks.

    “I have faith in the judgment of both Omer and my son. Besides, I don’t believe all the claims and rumors about Michael Jackson, even if I have them in the back of my mind. I am more worried about the conduct of American police than I am about the claims against Michael Jackson,” the mother of one of the boys told VG.

    Omer Bhatti was a friend of Benjamin Hermansen, an African-Norwegian teen that was killed in a racist attack in Holmlia. Jackson dedicated his album Invincible to Hermansen’s memory at Bhatti’s request.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20071203012742/http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article673853.ece

    As far as I remember some of Michael’s younger relatives were also in Neverland at the same time.

  2. March 23, 2014 2:57 pm

    “In fact Michael not only had this said book but he had also a book of homosexual erotica, showing men in frontal nudes, a photo book depicting nude males, nude photos of a male couple, nude photos pf young man…” – Rebecca

    Rebecca, this site http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/category/porn-as-listed-by-the-prosecution/ has much more information about the books “seized” by police during their 2003 raid so I refer you to their analysis.

    “Why excluding the possibility of bisexuality, for example?”

    Probably because the insider who left some messages on the National Enquirer board called Michael not just heterosexual, but “thoroughly” heterosexual?

    However since you have stepped on the road of theorizing let me offer my theory too.

    Why excluding the possibility that some of those erotic materials were left in Michael’s quarters by the guys who stayed there while he was away? It is well known that by the time of the police raid Michael and his children had been in Las Vegas for no less than three weeks. He was working on “One more chance” video and record there.

    And all the time while he was away Omer Bhatti and his two Norwegian friends were staying in Neverland. And it wasn’t just the three of them, but they were having parties there too. So why not assume that some of those things belonged to them or their guests, and not to Michael?

    Knowing that Michael’s children followed him everywhere and had easy access to his room I also doubt very much that he would have left the books with naked male bodies lying about there. He was known to be so prudent in raising his children that when he was staying in his friend’s house he personally covered all pictures of nudes hanging on the wall.

    I see the fact that Michael was away from Neverland for almost three weeks by the time of the raid as absolutely essential. It is strange that no one is talking about it.

    If you gave your flat to your friends for no less than three weeks and the police raids it right during their stay how can you be made responsible for what they left there? And how can the police differentiate between your and their belongings?

    Michael Jackson Knows Nothing of Neverland Probe
    Nov 18, 7:00 PM (ET)

    By Dan Whitcomb

    LOS OLIVOS, Calif. (Reuters) – Armed with a search warrant for a criminal investigation, police swarmed over Michael Jackson’s fairytale Neverland Ranch in central California on Tuesday, but the pop superstar was not at home and said he knew nothing about the investigation.

    Police said only that they went to Neverland “to serve a search warrant as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.”

    But cable channel Court TV, which broke the story, quoted sources saying it stemmed from a new allegation of sexual abuse brought by a 12-year-old boy against the self-styled King of Pop.

    Jackson, 45, was not at his ranch. His spokesman said he had been in Las Vegas for almost three weeks shooting a pop video.

    “We cannot comment on law enforcement’s investigation because we do not yet know what it is about. Michael will, as always, cooperate fully with authorities in any investigation even as it is conducted, yet again, while he is not home,” said spokesman Stuart Backerman in a statement.

    Jackson lashed out at the “rogue’s gallery of hucksters and inside sources” who dominated the airwaves on Tuesday speculating on the investigation.

    “These characters always seem to surface with a dreadful allegation just as another project, an album, a video, is being released,” Jackson said in the statement.

    The search warrant was executed on the same day that a new greatest hits collection was released, featuring Jackson’s latest single, “One More Chance.”

    Some 20 sheriff’s deputies and officials from the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office spent most of the day at the Neverland ranch where Jackson has built theme-park rides, a zoo and a miniature train ride which he occasionally throws open to local children.

    http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/91097|top|11-18-2003::19:07|reuters.html

  3. Rebecca permalink
    March 23, 2014 11:32 am

    The presence of homosexual books among heterosexual ones can have more than one explanation.Sexuality is very vast, not only black or white. I know a lot of homosexual people who don’t only like necessarily homosexual books or porn. Lesbians who like to see two men together and vice-versa. Straight people who like to watch homosexual action too.
    In fact Michael not only had this said book but he had also a book of homosexual erotica, showing men in frontal nudes, a photo book depicting nude males, nude photos of a male couple, nude photos pf young man…

    According to this document, http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf there are two possible sexual orientations.

    Why excluding the possibility of bisexuality, for example?

    Nothing against none of you but when I read that a single homosexual book among heterosexual books isn’t so tragic to me is like saying it would be tragic if Michael had a lot of homosexual books…yet they exist. Few but still. I can see a latent homophobia here.

    Not saying he had to be homosexual, I wrote already the reason when I began my post.

    But I don’t see why it have to be so hard to have an open mind and accept all the possibilities.

  4. July 25, 2013 3:47 am

    Hey Angie I don’t think Helena was being rude. Sometimes it is easy to think that when language is in print because you can’t see the facial expressions or the voice inflections. I think Helena is just trying to say that she does not think anything in particular about finding 1 or even 2 books on homosexuality when there are hundreds of others on heterosexuality. MJ haters are just trying to sully his good name by picking at straws.

    Tell your friend to read Tom Messarau’s many many comments on Michael’s case. He knows it best. There is overwhelming evidence of MJ’s innocence and he was being framed by angry scrupulous money hungry vulchers. Aphrodite Jones is another one who is reliable to give accurate information. She has written a book about it. It really is not hard to find the evidence to clear MJ if one wants to. It is just that people are only interested in the dirt because of their own filthy minds.

  5. July 24, 2013 2:56 pm

    “Hello Helena. Well, I never said it was a tragic, lol. But I do think it’s sort of strange that MJ would have a homosexual book, even if it’s just one book. I mean ask yourself, would you keep a Lesbian book in your home Helena? As for me, even if it’s only one book, I wouldn’t keep it. If I’m not Lesbian why keep a Lesbian book. I know MJ wasn’t homosexual, he was heterosexual, but I find it strange that he had a homosexual book, even if it were only one book. Again, I know MJ wasn’t homosexual, but why would he keep a homosexual book that contained graphic pictures, etc.?” – Angie

    Well, I’m happy that at least my name is no longer in inverted commas. No, I don’t keep Lesbian books at home (I think they are not sold here), but if I had thousands of books and an open-door policy and crowds of people streaming through my house as if it were a museum, there would be no way to control who leaves what and where. Anyone could leave anything on the shelf and I would never know.

    When something in MJ’s home is found as an exception to the rule this is always a reason to have a look at the story behind it. And there must be a story behind it otherwise it wouldn’t be unique. A gift from a “fan” like “Rhonda”, or something planted there on purpose or left by chance by someone like Bob Jones, MJ’s PR man, or by some guests who stayed in MJ’s house when he was not even there – there is a multitude of possibilites here. And a book on a shelf is not a wardrobe which catches the eye if someone brings it in.

    If I ever have time I will return to all that “porn” found in MJ’s house. At the moment my computer is so slow that I cannot even follow the AEG trial properly, not to mention the book which is constantly on your mind. Do your own research if you are so bothered about it. I am not.

  6. Sina permalink
    July 24, 2013 6:54 am

    “I mean ask yourself, would you keep a Lesbian book in your home Helena? As for me, even if it’s only one book, I wouldn’t keep it. If I’m not Lesbian why keep a Lesbian book”

    Angie how about Michael had these books because he COULD .Why do you think he owes you or your so called MJ fan/friend or anyone an explanation.
    Going by your logic you must be a dog to have books about dogs.
    Ask yourself ,why are you so intrigued by a book with graphic pictures of homosexuality. Does it trigger your imagination ? They are legal ,go buy one and find out for yourself.

  7. Angie permalink
    July 23, 2013 11:42 pm

    Hello Helena. Well, I never said it was a tragic, lol. But I do think it’s sort of strange that MJ would have a homosexual book, even if it’s just one book. I mean ask yourself, would you keep a Lesbian book in your home Helena? As for me, even if it’s only one book, I wouldn’t keep it. If I’m not Lesbian why keep a Lesbian book. I know MJ wasn’t homosexual, he was heterosexual, but I find it strange that he had a homosexual book, even if it were only one book.

    Again, I know MJ wasn’t homosexual, but why would he keep a homosexual book that contained graphic pictures, etc.?

  8. Angie permalink
    July 23, 2013 3:51 pm

    How could you say I did not come here for answers, I did come here for answers. And why are you butting in on my conversations, I asked you nothing. My questions were for ‘Helena’, not you. Please don’t respond to me if I’m not even speaking with you, especially if you are replying with rude disrespectful comments toward me without cause.

    The bad thing about it, you knew that you were rude to me without cause, which is why you said: ” A lot worse than what I said to you has been said to me and about me here and on other sites”. If people did that to you, and obviously you didn’t like it, which is why you said a lot worse was done to you than what you did to me, why take on their ways?

    You said: “By the way I don’t pretend to even strive to be like Michael. I am not him and do not want to be anyone other than me. So when it comes to being all about love you are not going to get that from me”.

    Well, I never said for you to be like MJ. I just got the impression that MJ fans didn’t attack other MJ fans without a cause. MJ fans usually attack MJ haters, defending MJ. Besides MJ called his fans ‘Soldiers of Love’. And you shouldn’t be rude and mean without a cause anyway, regardless whether you’re a MJ fan or not. You’re suppose to do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. If you want to be rude without a cause, go ahead, have fun. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.

    Reply Comments

  9. lynande51 permalink
    July 23, 2013 3:22 pm

    @ Angie… A lot worse than what I said to you has been said to me and about me here and on other sites. You came here not looking for answers but looking for an opinion like you could not form one of your own. My answer to that is think for yourself. So what Michael’s library had not tens of thousand but hundreds of thousand of books.
    By the way I don’t pretend to even strive to be like Michael. I am not him and do not want to be anyone other than me. So when it comes to being all about love you are not going to get that from me.
    Michael Jackson was a unique individual and was probably more polite than me but I wager his politeness to someone repeated going to this post and asking these questions would be to ignore you.

  10. July 23, 2013 3:07 pm

    ‘Helena’, I asked you if MJ had naked pictures of males, and you answered: “Dear Angie, the answer is yes. Michael possessed the pictures of naked males in the book a MJ fan is so worried about”. Well, is that all you’re going to say? Where’s the answer that vindicates MJ? – Angie

    Dear Angie, and what did you expect? And why am I supposed to “vindicate” MJ in this respect? Yes, he had one book with pictures of naked males in his 10,000 collection, so what’s so tragic about it? Please explain the tragedy of it, and I will probably understand and try to “vindicate”.

    “I also asked what did you think about MJ having one homosexual book, and your answer was: “I think about it as much as I would think about having one book in ancient Chinese in my library”. I wasn’t asking you how much you thought about it, I was asking what is your opinion on MJ having one homosexual book.” – Angie

    My opinion is that there is nothing tragic about it.

    “Why are you giving me sarcastic rude answers? What did I do to you? I thought this was a Vindicating MJ website, with MJ fans of LOVE. Why are you being so rude to me?” -Angie

    I’m not rude. I simply sometimes throw water balloons from our balcony at some readers who don’t read rules. The last time you engaged me in protracted discussions about erections I asked you to go and read the rules because you were not familiar with them. Now I am making a very restrained use of a note to rule 5. It mentions throwing water balloons as our method.

  11. July 23, 2013 2:52 pm

    Dear Fam,

    Michael had dozen of books on Chinese culture, their food, art, literature and architecture. What do you think that meant? Do you know which he bought, which ones might have belonged to others and left behind? And does it matters?

    And if you do not have an answer it is ok. I do not expect you to have all the answers or come up with maybes when none are necessary.

  12. July 23, 2013 5:22 am

    Well, “Angie”:
    Let me try to explain, since you simulate naivity: The reaction is probably the way it is because it’s obvious you are not really interested in an answer to your questions, but you are trying to be provocative. If you are really interested in an answer you can go through the whole blog and look for it. This subject was discussed at length and there is no longer any need to answer questions about the books in MJ’s library.
    We have other topics now, and you are trying to distract us!

  13. Angie permalink
    July 23, 2013 12:39 am

    ‘lynande51′, it seems you’re trying to start an argument by being really rude to me so that I could get angry, but it’s not going to happen. You’re suppose to be representing MJ as his fan full of LOVE. MJ was of LOVE, and would never give such rude answers as you. What’s the problem, why are you picking on me? Why are you being so rude to me, what did I ever do to you?

    How would you feel if someone said to you: @ lynande51 “I don’t see where she was rude to you. She said it nicer than I am going to. So what if he did if it bothers you then it bothers you”.

    Wow you say this to me and treat me like this without cause. I did absolutely nothing to you. You’re suppose to be a MJ fan. Always remember, MJ was of love, and liked nice people.

  14. lynande51 permalink
    July 22, 2013 8:38 pm

    @ Angie I don’t see where she was rude to you. She said it nicer than I am going to. So what if he did if it bothers you then it bothers you.

  15. newrodrigo permalink
    July 22, 2013 8:31 pm

    Michael having ONE homosexual book in
    a library of thousands. ..who should care?

    I have books in my house that’s been bought through other people. Surely others do?

    And why should we assume Michael read it?

    Oh because he was accused of being a homosexual pe-le?

    Yet, if we listen to the TRUTH, he had more books and mags of women. ..heterosexual material.

    In truth, Michael was a quiet and shy man, focused with his decency and morals/values to God, that’s been forgotten by so much of the world. He was straight, who found it difficult to find the right woman who would truly love him and take him for what he was.

    People may not believe all that, but it’s painfully true.

  16. Angie permalink
    July 22, 2013 7:43 pm

    ‘Helena’, I asked you if MJ had naked pictures of males, and you answered:
    “Dear Angie, the answer is yes. Michael possessed the pictures of naked males in the book a MJ fan is so worried about”.

    Well, is that all you’re going to say? Where’s the answer that vindicates MJ? What’s wrong, why are you giving me mean rude sarcastic answers which does not help in my question? What did I do to you for you to answer me this way?

    I also asked what did you think about MJ having one homosexual book, and your answer was: “I think about it as much as I would think about having one book in ancient Chinese in my library”.

    I wasn’t asking you how much you thought about it, I was asking what is your opinion on MJ having one homosexual book. Why are you giving me sarcastic rude answers? What did I do to you? I thought this was a Vindicating MJ website, with MJ fans of LOVE. Why are you being so rude to me?

  17. July 22, 2013 5:13 am

    “‘Helena’, a MJ fan also asked me if it were true that MJ had pictures of naked males. Here’s what she said: “on another site i also read he had pictures of naked male etc… but i guess it’s all lie”. Helena, is it true that MJ had pictures of naked males?”

    Dear Angie, the answer is yes. Michael possessed the pictures of naked males in the book a MJ fan is so worried about.

    “And what do you think of MJ having in his possession a homosexual book, even if it’s just one book?”

    I think about it as much as I would think about having one book in ancient Chinese in my library.

  18. July 22, 2013 5:07 am

    -“Let us imagine that someone has dozens of books, DVs and magazines on homosexual love. And out of all of them there is one book on heterosexual love. What will you think of it?” – Helena
    – Well, Helena, I don’t know what to think, I’m confused, really. What do you think it means?” – Angie

    Nothing.

  19. Angie permalink
    July 21, 2013 8:57 pm

    ‘Helena’, a MJ fan also asked me if it were true that MJ had pictures of naked males. Here’s what she said:

    “on another site i also read he had pictures of naked male etc… but i guess it’s all lie”.

    Helena, is it true that MJ had pictures of naked males?

    And what do you think of MJ having in his possession a homosexual book, even if it’s just one book?

  20. Angie permalink
    July 21, 2013 8:47 pm

    ‘Helena’ you wrote:

    “I’ve thought of one thing, Angie.

    Let us imagine that someone has dozens of books, DVs and magazines on homosexual love. And out of all of them there is one book on heterosexual love. What will you think of it?”

    Well, Helena, I don’t know what to think, I’m confused, really. What do you think it means?

  21. July 21, 2013 2:03 pm

    I’ve thought of one thing, Angie.

    Let us imagine that someone has dozens of books, DVDs and magazines on homosexual love. And out of all of them there is one book on heterosexual love. What will you think of it?

  22. July 21, 2013 1:33 pm

    “The last and the worst book in our list is exhibit 596 titled “Man, a Sexual Study of Man” with text material by Larry Stevens. This book was at the very top of the prosecution hit list during the 2005 trial. The police officer described it as ‘a compilation of photographs and writings, which pertained to homosexual activity between men. The photographs depicted naked males engaged in sexually explicit activities including oral copulation and anal sex.” Helena, can you please answer this question? Thank you so much. – Angie

    Angie, I have no idea. But if you want to really know there are ways to investigate. First you need to find out where the book was found. If it was in one of those innumerable cardboard boxes which were probably never opened it would mean that it could be sent as a gift from some fans and never even seen by MJ. If it was somewhere in more easy access knowing Michael’s inquisitive nature it could be sheer curiosity. However I doubt this variant.

    Then there are variants of Michael’s numerous guests bringing there and leaving behind whatever they wanted to. Or someone even leaving things on purpose. We constantly forget that people used to live in Neverland even when Michael was away and there is nothing easier than putting some book on a shelf so that no one even notices it.

    In comparison with 10,000 books possessed by MJ one or two books of this nature do not change anything. If all his books were like that it would be telling the whole story, but one 1 book per 10,000 gives too little ground for conclusions.

    P.S.

    I once wanted to visualize what 10,000 books are like and found some pictures. This is what I wrote in the comments then:

    Snatching a couple of books from the ten thousand Michael had and focusing attention on them only is absolutely disproportionate. Talking of them only creates a false impresson of Michael’s library.

    Since few of us can imagine what ten thousand of books are like I’ve found several pictures of home libraries. This (by my rough estimation) has some 550- 600 books. So Michael’s library should be approximately 17 pictures like this one:

    One more picture shows 13 rows of books in one vertical section. There are probably 45 wooden sections all in all (the metal ones are 17 or 18). If each shelf has 10-12 books, then one section holds 150 books. Multiplied by 45 sections it will make 6750 books. So Michael’s library should have had this quantity plus approximately half of it more:

    And out of all that quantity we have to talk again and again about a couple of books? About which we are not even sure that Michael saw them? It is simply preposterous.

  23. Angie permalink
    July 21, 2013 12:27 pm

    ‘Helena’, I have a MJ fan asking me questions to why MJ had homosexual books in his possession, but I don’t know how to answer that question because I don’t have the complete answer. This is what her question was to me:

    “The last and the worst book in our list is exhibit 596 titled “Man, a Sexual Study of Man” with text material by Larry Stevens. This book was at the very top of the prosecution hit list during the 2005 trial. The police officer described it as ‘a compilation of photographs and writings, which pertained to homosexual activity between men. The photographs depicted naked males engaged in sexually explicit activities including oral copulation and anal sex.”

    Helena, can you please answer this question? Thank you so much.

  24. May 8, 2013 9:35 am

    and now….the bitch Robson is claiming shit …. hope he gets what he deserves…pathetic

  25. December 11, 2012 10:15 pm

    “Who knows, the book sent by Rhonda (maybe Rodney Allen) was not the only “gift” he got from anonymous Nambla members. There is no reason to think only V.G. got the assignment.”

    Kaarin, no doubt that the NAMBLA sent him books, magazines and other memorabilia pretending to be “fans”. The terrible thing is that Michael valued everything sent to him by fans so much that he kept all the gifts! And said about it openly to everyone – so that anyone who sent him things knew that they would kept somewhere in his closets!

    In her blog Talitha, the fan mentioned earlier says that Michael read (and kept) everything he received from fans. Her account concerns his rehearsals in 2009 but the same surely goes for Neverland too:

    He said (as extracted from my transcript of that evening):

    “I’m so thankful to all the girls who send in gifts and letters.”
    “It’s you who inspire me… I feel all that love and I soak it up and then give it right back.”
    “I read everything you guys give me. There’s a special place in the house where the security put things. I read it all and I show it to the children.”

    http://www.michaeljacksonthelastangel.com/michael-jackson-2009.html

    So if the Nambla people wanted Michael to keep something “incriminating” or leave his fingerprints there all they needed to do was sending a gift with some love signs on it. This is exactly what “Rhonda” did for “The Boy: the photographic essay” book:

    From your fan, xxxooo, “Rhonda” (the sign in the shape of a heart) 1983 Chicago

    Those of us who have already pricked our ears for some unusual signs about all those “gifts” it is clear that the name in quotes is indeed strange and probably stands for a man, and not a woman, but I doubt very much that Michael could have paid attention to a minor thing like that.

    Could “Rhonda” stand for Rodney Allen? It perfectly could – we know the great lengths he went to in order to compromise Michael – he showered Diane Dimond with letters about alleged “molestation victims” of MJ in Canada (written by himself), coached a street boy to tell lies about MJ, made him study the maps of Neverland and Encino to be able to draw those places to police pretending he had been there and showed the boy the photos of some employees so that he could recognize some when he was asked to. Simple sending a book as a gift to Michael in these circumstances would be child play in comparison to all that.

    But are the two books found in Michael’s home in 1993 that bad that they need to be worried about? No, they are art books all right and only those who sent them with a view to incriminate Michael knew in what capacity they could be used by real pedophiles – for arousal.

    I made a quick check on of both books once again.

    1) The book sent by “Rhonda” was “The boy: a photographic essay”
    2) The other one, inscribed by Michael was “Boys will be boys”. The inscription was made on the flyleaf and read as follows:

    “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces, this is the spirit of Boyhood. A life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.”

    The NY Times article says that the note was signed “MJ” “in what appeared to be Mr. Jackson’s hand”. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/national/30jackson.html?fta=y

    Okay. Now here are some questions:

    Do you inscribe the books you keep at home? Even if you have such a strange habit, do you put your signature under the inscription? In which case do you? In case you want to give the book back, right? Otherwise what’s the point of signing it for yourself? A signature is usually put as an autograph, correct? So wasn’t it signed because it was to be returned to someone who had suggested it for and autograph, but for some reason didn’t take it back?

    Though we have spoken about these books a hundred times it is only now that I notice that both books were compiled by the same authors/editors:
    Georges St. Martin and Ronald C. Nelson

    Does any of us know anything about these people? No, we don’t. So why do we expect Michael to know anything about them?

    Now that we know what to look for let’s try to find who they are. Amazon says that the “Most widely held works by Georges St. Martin” are:

    – The boy; a photographic essay by Georges St. Martin ( Book )
    2 editions published between 1964 and 1972 in English and held by 43 libraries worldwide

    – Boys will be boys by Georges St. Martin ( Book )
    1 edition published in 1966 in English and held by 13 libraries worldwide

    – Twelve : a day in the life of a boy, a photographic essay by Frederick Secord ( Book )
    1 edition published in 1966 in English and held by 11 libraries worldwide

    – Boyhood : a quarterly magazine devoted to the world of boyhood ( Serial )
    in English and held by 1 library worldwide

    After reading about all these “boys” I am beginning to really dislike the author, and am even afraid to look at the other one. But the same Amazon does not provide anything special about the other guy – nothing of interest to us. However due to the first author the book can very well be listed on some boylovers’ sites…

    Now comes another question – even if one of the authors/editors was somewhat fixated on boys, does it have anything to do with Michael Jackson, who knew nothing about him? No, it does not. Same as we did’t he probably never noticed that the books were by the same author either and did not suspect anything wrong. And even if they were by one author, so what?

    The introduction to the book is absolutely innocent (sorry that only part of it fits into the screen):

    And most of the pictures are like this:




    Question:
    How was MJ supposed to know that something was wrong with one of the authors of the book?

  26. December 11, 2012 4:22 am

    Who knows,the book sent by Rhonda ( maybe Rodney Allen) was not the only “gift” he got from anonymous Nambla members.There is no reason to think only V.G. got the assignment.

  27. December 10, 2012 11:34 am

    If a photo of Spence existed like that, Michael would be in prison and Jonathan Spence would’ve been their victim #1. He was one of their 7 original victims, they didn’t need him there to testify, that photo would’ve been enough. The photo would’ve also been enough to have Michael in prison.

    But I’m of the belief with my own eyes that that police report was greatly exaggerated.

    Well, we know it was. Just look at the books here for what they really were, some of the stuff sounds awful and then you see it’s photos of kids playing dress up, and all these homoerotic books and it turned out to just be one from 1961 that the prosecution admitted they couldn’t tell if he’d opened, and the rest books from photographers that had worked with him, etc, and of course how there was no mention of the inscription in the 2 books of kids either.

  28. lynande51 permalink
    December 10, 2012 8:02 am

    Here are the Sheriff’s Property forms and the list of items to be supressed. THe second half of the Proprty form is in the Plaintiffs opposition to the the motion to quash.

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/081904itmssupp.pdf

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/060804sdcontsheet.pdf

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/080904pltoppdftmotaffwarevid.pdf

  29. Rodrigo permalink
    December 10, 2012 6:21 am

    I might have missed this, but police found a nude picture of Jonathan Spence? And Michael wasn’t somehow not finished on the spot?

    But I’m of the belief with my own eyes that that police report was greatly exaggerated.

  30. December 10, 2012 5:53 am

    Sorry, I made a mystake;

  31. December 10, 2012 5:48 am

    ” There were also photos found of a private nature of a young woman and the three Jackson children that said how much she loved Prince Paris, Baby and Michael but of course there isn’t a hater out there that pick up on that one is there.3

    Where did you find that?

  32. lynande51 permalink
    December 10, 2012 5:09 am

    @ Patrick
    What naked picture of boys are you talking about?
    List them please and the framed photo of a naked boy? Please point that one out as well. When you show me on the list of what was found in 2003 where those photos are I will then discuss them with you. Until then I will only correct you.
    There was one framed photo taken into evidence by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department that day. It was a framed photo of Macauley Culkin from the motion picture Home Alone. He is fully clothed and the photo was autgraphed with the inscription ” don’t leave me alone in the house” Applehead. He had on a winter coat, stocking cap, his hand were on his face and his mouth was open just like it was in a scene in the movie. The only thing that was naked were his tonsils.
    The next group of photos of young light skinned black males were in fact still photos of his nephews the 3T used as promotional photos for the video and single “Why” which was a duet with their Uncle Michael. “Why” was released as a single but was also on the album by 3T titled Brotherhood. The youngest of the 3T at the time was 18 years of age.
    When the story went out in all the tabloids it was that there were photos that were found. Tome Mesereau petitioned the courtto make a statement and it was denied. It seems that even the prosecution knew that there were no naked pictures of young boys found in 2003.
    There was a 6 pack of photos found in the employee break room that were in fact of the Arivzo family in a photo booth. There were also photos found of a private nature of a young woman and the three Jackson children that said how much she loved Prince Paris, Baby and Michael but of course there isn’t a hater out there that pick up on that one is there.
    I double dog dare you to go say something to TJ Jackson about those photos. Just go ahead, go to the source and see what the source says since he was the oldest of the 3T.

  33. December 9, 2012 7:10 pm

    In years gone by, while living in NYC I had a friend and co-worker who was gay. At times we met for dinner.And what did we do? We checked out men and discussed their looks and behaviour.For fun. It was different than what you do with your closest female friends.With females,close friends you talked about men.Yes,their looks,but more so their behaviour in intimate situations.I think females in general are less interested in porno vid.or film, but talk ,talk very much and in great detail and concreately..if men only knew, it may make them quite nervous…This does not mean that the emotinal factor was not important
    And don´t worry,what was said among friends remained confidential..

  34. December 9, 2012 6:32 pm

    Your observation,VMJ,, regarding the book:The boy;a photographic essay , signed : To Michael from your fan, kiss,kiss ,kiss,hug,hug,hug Rhonda 1983.Connecting the name Rhonda to that of known p-le Rodney Allen was brilliant.What female fan would send a book about boys to Michael?Though this one was not an illegal book.I would think it illegal to send
    illegal p-lic material. Also Rhonda is not a common name.Rodney Allen may in those early days having attended some of the gatherings of children ,or being a p-f also a member of NAMBLA.
    Some of Michael´s performances were qiute sexy, and he was attractive to females, and no doubt to gay men as well inadvertedly.He did not go to clubs or nightclubs,so this kind of material may have given him inspiration for “sexy” looks and behaviour. No doubt for a single man also not surprising.

  35. Rodrigo permalink
    December 9, 2012 8:31 am

    The majority of books WERE for art, these books had influence on Michael’s videos, any idiot can see that.

    And Patrick, let me ask you this question…If Michael was using porn and alcohol to coax kids into terrible things…why didn’t Jordan Chandler mention any of this at his time at Neverland? Because we know how p-les work, it’s all about some sick routine. Michael had been collecting those things since before 91 and plenty kids were around him then…why no mention of this from any other sources or accusers?

  36. Patrick permalink
    December 9, 2012 7:19 am

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf

    This is what they found !

  37. Patrick permalink
    December 9, 2012 7:11 am

    You should be ashamed of yourself . First the legal raid was videotaped to prevent planting of evidence . Second he had numerous naked photos of boys ( no one cares if its art !) he had a naked pic of a boy framed . Lastly , what kind of person leaves around porn and liquor around his bedroom and bathroom ( where mj had boys sleep there ) ?? You are delusional . He fits everything about a oedophile !not guilty does not mean not innocent !

  38. lynande51 permalink
    October 1, 2012 7:40 pm

    Here is a link to the biography of Wilhem Von Gloeden in Wiki. I did not look further than this to find out more about him. It also projects in this article to what the photos were about and then they go on to say he had many photos of pastural scenes and women as well. Anyone can project anything on to what they see unless the aks the person what they meant.Another case of adapting something to sell one message that may never have been the intent of the person.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloeden

  39. lynande51 permalink
    October 1, 2012 7:25 pm

    The haters are using a link to the NAMBLA reading list in the FAKE vindicate mj site that lists VonGloeden pictures. Obviously the photographer was not a member since he died in 1931 and NAMBLA was not in existance until the early 1980’s. How would Michael begin to know what was on that list or how those people were going to use photographs taken in the late 1800’s for their own sick reasons. Interesting enough none of the other books they claim are listed on it. Who knows when that was added to their twisted list.
    What is also interesting when I read the list is that attaching themselves to something that would seem innocuous is what they seem to be best at. They have their own version of a childrens magazine that is called Koinos. It seems that organized pedophiles can do just about anything to further their unholy cause so no wonder they attached themselves to MJ. Then along comes VG with his poison pen and twisted agenda and fantasy.He delivered MJ to his friends in the group that he is so proud to acknowledge in his Authors notes. Yep they do this kind of thing all the time and there is the proof. MJ was just their biggest victim.

  40. Rodrigo permalink
    August 13, 2012 10:08 pm

    I was just watching videos on the raiding on Neverland. I noticed that there are several paintings, drawings and portraits that had distinctive looks that were included in those books.

    The book, Room To Play, the artwork in that and the style of the drawings are almost identical to the painting of Michael leading a group of kids across a field.

  41. April 28, 2012 9:07 pm

    “I found the book “The Man: a sexual study of …” in a websites, and really believe that this book is not so terrible. I desagree when you say it, probaly, violates the rules of decency. There is nothing wrong in talking about homosexuality.”

    danebj, I don’t remember saying that the book “probably violated the rules of decency”, but that’s not the point. The link you sent me does not show what is inside the book and therefore all of us have to talk about it with our eyes closed. If we had some pictures from it this would provide some idea about its content. A detailed comment from someone who has read the book would also be helpful. This is actually what I tried to collect in order to make my analysis.

    As to homosexuality the prosecution tried to make something terrible out of that book and use it for their purposes, evidently trying to tie homosexuality to ped-lia, so for all questions on the subject I refer you to them since they are the ones who wanted to fish out something from that book. However Michael wasn’t gay and there is no point to even discuss the matter here.

    And please do not use pedophilia together with his name! It is against our rules (I had to edit this word in your comment as I always do when I see this rule broken).

  42. Toni permalink
    April 28, 2012 2:57 pm

    This book was actually given to him as a gift and had an inscription in it from the giver. This was no evidence, like you say, Michael was a beautiful individual and kind and generous. He was not a paed-le but was used by people who tried to take advantage of his kindness.

  43. danebj permalink
    April 28, 2012 6:06 am

    Helena, I found the book “The Man: a sexual study of …” in a websites, and really believe that this book is not so terrible. I desagree when you say it, probaly, violates the rules of decency. There is nothing wrong in talking about homosexuality. Or about sex. It is a book written to adults and geared mainly for the gay community, but anyone who is curious in this subject may be interested in it. I do not understand why sex homesoxual shocks people so much. And why do they try to prove that Michael was a ped-le using the argument that he was homosexual. Pedophilia is not connected to homosexual or vice versa.

    I think Michael may have bought the book out of curiosity. He was a person who read about all. ALL. From sex to ancient religions. He was a studious. There is a book about homosexual sex in his huge library is not a big deal.

    Or maybe he has received as a gift. This is very probable. He received thousands of gifts. Who could tell what kind of things people worldwide could send to Michael.

    I think it’s like the movie that talks about homosexuality. Just because I saw a movie about gays I’m homosexual? Of course not. Just because I’ve seen pictures of gay in sexual poses I’m homosexual? Obviously not. Does that make me a pedophile? Of course not.

    In short, the prosecution did everything to create a non-existent evidence. They never had a case.

    This is the link : http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11393631-man

  44. lynande51 permalink
    March 25, 2012 7:49 am

    @ Suzy
    And it is also hinted at in VG’s book with the story about the “bones” that were found at Neverland. That is where they were going with that one. I remember when all of those cases first came out about SRA. All I remember thinking at the time was ” people need to get a grip”. The stories are just plain ridiculous and you are right it was like living in the dark ages and the Salem Witch trials.

  45. Suzy permalink
    March 25, 2012 1:39 am

    @ Lynette

    The Satanic Ritual Abuse panic is fascinating to me, because it’s like a great number of the American people still live in the Middle Ages, in the ages of witch trials where superstition clouds rational judgement. I find it shocking that not only common people and the media got caught up in it but also prosecutors.

    And though Michael was never accused of SRA directly, but you can discover elements of it in the accusations against him. Especially in Maureen Orth’s articles.

    These Focus On The Family folks just make up stuff routinely! This is the first time I hear someone say that adult porn causes p-lia. It’s so ridiculous that it’s not even worth commenting. If that would be the case then the majority of the world’s male population (and many females too) would be p-les!

  46. lynande51 permalink
    March 25, 2012 1:08 am

    Here is a lnk to a video that includes an interview with Ken Lanning. The interview that he is doing is in regard to his work on a case known as The West Mephis Three. watch the video about how when these cases started to surface in the mid eighties through the nineties and see what he says about these occult abuse cases and then you should know one other thing. Mr. Lanning was the one that wrote this “Profile of a Pedophile” that most of the haters like to quote so much.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6251401n

    In this video he is talking about how some law enforcement officers used his information. He is clearly saying that was not the intent of his work. The fact is when he was asked to work on and write a profile what he was doing in it he says several times. It could be anyone. There is no clear indicator of who it could be and if the truth were to be told Tom Sneddon would fit that profile as well. He was active in the community, coached Little League and was active in his church. He fit the profile just as well as Michael id you read Ken Lanning’s findings.

    Mr. Lanning also in response to a statement by James Dobson of Focus on The Family said this.

    LIE: “How do people become pedophiles? Usually, pornography walks you down that path until you get to the place where you’ve seen everything that a man and a woman can do together, and then you make that little jump over to perversions.”

    –JAMES DOBSON, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY

    FACT: “The FBI has no evidence that pornography causes crimes. Pedophilia has absolutely nothing to do with adult pornography.”

    –FBI AGENT KEN LANNING

  47. lynande51 permalink
    March 24, 2012 11:34 pm

    You guys are right there were more found but there was only one found in his nightstand. So the actual adult magazines range from 1991 to 2003. Michael horded his favorites what else can we say.The “gay’ theme that the prosecution likes to send home was in fact 2 women. In case no one knows this ,it happens to be the number one heterosexual male fantasy, why I don’t know, but it is.Here is a link to all of the adult magazines and DVD’s found at Neverland courtesy of Lacieinegasmiles.

    http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/category/2005-court-case/porn/

    The only thing that I will add is this. The images that were captured from the one computer were captured or Cached on November 17th,2003 so he didn’t quite have 1800 from the computer images. A lot of people don’t know this but if you read Bob Sanger’s litigation of that evidence you will find out that the adult entertainement websites have it so that if you click on one image about a thousand go with it and are cached on your computer I think it has something to do with tracking cookies but I might be wrong about that ( remember that for future reference and clean your cache monthly). I have a friend whose husband developed a forensic program for computers (yes they can find anything that you have ever clicked on) and he explained it once but I was not paying close enough attention because I really didn’t care.
    Here is the Sheriffs department sheets that list all of the adult magazines and periodicals that were found ( there is nothing to hide in these documents because they are all open to the public)
    .As for those antique Nudist Magazines considering the age of them I would say that they were more likely an interest in the science and progression of the science of photography. Have you ever seen a photo from 1931 and the way people looked back then? They for some reason always looked so old. I don’t know why that is either but they do. Is all nude art going to come under some peoples scrutiny now because if that is the case I think The Louvre and the Vatican is in trouble.

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/080904pltoppdftmotaffwarevid.pdf

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/060804sdcontsheet.pdf

    Oh and one other thing when they were litigating the fingerprint evidence is when you find out that Gavin’s fingerprint was on the one magazine that he couldn’t have seen, Hustler Barely Legal August 2003. And no Michael didn’t have a subscription so he did not get it 4 months early ( I think it was Zonen that tried that excuse on for size).So what exactly did they prove with the fingerprint evidence? The Prosecution proved that Michael looked at adult heterosexual picutres and he did it alone. I think that is the whole idea behind them in the first place isn’t it? Well that isn’t entirely true, couples “read” them together for “inspiration” at times too.

  48. nan permalink
    March 24, 2012 8:05 pm

    I dont know why they would be looking through mj office bathroom anyway ..the supposed crime took place in his bedroom.
    It is all such a load of garbage anyway..Big deal if MJ liked looking a naked women or whatever.
    how many people have subscriptions to playboy or hustler ?
    you might think he was the only person in the world that has that stuff..
    Did they think he could walk into a strip club, instead, and not have it make the national news..??
    It was just a ridiculous case that never should have been brought.
    Tom Sneddon and Larry Feldman were thick as thieves in my opinion.
    Any NORMAL person would have realized Feldman was manipulating the system, nevermind the fact that if MJ actually thought he got away with something in 93 , he would NOT have done the ghosts video and remained living in the vicinity of that particular district atty that had it in for him so bad..

  49. Suzy permalink
    March 24, 2012 12:57 pm

    From Mez’s closing argument:

    1 Yes, he’s a human being. They find a lot of
    2 girlie magazines; “Hustler,” “Playboy,” “Penthouse.”
    3 He does read them. Did he want the world to know
    4 that? No, that’s his private life. Did he think
    5 they were going to bring it all into a courtroom and
    6 just flash it for the world? No.
    7 They went all around his house trying to
    8 find something.

    12 Now, ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution
    13 has tried to focus your attention on what they now
    14 call pornography at Neverland. And they found for
    15 the last ten years’ worth of “Hustler,” “Playboy,”
    16 “Penthouse,” things of that sort. All legal. All
    17 heterosexual.

    16 Having all of these heterosexual books and magazines
    17 doesn’t add up to pedophilia, okay?
    18 What do you typically find? You find
    19 illegal child pornography, websites galore,
    20 pictures. None of that came in. And, yes, the
    21 prosecution suggested they would prove that, and
    22 none of it was found at Neverland. No websites of
    23 pedophilia. No child sex pictures on websites. No
    24 photographs. None of the things you typically
    25 associate with a pedophile.
    26 And their biggest problem is repeated
    27 editions of “Hustler” and “Playboy” and “Penthouse”
    28 and “Barely Legal” do not equate with what they’re
    1 trying to prove. I’m not saying it’s necessarily
    2 commendable that you have all these magazines, but
    3 you can get them at any newsstand and there’s been
    4 no evidence that anything was illegal.
    5 And if Mr. Jackson has been proven to like
    6 to read these magazines for years and years and
    7 years, how does that equate to their theory that he
    8 wanted to sexually touch a male child?
    9 It doesn’t. There’s a problem with their
    10 case.

  50. Suzy permalink
    March 24, 2012 8:54 am

    @ Lynette

    7 magazines were found in his nightstand
    12 magazines were found in the box at the base of his bed, plus 23 nudist magazines
    The black briefcase contained 19 nude female centerfolds and 18 magazines
    Several magazines were found in his bathrooms too (both in the bathroom in his bedroom suite and in the two bathrooms attached to his office). And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this.

    (I would have attached the screenshots from the list of the evidence of the house search, but the system wouldn’t let me post the links.)

  51. Suzy permalink
    March 24, 2012 8:52 am

    @ Lynette

    7 magazines were found in his nightstand

    12 magazines were found in the box at the base of his bed, plus 23 nudist magazines

    The black briefcase contained 19 nude female centerfolds and 18 magazines

    Several magazines were found in his bathrooms too (both in the bathroom in his bedroom suite and in the two bathrooms attached to his office). And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this.

  52. shellywebstere permalink
    March 24, 2012 5:22 am

    “He said “nothing was found that he knew of unless it was something someone sent him”. I believe him because he looked genuinly surprised when asked so he did not know about them. ”

    I wrote a message in one of those books, may be he forgot he had them but at one point he knew he had them.

    “It would have been Adrian McManus that would have opened it but then it could not have been her either because she amazingly did not come in to work that day claiming that she called in sick.”

    I believe she said someone called her.

  53. March 24, 2012 1:31 am

    Lynette, oh, bad news about your ankle – I wish you speedy recovery! The only good thing about it is that you won’t have to work for some time and will be with us more often (joke).

    To what you have already said let me add this (from MJJTimeline 1993):

    August 17: The Los Angeles Police Department officially opens a criminal investigation against Michael Jackson based on accusations of child molestation made by Jordy Chandler

    August 21: Michael arrives in Bangkok ( Taiwan ) for the third leg of his Dangerous World Tour. The Los Angeles Police Department serve search warrant on Michael’s Neverland Valley Ranch in Santa Barbara and on his condominium in Century City.

    So Michael lingered on August 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21? For the example real criminals behave in such situations we have Conrad Murray’s behavior on the day Michael died. Michael’s body was still lying on a bed in his home when Murray’s assistants had already arrived at the storehouse he rented and were clearing away its contents for the police to never find it. Criminals are swift as lightning in covering up the traces of their crimes.

    And Michael knew about the criminal investigation against him already on August 17, so if he had thought those books to be incriminating evidence against him he would have burned them in his bath the moment he heard the news. Instead haters suggest that he hid them in his own closet for the police to conveniently find them there? The idea is preposterous to say the very least.

    And the inscription was nothing but an autograph. It is proven by the fact that he put MJ under the inscription. If he intended it “for himself” he wouldn’t have signed it. And the text of it echoes the text of the preface to the book:

    The authors:

    Ah! happy years! once more who would not be a boy? Byron

    In a world grown increasingly complex, where violence and confusion are commonplace, the human heart leaps at the recall of innocence. This book is a testament to the beauty of innocence, and to the human capacity for recalling that beauty.
    To a boy, boyhood is timeless and eternal. There seems to be no tomorrow. To the adult observer, boyhood lasts but a fleeting moment; it is gone in the twinkling of an eye. The art of capturing the fleeting moment in time has long been the province of the poet, the painter – and especially the photographer, who, through the selective eye of his camera, captures and preserves forever the ephemeral image.
    In this book we have tried to assemble a group of photographs which epitomize the irrepressible spirit of youth. It is less a documentary than an idyl, meant to be enjoyed as a boy enjoys a summer day. If the emphasis here is on the outdoor life, then this is because we as city-dwellers preferred to think of boys close to nature: fishing, swimming, camping, making “one long bathing of a summer’s day.” or just lazing away the days “that were as long as twenty are now.” There are scenes of school, of course, and even some of boys working, but basically these are happy, carefree boys, enjoying the long halcyon days when all the world seems made just for them, and summer stretches a mile long.

    Michael Jackson:

    “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ.”

  54. lynande51 permalink
    March 24, 2012 1:01 am

    The fact that those books were found in a locked closet is heavily emphasized by haters as if Michael wanted to hide them. But I am pretty sure that it wasn’t him who put them there at all – I remember reading in an article that he was surpised they were found there. The obvious candidate for stealthily putting the books in a locked cabinet (in the closet!) was Adrian McManus and her sudden absence exactly on the day of the raid only strengthens this suspicion.

    Thank you Helena. My ankle was broken at work but I am home now with a boot on it.Adrian McManus would be the obvious one of course.About how long would it take for someone to put two books in a drawer? About 45 seconds tops. Here is the most ridiculous part of some of their claims. Here it is in a nutshell: Michael was very rich. Michael had several maids. Michael did not clean his own house or his own room or do his own laundry. How come I know that? Because these people worked there. He paid them. They did his laundry, his cleaning, his cooking and his organizing. Michael did not want to clean his house otherwise he wouldn’t have had a maid or housekeepers in the first place. He hired them to do a job and he expected them to do it so he would not clean or store or pack or cook or fold his clothes or hang them up or press them.That was their job. He was rich. He could afford to have others work for him. That is the way his world worked.To think that he was even aware that they were there or he put them there is just silly. Michael was asked about what was found in the 1993 search by Diane Sawyer.He said “nothing was found that he knew of unless it was something someone sent him”. I believe him because he looked genuinly surprised when asked so he did not know about them. I think the video is still on you tube. It is only the haters that think everything Michael said was a lie and I can’t help them with that.

  55. March 24, 2012 12:26 am

    “He was gone for long at a time prior to that search in 1993. He had to get keys from the maids in the house to open any lock. He did not carry the keys to anything in the house. So who put them in there and who opened it up? It would have been Adrian McManus that would have opened it but then it could not have been her either because she amazingly did not come in to work that day claiming that she called in sick.”

    Lynette, sorry to hear that you were in hospital. Hope you are better now!

    The fact that those books were found in a locked closet is heavily emphasized by haters as if Michael wanted to hide them. But I am pretty sure that it wasn’t him who put them there at all – I remember reading in an article that he was surpised they were found there.

    The obvious candidate for slealtily putting the books in a locked cabinet (in the closet!) was Adrian McManus and her sudden absence exactly on the day of the raid only strenthens this suspicion.

    There are many signs that someone was working agaisnt Michael in his own home – remember that dirty underwear which was also found in bags among the books. In a well run home, which it was supposed to be, things like that simply cannot happen all by themselves. Or remember the blood spot on one piece of underwear in those bags with some cocaine on top of it. ON the blood spot – but NOT IN the blood, as the analysis showed it, which means that someone rubbed in cocaine into the surface of the blood.

    And this absurdity is all the more absurd because MJ never used any cocaine (Franc Cascio was vehement that MJ didn’t – he said, “never, never did he use it”). Demerol yes, but not cocaine. When it comes to Michael Frank Cascio was so outspoken about other things that we can be sure that his words are absolutely true.

    I’ve corrected a bit your information about Michael being away from Neverland for long – he was away, but not for long. However the people working against him had all the time they needed to plant anything they wanted and anywhere they wanted too.

    The fact that he had just left on a tour is even better in the circumstances. The investigation started on August 17 when he was still in Neverland, as far as I understand, and if he had been “panicky” and supposed there would be a search (and was “afraid” of showing the books) he would have simply thrown them away and not hid them for the police to eventually find them.

    No, all this is just a sign of someone doing it on purpose. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Victor Gutierrez had something to do with it.

    Here is the account of the Neverland search in 1993 provided by Lisa Campbell:

    The boy’s claims were unsubstantiated, however, his accusations did prompt the Los Angeles police department to open an investigation on August 17, 1993, and to serve search warrants on Michael’s Neverland Valley Ranch and his condo in Century City, on August 21 and 22.

    Michael was not home at the time of the search, having already flown to Bangkok for the kick off of the tour. A locksmith accompanied the police officers during the search to help them gain entry to rooms which were locked and to which the household staff had no keys.

    Jackson’s camp cooperated with the search. Several boxes of photographs and videotapes were removed from the premises. These were erroneously referred to by some members of the media as evidence, when in fact the photos and videos showed nothing out of the ordinary, and didn’t incriminate Michael at all. A source from the police department told The Los Angeles Times, “There’s no medical evidence, no taped evidence … The search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing.”

    Immediately questions arose as to how the LAPD was able to obtain the search warrants for Michael’s homes based solely on the unsubstantiated claims of one boy. In requesting a search warrant, police are required to prove they have probable cause that a crime has been committed. In this case, they had no such thing.

  56. lynande51 permalink
    March 23, 2012 10:58 pm

    Now that I am home and able to write again I will add something else to the porn questions. The porn that Michael claimed was his was in the briefcase found in his closet. That is what the Arvizo boys claimed he showed them. In that briefcase were a total of seven magazines.That’s right seven whole magazines with the centerfolds torn out. That would be a total of seven magazines over a life time.
    Next the ones that were found in a sealed box at the foot of his bed were those old nudist magazines from the 1930’s that we know Michael didn’t originally purchase because he wasn’t born yet. They were all tested for fingerprints and DNA and Michael’s prints were not found on any of the magazines or the pages inside of them.
    2 photography books were found in plastic bags on a shelf in his linen closet.The rest were found in the the storage closet in the video arcade library apartment that Frank claimed as his office when he was there. The books found in the wine cellar were the Arvizo boys school books which were exculpatory because they claimed they weren’t in there alone and they got those school books when Michael was in Florida from the 20th of February until March 2nd for Blanket’s first birthday party at Al Malnik’s.
    The other two magazines were found in the bathroom of his office, one each from either side of the vanity.
    Big Deal. My guess is he liked whoever those centerfold models were in those seven magazines.As for who else was there at the time we know that Omer and two of his Norwegian friends were there along with Michael’s cousins Levon and Elijah Jackson. They were all around the same age and what the press and police didn’t want anyone to know was that there were several young women there at the same time.Surprisingly they did not speak to the girls or take their DNA for comparison. What is really looks like is that Omer and friends had a party while MJ was in Vegas working. Just like so many young people their age which was 19 to their early twenties they partied. Again, big deal. So they looked at girls and had some alcohol. In Norway they were legally able to drink at the age of 18 so who cares? The cops probably did scare them when they found themselves in the middle of that search that day asking questions about booze and porn when they were in a foreign country. They probably didn’t realize that they were breaking the law at the time. As for his cousins Elijah and Levon they were over 21 and Michael didn’t control everybody when he wasn’t there.The reason that none of the images that were found on the computers were not used is because they were cached on November 17th the night before the raid so Michael didn’t have anything to do with that internet search. Doesn’t anybody remember what it was like to be in their late teens and early twenties anymore?

  57. lynande51 permalink
    March 23, 2012 8:02 pm

    Do you think ‘Rhonda’ could have been Rhonda Phillips? One of the groupies Michael consoled and befriended after one of the brothers slept with her?

    @ Rodrigo
    Yes that is who it could have been. I think everyone forgets that the books that were found were found in 1993 are not a connection to anything at the time. If it had been anything of concern to anyone other than Tom Sneddon the FBI would have prosecuted Michael. The two books in question were in the hands of the police longer than they were in Michael’s possesion.It is only the haters that question the penmanship. It is a moot point because if I remember correctly Rhonda may have been close to illiterate. How many signatures of functionally illiterate people have they seen?

    Another important part about those books is that they never proved that they were read by Michael. An inscription on the inside cover that he signed proves he saw the cover of one of the books. He was gone for long at a time prior to that search in 1993. He had to get keys from the maids in the house to open any lock. He did not carry the keys to anything in the house. So who put them in there and who opened it up? Detective Ferrufino wasn’t lying when she testified that it was Blanca Francia, she just didn’t know who it was that opened it or if it was Blanca Francia, that she wasn’t supposed to be there anymore and did not realize the significance of what she was seeing. In other words did Blanca copy the keys and keep them? Did some of the employee’s know in advance that there was going to be a search? If that is possible how was it possible? Because of her association with VG and his association with the Chandler’s? Yes that is how it is possible.

    Prosecutor Zonen picked up on the fact that Rosibel Ferrufino said that she thought it was Blanca Francia that opened the bedroom and the file cabinet. Well it was not possible that it was Francia considering she had “quit” (reality was she was fired for stealling) the job in early 1992. It would have been Adrian McManus that would have opened it but then it could not have been her either because she amazingly did not come in to work that day claiming that she called in sick.

    People don’t realize the volume of mail that Michael used to receive in 1992-1993. Just because of the sheer volume Neverland had its own zipcode at one time. Who knows when it arrived and if Michael ever even saw the book with the inscription from Rhonda. As for the other book he also signed it like he was autographing it for someone. Michael used to sign anything that a person stuck in front of his face. That is why so many people have things like pillowcases and mirrors and unusual things that he signed and they are now selling. If you want to get some idea of how much mail he used to get watch Larry Nimmer’s video he has a shot of his mailroom and that was during his trial when his popularity was waning. See that and then multiply it ten times to get an idea of what it was like in 1993 prior to Evan Chandler’s extortion.

    Here is what the haters seem to forget. This is our blog and we talk about what we want to talk about not what they want to talk about. If they want to show those photos with their ugly narratives let them do it on their own blogs because they are the ones that are fascinated with the topic not us.

  58. Caroline has the power permalink
    March 23, 2012 2:27 am

    I wonder what ******* [vmj:deleted] a.k.a. the homophobic creep ChasUGC thinks of the male themed pornographic material they (the police) found at Michael Jackson’s home. I’m surprised he hasn’t started ranting and raving and calling Michael Jackson, a FAG. The guy is sick. He tries to justify his homophobic language on religion.
    Please Caroline. Act now and give ******** [vmj:deleted] the boot before he destroys all the credibility of this free WordPress blog. You have the power just believe in yourself.

  59. March 22, 2012 10:30 pm

    “I agree with this 1000%! I don’t feel the need to speculate about how Michael got them because that’s just well, speculation and not facts and frankly, seems like we are looking for excuses which Michael does not need at all because he didn’t do anything wrong! We should deal with facts, not speculations like haters do. When I read Michael’s inscription in that book to me that’s enough for an explanation for what he saw in these books. Even if he bought that book himself he didn’t do anything criminal, nor does it in itself imply that he was a p-le.”

    What are you talking of? What excuses? Didn’t I make myself clear enough that we are not talking of books as such but of the people who use whatever book you take – be it Alice in Wonderland or Peter Pan – to prove their perverse ideas? What does their madness have to do with innocent books which inspire this madness in them? The books may be perfectly okay while it is the people who interpret them in their perverse way who are not!

    The inscriptions Michael made on one book and the fact that some “fan” sent him another book do NOT make him a p.!!! Even if someone with a perverse mind thinks something bad about these books! And even if some authors of some books are accused of certain inclinations (which they probably never had)! All this is the problem of the people who look at these books that way and not the books per se.

    The idea to see who sent the book by “Rhonda” to MJ is not a speculation. It can show who was interested in compromising him in case someone wanted to use that book against him. The book by the way is absolutely innocent – and the movie Lord of the flies is perfectly okay too (it is a drama about children surviving in an air crash, left without adults, so it naturally has nothing to do with molestation issues).

    It is only the people who stood behind making that film who raise my gravest suspicions. Mind you that the actors who played in the film do not say a single word about anything bad (possibly) happening on the site. But the overall impression of what I read about the way the film was shot was very disturbing. Is it due to my shattered nerves? Or is it because Corey Feldman spoke about those people surrounding him when he was a child? His words constanly ring in my ears now…

    BUT MICHAEL HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! So if this is everything you wanted to know about this issue Michael’s supporters can sleep absolutely peacefully now. It is probably only me who cannot. Somehow I feel that my job is not only only to stand up for Michael Jackson, but stand up for the cause he was fighting for too – defending children from that terrible malice.

    Of course we can close the subject of the Lord of the flies book, because the book and the film are ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT. But if we are concerned about the plight of some children behind these films I think we should not drop the subject and pursue it, because it is exactly what Michael Jackson would want us to do.

    I pray I could make those haters who raised the matter of that couple of books wish they had never done it. Because they themselves opened up the areas which they desperately wanted to conceal from the unsuspecting public. It is them who are the monsters. GOD PLEASE HELP US.

    Cast at the airport
    Cast at the airport before boarding on a plane to Puerto Rico

    on the set
    “There were 32 of them, the oldest 15, the youngest 7. Their long, sun-yellowed hair covered their ears and the backs of their necks; their tanned bodies were as thin and hard as the crude wooden spears some of them carried. They squatted in a pack on the rocky, dusty hilltop, the wind plucking at the rags that hung from them–rags that at one time had been white shirts, flannel shorts and school blazers. Their eyes had an extraordinary glitter, almost as bright as the sparks that flew up from the fire where the pig-dog sizzled.”

    Director Peter Brook with cast
    Director Peter Brook with cast

    Peter Brook: A Biography

    …There is no hint of neurosis about him. Wholly lacking in the Englishman’s habitual instinct of apologising for his very existence, he took to the theatre with easy and instant mastery. While at Oxford, he directed Doctor Faustus , tracking down the aged Aleister Crowley to advise on the magic, thinking nothing of consorting with “the wickedest man in England”. In the absence of women he plunged with comfortable sensuality into “every homosexual affair I could”, until finally deciding, as he character istically puts it, that female genitals were more congenial to him than male.

    …Brook turned 80 last month, almost half a century after he set the agenda for his directorial career by ridiculing “Walter Kerr, and the audience of The Miracle Worker and…most of our politicians grinning from ear to ear and buried up to their necks” like Winnie in Beckett’s Happy Days. Brook has made no secret of his contempt for the audience (or critic) that “glibly asserts that life is good, that there is always hope and that all will be well.” Observing him as the prophetic figure he is today, it’s easy to overlook the fact that he didn’t start life as an iconoclast.

    … The journeyman stage of Brook’s career only came to an end in the early 1960s when he joined Peter Hall at the Royal Shakespeare Company. His radical experimentation began in earnest in 1964 with the RSC’s much-discussed Theatre of Cruelty season. A collaboration of Brook and American director Charles Marowitz, the Theatre of Cruelty season was a seminal event for the English-speaking stage. It paved the way for Brook’s production of Peter Weiss’s The Persecution and Assassination of Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade and for much that was considered new and important in Western drama during the decade or so that followed. The notion of the “theater of cruelty” derives from the work of Antonin Artaud, who argued that “[t]he theatre will never find itself again…except by furnishing the spectator with the truthful precipitates of dreams, in which his taste for crime, his erotic obsessions, his savagery, his chimeras, his utopian sense of life and matter, even his cannibalism, pour out on a level not counterfeit and illusory, but interior.”

    A reunion 35 years later

    Lord of the Flies Reunion (1996). Reunion Image Copyright © 1996 Tom Hollyman, Inc. All Rights Reserved
    Vieques, Puerto Rico 1996

    Notes on the reunion by Tom Gaman, a free lance forester in Inverness, California. He acted as Simon in Peter Brook’s Lord of the Flies (excerpts):

    … Early the next morning the film crew went to San Juan to film Peter’s arrival. Peter Brook, now in his 70’s, is short white headed, and cerebral. What makes him special are his accomplishments, and his way of surprising people in his constant and spontaneous search for new ideas. You can feel the energy of his mind. I had anticipated re-meeting Peter for many years. Perhaps this documentary is his way of taking a moment in time to look back and to give us the opportunity to explore as adults what we really had not understood as children.

    Peter Brook is a complex man trying to achieve simplicity. I think we helped him do that, and during our August week together he became increasingly comfortable with our renewed friendship. Peter was on Vieques pausing to reflect on his most important film, and it was his way to repay us for the support of his art that we had innocently offered years ago.

    Down time on the set
    Down time on the set (from the book The boy – a photographic essay)

    It was an odd feeling to be filming again after all these years, but we must be actors at heart because we knew well how to be patient with a set. We spent much of the first day waiting while the film crew worked on one shot and another–just passing the time in these dazzling places. Sun Bay, the choir boy marching beach, is a prize, more beautiful than I remembered.

    Tom Hollyman, one of Lord of the Flies original cameramen, had come from New York to visit with the group and to shoot publicity stills. He arrived carrying a pig’s head on a stick. We stood there, awkwardly posing with enlarged photographs of ourselves as children. After the shoot we left this grinning representative of the world of authority at the beach.

    We spent Saturday at the Assembly Beach. What an important place for us: the many assemblies, the huts, the clear water, the choir march, my fainting scene, the first trip with Ralph and Jack to the mountaintop–the essence of our experiences in the summer of 1961. We had spent so many long days as a group shooting these scenes here. Although just boys, the making of Lord of the Flies had been a difficult job, and much of it was done in that palm lined cove. Here it was–the blue warm water, the reef, thousands of colorful fish, white sands, beach grapes and palms, the Caribbean wind and light–the background and form of Lord of the Flies.

    Down time on the set. The dormitory
    Down time on the set (from the book The boy – a photographic essay)

    We came together to resolve our relationships and see what would happen during a reunion of 35 years, and to try to evaluate if something important had happened after, as children, we had lived on Peter Brook’s Island. This documentary focuses on an extraordinary experience that happened to regular children, now regular adults, piecing together an unscripted story of their own lives. We were intensely familiar to one another, but years and maturity create barriers. Each of our little group of Englishmen now had the opportunity to actualize an unscripted role, and to present and exhibit it before a camera–within just days. But could we? We were not actors–not even particularly distinguished people. These were our lives and Lord of the Flies was the most public thing we ever did. I felt a frustration with my inability to communicate, yet a need to explore my own personality and to try to relate my life to my role in this film.

    I am proud of my role as Simon, and always have been. A third of a century has intervened, but I will never deny that the character is part of me, and that the experience went on to build other parts which you cannot so easily see. Peter Brook managed to see the essential raw material of personality in small boys, and to exaggerate these traits to unfold the story of Lord of the Flies on film in 90 minutes, speaking through our eyes with a script drawn verbatim from Golding’s book.

    What a wonderful opportunity it was as a child to live and to help create a classic and timeless film that asks fundamental questions of human nature. I am quite sure I represented to others more than I really am, but I am satisfied with the memory of this part of my life, and have no regrets or disappointments. I’m still here. I’m happy. I’m busy. I’m constantly challenged by a never ending sequence of experiences. I have a wonderful family, a remarkable place to be, and I’m fine.
    Henry on the set
    Henry on the set of Lord of flies (from the book The boy – a photographic essay)

    Of course the reality is that we didn’t quite live the story. The drama was not real life. Nobody was killed. Nobody was even in danger. We ate 3 meals a day and wrote letters to our families.

    People have long been interested in my involvement in a great production–it has changed my life in an enriching way. Now this year we are back together, looking directly at ourselves as children, examining who were are, learning things we never expected about our own personalities, and enjoying our surviving love for each other as brothers. In many ways it is quite unnerving–addressing as adults difficult matters that we so easily took for granted as children.

    Seeing the place again unnerved us, but I think that fate smiled too. Together we had unknowingly climbed a very tall mountain–and accomplished what today seems almost a miracle. Such a film as Lord of the Flies would never be made again, and could never have been made otherwise. There was an unplanned moment of silence as we searched our souls. Peter Brook smiled and you could tell he loved us all.

    Down time on the set 2
    Down time on the set (from the book The boy – a photographic essay)

    James Aubrey echoed my thoughts– “For me something happened, religious, spiritual experience. Peter Brook was the octopus and we were the arms”. I departed San Juan disbelieving of the totality of my own experience, gazing at people with new eyes, and struck with the enormity of the opportunities of life, the beauty of these our experiences in Puerto Rico, with love for my brothers and need for their support. We have learned that human nature does not change. With Peter Brook’s leadership, the spontaneity of ideas, and hard work, we had made these things happen. This event has somehow changed me, and leads through the theatre of my life. This wonder of “Simon” has come to pass through me for a second time. The Time Flies boys looked at their lives, and I think we were satisfied.

    Tom Gaman

    http://www.lordoftheflies.org/img/lotfboy2.htm

  60. Suzy permalink
    March 22, 2012 9:09 pm

    @ lacienegasmiles

    “There is nothing wrong with the books, trying to explain them like there’s a need to beyond what was available in court just plays into the hands of the haters. One was sent in by a fan, the other was inscribed with Michael’s own words about his feelings for what was in it, both undermine the idea that Michael kept them for any other reason beyond that.”

    I agree with this 1000%! I don’t feel the need to speculate about how Michael got them because that’s just well, speculation and not facts and frankly, seems like we are looking for excuses which Michael does not need at all because he didn’t do anything wrong! We should deal with facts, not speculations like haters do. When I read Michael’s inscription in that book to me that’s enough for an explanation for what he saw in these books. Even if he bought that book himself he didn’t do anything criminal, nor does it in itself imply that he was a p-le.

  61. Rodrigo permalink
    March 22, 2012 8:56 pm

    vindicatemj

    Do you think ‘Rhonda’ could have been Rhonda Phillips? One of the groupies Michael consoled and befriended after one of the brothers slept with her?

  62. March 22, 2012 8:26 pm

    “I think you’re giving them too much credence in suggesting they were sent by anyone with a sinister motive. The haters are obsessed with these books the same way they feel that everything MJ does is suspect and sinister and disgusting. There is nothing wrong with the books. One was sent in by a fan…”

    Lacienega, let me stress it again that there was nothing wrong with those books as otherwise Michael would have been arrested then and there for a mere possession of them. BUT THIS IS NOT THE POINT. I am not ready to discuss it now, but while you think the book was sent by a fan I think that it was absolutely no fan who sent it.

    Michael’s supporters in all their innocence cannot even imagine how huge a lobby working against Michael was and still is, and the incredible things they are capable of doing. And I am absolutely not giving these people “too much credence” – quite on the contrary, up till now I have been hugely underestimating these people. It is only now that I am beginning to understand what a Beast we are all facing.

  63. March 22, 2012 7:25 pm

    I think you’re giving them too much credence in suggesting they were sent by anyone with a sinister motive. The haters are obsessed with these books the same way they feel that everything MJ does is suspect and sinister and disgusting. These same people believe his legal hetero/naked women/lesbian porn is reflective of him being a pervert too, they even believe his “Barely Legal” porn is sinister and should only be available to minors. They believe everything said by the Arvizo’s. Their minds are distorted and they are incapable of seeing anything other than perverse and disgusting things.

    There is nothing wrong with the books, trying to explain them like there’s a need to beyond what was available in court just plays into the hands of the haters. One was sent in by a fan, the other was inscribed with Michael’s own words about his feelings for what was in it, both undermine the idea that Michael kept them for any other reason beyond that. As can be seen with Gary Glitter and the case of real actual pedophiles that these two books that he did not keep in his bedside drawer would not be enough. Gary was found in the late 90s to have thousands of photos of child sexual abuse on his computer. There was none of that in anything MJ had.

  64. March 22, 2012 6:59 pm

    “I went on Topix for the first time in ages the other day, and what were they doing? Showing Michael’s defenders those books and giving their dirty explanations. Maybe it would be a good idea to go back to the books, to drill into their heads once and for all.”

    There is no need to study the books as we and those in the courtroom in 2005 have examined them inside out, but there is a need to find how some of those books worked their way into Michael’s home. I, for one, am intrigued how a book from a certain “Rhonda” could land in Michael’s library and why this “Rhonda” was in inverted commas, for example.

    All this insistence from haters that the books are something meaningful finally brought home to me that they are indeed meaningful – but not in the way haters think. Someone was sending Michael things and surely he had much more “souvenirs” from “fans” than just a couple of those books, only the most outrageous ones he probably threw away in disgust.

    But some could easily stay in his library. The problem is that when you don’t know that a book is a token of some “ideas” in certain “circles” you take the book at its face value – just as a photography book (on the joys of boyhood for example). As a result you can easily end up keeping something which in certain “circles” is regarded as something “meaningful”.

    In the same way someone can send you tokens of some sinister cult (accompanying with a “LOVE” note) and you will keep them as beautiful ornaments, but one day the police come over and arrest you for belonging to a sect of vampires though you never knew you were one of them.

  65. Rodrigo permalink
    March 22, 2012 6:13 pm

    vindicatemj

    I know the books aren’t criminal, they wouldn’t have been published otherwise. But as you say about the haters, they use them a lot against Michael and they cant see any other reason as to why Michael would own them. You give them a good reason like yours, which is
    the only logical reason and they’ll reject it. I went on Topix for the first time in ages the other day, and what were they doing? Showing Michael’s defenders those books and giving their dirty explanations.

    I came here to sound smart (which failed :D ) and get a few pointers on how I could help, I only had good intentions.

    Maybe it would be a good idea to go back to the books, to drill into their heads once and for all.

  66. March 22, 2012 10:22 am

    “Before, I really wasn’t trying to justify the books, I was trying to find the reason why an innocent man like Michael might have had them.”

    This sounds as if they were something criminal. They were not and the fact that some perverts refer to these photo books does not make them criminal in any way. They use them for their purposes and ordinary customers (or those who were presented with those books) have no idea about it.

    In the same way the people who watched the film “The Lord of the Flies”, which laid the basis for one of the books, will never know by whom the film was made and what was taking place on the island where the film was shot – unless they do research and put two and two together.

    Rodrigo, it was the fact that you constantly talk about these books which made me wondering. Haters also make it a center point of their fantasies about MJ. And that is why I think we’ll have to return to those books.

  67. Rodrigo permalink
    March 22, 2012 12:23 am

    Thanks :)

    I didn’t even know about THEM until last year. Of course when you support Michael, you also get accused of being affiliated with THEM by haters. I had a look on the website which was so kindly presented to me by the haters, and you can imagine how disturbing it was to find out something like that actually existing. People like that can not justify their behaviour, no matter how much they try to sugarcoat it. It’s sick and wrong.

    Before, I really wasn’t trying to justify the books, I was trying to find the reason why an innocent man like Michael might have had them. And when you pointed the reasons out, I thought they sounded better than my explanation. So it’s ME who should be sorry for the misunderstanding in the first place :D

  68. March 21, 2012 11:57 pm

    “it was a challenge for me to meet a girl my type, but I did eventually, after some pushing”

    Rodrigo, I am really happy to hear that the two of you found each other at last.

    As regards that “organization” their two primary goals are (quote) “educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love and building understanding and support for such relationships”(end of quote) – so everything which may even remotedly look like following these two goals triggers off a volcano in me. If the little fuming I afforded myself was mistargeted I am sorry for it.

  69. Rodrigo permalink
    March 21, 2012 8:39 pm

    Thank you for the kind words vindicatemj :)

    Believe me, if I had no idea my opinions were actually similar to theirs! I don’t condone the behaviour of people like that, it disgusts me. I was just trying to get into the reasoning behind the books, I never imagined I was actually sounding like them!

    I could see you were being a bit hostile with me and I was thinking I have said something wrong? I honestly didn’t realise I was making you think that about me! Yikes! lol

    But as I said, after reading your way of things, I agree 100%.

    Michael always spoke of kids growing up too fast, and I agree with him. I was brought up with manners and respect. I would even hold the door open for other kids at school and they would look at me and think
    “Why’s he doing that for?”. I got one or two “thank you’s”, but mostly the puzzled or amused expression on their faces. Another thing I never did at school was swear, and my friends were even baffled by that.

    One of them came up to me one day and said –
    “I wish their were more kids like you around. You don’t smoke or drink, or swear. You don’t call people behind their backs. It would be a better place if more people like you were in it” :)

    With my cousins I always tried to set them examples. If they swore, I told them off, lol. I’m pretty imaginative and I love writing. Like what Michael said. If I was at their house late, I would tuck them up and tell them stories, cause I enjoyed being the entertainer :D
    I never had my father growing up and my mum says maybe I try to fill that space with me being like a dad to them myself.

    Like Michael said about girls, he only wanted nice and not the other types. I would never go for a party girl. I always went for the nice quiet types, just sitting in the corner reading a book :) I could never relate to girls with an attitude, and I was never interested in them anyway. Cant be bothered with women like that, and I said they take up 90% of my town up. So it was a challenge for me to meet a girl my type, but I did eventually, after some pushing :)

    Our favourite game is Michael Jackson The Experience :D

  70. March 21, 2012 5:41 pm

    “Sorry about giving my life story, but I just needed to show how we are through human nature, and that I’m a little like Michael in my ways”

    Rodrigo, it is perfectly okay to speak about yourself. In fact it changed my attitude to you as previously some of the things you said looked like those expressed by that very organization. I am sorry if I thought the things you didn’t deserve.

    “nice girls? Which are hard to come by sometimes”

    The situation with nice girls is really dramatic. Everyone is telling us that being a nice girl is no longer fashionable. There are books on sale with headlines like “How to become a bitch”. I often watch video clips on TV channels hoping to see MJ and am amazed by the way girls “sing” now. They overexpose themselves to such a degree that even men should start feeling aversion to a female body – no wonder they are no longer interested and look the other way. What next step will they suggest to us? The whole thing is a way to nowhere.

    “Most of my life, I was kind of a sheltered person. I preferred to stay in the house in my youth and watch TV and play games, still like that now actually lol. There are times I look back and regret so badly that I didn’t go out as much as I should have. I feel at times I wasted my childhood. I’m happy in my ways, but I wish I could go back and do things differently.

    You can do things differently at any moment of your life. We are free to choose our own destiny – because our Father gave all of us freedom of will and choice. The moment you step from your usual ways and make an effort on yourself to rise to some challenge in life you change your destiny and it takes a different route. This I tell you as someone who studied it. Don’t ask me what the subject was or the “righteous” will stone me.

  71. Rodrigo permalink
    March 21, 2012 2:04 am

    vindicatemj

    You are absolutely correct. I said it was just my views, but you’re way of putting things is much clearer and I agree with you 100% :)

    I can relate to Michael myself. Most of my life, I was kind of a sheltered person. I preferred to stay in the house in my youth and watch TV and play games, still like that now actually lol. There are times I look back and regret so badly that I didn’t go out as much as I should have. I feel at times I wasted my childhood. I’m happy in my ways, but I wish I could go back and do things differently.

    I’m childlike myself :) People cannot take me seriously because I’m such a joker. As you said, we are who we are through nature, Michael was like that himself. I can’t take some things seriously, because I’m not a serious person. If someone talks about something serious, I come out with like regarding games! Honest to God, I think I get on better talking to my 4 year old cousin than I do with people my own age. He’s like an old man and so funny lol

    Relationships. Haven’t had many, don’t really pursue them and needed pushing to get one in the first place lol.
    Like Michael, I’m extremely shy. He had more issues than most, bless him, so no wonder he had trouble.

    Michael wanted a nice girl to date, as we know. His brothers treat women like meat, and Michael hated that. Could it be possible that this treatment caused him to feel guilty and dirty if he had sex himself? Thinking he would turn out like his brothers if he followed their ways and instead based his views on dating nice girls? Which are hard to come by sometimes :) Michael didn’t like women who threw themselves at him, the groupies and prostitues that his brothers associated with. Michael was always a decent person anyway, he wanted to avoid turning into men like the brothers and Joseph.

    I said to my friend one time
    ¨I’m not one of those people who just want one night stands¨ My preference on relationships is on finding a girl I can truly connect with, which is also what Michael did.

    Also, didn’t Michael say in an interview, that he was afraid of relationships because he saw how bad his brothers were during breakups? One of those taped interviews I think.

    Sorry about giving my life story, but I just needed to show how we are through human nature, and that I’m a little like Michael in my ways :)

  72. March 20, 2012 11:48 pm

    “They said he had books depicting homosexual acts?…Well if he did, he also had books depicting heterosexual acts too”

    To be more exact, there was one on homosexual activity and all the rest of the magazines were heterosexual.

    “Those books CAN NOT BE and ARE NOT considered child porn in anyway. They exist as social and visual studies into the lives and minds of children. Hardly hardcore child porn is it? “

    Let me correct this statement a bit. The books depicting children on the beach (for example) cannot be considered porn at all – child or whatever. When someone is wearing a bathing suit – be it a man, woman or child – it is not porn. I don’t know what it is, probably just a photo? And the word “hardcore” is totally out of place here. You don’t make “hardcore” landscapes.

    “written and visual contents, depicting the wide variety of sexual natures of both men and women. Hardly the thing you’d expect to see from a guy who was only supposed to be interested in little boys, eh?”

    Rodrigo, you seem to know so much about Michael’s literature. But as far as I remember there was only one book discussed by the prosecution in and out – the one which showed a big “variety of sexual nature between man and woman”. I don’t know why men look at things like that – probably for learning? One of Michael’s friends said he called him for a consultation and said he wanted to “impress” LMP. So could it be some form of education on his part? But again this was one book among a thousand and the rest were magazines like Playboy and Hustler. Playboy I have seen in the hands of my stepfather when he brought it from “corrupt West” when I was a girl and it didn’t look to me like porn, but Hustler I don’t know. Is it that bad that it needs to be discussed in so much detail?

    “the consistent themes, of what I can gather, on just these books is a lost man who wanted to keep hold of his childhood. Wanted to understand the ins and outs of childhood. Wanted to understand adult life. Wanted to find an answer on how he could obtain a meaningful relationship with an adult.”

    When you are a childlike person you do not have to understand the ins and out of childhood – you simply know it. When you are pure you do not sit and try to understand what purity is like – you are just like that and that’s it. Let us not make it more complicated than it is.

    The situation was actually much simpler. A shy boy with all usual complexes of an adolescent, immeasurably aggravated first by his acne, then by lupus, then by the burn, then by the vitiligo. A boy who was subjected to dirt in life at a very early age. The child who never knew any joy except for some pranks he arranged with his brothers during those innumerable tours. Work and only work almost round the clock, as well as huge responsibilities totally unnatural for a small child. Becoming sophisticated in his work and business matters, but totally lacking experience with girls and a little helpless there. After seeing so much dirt in those night clubs longing for good romantic relations, like those in fairy tales and chivalry novels, but not seeing anything of the kind around him. Work again as this was his comfort, shelter and what he was doing best of all…

  73. March 20, 2012 10:32 pm

    “none of us need to assume anything, because Michael had a pure mind EVEN when he was out of it. So it proves he never thought about children that away, making those books and the views of the haters regarding the books, completely wrong.”

    I am happy that we agree here – I mean on the matter that any speculation over ‘what he thought’ is totally unnecessary. Fortunately, Michael revealed to us his thoughts himself.

    But I still need to make a couple of other comments.

  74. Rodrigo permalink
    March 20, 2012 10:10 pm

    vindicatemj

    I’m not trying to stir anything. It was just before when I was presented with that ‘evidence’ by the haters, I tried to give my views on the matter. Because all I got from them was –
    “Pictures of naked boys, it proves he was a p********”

    And we all know the other thing they like to point out –
    Some books are recommended by that certain organization.

    But as you said, none of us need to assume anything, because Michael had a pure mind EVEN when he was out of it. So it proves he never thought about children that away, making those books and the views of the haters regarding the books, completely wrong.

  75. March 20, 2012 10:05 pm

    “The thing he’s tried to do and wanted to, but was having conflicting issues because he had already convinced himself to remain pure and innocent, like a child?”

    Rodrigo, I think we shouldn’t interpret the concept of innocence primitively. Michael’s choice to be childlike was a conscious one, but it doesn’t mean he refused himself to be an adult, for example, in relations with women. Purity and innocence mean first and foremost clean thinking. A relationship with a woman may be fully sexual but still very pure and beautiful, if you understand what I mean. And vice versa, there may be no relationship at all, but the mind may be full of perverse fantasies and terrible dirt. In some religions sex is looked upon as a divine act as this is where a new life is being conceived – therefore it should be clean, serious (not with random partners) and free from any perversion. Judging by some of his songs and statements Michael was a gentleman in that respect too.

    “Trying to break that issue that was holding him back from having a proper relationship with a woman? The books are all consistent with the issues that Michael had and tried to resolve.”

    The issue that was “holding him back from having a proper relationship with a woman” was actually Michael’s skin disease.

    We have an article about another black man who turned white. The anguish he was going through turned him into a hermit and left him with no sex life for several years. The disease struck him at the age when he was already having relations with women – but he lost them all. Women and men alike were unwilling even to shake his hand not to mention closer interaction.

    Having a disease like that Michael could never be sure of himself. What if she runs away when she sees me? What if she laughs at me? What if I see a look of disgust on her face? What if she is shocked but pretends she doesn’t notice it? Shall I tell her in advance about my disease and we discuss it? I need to tell her that it is not contagious, but what if she doesn’t believe? What if she tells everyone what I look like? What if she goes to the media???

    I can imagine that sex was coupled with so many frights for him that he had to go without it at least until he became more or less one color again. By the time he married Lisa Marie Presley he was basically all-white, and a year before that he could at last bring himself to speak about it publicly. But even when he married – as Taraborrelli says – Michael would jump out of bed in the morning saying to LMP “Don’t look, don’t look”, run to the bathroom and come back only after applying make-up. We can imagine how terribly in the way for his relations with women his disease was.

    What Arthur Wright so sincerely and masterfully describes applies to Michael Jackson DIRECTLY – we can see Michael behind every word of it and all his “eccentricities” are easily explained by all this pain:

    “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 saw 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 17 years 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.

    http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/michael-jackson-was-not-the-first-black-entertainer-to-lose-his-pigmentation-due-to-vitiligo/

  76. March 20, 2012 11:32 am

    “there were thousands of books at Neverland and they did pick out the ones that they felt held ground to their case against Michael. Pity we didn’t find out what the rest were, that would have also showed other elements of Michael’s character, away from all that oneminded view the prosecution tried to instill in us.”

    And someone else does.

    The books you refer to are indeed a drop in the sea of books in Michael’s library and if the prosecution did not find “anything else” it means that those several books were the only ones which they could more or less tie to that case.

    As regards those few being “purchased” by Michael it is still a big question whether it’s he who purchased them. At least one of them was sent to him by “Rhonda” as a present and there is no sign that he ever read it at all, because there was no talk of any fingerprints found.

    You know perfectly well that some of these books are being promoted by a certain organization and possibly, some of them were even made by people who had respective inclinations – only it does not mean that those who come across these books by accident or even bought them voluntarily knew of the frame of mind their authors had.

    As far as I know Lewis O’Carroll was also suspected of an unnatural attachment to little girls, however for those who read his “Alice in Wonderland” there is no way to know that he did. Alice in wonderland is in everyone’s library and none of us can say that we share the inclinations attributed (probably without reason) to its author. It is only those who are themselves inclined to certain things interpret such books or photos in them in a very specific way. To the rest of us it would not even occur what is standing behind all that.

    If you really want to know Michael Jackson’s frame of mind there is absolutely no need to speculate about it – just read what he was talking of in a half-conscious state when sedated by Murray, and this will settle the matter once and for all.

    This is a short note only as I have to run now. But I’ll be back.

  77. Rodrigo permalink
    March 20, 2012 8:11 am

    Toni

    I completely agree with what you said. Those books CAN NOT BE and ARE NOT considered child porn in anyway. The haters may associate it with that for depicting naked children, but that is not the true nature of those books. They are books about the study of childhood, childhood into adulthood, etc. Which is the main issues Michael had. They exist as social and visual studies into the lives and minds of children. Hardly hardcore child porn is it?

    Then the books about sexual acts, BOTH HETROSEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL…written and visual contents, depicting the wide variety of sexual natures of both men and women. Hardly the thing you’d expect to see from a guy who was only supposed to be interested in little boys, eh?

    They were all social and artistic studies. Studies on how he could relate to people of all ages, through social interaction and through his music. Also obviously using some as inspiration for his portraits. ALL OF IT, could hardly be considered, excuse me for putting it like this, ‘fapping’ material could it?

    Even that book on how to draw sexy cartoon women, well even that appeals to me, amongst hundreds of other artists :)

    All those things reflected on Michael’s character, but the consistent themes, of what I can gather, on just these books is a lost man who wanted to keep hold of his childhood. Wanted to understand the ins and outs of childhood. Wanted to understand adult life. Wanted to find an answer on how he could obtain a meaningful relationship with an adult.

    We know Michael had a love for women, with his Playboys, Penthouse magazines, etc. But as he said, he could never ask a girl out, it was them who had to ask him out. So it shows, he had the love AND the curiosity for women, but just didn’t know how he could he go for them and how he could hold down a relationship. He had trouble, because he had a childlike nature and he knew it…So those books tell me he was searching for an answer and a solution on how he could obtain a deep and lasting relationship with a woman, whilst being who he was…a child trapped in a mans body.

    But that is my opinion, just giving by what I’ve seen from this. Of course the haters would have me believe a simple one-sided view to all this…but Michael wasn’t simple by any means, so I’m not going for a simple and one-sided view. They don’t see that Michael was an extremely unique person, so they just go for a simple, and completely wrong, answer to everything…

  78. Toni permalink
    March 20, 2012 7:10 am

    From what I understand, that book is considered art by many and not pornography. Wilhelm was a photographer artist and yes he was gay and the subject of his work was homosexual in nature but that does not make Michael Jackson gay. I’m sorry but anyone using that as ‘proof’ is nothing but a closed minded bigot. That book was given to Michael as a gift and even I would find it difficult to refuse a gesture like that. Like me, Michael was not gay but was open minded enough to understand that there are all types of people in the world.

    Michael was straight. He loved women. He married a woman and had normal sexual relationship with her. Anyone who does not believe that just does not know the facts. Lisa-Marie has always maintained that they loved each other and had full sexual relationship during their marriage. Michael is not your typical man so no, he did not live his life according to the dictates of his penis. He was a gentleman and a true romantic. RIP Michael.

  79. Rodrigo permalink
    March 20, 2012 5:47 am

    A theory of mine is, Michael read these books in order to craft himself, both socially and professionally.

    Some books clearly demonstrate how kids grow socially both nowadays and back then. To me, Michael was searching for an answer on how to keep himself and his music relevant. He’s clearly trying to understand the minds of kids and teenagers. Those books have clearly influenced how he wrote his songs and made his videos . From ballads, to hard rock. He always said most of his inspiration for music came from kids. And those books reference the social behaviour of playful children, to hard up teen, which his music aims to please.

    The books on sexuality. Well, we all know Michael had great difficulty expressing himself that way. Isn’t possible that Michael purchased these books on how he could express himself that way? Obviously not towards children…But himself, a child trapped inside a mans body, towards adults? Looking for an answer and conclusion that he could still retain his childlike innocence, but have a sexual relationship with an adult…The thing he’s tried to do and wanted to, but was having conflicting issues because he had already convinced himself to remain pure and innocent, like a child?

    Trying to break that issue that was holding him back from having a proper relationship with a woman?

    The books are all consistent with the issues that Michael had and tried to resolve.

    They said he had books depicting homosexual acts?…Well if he did, he also had books depicting heterosexual acts too. That doesn’t tell me they were books for him to look up on and go out act it in anyway. They were also another social study. Michael was a very curious person, who never got the chance to truly explore for himself. He was a man who was curious on the sexual behaviour of men and women, because he was trying to understand the ins and outs of adult life. Michael honestly couldn’t fathom the act of sex, men with women, men with men, and women with women. Those books were years old, so he was probably young when he got them. And if some were new, doesn’t that show he never got the answers to his curiosity, for him to resolve those issues?

    But there were thousands of books at Neverland and they did pick out the ones that they felt held ground to their case against Michael. Pity we didn’t find out what the rest were, that would have also showed other elements of Michael’s character, away from all that oneminded view the prosecution tried to instill in us.

    Its just my views mind.

  80. December 13, 2011 9:04 am

    We must do the documentary to show what crimes Sneddon committed
    in the 05 trial.

  81. September 6, 2011 11:56 am

    lies, lies, lies…

    http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.com/2011/08/robert-newt.html

  82. Suzy permalink
    September 4, 2011 9:07 pm

    Ed Templeton was in Budapest, Hungary (my country) not long ago. He’s the author of The Golden Age of Neglect – one book that was confiscated at Neverland. He’s a skateboarder AND an artist – famous as both. The book that was found in Michael’s possession was personally autographed by him.
    Here is Templeton, he had an exhibition here:

  83. September 1, 2011 8:00 pm

    THANKS, vindicatemj , YOUR WORK IS AMAZING.,I APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORTS

  84. September 1, 2011 7:59 pm

    aaron carter songs from MJ sony ATV CATALOG:))

    http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.com/2011/08/aaron-carter-page.html

  85. September 1, 2011 1:09 am

    http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.com/2011/08/michael-dedicated-single-way-you-make.html

    Miky, your blog is awesome!

    I’ve added it to our blogroll.

    The article about Lisa Marie’s obsession with Michael turns all those stories about their marriage being fake into a complete joke.

    Quotes:
    ” The attraction for Michael makes her crazy. We all said to her that she should forget it, but she cannot. The stress is seen on her face and her addiction for Michael is responsible. This is chronic “, says a friend.”

    “I love Michael. It is not just a physical attraction. It’s something deeper. I’ll never let him go. I made that mistake once and it almost killed me. He’s part of me and I’m part of him. We are like two souls intertwined. We are almost one person,” she said to a close friend.”

    Here is the full story: http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.com/2011/08/lisa-marie-dependenta-demichael.html

  86. September 1, 2011 12:08 am

  87. August 31, 2011 9:06 pm

    Desiree is an airhead, she/he has now removed some info she had on her/him self.A student or something.thinks she should be in medical or premed,, how does a student have all the time to write such bogus.

  88. August 31, 2011 8:34 pm

    “this desiree afirned that,,Speechless” and ,,Stranger in Moscow” are romanthicall ballads about his passion for Anton Schleiter or another boys…”

    I am speechless.

  89. August 31, 2011 8:31 pm

    this desiree afirned that,,Speechless” and ,,Stranger in Moscow” are romanthicall ballads about his passion for Anton Schleiter or another boys…
    ….pfuuuuuu

  90. August 31, 2011 12:34 pm

    “THIS IS FOR DESIREE. SO..STRANGER IN MOSCOW IS NOT ABOUT LITTLE BOYS…LOOL”

    Miky, does Desiree claim that Stranger in Moscow is about little boys too? This person is definitely fixated on certain things.

  91. August 31, 2011 12:31 pm

    Brett Barnes about A carter ,,whether he said those things or they were fabricated, they still remain lies.”

    Miky, what a precise way of saying it!

    Brett Barnes about desiree blog: ,,There are lies being told everywhere, my friend. The more voice you give them, the louder they are heard. My mother always told me that ignoring the bullshit is better than smelling it.”

    WOW! Respect to Brett and his mother!

  92. August 31, 2011 12:02 pm

    THIS IS FOR DESIREE

    SO..STRANGER IN MOSCOW IS NOT ABOUT LITTLE BOYS…LOOL

    MJ VISIT IN HAMBURG

    http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.com/2011/08/anton-and-franziska-schleiter.html

  93. August 31, 2011 11:37 am

    b barnes send me this:

    about A carter

    ,,i don’t have an opinion of him. whether he said those things or they were fabricated, they still remain lies”.

    about desiree blog

    Brett Barnes
    ,,There are lies being told everywhere, my friend. The more voice you give them, the louder they are heard.

    My mother always told me that ignoring the bullshit is better than smelling it.”

    28 iulieBrett Barnes

    rigt, brett is a very sweet and a real friend for Mike

  94. shelly permalink
    August 2, 2011 2:10 pm

    @suzy,

    I know, it’s Brandy, I just wanted to say that someone who has a pervert mind can see lots of bad things in an innocent picture.

  95. Suzy permalink
    August 2, 2011 1:41 pm

    Michael says this to Glenda about her:

    M: Laughing…Brandi comes to me and she says “There’s another lady on the phone and she’s the sweetest?” Laughing. I think she (I)
    G: Laughing. (I) she sounds (I)..I’ve never talked to her before.
    M: She’s a cutie pie. She’s Jackie’s little girl. (I) She was in my commercial, that LA Gear commercial.
    G: Oh she was?
    M: Yeah
    G: oh
    M: And she was in the video “Time to Remember” ..she was a doll. She was soooo pretty
    G: Aahhhh
    M: She’s a good actress. Let me see what time it is

    So he says she’s a “cutie pie”, “she was a doll” and she’s “soooo pretty”. OMG, that should make us all suspicious! ;))

  96. Suzy permalink
    August 2, 2011 1:13 pm

    @ Shelly

    That’s Brandi Jackson, Michael’s niece!

  97. lynande51 permalink
    August 2, 2011 8:26 am

    I’ve tried in the past to communicate with her but she does not want me to anymore. She will never change her mind period so why try. You’re right she and her readers see what they want to see and there is no changing their minds.
    On a lighter note has anyone ever read the list of artists that are with Sony? Michael’s Estate owns 50% of the publishing rights to some pretty big names both here and abroad. Does anyone remember that horrible video that Eminem did mocking MJ in the Pepsi accident? Well guess who ended up owning his butt?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony/ATV_Music_Publishing_artists

    I guess it’s true that what goes around comes around.

  98. Suzy permalink
    August 2, 2011 7:53 am

    As for the photos. I don’t get what’s the point. So Michael cannot hug a boy without that being accused of “p*lic”? Or do these people really think Michael would act out his “p*lic desires” in front of cameras? You can take a photo of anybody and interpret it anyway YOU like. That tells more about the viewer’s own mind than about the photo. It reminds me of that photo about Michael and Lily Chandler when they were sitting in a limo and Lily was sitting on Michael’s lap and the papers loved to run that photo in articles about Michael’s alleged p*lia to suggest something sinister. Of course, without adding that it was actually a girl.

  99. Suzy permalink
    August 2, 2011 7:29 am

    I really don’t think we should be communicating with D. It’s so obvious she/he is a pathological personality who is craving for attention. She will try every trick to throw that attention to herself. Once she is extremely rude and arrogant and when that doesn’t work any more she pretends to be nice. But I think anybody who is ever able to write the things she did is is pathological and you cannot deal with pathological personalities.

  100. nan permalink
    August 2, 2011 6:17 am

    thank you for those pictures of mj with the safechuck child..i was struck by the comment the man said ..in the comments..the man in the picture
    (43 months ago | reply)

    He was very nice. We spotted him several times over three days. The first time we didn’t have our camera with us, so we started carrying it around with us. We spotted him at night walking around the dolphin pond, just by himself with this boy, Jimmy Safechuck. We stood by them as they watched the dolphins and then I asked if he would pose for a picture. He said sure, but wanted to move farther away from the hotel so as not to attract attention. So as we walked a bit farther from the buiilding he said “I’d be in trouble if they knew I was out here by myself” which we took to mean some sort of security people he had snuck out on. He posed for several pictures with us, then posed for the picture you see above. They are fans from England and he gave the girl an autograph and told her that he would be in concert there soon and also wrote down some information about who she could contact to get free tickets to come see him. My friend also asked for an autograph but didn’t have any paper, so he handed Michael a dollar bill. Michael said he couldn’t sign money becaue that’s illegal and he could get in trouble, so my friend went off into the hotel and found a piece of hotel stationery, which Michael signed. He was very nice….

    MJ was afraid he was going to get in trouble if he autographed money because it is illegal..LOL..this is what i mean about the press and some jealous people trying to portray him as the exact opposite of who he truly was…unbelievable that this garbage was put upon this man..what a nightmare for him..just so awful

  101. lynande51 permalink
    August 2, 2011 5:58 am

    Here is a whole set of pictures of him and Jimmy Safechuck in Hawaii. I sure am getting tired of her incorrectly identifying these people. I’m going to add a couple of links to a couple of photos of him with one of the Cascios when they were a baby that show the beginning of his vitiligo too so we can stop talking about him bleaching his skin. I thought that was finished by the autopsy but I guess some people don’t get multifocal bilateral evidence of skin disorder.

    Alan Light with Michael Jackson (photo #1 - Michael's eyes closed)

  102. shelly permalink
    August 2, 2011 5:41 am

    I just took the photow on google image and posted the link.

Trackbacks

  1. Michael Jackson Is Innocent « La Cienega Just Smiles

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,099 other followers

%d bloggers like this: