An Insider's Letter About Michael Jackson's Women. SEX, LOVE AND JEALOUSY

Recently one reader said that I was wrong about Michael’s sexuality and this surprised me very much – I never really discussed it in this blog.  However now it is time we did as new and important facts have surfaced on this engrossing subject.

 1. THE LETTER

First it is necessary to publish the letter about Michael’s love life from someone who claims to be his long-time employee. Part of the letter was mentioned in a post about Scott Thorson, but there is a continuation to it. Though I’ve known about it for some time now I could not post it earlier as there was no way to prove its authenticity. Now the situation has changed and therefore the letter should receive our utmost attention.

Let me remind you what letter we are talking of. It appeared in the National Enquirer as a reply to their “sensational” story about the alleged gay affair between Scott Thorson and MJ published sometime in spring 2004. I memorized the time as it as it “coincided” with the grand jury deliberations on whether to indict Michael Jackson or not in that crazy Arvizo case.

The “gay affair” with Scott Thorson allegedly took place when Michael was working on Say Say Say with Paul McCartney in London in 1984, so you can imagine how devout a Jehovah’s Witness Michael was at the time.  The author of the letter called the story trash and said that all of them had no idea what they were talking of – Michael was “old school” and straight “almost to the fault of himself”, very uncomfortable about passes from males and was “thoroughly heterosexual”.

The author explained Scott’s move to slander Michael by a very true statement that “Poverty brings forth all sort of “memories” and now we know that this was exactly Scott Thorson’s case.  Journalist Roger Jacobs who helped Scott contact the National Enquirer described Thorson as a hopeless drug-addict who at that time was in a terrible hole. He simply took advantage of the Arvizo allegations and hoped to make some money by concocting a fictional story of the events which supposedly took place twenty years before that. When I asked Roger Jacobs if Scott Thorson would ever be able to understand that blood money never did anyone any good, Roger Jacobs just said “No” in reply (see here please).

The gay story was pure fiction of course. Nothing of what Scott described happened. Scott made two passes on Michael. The first time Michael ignored him and the second time he told him to back off in a very polite language as he was still very sweet and innocent at the time. And that was it. The boring truth and the colorful soap opera around it are described in much detail in this post.

But the letter in the National Enquirer had a second part to it – over there the author described Michael’s numerous affairs with women.  The authors broke down the subject to counterbalance Scott’s lies by the accurate truth and said he would not repeat it twice – though Michael was no longer his boss, he would hate his former employee “putting it out like that in public”. On the other hand the author did not care : “He ain’t my boss anymore, so he’s just going to have to put up with it” – it was more important for the author to establish the innocent truth about Michael. And the innocent truth about Jackson is this (if you can decipher it of course):

• “Scott is full of s.hit, Michael isn’t gay and he sho’ as h.ell ain’t a pedophile”.

I deciphered it as “Scott is full of shit, Michael isn’t gay and he is sure as hell isn’t a pedophile”.

Among the names of women mentioned in the second part of the letter one name is the most captivating for us. This name is a key to the closely guarded secret of the first 1993 so-called “child molestation” case in Michael’s biography and tells the actual truth behind those accusations.

The name of that woman is June Chandler and yes, the author claims that Jordan’s mother had an affair with Michael Jackson, and that “punk bitch” Jordan Chandler got jealous of mommy’s relationship with Michael.

June Chandler, Lily and Michael Jackson in Monaco, May 1993

Strange as it might seem now, in the year 2004 not a single detractor of Michael Jackson, not a single reader, journalist or even a fan questioned the official version of June Chandler’s involvement in the case. Everyone looked at her as either a poor trustful woman who overlooked the “molestation” of her son right in front of her nose or a greedy parent who was callously “selling her son to a predator”.

No other versions were ever considered and therefore the story described by the anonymous author almost ten years ago sounds so unique to us today. It is the singularity of the author’s statement and its difference from the general trend that makes this news so interesting to us – of course in addition to the fact that the revelation about June Chandler having an affair with Michael Jackson  is extremely interesting in and of itself.

Before you read the letter let me explain what “punk bitch” and some other slang words mean.  I looked them up in the Urban dictionary and find that their interpretation adds a lot of color to the narration.  For example, “Punk Bitch” with reference to Jordan Chandler points to him being a cowardly and mean figure (however who can expect a 12-year old to be brave enough to stand up to corrupt adults around him?)

In fact all interpretations of “Punk Bitch” apply:

• An ass lying to impress.
• Someone who runs from a fight and someone you are hostile toward.
• Someone who smiles in your face pretend yall are cool, but shitting on you behind your back.
• Someone who is fake but try to act like they’re hard.
• Someone who play phone warrior and talk hella shit over the phone but never to your face.
• Someone who takes a person kindness for weakness.

Another word used is “Hussy”. It means “a brazen or immoral woman”. The term is applied by the author to no other than Diana Ross.

And the last word is “Sprung”. It refers to Michael Jackson (“that boy was sprung”) and to the way he felt about Lisa-Marie Presley. The word is so special that it inspired the Urban dictionary to whole chapters of explanation:

• Sprung is when you’ve gone two months without seeing her face, yet her smile still lingers in your dreams. It’s when you can’t get her off your mind, no matter the time or distance apart. It’s when everyday that goes by without her is a bad day. It’s when you can’t help but be a hopeless romantic, waiting for the day she comes around and picks you. It’s when every song, movie, and special moment you shared sparks a flood of memories, of the better times. It’s when you’d trade it all to go back in time, to live it all over again. It’s when you hate yourself for not taking that chance, for letting that fleeting window of opportunity slip by. It’s when you long to tell her everything, about how you felt, how you still feel. It’s when the pain is unbearable. Your time spent with her each day plummets from 80% to a miserable 0% overnight….

• Sprung is falling in love with someone to the point that they are constantly on your mind and you cannot live without them.. and your everyday is either good or bad, depending on how it went with her. When you’re so infatuated with one person that you feel almost as though you’re in love with them, yet you can’t quite define it as love. When you’re sprung, you’re stuck on one person; suddenly, no one seems to matter quite as much as they do; when you don’t see them all day, it feels like you’re missing something, like the day didn’t even count as a real day.

• Sprung is when you have no control over how you feel for someone; you feel almost obsessed with them. Yet, somehow, it’s still not quite love. Eventually, it will turn into love, though, given enough time.

“That boy was sprung”. Michael and Lisa-Marie Presley in 1995

So it is an infatuation with a person, though not exactly love?

Interesting.

Now that we know how Michael Jackson felt about Lisa Marie Presley during their marriage and even after their divorce, let us proceed to the letter itself. Please read it with an open mind trying not to fall into the extremes of euphoria or total disbelief. Before we pass our final judgment on the letter we still need to check up a lot of things.

Also please note that the author of the letter mentions June Chandler in a very matter-of-fact way (the bold type is mine) with no special goal to rub into our minds the idea that the allegations were false and that the case was very much different from what everyone thought it to be. This matter-of-fact attitude makes the revelation about June Chandler all the more valuable to us:

Nor gay or phedofile [sic]

2004-06-12

You people are so gullible! I love it, it’s hilarious.

Anybody who genuinely knows Michael (which is none of you), knows that Michael is straight – almost to a fault of himself, considering that he doesn’t look like the most masculine of brothas. You’re so quick to believe Scott, which is hysterical because if you knew their history, you’d know how weirded out Michael was by Scott’s advances. Michael’s not overtly homophobic, but he is old school and isn’t completely comfortable with it. However, given the nature of his profession, he has tried his best to be accepting and because he tries to be a good Christian, he does not judge, he leaves that to God. He still gets incredibly uncomfortable by advances by anything remotely male….which brings us to Scott. Scott made a pass at Michael. Michael ignored it, initially. The second time, Michael told him to back the #### off (in more polite language, of course…Michael was still quite young and sweet and innocent back in the ’80s, if a dude tried something similar NOW, he might get punched in the face). They haven’t spoken since then. The closest he ever got to Michael after about ’84 was that his boyfriend was friends with Priscilla Presley’s makeup artist. The two haven’t spoken since Scott tried to get all up on Mikey.

One may ask themselves, if his motive for coming forward now was out of some sort of moral obligation and a desire to crush MJ’s “strategy” of declaring himself heterosexual, why didn’t he come forward in 1993? Maids, cooks, ex-guards, everybody and their momma was coming forward with “claims,” why not then? Or, if the motivation behind this is genuine concern for the welfare of children and not money, why not go to the police with the things you’ve seen (i.e. Scott claiming to have seen child porn on Michael’s nightstand)?

Simple, none of it happened and Scott was still livin’ the life with all of Liberace’s dough. Poverty brings forth all sorts of “memories.” Isn’t it convenient that just as soon as his cash stash is running dry, he tells the world he had sex with Michael Jackson?

Please.

Let me break this down for you people and pay attention because I don’t like doing it more than once. Michael Jackson is thoroughly heterosexual. He does not like men. He does not like boys. He likes women over the age of 18. Shiiiiit, even before he was 18, he liked women well over the age of 18. It’s no secret within certain circles that Diana Ross was his first. The poor guy thought he was going to marry her but she fucked him over with Gene Simmons and Arne Naess. He was pretty naive back then, so he chose not to see the obvious. Then he was celibate for about 3 years, before becoming involved with a pretty, blond employee of his, an actress from a popular ’80s/early ’90s sitcom, a singer that nobody cares about anymore but was the sh.it back in the day, some groupie/secretary, June Chandler (the mother of punk bitch Jordan who got jealous of mommy’s relationship with Michael) and, of course, Lisa Marie. Lisa Marie was the only one he allowed himself to become more than just sexually involved with since Diana, that boy was sprung. Lisa Marie, however, led him to believe they would have a family of their own, but stayed on the pill anyway because even if she said she was a rebel, the little bitch didn’t want mommy dearest to get mad at her for having a lil black child. Mike found the pills, split, messed around with a couple of other women with the goal of getting one pregnant just to hurt Lisa (he can be an as.shole sometimes, true) and eventually knocked up Debbie, which, (if I didn’t love and adore his children and think they saved his life) I would say was probably one of the biggest mistakes of his life. He was never faithful to Debbie after they married, never even wanted to marry her but Mike doesn’t like to break his mother’s heart. He and Lisa continued having sex until 1999 (they weren’t “together,” they were just fucking), until he met his third child’s mother, fell very much in love with her, but he is his father’s son, so he wasn’t entirely faithful to her, which is why they split up shortly after she found out she was pregnant. From that time, up until right before these new bullshit allegations broke, he was pretty much a dog. No attachment, just sex. He has no time to get attached to somebody and then depressed again after they part ways now that he has his children. I doubt he has time for anybody other than his children and his lawyers now.

There, you have it. Take it or leave it, but it’s the truth. Mike would hate me for putting his business out here like this, but at least it’s accurate, unlike all of the other trash going around now. He ain’t my boss anymore, so he’s just going to have to put up with it.

Summary: Scott is full of s.hit, Michael isn’t gay and he sho’ as h.ell ain’t a pedophile.

1. He’s weird, he’s rich, he’s black and he never bows down to anybody. He doesn’t fit any stereotypes of what a black man “should” be, which makes people uncomfortable and enables them to believe anything sinister about him. If you need proof of that, just look no further than this very message board.

2. I think I outlined most of the girlfriends for you, if you think hard enough you could probably figure out names, but it’s not my job to spoon feed this to you. He kept Diana a secret because that’s what the hussy wanted and by the time he got his sh.it together enough to move on and get with other women, he was so obsessed with his privacy that he didn’t want the public to know anything about him that didn’t have to do with music or business (and rightfully so, everything he does is misconstrued, manipulated and taken out of context).

3. Can’t help you there, that’s something you don’t really discuss with Michael. All I can say is that it got more out of hand after he and Diana were officially no more. Nobody around him ever condoned it, I know I certainly didn’t. In all fairness to the kid, most of it is exaggerated. He’s had a lot, but to a fairly localized area, none of this crazy cheekbone, eyebrow, eyelid, forehead stuff. But what does plastic surgery have to do with whether or not he’s a pedophile or a homosexual? Nothing. He’s got a good heart, I don’t give two sh.its about his face.

I’m about through here, maybe a repeat performance or two, but probably not. Just keep all I’ve said in mind before you jump to conclusions about Mike.

==

This post took place on June 12, 2004

http://reclaimingafallenking.blogspot.ru/2010/03/was-michael-jackson-womanizer.html

The letter is smashing to say the very least. And by that I don’t mean that news that Michael wasn’t gay. This is no news to us – we’ve known it all along as this was confirmed by everyone who knew him (except Scott Thorson), and many times over too. Not that I have anything against gay men, it is simply that this allegation about Michael was not true and I see no reason why we should sustain a lie instead of keeping to the truth.

By smashing news I mean the rest of the story. Let us not pretend – of course it is interesting to read all those details, though I  personally absolutely do not care how many women Michael had and when his sexual experience started – it was solely his business and not ours. All I can say is that I am happy that at least in this aspect of life he had a little joy to comfort himself with.

However the fact that the author named June Chandler as Michael’s love is really ground-breaking news. I suspected it all along from the various small details which did not fit into the official version of the events presented by the media and prosecutors. The land was cleared by them of all the debris long time ago but some small traces were still left here and there. And the news of June Chandler’s affair with Michael Jackson explains those traces very well indeed.

2. JUNE CHANDLER. THE TRACES LEFT

June Chandler’s affair with Michael Jackson will explain, for example, why at the 2005 trial Thomas Mesereau asked her questions whether she ever took her clothes off in Michael’s bedroom or ordered room service for food. While reading the transcripts of the trial I don’t remember a single other instance of Thomas Mesereau asking such quesition of any other woman  - Brett Barnes’ mother, or Joy Robson, or anyone else.  And lawyers don’t ask questions without any reason at all.

June Chandler at the 2005 trial

This affair can also explain why June’s maid, who lived in June Chandler’s house when Michael Jackson stayed there for allegedly 30 days, was never seen or heard of by the public (her name was not reported by the press) and why she wasn’t asked to testify at the 2005 trial.  Wasn’t she the first person to be summoned by the prosecution to testify against Jackson? Then why wasn’t she? Is it because her truthful testimony could have fully absolved Michael of any guilt and could have painted a totally different picture of his stay at June’s house?  You know, maids are very knowledgeable people when  it comes to washing someone’s bed clothes, for example…

June Chandler’s past affair with Michael will explain why she was all smiles at the 2005 trial. She had not seen her son for eleven years and was supposed to be sad about it, and Michael Jackson “broke up her family” and allegedly did some wrong to her son – so it was in her best interests to present a picture of  a distraught mother, but nevertheless she looked confident, unaffected and glamorous. Is it because it is soooo typical of a woman to use every opportunity to try and impress her former lover by the way she looks many years later and show how attractive she still is?

“Facing molestation charges Michael Jackson reportedly used Pellicano, who claims he found damning info about accuser’s family” [The Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/pellicano-s-reach.html ]

This affair can also explain what Anthony Pellicano had in mind when he said that back in 1993 he had found damning evidence about the boy accuser’s family. This is a secret that still needs to be disclosed by Pellicano – of course if he ever leaves the prison where he was put almost forever for a mere wiretapping.  And what can be  more damning than finding that a mother first had an affair with a man and then betrayed him by coaching her son to say the sexual things she herself had engaged in?

The affair with June Chandler will explain why Jordan was sure that Michael was circumcised – so sure that he ventured this information to the police and insisted on it for so long.  How come he was so confident of what he was saying? This confidence seemed to be one of the things that impressed the investigators most, by the way. So why, why was he so confident of it?

The information about the so-called circumcision could have come from June Chandler if she really had been intimate with Michael Jackson (a little later I will explain why of all people she could make such a mistake).

What was meant to be only between her and Michael could have been shared with Jordan and former husband Evan – things like MJ’s short pubic hair and the patches on his scrotum, for example. We can imagine what a devastating effect such a betrayal could have had on Michael – the shock, disappointment and humiliation of it must have changed his attitude towards women once and for all since then.

If we just suppose that June Chandler had a relationship with Michael we will understand why Jordan didn’t want to associate with his mother years after the events – first he was jealous of her relations with Michael and then she let him down again by supplying the wrong description of MJ’s genitalia, thus creating a real mess and leaving Jordan to bear full responsibility for it. Jordan must have felt as someone who was thrown under the bus by both of his parents – the father sacrificed him for the millions he sought for his film-making career, while his mother was the one who was involved most, but nevertheless managed to get out of it innocent as a baby while her son had to handle the most dirt and was scarred all over…

But am I contradicting myself when I say that June Chandler could make a mistake by taking a non-circumcised man for a circumcised one? I was saying in all earlier posts that such a mistake was simply impossible, so does it mean that I am recanting on my words?

No, it doesn’t.

I will clarify what I mean, only first I need the underage youngsters, who may be reading this, to close their eyes and skip the next few paragraphs marked by gray font  - the answer to this question will be a very graphic one.

To the rest of you I will say that Jordan could indeed get information about Michael’s so-called “circumcision” from his mother as this mistake can be made only by a woman, especially under certain circumstances.

In his interview with Dr. Richard Chandler Jordan claimed that he masturbated MJ ten times or so. But by saying it he made a big mistake, a really big mistake.  During masturbation the foreskin moves, even in the erect state, so it is impossible to overlook the foreskin and not notice that the male is not circumcised.

However if a woman is not involved in masturbation of a male and has a “traditional” intercourse she will neither notice nor feel any difference  at all – it is all the same to her whether he is circumcised or not.

Neither will she notice if she sees him only just “before” or “after”, and always in the erect state, because the erection seen from aside does look like circumcision. Neither will she notice if he wears a condom  in which case  no woman on earth will be able to tell a non-circumcised man from a circumcised one. Nor will she notice if everything is happening in the dark, for example.

In short there are lots of circumstances under which a woman MAY take a non-circumcised man for a circumcised one. With males engaged in sex with each other it is different and over there the mistake is totally IMPOSSIBLE. The basic difference is that during masturbation the foreskin MOVES (even when erect) and it is impossible for the eye not to see it.

See the animation please: http://www.circumstitions.com/Works.html

No one will tell you these things, and it is only me who is risking all these graphic details. I really wanted to spare you, but there is simply no other way to explain, so please forgive me – it wasn’t easy for me either.

For those who have skipped the explanation let us just make a conclusion that under certain conditions a woman can make a mistake about a male’s non-circumcision state, while a man can never make such a mistake, and the answer to this difference is in the foreskin. The foreskin always moves, and this fact is easily noticed by a male partner but not so easily noticed by a female partner, and this is all there is to it.

This is why the above letter is so important to us. June Chandler could also be involved and then (if the author really worked for Michael Jackson and was close to him during those events) his version will dot all i’s and cross all t’s about the intentions of the Chandlers in the 1993 case:

• Evan wanted money
• June wanted money, love and sex, but when Even shattered everything and deprived her of the chance she settled at least for money and cooperated with the others, however she let her son down by supplying him with wrong information about MJ
• Jordan wanted to derive some benefits from the terrible situation he was facing. He was the one who suffered most and evidently wanted  a compensation for it.

To make sure that the above more or less accurately shows the disposition of forces in the 1993 scheme all we need to do is prove that the letter above is authentic. If we manage to prove it we can consider the job of uncovering the truth about the Chandlers’ story done. The points that actually need to be clarified are:

1)     Was the letter really written by Michael’s employee?

2)     Could it be written by a fan who simply wanted to whitewash MJ?

3)     And was that employee indeed so well-informed that his story could be fully trusted?

3. CHECKING UP THE LETTER

Checking up the authenticity of the letter is a really big  job. The first thing to do is compare the story described there with independent information we know from other sources. Now we are in a more favorable position than the author of the letter as much has been uncovered since the year 2004 when it was written. When checking up the story one of the factors to always keep in mind is whether the author could or could not know this information at the time unless he knew Michael very closely.

The letter describes a succession of events, so it is top important to check whether the timeline provided there fits the real chronology. If all the other facts of the letter are proven correct than there will be no reason to doubt the whole of it, including the information on June Chandler.

For a start I’ve selected this quote:

Quote 1.

… that boy was sprung. Lisa Marie, however, led him to believe they would have a family of their own, but stayed on the pill anyway because even if she said she was a rebel, the little bitch didn’t want mommy dearest to get mad at her for having a lil black child. Mike found the pills, split, messed around with a couple of other women with the goal of getting one pregnant just to hurt Lisa (he can be an as.shole sometimes, true) and eventually knocked up Debbie

The fact that Lisa led Michael to believe that she wanted children but never kept her word blasted the media after Michael’s death, when Rabbi Shmuley published “The Michael Jackson Tapes”. However a similar story had earlier been told by Taraborrelli, so a fan could have known or guessed at it after connecting some dots.

As to Michael finding birth control pills and splitting from Lisa Marie as a result and then “messing around” with someone else – this information I hear for the first time and this could be provided only by a true insider. The closest to what is described here is found in Lacienegasmiles blog which is the first place to go to if you want to know about Michael Jackson’s personal life – the blog collected every little bit ever said by the media about Jackson in this respect.

This piece from Lacienegasmiles seems to refer to the period when the split between Michael and Lisa-Marie could take place. That 6 weeks period started sometime in July-August 1995:

July 31-August 6, 1995

• After an argument with Lisa Marie, Michael flies to Disneyland Paris and doesn’t see or speak to Lisa Marie for 6 weeks. She tells Rolling Stone in 2003: “He got upset and he would just disappear.” http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/1995-1999-debbie-rowe/

The fact that while being formally married Lisa Marie, Michael had close association with Debbie Rowe is also confirmed by the same blog which quotes “Magic and Madness” by Taraborrelli. Lisa’s friend, Monica Pastelle speaks there how angryL isa was with Debbie and how incredulous she was of the need to act like the jealous little wife in order to handle Michael’s ‘wet’ nurse. It almost seems that these two women are tearing him apart between themselves:

Magic/Madness, 1995

Lisa Marie’s friend Monica Pastelle says: ‘I recall Lisa telling me that Michael was trying to make her believe he was interested in a white nurse who worked for his dermatologist. Lisa just laughed it off. She thought Michael was trying to make her jealous, just playing games.’

‘But it was true, just the same: Michael was seeing Debbie Rowe while he was married to Lisa,’ says Monica Pastelle. ‘And Lisa knew it. At one point, she and Debbie had a tense telephone conversation during which Lisa said: “Look, nursey. I’m sorry that you’re in love with my husband. But he’s mine. So get lost”.

‘Afterwards, Lisa burst out laughing. She said: “Can you imagine? Me acting like the jealous little wife because Michael’s wet nurse -or whatever she is-  is in love with him. What is this craziness?” ‘

http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/1995-1999-debbie-rowe/

I don’t know what Michael “seeing” Debbie Rowe stands for and whether it is the same as “messing around” described in the letter, but the very least we can be sure of is that the Debbie Rowe factor was introduced into the marital picture of Lisa-Marie and Michael at the time when their marriage was not over yet – and this is exactly what the author of our letter claimed.

In another interview Lisa Marie confirms that the conversation about Debbie possibly giving Michael a baby was taking place while they were still married and she actually gave her okay to it herself,  never really expecting him to follow her advice:

Lisa, Playboy, June 2003

PLAYBOY: Did you and Michael discuss having kids?

PRESLEY: Yeah. [Laughs] I got out of that one. “I just don’t think it’s a good idea right now.” But I knew that’s what he wanted. And I knew Debbie Rowe was offering to do it for him while we were married, according to him. She was a nurse who had a crush on him and offered to have his babies.

PLAYBOY: Was he trying to leverage you into agreeing?

PRESLEY: Kind of. “Debbie Rowe says she’ll do it.” Ok, have Debbie Rowe do it! And it’s funny, when I imagined having a child with him, all I could ever see was a custody battle nightmare.

Wiki also adds to it that Debbie Rowe was impregnated while Michael and Lisa were still married:

• While separated but still married to Presley, Jackson impregnated Rowe but she suffered a miscarriage and lost their baby in March 1996.

If this was the case I wonder if there is a way to know when Debbie was first impregnated? It would show when Michael split from Lisa and started “messing around” following the wording of the author of the letter. Remember that we are asking these questions not out of idle curiosity (well yes, out of curiosity too) but in order to check up the credibility of its author and learn whether we can trust his other information, especially the one concerning June Chandler.

For an answer about Debbie’s first pregnancy I again refer you to the Lacienegasmiles blog which managed to find out that the pregnancy started in December 1995 (so the messing around must have begun even earlier for obvious reasons). This date was taken from a story which is openly tabloid but claims that its journalist befriended Debbie Rowe and she blabbered away some very intimate details to her, one of which was that she had a miscarriage in March 1996 three months after conception, which indeed takes us to December 1995.

By the way Lisa Marie Presley’s announcement that she wanted out of her marriage with Michael came also in December 1995 and this suggests to us that our timeline is correct. Every detail of it is fitting in – if she had learned the news about Debbie’s pregnancy in December her pride would have been wounded so much that she would not have tolerated the situation for a single minute and would have immediately stamped her foot in indignation.

Well, up till now the information from the letter is being confirmed in every little detail of it!

4. ANGER AND JEALOUSY

In her interviews Lisa-Marie admits that she was extremely angry with Jackson during their separation, only when she speaks about their divorce Lisa-Marie usually displaces the focus from real events to a version which is less hurtful to her pride. She claims that the divorce was partially due to Michael taking drugs, and it is usually after this statement that the conversation habitually flows into standard talking about Michael’s “drug-addiction” and theories about her “saving” him and her (or his)  fears that “he would die like her father”, and then it goes all the way down to her unhappy childhood experience of seeing her father die, etc.

This is a regular pattern of her interpretation of the events and it is nothing new to us. However Lisa-Marie’s is not quite sincere in her version of the story and we know it from her own statement to Oprah, where she said that she had not seen any drugs in Michael’s life except the moment immediately prior to the divorce. As an example of the only instance when she thought that it was drugs she refers to the incident when Michael collapsed on stage and was rushed to a hospital.

Moreover, if you listen to her attentively you will find that even during that Michael’s collapse drugs were only a supposition on her part – she thought of them (for the first time) because when she arrived at the hospital no one could explain to her the reason for his condition, which is why she assumed the worst, and the word assumed is central here.

Isn’t it interesting how she and the media always focused on the so-called MJ’s “drug issue”, while a careful reading of Lisa’s own words reveals that the suspicion arose only on one occasion and it was just prior to the divorce and it was nothing but a supposition on her part?

Michael did try his marriage to Debbie work. He was so serious about it that he even wore a wedding ring….

What I mean is that all these drug stories are a mere pretext used by Lisa-Marie to explain why she was so terribly angry with Michael. The real reason for it was most probably her anger with the fact that she had lost Michael to another woman and an ordinary nurse at that.

The added insult of it was that the nurse was lacking her glamor, beauty and fame, and still Michael preferred her to Lisa-Marie and all of it not because of sex but because she was giving him a child.

Doesn’t it put things in a different perspective and suggest that by all that talk about “drugs” Lisa was simply having her revenge on Michael?

This is what Lisa-Marie said to papers:

…On Jackson’s drug problem, she claims she didn’t notice until the very end of their marriage.

“I didn’t really suspect and catch on until just before I filed for divorce. There was just an occasion, an incident where he had collapsed and he was in the hospital,” she described of the scene in 1995 when Jackson collapsed while rehearsing for an HBO concert and doctors blamed it on a viral infection.

“It was very confusing what was wrong. Every day there was a different report. And I couldn’t tell what was happening,” she added. “I couldn’t really get a straight answer about what was happening with him and I think we were all a little bit in the dark. At that point, I think I got from various indications that that was going on then.”

“Were you angry with him before?” Oprah questioned.

“I was very angry. I was so angry. I felt that we were so united and then at some point he pushed me out.“

http://www.popeater.com/2010/10/21/lisa-marie-presley-michael-jackson/

He pushed her out? So this is what it was really like… And how could we think that a mere suspicion that Michael was “taking drugs” could drive a street-smart girl like Lisa Marie into an indignant state like she is describing? No, it was the pain, jealousy and fury of an abandoned woman that made her rebel…

All this talk about drugs was only a pretext for Lisa-Marie to file for a divorce and a plausible reason to present to the media – it enabled her to save her face in public and hide the deep wounds to her pride. How could she admit to everyone the real reason of the divorce –  that Michael pushed her way and her place was taken by a nurse, a sheer nobody who was also ten years older than Lisa? I can very well understand how Lisa’s jealousy, rage and self-pity were suffocating her, however all she had to do to avoid all that pain was giving Michael a child – and then he would have surely stayed and there would have been no happier family on earth. What a mistake she made…

Lisa Marie’s jealousy was so terrible that Karen Faye who wrote a tell-all girlie tweet in 2007 called Lisa Marie Presley an “evil little princess”. Here is Karen’s tweet:

Date: Apr 1, 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: The Real Lisa Marie – Karen Faye.

Hi Angie…..everyone has a part of their mind that
will always doubt. We must learn to trust our hearts,
not our brains. Lisa Marie is a very evil little girl.
She was horrible to Michael, myself, and anyone who
was around Michael. She was even jealous of her own
children when they adored Michael. She was the one
trying to manipulate Michael and his world. I never
saw Michael so miserable as I did when he was married
to Lisa. No one should start beleiving the tabloids now……Lisa has her album
coming out, she wants as much publicity as she can,
What better way than to jump on Michaels
popularity….everyone else does.
KF

Lisa is an evil little princess.

Michael is an angel by comparison to LM
she was so jealous of anyone that came near Michael
she hated me…..so jealous, she didn’t want me touching him

LM has an album she wants to sell…what better way than to use Michael…..

she was a lovely person before they married
she pursued him with a vengence even when she was still married
she did not smoke or drink
as soon as they got married, she drank, smoked, wanted to fire everyone around Michael, and demanded he become a Scientologist
he bent over backwards to please her…..he never could, she was just too miserable

Lisa is just seeing the situation through her eyes, which is from a
very confused individual. I viewed the relationship
from a more objective point of view. Lisa was a
miserable, jealous, and treated Michael unfairly in
every situation when I was around. He was so unhappy
during his marriage with her, and he tried so hard to
make it work. You must also understand she has an
album to sell right now, and again people are more
interested in Michael than they are with her…..what
would you say? You would twist everything to support
yourself and your record sales…this is very
predictable. Also, remember the media twists the words
of the people they interview also (didn’t we just see
that?) Do you think they don’t do it with Lisa too?

KF

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/6krvo5

Karen Faye confirmed what we thought –  it was jealousy, anger and fury at Michael that motivated Lisa Marie to file for a divorce. She took this official step on  January 18, 1996.

5. NO DRUGS

But how can we be sure that Lisa Marie was wrong in her suppositions about Michael’s collapse and that no drugs were really involved, at least in that incident on stage? (Earlier even Lisa-Marie did not see any).

We have independent proof that when Michael collapsed during a rehearsal in New York in December 1995 there were no narcotics in his system. The proof comes from a doctor working at the Beth Israel Medical Center in New York who examined Michael after his arrival at the hospital – Michael was dehydrated, his blood pressure was abhorrently low (70 over 40) and he had a rapid heart rate. The doctor said that he was so critically ill that he was actually near death.  When Michael left the hospital he thanked the doctor for saving his life.

This shortened version of the article is providing the details:

Michael Jackson leaves the New York Beth Israel hospital, Dec.1995

Dr William Alleyne about MJ and saving him in 1995

Published: Wednesday, Jul. 08, 2009

By Andrew Dys, Columnist – adys@heradonline.com

In December 1995, Alleyne was the critical care director at Beth Israel North Hospital, on the Upper East Side in New York City across the way from the mayor’s Gracie Mansion. He was the guy in charge when one of the nurses told him, We have Michael Jackson coming here.

Alleyne didn’t believe it then.

“I said, ‘Ha, ha, very funny,’ Alleyne recalled.

He had seen patients who were stars, or spouses of stars, but this was different. Thousands of people started clamoring outside the hospital. The place was turning into bedlam.

“Ten minutes later, they rolled Michael Jackson in on a stretcher, Alleyne said Tuesday from his Rock Hill office where he’s one of the partners at Carolina Pulmonary Physicians. But in 1995, Alleyne was the doctor to the King of Pop. Jackson had collapsed after a rehearsal for an upcoming HBO special at the nearby Beacon Theater.

Alleyne and his wife had seen Jackson before in concert, on television, and now, in 1995, Jackson was waiting, unconscious, for Bill Alleyne to save his life.

“Mr. Jackson was in critical condition, Alleyne said. He was dehydrated. He had low blood pressure. He had a rapid heart rate. He was near death.”

After about an hour or so that December dusk, Alleyne said he had Jackson stabilized with intravenous fluids and other treatment, and transferred Jackson to intensive care. But in the meantime, the crowd outside had become massive, a mob scene.

Jackson soon was stable, and Alleyne and Jackson started a doctor/patient relationship similar to all in theory but unlike any relationship Alleyne had ever had in practice. As people were climbing trees to get pictures of inside the hospital, as Jackson’s fans sang his songs outside and the world press invaded the sidewalks and street for information about the condition of this most-famous man, Bill Alleyne tried to keep Michael Jackson alive with intravenous food and care.

Michael Jackson was the most soft-spoken, least demanding guy you would ever want to meet, Alleyne said. Everything he said was a whisper. His biggest concern was could he perform.

Alleyne told Jackson no way could he perform anytime soon.

Alleyne had to get permission to release information to Jackson’s family. Jackson gave it. Alleyne had to deal with other doctors who came to watch his every move, and a world that wanted information that Alleyne would not give to anybody but those Jackson said to give it to.

After about 72 hours, Alleyne and Jackson’s publicists and others realized they had to give a press conference. So Alleyne worked with Jackson’s people to go over what could be said, what to stay away from but still tell the truth. Alleyne was blunt with the world, saying Jackson did not have any immune system problems because rumors about AIDS were swirling. He was blunt that Jackson had no drugs in his system.

News accounts from 1995 show Alleyne and his then-partner, Dr. Bob Glennon, talking about Jackson’s condition to convince the world that Jackson was, in fact, critically ill.

“Michael Jackson was unconscious when he arrived, Alleyne said. I had to make that clear.

Before Alleyne left the hotel that day, Alleyne recalled Jackson telling him: Thank you for saving my life.

Then Jackson told Alleyne he understood how difficult it had been for a black man to get to such a distinguished position within the medical world, that Alleyne’s accomplishments were inspiring to Jackson.

“It was very touching, Alleyne said. I will never forget that.

The full story is here: http://www.michaeljackson.com/uk/node/820899

So it wasn’ t drugs as Lisa Marie told the whole world. Why did Michael collapse then?

He was preparing for a “One Night Only” show in New York which was his first in eight years. He rehearsed even on the day when he was not scheduled to and the dancers noticed him to be exhausted.  The concert was to be televised and shown to the audience of 250mln. people worldwide. On the day of the collapse he was rehearsing without any breaks from morning until 5 p.m. when the incident actually took place.

By that show Michael was putting very much at stake. After the 1993 case settlement his reputation was ruined. The History album was not doing very well and Michael was trying to straigten it out. This was a very stressful period of his life:

Michael Jackson Collapses At Rehearsal

By DAVID STOUT
Published: December 07, 1995 (shortened)

Michael Jackson collapsed while rehearsing on a Manhattan theater stage yesterday, casting uncertainty over plans for a highly publicized national cable television special to be telecast on Sunday. Tests showed that the entertainer was suffering from low blood pressure.

Mr. Jackson, 37, was admitted overnight to Beth Israel Medical Center North at 170 East End Avenue on the Upper East Side, where he was taken after being stricken at the Beacon Theater, 2124 Broadway at 74th Street, just before 5 P.M. He had been rehearsing for the Home Box Office special, which HBO officials say they hope will be watched by 250 million people worldwide.

Nancy Lindeman, a hospital spokeswoman, said that Mr. Jackson was in stable condition. His blood pressure was found to be an abnormally low 70 over 40 by an Emergency Medical Service crew that arrived at the theater four minutes after the collapse, said John Hanchar, an E.M.S. spokesman.

Quentin Schaffer, an HBO vice president for media relations, issued a brief statement last evening, saying, “Michael is stabilized.” He added that rehearsals were continuing last night, when Mr. Jackson was not scheduled to be rehearsing anyway.

Mr. Schaffer said the entertainer’s personal doctor was being flown in from California — a sign of concern not only for Mr. Jackson’s well-being but also for the huge sums of money that could be at stake.

The HBO special is to be taped at the theater tomorrow and Saturday. Mr. Schaffer and others at HBO acknowledged that the status of the Sunday telecast was uncertain. “The concern right now is his health,” Mr. Schaffer said.

Mr. Jackson was scheduled to receive an award last night at the Billboard Music Awards, which also took place in New York City.

HBO representatives declined to say how much they had spent on preparations for the concert, which have included renting the theater for two weeks. But they said they have had high hopes for the event, titled “One Night Only,” which was to be Mr. Jackson’s first in New York in eight years.

For that matter, Mr. Jackson himself could have a lot at stake. His latest album, “HIStory,” has languished on the charts, ranking No. 55 after 24 weeks, according to Soundscan, a company that monitors retail sales of recorded music. If the HBO concert were a success, Mr. Jackson would no doubt hope for a carry-over effect on his album sales.

Kevin Barwick, an E.M.S. technician who went to the theater after the singer collapsed, said, “We treated him as if he was anybody else.” He and a fellow technician, La-Shunn Knight, said the entertainer was lying on his side, clad in jeans and a T-shirt, and looking lethargic.

Colin Carew, a dancer not associated with the show, said colleagues participating in the production at the Beacon had told him that Mr. Jackson seemed exhausted from rehearsals. “They said he was rehearsing and he collapsed,” Mr. Carew said. “He’s been rehearsing since this morning. They asked him if he wanted to take a break, and he had said no.”

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/07/nyregion/michael-jackson-collapses-at-rehearsal.html

And in addition to all that Michael was going through very much trouble in his personal life – he desperately wanted a child and had to break away from a woman he loved but could no longer live with and rely on, and made his choice in favor of just a friend who was ready to give him a child as a precious gift…

While Michael was in the hospital Lisa-Marie visited him and had a big quarrel with him. On January 18, 1996 she filed for the official divorce. Michael answered her by going on January 25 to Motown Cafe in New York with his make up artist and friend Karen Faye. According to some sources Lisa Marie later called her to say that Karen was a “bitch”. Now they have made up and agreed that both made mistakes in the past.

In February 1996 Michael went away to Brazil to shoot “They don’t care about us”. A month later, in March Debbie Rowe had a miscarriage which she took very hard but said that Michael was there to console her. In May 1996 she was pregnant again with Prince.

Going into all this detail was necessary to make sure that the letter written by our mysterious author was correct – Michael did “mess around” with Debbie with the goal to make her pregnant. Whether it was in order to hurt Lisa (“he can be an asshole sometimes, true”) or simply for a reason that he wanted a child, we don’t know, but he finally did “knock up” Debbie while he was still formally married to Lisa,  just as the letter claimed it.

This is how and why the divorce took place at all, and it is clear that if Lisa-Marie had agreed to give Michael a baby he would have been the happiest person on earth and none of it would have taken place.  The author of the letter was right  – as for Lisa-Marie that boy was indeed sprung...

(to be continued)