Skip to content

THREE points to agree about with Michael Jackson’s haters

March 12, 2010

If  Michael Jackson’s haters and supporters really want to reach for the truth about the man who is intriguing them so much let both of us agree about THREE MAIN POINTS:

1) It is impossible to study Jordan Chandler’s case pretending we are still in the year 1993 and operate the facts known to the general public at that time only. In other words we should look at the Chandler case with the eyes of those living in the year 2010 and not 1993.

Therefore all the events since 1993 up to the present day need to be taken into account now. One such event (or rather, non-event) is the Chandlers’ strange unwillingness to state their case in court. After all if you want to stop ‘a child molester’ who is still going on with his activities and on a nationwide scale too, isn’t it an absolute MUST for you to do it at the very next opportunity which presents itself,  i.e. the 2005 trial?

We know now that the confidentiality clause of the 1993 civil agreement was absolutely NO obstacle for testifying in court at a time when the prosecution was badly in need of Jordan Chandler’s testimony for taking the matter to criminal court (the two grand juries studied the evidence presented by the prosecution but did not find anything damaging to indict Michael, so Jordan’s testimony was their last chance). But Jordie never showed up…

The agreement didn’t preclude the Chandlers from giving their testimony in 2005 again when the trial was in full swing and they could easily speak up to finally have their justice.  Especially since the prosecution demanded their presence and adjusted the legislation to make their testimony possible after so many years … Why didn’t they show up again?

True, the confidentiality clause of the agreement didn’t allow any of the parties to state their case out of court to avoid the unnecessary tongue-wagging. The only thing Michael was allowed to say at the time was that he was innocent (without going into any other detail), while the Chandlers did find a roundabout way to deal with the problem – Evan Chandler’s brother Ray who wasn’t bound by the agreement openly spoke out against Michael Jackson in his “All that Glitters” book claiming it was based on genuine documents.

But isn’t it a strange PARADOX that it was Michael Jackson’s defense team which decided to carefully listen to Ray Chandler’s story and subpoena him to testify in court as a custodian of those documents – however Ray regarded it as ‘harassment’ on the part of the defense and chose never to appear in court? Doesn’t this fact alone show the true worth of his book?

The Chandlers could of course say that they avoided going to court as they were afraid of Michael Jackson’s fans or were threatened by them. Well, since when has it become less dangerous to stealthily tell lies in a book than openly state your case in the court of law?  Isn’t it more logical to assume that they didn’t go to court as they were afraid their case would fall apart there?

When speaking about all those accusations we shouldn’t forget that the porn materials we’ve all heard so much about have never been found among Michael Jackson’s belongings (as is clear from the recently released FBI files) except the legal erotic heterosexual magazines like Hustler and Playboy collected over the period of 12 years up to 2005 plus one magazine with pictures of homosexual character (see the court materials of the Arvizo case).  It goes without saying that there was no trace of any child porn there at all.

Among many other things to remember let us also keep in mind that none of Michael Jackson’s alleged victims turned into any kind of ‘freaks’ as some experts unanimously predicted (if something like this does happen it will still be well within the average freak rate) and that Michael managed to raise his own children in an absolutely MARVELOUS way which no one even tries to dispute now. A really strong point in his favor, by the way…

2) The second point we need to agree about is the sad fact that people sometimes LIE.

The reasons for lying can be different, ranging from the fantasies of a sick mind and deliberate malice to false conclusions arising from the distorted vision of a situation and ‘innocent’ types of lies when children invent stories to cover up their wrongdoing or lie for the sake of their parents – out of love, fear, compassion or in order to please or obey them.

I fully agree that Jordan’s interview with a psychiatrist is horrendous, but WHY are we supposed to believe everything he said there if he made a crucial mistake in the description of Michael’s genitalia which automatically turns his graphic story into COMPLETE FICTION?

He said that Michael Jackson was CIRCUMCISED while in reality he was NOT ?!

As much as I hate this genitalia subject we will nevertheless have to discuss the difference between the erected and circumcised conditions and see that there is absolutely NO WAY to take one for the other – especially if we talk of an 1) allegedly prolonged ‘relationship’ and not just a one-minute glance  2) the ‘relationship’ with a half-Jewish boy who himself must have been circumcised and who should have really known what he was talking about  3) the ‘relationship’ with a 13 year-old adolescent whose vision is surely different from that of a 6-year old!

If the court of public opinion turns into a matter of life or death for a defendant as is the case of Michael Jackson (and his children now) it is top important for all of us to be honest primarily with ourselves and to resist the desire to stretch any inconvenient truth in order to fit our earlier beliefs and misconceptions. To avoid a mistake which we might one day be truly ashamed of it is necessary to keep our minds open and remember that it’s still better to give someone the benefit of the doubt rather than have an innocent man crucified because of all our prejudices and bias.

3) The third point we all need to admit is that one and the same fact is often interpreted in opposite ways due to the personality of the interpreter.

Why this happens? Because each of us projects his own personality onto other people’s behavior and betrays his own way of thinking by attributing some of his own motives to other persons’ actions. Hence the dirtier our mind is – the dirtier our expectations of the other man’s behavior are.  I am really sorry for having to say that to Michael’s haters but this little diagnosis of mine is indeed an established psychological phenomenon called self-identification …. Terribly sorry again, no offence meant…

Didn’t we hear numerous complaints from Evan Chandler that Michael was seductive, manipulating, calculating to the point of ‘divide and conquer’ and so on?  While reading all those lamentations the only thing that entered my mind in Evan’s justification was that he started thinking that way after ‘his eyes were opened’ by someone else – some anonymous “experts” who incidentally, never communicated with Michael Jackson personally and didn’t even know whom they were talking about as they were evidently analyzing some hypothetical situations only.

A seductive and manipulating guy? Hundreds of people who stayed by Michael’s side are crying out in unison that it was his natural charm that made them fall in love with him some five minutes after they met.  Both adults and kids found his personality totally irresistible.  Lisa Maria Presley, for example, “was out of her mind over this guy” according to her confidante.  Lisa herself spoke of the effect Michael had on children around him: “I did notice that he had an amazing connection to kids, whether it be a small baby or a two-year-old girl or a four-year-old — children really responded to him.” By the way little children know a person’s heart better than any adult does and wouldn’t go into just anyone’s arms!

Thinking that Michael gave all those toys and gifts to children or adults with an evil aim to win their affection and lure them into his  ‘lair of sin’, would be a really grave misconception on our part rooted in that self-identification mechanism mentioned above. Michael didn’t have to do it as people liked him anyway and whenever he was making a present it was prompted by some very specific motive of his – like for example, breathing a little life into a boy dying of AIDS, Ryan White to whom Michael gave a Mustang car in an effort to boost his spirits and make him hold on…

I wonder why these days we prefer to think only the worst of other human beings, while some 2 thousand years ago people wouldn’t allow themselves dirty thoughts about someone really pure and innocent who was still unmarried at the age of 33, was accompanied by 12 male friends everywhere he went and probably slept with them in the same room too? Humankind must have gone very much downhill since that time – just imagine all these issues handled by the present-day tabloids!

It isn’t my goal here to pass judgment on Michael Jackson’s haters.  I am not much better than they are as there was a time when I half-believed those stories and turned my back on him too.  But look at this miracle now…   Guys, why don’t you take my advice and stop wasting your time on meddling with all this dirt?  Just open your mind, soul and heart and let the HATE and PREJUDICE leave them while the TRUTH, WISDOM and CORRECT JUDGMENT will quietly take their place.

It is only then that you’ll be able to understand.

10 Comments leave one →
  1. March 12, 2010 6:29 pm

    I love this website and can only say that I agree with every word again.
    By the way-I’m not just a follower. I’ve been researching everything I can for 8 months. That tells you I wasn’t a fan until I became part of this “syndrome” for lack of a better word. There are so many of us and maybe if we had payed attention yrs. earlier, just maybe we could have done some good for him.


  2. Tex-Waco permalink
    March 18, 2010 8:34 am

    The hole in this is so big!…1. Why did MJ pay them?…2.MJ was gay, so a 13 yearold boy=a 13 year old girl![don’t be silly]….3.The bodyguard story is a “spin” on the Melvin Belli investigator story [scared them]….So ladies and gentents of the court….I want you ladies to let your old man sleep with a pretty 13 year old girl!!!..He is a good guy!!! can trust Him….HaHaHa


  3. March 22, 2010 9:59 am

    Tex-Waco, with due respect for your views on Michael’s sexuality, I prefer to believe Lisa-Maria Presley’s well-informed opinion about it. If she was ‘out of her mind’ about him, I could only wish all men were as ‘gay’ as he was…

    As to why Michael paid the Chandlers I agree it was a useless thing to do – especially in January 1994 amidst all the media hue and cry. If the 15 mln settlement was supposed to be hush money it should have been paid MUCH EARLIER – as soon as the demand was made. What was the point of waiting for all the nightmare to really start? Unless he was innocent and wanted justice for himself of course…


  4. Tom Joyce permalink
    July 5, 2010 4:28 am

    Waco there are many reasons Jackson paid the Chandlers, but I think the main one was he had already been convicted in the media – if you are not old enough to remember it, it is impossible to describe. They had decided he was guilty without hearing anything in his defense. At that time a civil case could precede a criminal case, Jackson’s attorneys tried to get the civil case delayed so the criminal case could be heard first but they were denied by the judge. In a civil case you don’t have to prove anything or even have any convincing evidence, to get a judgment. The DA would have been able to hear the entire defense Jackson was going to present and would have been able to tailor their prosecution to it. They could have changed dates, as they did in the 2005 trial, left out evidence they knew the defense could refute, in short it would give them a great advantage in a criminal case. In spite of this the settlement he made with the Chandler’s did not prevent them from testifying in 1993; and most certainly not in 2005 when Jordan was grown.

    Everyone that has commented on Jackson’s sexuality, and that actually knew Jackson, said he was not gay. A lot of them were men who admitted they did not know for sure, but related stories of just being around Jackson and listening to him talk and never once thinking he was gay – never got the “vibe” that he was gay is what one of them said. Another talked about going to the Playboy mansion with Jackson. So people who knew him and a least one that was in bed with him said he was not gay, additionally he denied it himself – that trumps you.


  5. Suzy permalink
    July 5, 2010 6:17 am

    Hm, Tex-Waco seems to be another incarnation of our Brian. I didn’t know he has been here before.


  6. July 5, 2010 2:45 pm

    “Hm, Tex-Waco seems to be another incarnation of our Brian. I didn’t know he has been here before.”
    Yes, it is his fifth face judging by the IP address.

    Brian, why don’t you assume one personality only and adhere to one point of view and one gender, please? The way you are now, “Tex-Waco” is clearly a hater of Michael while “Brian” is not anti-Michael as he assures us, “Bnepy and Kathy” are husband and wife in one person, and who is “Rosa” to them, I wonder?

    I didn’t know that haters were so few that they had to reproduce themselves in such an unnatural manner.

    And it is them who said that Michael was weird…


  7. lynande51 permalink
    July 5, 2010 3:56 pm

    I think we’re on to something here. Let me figure this out mathematically. If 1 hater equals 5 posts under different names then that would mean that there are five times fewer than what we thought. That is good news and probably a conservative estimate.@Brian, if you stopped adding … to every half thought and completed a sentence we probably would not be as readily able to recognize you. We are smart as I said and you obviously aren’t because you don’t even know your own failings and when you need a better disguise.


  8. Paulie permalink
    July 16, 2010 2:36 am

    I said it in another post…LMP saw Michael’s erect d!ck…if anyone knows what it looks like and whether it matched Jordy’s description it would be her. Not once did she give credence to this story. Only after the fact when she started to bad-mouth Michael in the media like she was embarrassed she had loved him (but apparently was following him around the world so the story goes), but never said she believed him to be a molester or said OMG! I believed he wasn’t but when I saw that drawing and heard that description I know that boy saw Michael’s penis! From her reaction when asked if they were having sex (yes! yes! yes!) on Diane Sawyer’s I would say she could describe Michael’s penis blindfolded in a dark room with both hands tied behind her back.


  9. Suzy permalink
    July 16, 2010 3:42 am

    @ Pauline

    “I believed he wasn’t but when I saw that drawing and heard that description I know that boy saw Michael’s penis!”

    What do you mean? Jordie’s description did NOT match! It’s a media lie it did. He said he was circumsized and he wasn’t. Chandler talked about a white splotch on dark background when it was a dark splotch on light background. He also mentioned several splotches, while when we hear about the photos those were taken they only mention one. And that drawing could “match” anyone’s penis – so bad that is.


  10. July 16, 2010 9:23 am

    Paulie, yes indeed!!!!
    If Lisa-Maria Presley CONFIRMED that the markings DID NOT MATCH we can forget the whole thing ONCE AND FOR ALL. And she did say so in the interview with Diane Sawyer:

    Diane Sawyer: How about the police photographs, though? How was there enough information from this boy about those kinds of things?
    Michael: The police photographs?
    Diane Sawyer: The police photographs.
    Michael: That they took of me? ….
    Diane Sawyer: Yeah.

    Michael: There was nothing that matched me to those charges, there was nothing.
    Michael: That’s why I’m sitting here talking to you today. There was not one iota of information that was found, that could connect me …..

    Diane Sawyer: So when we’ve heard the charges….
    Michael: There was nothing……
    Diane Sawyer: …markings of some kind?
    Michael: No markings.
    Diane Sawyer: No markings?
    Michael: No.
    Diane Sawyer: Why did you settle the…..
    Michael: Why am I still here then?

    Lisa Marie: You’re not going to ask me about them, are you? [laughing] Sorry. About the markings?

    Diane Sawyer: You volunteered.

    Lisa Marie: No, I’m just….the point is, is that when that finally got concluded that there was no match-up, then, it was printed this big [showing a tiny area], as opposed to how big it was, what the match-up was supposed to be.

    Michael: Because it isn’t so!



Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: