Skip to content

The BIAS against Jackson is UNDENIABLE

March 18, 2010

Yes, when you look at the way Michael Jackson is being treated even after his death you can’t doubt any longer that the media is in a sort of a stratagem against Jackson. Why would they be doing it to him, I wonder?

Everyone has surely heard of “speak no ill of the dead” saying. The wise advice “Nil nisi bonum” (“Let nothing be said of the dead but what is good”) originated in the times of ancient Rome and is still accepted as a universal ethical norm the world over.

It may still be beyond human comprehension as to why we have to respect this rule by all means. Is it because the dead are helpless and cannot defend themselves? Or is it to be done for our own good – so that we don’t leave this world bearing the guilt of a mistake that cannot be undone, as the man of whom we spoke in ill terms is no longer here to forgive us? No matter what the reason is the majority of people do manage to check their evil tongue when speaking of those who are gone. But what is good or possible for almost each and everybody is no good or possible for the deceased Michael Jackson…

My favorite journalist Charles Thomson has written a series of articles about the on-going media attacks against Michael. As someone in the industry the guy says he finds it increasingly difficult to explain away the bias with which Jackson is being treated by others in his trade. Same as Thomson I also used to scoff at the theory of conspiracy around Jackson which always sounded too simplistic to me, but now I really don’t know…

Well, whatever the case is the only remedy against this evil  is the ability to think on our own and this is why it is exceptionally interesting to observe a counter-media process emerging in the internet – the stronger the media pressure is, the bigger is the desire of many to form an individual opinion about the man whose name the press wants to smear so badly. What a fantastic feeling it is to experience that despite all the fuss they are making you get only calmer every day as the pettiness and meanness of their methods convinces you more than anything else that the truth is on your side. The process is truly interesting to observe – it is almost like seeing the ‘bad guys’ frantically trying to get on a train which has already started, is gaining speed and is leaving them hopelessly behind despite all their effort to catch up with it….

The excellent articles by the award-winning journalist Charles Thomson provided below are written in the defense of Michael Jackson who this time was defamed by a certain Gene Simmons of KISS rock group whom I fortunately never heard of or listened to. The story starts with the nonsense Simmons pronounces out of the hell he is evidently living in:

what a hell of a world he is living in...

What a hell of a world this guy is living in...

GENE SIMMONS: “Michael Jackson Was a Molester”


The latest issue of Classic Rock magazine has Gene Simmons laying into Michael Jackson.  Kiss bassist Gene Simmons has launched a scathing attack on Michael Jackson, saying that there was ‘no question’ that Michael Jackson molested children.
“I knew some of the musicians he toured with, and specifically one who quit because of seeing boys coming out of the hotel rooms,” Simmons told Classic Rock. “And then you factor in that his travel agent was put on the stand and in court said that she was authorized to fly to Brazil and bring boys back to America for him…
“Michael’s on tape going, ‘Give the kids Jesus juice.’ Which is wine. I mean, it’s just endless.
“Well, you know, where there’s smoke there’s fire. There’s no question in my mind he molested those kids. Not a doubt.”

Charles Thomson is an award winning writer. Specialising in music and celebrity journalism, Charles has contributed to publications including The Sun, The Guardian, MOJO, Wax Poetics and the Huffington Post.

* * * * *

February 5, 2010

Gene Simmons In Bonkers Jackson Rant

It seems that the lead in Gene Simmons’ make-up has gone to his brain.
In a bizarre rant during a Classic Rock interview, Simmons accused Michael Jackson of child molestation, citing several completely fictitious pieces of evidence.

The aging glam-rock star claimed that he knew a musician who quit a Michael Jackson tour because of ‘what he saw’ on the road. I am frequently paid as a Jackson expert and I can state with certainty that I am unaware of any musician ever quitting a Michael Jackson tour mid-way through. In fact, Jackson used the same musicians every time he toured, with minor alterations on a tour by tour basis, but never mid-way through.

Elsewhere, Simmons claimed that Michael Jackson was on tape ordering ‘Jesus Juice’ for children. This is a fiction.

It was alleged during Jackson’s trial that he served alcohol to the Gavin Arvizo and his siblings, but they each gave contradictory accounts of the incident. Staff accused by the children of serving them booze all denied having ever done so, but did reveal that the children had been caught stealing alcohol behind Jackson’s back.

No audio tape of Jackson ordering alcohol for children was ever brought forward and the star was acquitted on multiple counts of serving alcohol to a minor. Simmons’ claim that Jackson was on tape ordering alcohol for children is pure fantasy.

By far, Simmons’ most outrageous claim was that during Jackson’s trial a travel agent testified that the star had hired them to fly to Brazil and fetch young boys for him. This allegation is a total figment of Gene Simmons’ imagination. No such testimony ever occurred during Jackson’s trial.

Growing up, I was always taught that if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you shouldn’t say anything. Evidently Gene’s parents didn’t instill in him the same belief. That, or he’s just going senile.

It is completely irresponsible to pass comment on a criminal investigation that you know nothing about and even more irresponsible to make a criminal accusation and then support it with non-existent evidence. Simmons has heard fragments of reported speech from Jackson’s trial and then assigned them entirely new meaning as the years have passed, building up an arsenal of evidence against Jackson which never actually existed.

However, the blame doesn’t lie solely at Simmons’ door. Classic Rock should do their research before regurgitating such drivel. Yes, it is reported speech, but it is still irresponsible for any publication to perpetuate baseless myths which indicate that an innocent man is a paedophile.

Thanks to Google News, this story has now gone global. All over the world people are reading it and many will believe Simmons’ comments, partially because he’s in the music business and there is an element of presumed insider knowledge, but mostly because the initial reporting on Jackson’s trial was so inept.

Simmons’ comments have no basis in reality. Jackson is categorically not on tape ordering children alcohol. There was categorically not any testimony at his trial about flying boys in from Brazil. These two allegations are without any evidencial basis whatsoever, and for Simmons to state them as fact is despicable.

In future, Simmons should either do his research or shut his trap. His irresponsible and unfounded allegations have now entered the homes of millions around the globe and you can bet your bottom dollar that nobody is going to print a rebuttal or a retraction.

* * * * *


February, 27, 2010

Jackson Guitarist:  ‘No Truth’ to Simmons Claims

Michael Jackson’s long-serving tour guitarist Jennifer Batten has slammed Gene Simmons’ recent allegations against the King of Pop.

Last week I sat down for an hour-long interview with Batten, who accompanied Jackson on all three of his world tours. During her decade of service she was also seen in the Dirty Diana music video, Jackson’s feature film Moonwalker and the star’s record breaking Superbowl performance, which was watched by more than a billion people.

Batten performs with Michael Jackson on the Bad tour, 1988

During our interview, I took the opportunity to quiz Batten over allegations recently made by aging glam rocker Gene Simmons, who claimed in a Classic Rock interview that a musician friend of his had quit a Michael Jackson tour after ‘seeing boys coming out of the hotel rooms’.

Was it true, I asked her, that a musician had quit one of Jackson’s tours while on the road?

“Number one,” said Batten, “there’s no truth to it. Number two, I would guess that it was somebody who got fired. Somebody who was embarrassed that they got fired and made-up a story.”

But did any musicians ever get fired mid-way through a tour?

“No. Nuh-uh. No, there were a couple of people who got fired like a week before we took out on the road.”

So there you have it, folks. No musician ever left a Michael Jackson tour mid-way through. Some musicians were fired but before the tour even hit the road, meaning that they couldn’t have seen anything going on inside any hotels.

* * * * *


The Huffington Post
March 2, 2010

Michael Jackson: It’s Time For Outlets to Take Responsibility in Covering the Rock Star

Last week Michael Jackson’s guitarist discredited widely reported allegations about the star’s behaviour on the road.  So why is the media refusing to publish her comments? British writer Charles Thomson explores media bias against black music’s biggest star.

Aging glam-rocker Gene Simmons made international headlines last month when he claimed to know that Michael Jackson had molested children. In an interview with Classic Rock, Simmons alleged that Jackson was on tape ordering alcohol for children and that during the star’s 2005 trial a travel agent had testified to importing Brazilian boys for Jackson’s amusement. He also claimed that a musician friend had quit a Jackson tour after seeing ‘boys coming out of the hotel rooms.’

What followed was a classic example of copy and paste journalism. Within hours the story had been duplicated by hundreds of blogs, forums and news websites from Australia to India to the USA. None of them had fact-checked the story before they re-hosted it. Jackson was never on tape ordering alcohol for children. There was never any testimony during his trial about young Brazilian boys. Both of these claims were easily disproven by trial transcripts.

As a relative Jackson expert, I was also unaware of any musician ever leaving one of the singer’s tours midway through. So when I sat down a fortnight ago for an interview with Jackson’s long serving tour guitarist Jennifer Batten, I ran the story by her.

She told me that no musician had ever quit a Jackson tour. Two musicians had been fired but both were let go before the show hit the road, so they couldn’t possibly have witnessed anything going on inside hotels.

When Sawf News published Batten’s rebuttal I observed an all too familiar phenomenon. Although the story appeared on Google News and was picked up fairly swiftly by the Examiner, nobody else seemed willing to touch it. Whilst Simmons’s speculative and ultimately baseless accusations had been reproduced the world over, Batten’s expert rebuttal was being suppressed.

I soon began receiving emails from Jackson’s fans telling me that they were sending the story to every celebrity news outlet they could think of, including several of those which published Simmons’s initial allegations.

But more than 48 hours later, typing an exact quote from Simmons’s rant into a search engine produced almost 350 webpages. The number of news outlets hosting Batten’s rebuttal? Three.

This was not the first time I’d had a Jackson story suppressed. After Evan Chandler’s suicide in November 2009 I was contacted by the Sun and asked to supply information about the 1993 allegations. I spent quite some time compiling my research, advising the newspaper of common myths and how to avoid them, being careful to source all of my facts from legal documents and audio/visual evidence.

When I read the finished article I was stunned to find that all of my information had been discarded and replaced with the very myths I had advised them to avoid. I alerted staff to the inaccuracies but my emails were not replied. The same inaccuracies appeared in every single article I read about the suicide.

The same bias manifested itself the following month when Jackson’s FBI file was released. Across more than 300 pages of information there was not one piece of incriminating evidence — but that’s not the way the media told it.

A videotape seized at customs in West Palm Beach and analysed for child pornography was repeatedly referred to as belonging to Jackson. In actuality, files stated merely that the tape was ‘connected’ to Jackson and that connection appeared simply to be that somebody had written his name on the sticky label.

In another document the FBI logged a telephone call from a tipster claiming that the bureau had investigated Jackson during the 1980s for molesting two Mexican boys. The files made no other mention of the supposed investigation and the claim was ascribed no validity — the call was merely noted. But the media persistently referred to the anonymous tipster’s unsupported allegations as the FBI’s own conclusions.

Jackson’s FBI file overwhelmingly supported his innocence but its contents were routinely manipulated to give the opposite impression.

Many are quick to scoff when Jackson’s fans speak of a media conspiracy to destroy the star’s reputation and I used to scoff with them. As a member of the industry I prefer not to think of it as sinister and conspiratorial, but I find it increasingly difficult to explain away the bias with which Jackson is treated.

I wonder whether the problem is pride. When the 1993 allegations broke, the vast majority of information available was released, either officially or unofficially, by the prosecution. Jackson, meanwhile, remained characteristically silent.

Perhaps because the prosecution’s version of events went almost completely unchallenged (although I imagine that drama and selling newspapers had something to do with it, too), the media primarily chose to portray Jackson as guilty.

But as the facts started to trickle out it became increasingly apparent that the case was full of holes. The allegations had been instigated not by the boy but by his father, who had demanded a scriptwriting deal from Jackson before he went to the police. He was on tape plotting to destroy Jackson’s career and dismissing his son’s wellbeing as ‘irrelevant’. Then the boy told cops that Jackson was circumcised, but a police body search concluded that he was not.

Although Jackson’s innocence looked increasingly likely, most news outlets had made their bed and to this day they seem unwilling to do anything but lie in it.

Whatever the motivation, be it pride, profit or plain old racism, the bias against Jackson is undeniable. The suppression of Batten’s comments proves once more than when it comes to Jackson the media is interested not in fact or reason but negativity and sensationalism. Batten accompanied Jackson on all three of his world tours and was known for a decade as his ‘right hand woman’. But Simmons — who self-confessedly did not know Jackson — has been given over 100 times more media coverage for his inaccurate ranting than Batten has for her firsthand experience.

It is time for outlets to assume responsibility for their own content. Websites should not re-host other publishers’ stories unless they can be completely certain that the content is factual. Even if the media refuses to print the truth about Jackson, they should compromise by not printing the lies either. At least that way he can rest in peace.

33 Comments leave one →
  1. March 23, 2010 8:33 am

    I apologize to everyone for the links which didn’t work for some time. I hope now it is OK (just learning to do things)


  2. David permalink
    June 16, 2010 8:51 am

    Hey, here is something that goes along with your post about media bias. This a radio broadcast from 6-13-05, the day of MJ’s acquittal. The guy’s name is Jim Rome, and he is a sportscaster here in the USA who now works for ESPN.

    He basically makes the argument that MJ should be in jail because he’s “weird”. He regurgitates the same ol’ talking points that MJ haters use (i.e. he’s a pedophile because he “sleeps” with little boys, etc.). Ironically, he also uses MJ’s bedroom alarms as a sign of his guilt, when in reality those alarms helped VINDICATE him (per Larry Nimmer’s testimony, & his documentary “The Untold Story of Neverland”).

    The broadcast is almost 7 minutes long, and this is the type of media bias Charles Thompson so eloquently discusses in his new article. You should compare Jim Rome’s commentary to Matt Drudge’s commentary, which I posted in 3 videos under the “Aprhodite Jones UStream Interview” post on 4-30-10.


  3. Lynette permalink
    June 17, 2010 5:31 pm

    I have copies of the original article about th e1993 case. I am looking for more because I know that one of them actually stated the difference between the photos and the description.
    HighBeam Research
    Title: Michael Jackson wins tabloid slander suit
    Date: April 11, 1998 Publication: Chicago Sun-Times
    LOS ANGELES Michael Jackson won $2.7 million in his slander suit against a freelance writer who claimed to have a videotape of the pop singer having sex with a teenage boy.
    “Jurors told us that they not only wanted to compensate Mr. Jackson and punish Victor Gutierrez, but to send a message that they are tired of tabloids lying about celebrities for money,” Jackson’s lawyer, Zia Modabber, said after a jury decided against Victor Gutierrez on Thursday.
    Jackson sued Gutierrez for $100 million in 1995, claiming he told Diane Dimond of “Hard Copy” there was a video of Jackson having sex with a 13-year-old boy, and that she repeated the comments on KABC-AM. Gutierrez’s attorney, Robert Goldman, acknowledged that “some of the jurors wanted to send a message to tabloids.” In 1994, Jackson reached a settlement in a sexual molestation lawsuit stemming from his friendship with a 13-year-old boy. Investigations against the entertainer failed to produce criminal charges. Jackson has repeatedly denied the allegations.

    Copyright (c) 2009 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.

    This document provided by HighBeam Research at
    HighBeam Research
    Date: September 22, 1994 Publication: Post-Tribune (IN)
    The child molestation case against Michael Jackson will hang over the entertainer’s head for five more years, authorities said Wednesday, allowing the boy who once accused Jackson a chance to change his mind and testify in court. Jackson won’t be charged for now because the boy has refused to cooperate with authorities since reaching an out-of-court settlement with Jackson in February, Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti said. Terms of the agreement were confidential but it has been reported that Jackson paid the boy as much as $15 million.
    The investigation began in August 1993, when the boy, now 14, claimed Jackson had sex with him several times during a five-month relationship last year.
    Garcetti said charges could be filed against Jackson if the teenager changes his mind within five years, the time left under the statute of limitations.
    “We have a very important witness who has told us ‘I’m sorry. I do not want to and will not testify,’ ” Garcetti said. “And I’m telling you that if he steps forward a month from now, two months from now, and says ‘Now I want to testify,’ we would re-evaluate our case at that time.”
    Garcetti would not discuss details of the case, saying he didn’t want to compromise an investigation that remains open.
    The announcement was a relief for Jackson, who was recording an album in New York.
    “I am thankful that the investigation has reached a conclusion. I’ve continually maintained my innocence,” Gary native Jackson said in a statement. “Lisa Marie and I look forward to getting on with our lives,” he said, referring to his new wife, Lisa Marie Presley.
    Jackson lawyer Johnnie Cochran Jr. said he would have preferred the district attorney exonerate Jackson. “I would have liked a clean bill of health, you always like that.”
    Attorney Larry Feldman, who represents the teenager, insisted the settlement of the boy’s lawsuit did not affect his decision on testifying. ”There wasn’t a deal,” he said.
    The boy decided not to testify because of stalkers, death threats and constant surveillance by tabloid TV shows, he said.
    “He felt that the criminal system as it exists today could not ensure him further vindication,” Feldman said.
    The molestation allegations were investigated by prosecutors in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties. There were more than 400 witnesses, including 30 called before grand juries in the two counties about 100 miles apart.
    The investigation uncovered two other alleged victims in Santa Barbara County, where Jackson has his Neverland Ranch, Garcetti said.
    Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas Sneddon Jr. said it was ”fairly remote that charges will ever be filed.”
    Jackson, 36, has said the investigation has tormented and humiliated him and his family. At one point, Jackson underwent a court-ordered body search that included nude photographs taken to corroborate the boy’s allegations.
    The photos remain locked in a safe deposit box at a bank. Jackson lawyer Howard Weitzman has gone to court several times to get custody of the photos, but Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge James Slater has refused.
    “I would like to get those photos destroyed,” Cochran said Wednesday. ”I want to make sure those photos never see the light of day.”
    But Sneddon said the nude photos in the bank vault “will stay where they are” until the six-year statute of limitations expires.

    Copyright 2009, Post-Tribune. All rights reserved. REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED.

    This document provided by HighBeam Research at
    HighBeam Research
    Date: August 8, 1995 Publication: Albany Times Union (Albany, NY)
    A prosecutor says Michael Jackson repeatedly lied about his alleged sexual relationship with an underage boy during his June 14 TV interview with Diane Sawyer.
    In September’s Vanity Fair, out this week, Santa Barbara, Calif., district attorney Tom Sneddon called the pop star’s contention that there wasn’t “one iota of information that was found that could connect me to these charges,” “untrue and incorrect and not consistent with the evidence in the case.”
    Sources told the magazine that Jackson’s accuser drew an accurate picture of markings on Jackson’s genital area and afterward identified a police photo of them.
    Sneddon also disputed Jackson’s contention that a police search of his home yielded nothing incriminating.
    Sources said that a lewd book showing nude photos of 7- to 12-year-old boys “at play” was uncovered.
    Sneddon called the assertion on the show that Jackson has been cleared of all charges “a glaring mistake,” adding that charges could be filed until the six-year statute of limitations runs out or “until somebody comes forward” and testifies.
    Monday, a Sawyer spokeswoman said she “misspoke” when she told the TV audience of 60 million that Jackson had “been cleared of all charges.”
    The article also quotes sources as saying that Jackson’s lawyers are negotiating a settlement with another boy who claimed a relationship with the entertainer. Jackson’s people didn’t return calls Monday.

    COPYRIGHT 2009 Albany Times Union
    This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group.

    This document provided by HighBeam Research at


  4. Lynette permalink
    June 17, 2010 5:36 pm

    One thing I did notcie was the comment from Larry Feldman that there was no deal. So what can a hater say to the comment from Jordans own lawyer? Ummmmmmmm yeah but…


  5. David permalink
    June 17, 2010 7:02 pm

    Hey Lynette, I have some observations based on the following excerpt from your comment:

    “Attorney Larry Feldman, who represents the teenager, insisted the settlement of the boy’s lawsuit did not affect his decision on testifying. ”There wasn’t a deal,” he said.
    The boy decided not to testify because of stalkers, death threats and constant surveillance by tabloid TV shows, he said.
    “He felt that the criminal system as it exists today could not ensure him further vindication,” Feldman said.
    The molestation allegations were investigated by prosecutors in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties. There were more than 400 witnesses, including 30 called before grand juries in the two counties about 100 miles apart.
    The investigation uncovered two other alleged victims in Santa Barbara County, where Jackson has his Neverland Ranch, Garcetti said.
    Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas Sneddon Jr. said it was ”fairly remote that charges will ever be filed.”

    1. For Feldman to confirm that there was no “deal” to settle the civil lawsuit in exchange for the Chandler’s silence in criminal court should be a devastating blow to haters who portray the settlement -that MJ’s insurance carrier paid above his protestations – as “hush money”.

    2. As far as the Chandler’s explanation that Jordie didn’t testify in criminal court because of the media attention, that BS! Had MJ’s insurance carrier not settled above his protestations, MJ was willing and able to go to both civil and criminal court (remember, he filed a motion to delay the civil proceedings until after the criminal trial). The Chandlers would have had to testify in civil court and deal with the same amount of media attention, and if they truly wanted to avoid media attention, then Evan wouldn’t have given all of those details to the psychiatrist, who subsequently informed the cops, and Evan & Feldman wouldn’t have filed the civil suit either. If the judge had granted MJ’s request to delay the civil trial until after the criminal trial, then I’m sure they would have cooperated.

    Also, for someone who claims to not want media attention, Evan sure didn’t mind filing that 1996 civil lawsuit for $60 million against MJ, LMP, ABC News, and Sony!! In fact, Evan wanted Sony to let him record and release an album called “EVANstory”, remember? And he would have had to “promote” it, right? LOL! And Evan also didn’t mind having Raymond Chandler and Victor Guiterrez use the media to write their slanderous books about the scandal!

    3. The Chandlers say they don’t “trust” the criminal system because “it could not ensure them further vindication”. Vindication from what? It was MJ that needed vindication!! And the courts were obviously on their side by allowing the civil suit to proceed before the criminal trial!

    4. As far as the investigation uncovering two additional “victims”, does anyone know who they were? I know for sure that one of them was Jason Francia, but who was the other? This is important to know because MJ haters like Diane Dimond always love to use the “phantom victims” excuse (i.e., the victims that MJ molested but paid off, or were just too scared to come forward). She claims to have interviewed several “victims” and their parents who won’t come forward due to negative media attention.



  6. Suzy permalink
    June 17, 2010 7:35 pm

    @ David

    On point Nr 4: I simply don’t believe more accusers exist. I think it’s just another misinformation and twisting that comes from the prosecution side. If they existed we would know about them by know and they would have been on the trial since Sneddon was very desperate to get people on the stand to testify against Michael.
    And remember that on trial the prosecution claimed to have “five more victims”. Then it turned out three of their “five more victims” were Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, Wade Robson – who then were called on the witness stand by the defense and they all said they were never molested by MJ. The other two were the known ones: Jason Francia (who was a very non-credible witness) and Jordy Chandler (who refused to testify and only his mother came to testify).

    We also know how the prosecution had a habit of planting stories in the media (many times through Diane Dimond) which then turned out to be lies. So I think all these blurry claims about “more accusers” are just like that.

    Or, alternatively, there could have been people trying to capitalize on the opportunity in the wake of the Chandler case and report abuse but then they must have been non-credible even by the prosecution’s standards (which was a very low standard looking at Arvizo or Francia). Perhaps these were people who couldn’t even prove they even knew or met MJ. So they could cite those type of “accusers” as “more accusers” in the media just to make the impression of “a pattern” – when in reality even they knew they weren’t credible at all. I can imagine that.

    It happened to MJ all the time: over the years and decades we have seen women claiming they had a child with him and suing him for child support – when, in fact, often he never even knew or met that woman. So I can imagine this happening with “child molestation accusers” also after the Chandler case broke and shady people could smell money there. But like I said, if they had any credibility we would have heard about them by now.


  7. Suzy permalink
    June 17, 2010 8:08 pm

    And also remember how Diane Dimond claimed there were love letters to Gavin written by Michael. She claimed to know about them from “high law enforcement sources”. But those letters never materialized. If they existed they would have been shown on the trial.

    I think most likely it is the same with these alleged “more accusers”.


  8. Truth permalink
    June 17, 2010 9:33 pm

    “I would like to get those photos destroyed,” Cochran said Wednesday. ”I want to make sure those photos never see the light of day.”
    But Sneddon said the nude photos in the bank vault “will stay where they are” until the six-year statute of limitations expires.

    Well those 6 years have long gone and Michael is no longer with us therefore there is NO need for the state to have them.

    Here’s a great article on the strip search – disgusting that they could do this:

    (It also provides great commentary on the Victor Guiterrez and his sick book)


  9. Lynette permalink
    June 17, 2010 9:59 pm

    On the you tube series that David gave us the link to I have watched the whole 58 videos now of What Did Happen To Michael Jackson and I am looking for Roger Friedmans Fox News article archives. In it theyhad a brief excerpt that explained that Gutierrez got his information from the Chandlers maid? I wonder what her name was? Could it have been Orietta Murdock? He had a lot of other exculpatory information about this case as well and said that he was talking to someone who was right on the money about how this would play out. As for the statement from Larry Feldman does anyone think that they did not believe that they would be vindicated from the original crime in all this . I think they knew they would be proven extortionists. I know I have a great deal of difficulty in believing their deaththreats after I read the Chandlers book and they write about that poor little girl from the UK Denise Pfeiffer. Imagine tht big oaf Chandler running after a little 5 foot four inch 101 pound girl with a gun in his pants. Please. Paranoia must run rampant in th tfamily.


  10. Truth permalink
    June 17, 2010 10:51 pm


    Victor did not get his information from the maid, he got it straight from Evan Chandler himself – how else did he get those personal photos. Evan knew he couldn’t write a book for himself so was happy to give information to Victor. Remember he also spoke to J Randy Taraborelli, Diane Dimond (for their books) and was shopping for a deal that breached the agreement:

    Also that Denise Pfeiffer is mentally disturbed – here in the UK she supports the BNP which is equivalent to the KKK – and likes the fact that Michael ‘turned white’.


  11. David permalink
    June 18, 2010 6:02 am

    @ Suzy:

    Here’s another “phantom victim” for you!

    On June 1st, 2004, Daniel Kapon sold a videotaped story of where he said he was “molested” by MJ from ages 3 to 9 years old to British Tabloid “News Of The World” for $500k. In addition to molestation, he also accused Jackson of forcing him to “take drugs and drink alcohol”, as well as making him undergo “cosmetic surgery”, and falsely “imprisoning” him. And, (worst of all!) Kapon goes on to allege Jackson plagiarized him, stealing song ideas from him for 10 years from 1987 to 1997. (This charge is more absurd than all the other charges put together! MJ wouldn’t need to steal song ideas from ANYONE!!)

    At age 9, he all of a sudden “forgot” about his 6 years of molestations and plastic surgeries, only to have the repressed memories “recovered” under the treatment of notorious MJ hater Carole LIE-berman. Kapon also hired – you guessed it!- Gloria Allred to represent him in a CIVIL TRIAL! (Lieberman reported it to the cops, as she’s required to do by law, and of course they completely dismissed this baseless claim!)

    In January 2006, Kabon filed his civil suit in Orange County, but for some odd reason he re-filed it in Los Angeles county in March 2006. (Gee, I wonder why? The article doesn’t explain why.) The timeline in his civil suit was DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT from the one given in his videotaped statement. Originally, he was molested from ages 3 to 9 years old, but then it changed to ages 2 to 14 years old! (Wow, a changing timeline………sounds a lot like the Arvizo case, huh?)

    In December 2006 the case was FINALLY thrown out when Kapon FAILED TO SHOW UP TO COURT! (Just like Jordie Chandler in 2005.) Freakin’ coward!! Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire, eh? Another flame extinguished!

    But what’s really disturbing about this is the fact that his false claims were ENABLED and ENCOURAGED by Carole Lieberman and Gloria Allred! These two money hungry, attention loving quacks would have immediately dismissed such baseless claims if they were thrown at anyone else other than MJ.

    There’s more to this story, and I have a strong feeling that the administrator will have a new post on this case. (Hint, hint!!!) 🙂


  12. Suzy permalink
    June 18, 2010 8:05 am

    @ David

    Thank you for that info. Michael attracted the crazy people of this world who were after money! I think that’s because he was so naive, like Frank Dileo said after the trial in an interview: he always only saw the good in people, never the bad side and that got him in trouble.

    I remember another one, Terry George, selling a story to the British Tabloids. He claimed Michael forced him to “phone sex” when he was 13 and Michael was 19. How do you force somebody to phone sex? Anyway, the guy was an obsessed fan, IMO. There are photos of the two posing like MJ would pose with any fan. On that the guy looks about 17-18 and Michael is about 23-24. Terry told the tabloids that after this MJ rejected him and he was trying to get to him in hotels or wherever he was but he just cut him off. Now, the twist is that Terry is gay man and IMO this is exactly the reason why Michael cut him off! Not that he had a problem with gay people, but I think this guy was trying to make moves on him and Michael was disturbed by it, because he was not gay.

    “Funny”, how Mr Terry George only remembered this “molestation story” and sold it to tabloids after the Chandler case broke. Another twist to the story is that he owns a phone sex company…..
    And “funny” how despite of being “molested” by Michael as a boy he was running after him all around the world trying to get to his hotels when he was 17-18. Of course, tabloids pay cash for stories like this.

    Here are the pics of the two:


  13. Suzy permalink
    June 18, 2010 8:08 am

    @ Truth

    That is a scary information! Does it mean now they are free to do whatever they want with those photos? Can we expect them to turn up in tabloids one days?


  14. Truth permalink
    June 18, 2010 3:22 pm


    Yes it is horrible what the DA was allowed to do, he clearly went out of the parameters of what the strip search was supposed to find, and I completely agree with the author of that article, that the DA only said there was a match to justify the the search. Horrible. I’m surprised more people are not concerned with this in the US, not for Michael, but for themselves, that such abuse of power has taken place – what’s to stop it from happening to them?

    I don’t think these pictures/video will be leaked because it is locked in a vault and one would have to apply to the Court and a jugde must authorise that person to access them. However, it may be possible – and this was precisely what Michael was scared of – that’s why after the aquittal, Tom Mesereu applied to the court to get them back.

    The point is – the state no longer needs them so they should be destroyed.


  15. David permalink
    June 18, 2010 5:49 pm

    Hey guys, on the topic of those nude photo’s of MJ:

    Here’s a video of Sneddon spinning like a carousel in an interview after the trial. Notice how he says that Gavin was “discouraged” and “couldn’t understand why nobody believed him”, and how “courageous” Gavin was for testifying. He continues to “believe” in Gavin’s story. Sneddon also said the JC Penny case was a “misrepresentation” as well. What a joke!

    Rita Crosby was very aggressive towards Sneddon, and I think it’s because (for once) there was a journalist who saw through his garbage case, and she condescendingly asked him “Do you STILL believe MJ was guilty?” She also mentions how the jury “laughed off” his case!

    Surprisingly, Sneddon mentions how he TURN DOWN million dollar book deals in 1994 after the case was settled. But not surprisingly, Sneddon also LIES and says that he “never thought” about MJ after the case was closed, despite the fact that he gave numerous interviews throughout the years about the case, and flew to other countries looking for “victims”.

    As for the photos, Sneddon said that the photos are in a vault and sealed under court order, and that a judge’s approval and several signatures are needed to access them. He says he can’t leak something he doesn’t have access to, and I believe him, because when you think of all the things that have leaked over the years (like Jordie’s affidavit, etc.), if it was possible to leak those photos, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN LEAKED BY NOW!!

    Way to go, Rita Crosby!!

    Lastly, here is a comment that Sneddon “allegedly” gave after MJ died. I truly hate to use a tabloid as a source, but this is the only “on the record” comment that Sneddon gave after MJ’s death. If this comment is true, then this proves ONCE AND FOR ALL that Sneddon KNEW MJ was innocent.

    In this brief statement to The Mirror, he calls MJ’s death “sad & tragic”. I can’t confirm the authenticity of that statement (after all, this is one of Britain’s sleaziest tabloids), but I don’t think they would fabricate a quote like that. So I’ll assume it’s true, and it confirms that Sneddon knew MJ was innocent, because why would he think his death was “tragic” if he truly felt he was guilty?

    Well? What are your thoughts?


  16. Suzy permalink
    June 18, 2010 8:32 pm

    I had a little more time to go through that Floacist article that Truth gave a link to.
    Some interesting quotes about the Victor M. Gutierrez book there:

    “I know someone who was unfortunate enough to read an excerpt of it awhile ago, and it came across as a revolting, wholly fictional fantasy written BY a pedophile FOR pedophiles. There’s a chance that Victor did work with a source close to the Chandlers as he wrote the book, presumably either Evan Chandler, Ray Chandler or Diane Dimond herself (which is a strong possibility for multiple reasons).

    Gutierez who ‘plays’ Jordan Chandler, makes it out as though Michael is in fact a masterful “lover” and that he and Jordan actually had “consensual sex”. He makes Evan and June (his parents) out as evil crooks for using the criminal trial to pressure Michael into settling and letting Michael get away. And from the portions that some have read and reported, Victor goes on to describe each of the sex acts in such lurid detail that it likely rivals most published “adult” sex fiction stories out there, except here we are dealing with a minor and an adult and it is being passed off as ‘non-fiction’. In one part, Jackson supposedly wanted Jordan to ‘penetrate him’.

    If anyone remembers when the Osbournes had that Godforsaken reality show on MTV, ‘Michael Jackson was my lover’ was casually laid down somewhere. That book is definitely not a coffee table book, and judging by the photos in the book, Evan had to have worked with Gutierrez. As soon as that book was published, DCFS, Gloria Allred, and every other alleged children’s advocate should have been screaming, demanding that whoever gave Gutierrez photos of a semi-naked Jordan (looking drugged) to put in his book, and worked with him, be prosecuted for child abuse.

    Wow, I didn’t know this since I have never read or seen the Guiterrez book (and I don’t intend to read it). Was it maybe born out of the same reason as Carl Toms’ book? Is Guiterrez maybe a pedophile himself?

    Anyway, the guy is nuts, so much I know. If Evan Chandler was a psychiatric case so is Guiterrez! When Ricky Martin announced he was gay, Guiterrez went on TV in his home country in Chile to claim he knew this because he saw naked pictures of young Ricky Martin in Michael Jackson’s house and that Michael molested him when he was a child and a member of Menudo! Is there anyone in the world who buys such craziness? The guy is simply crazy!


  17. June 18, 2010 9:50 pm

    Suzy, there is no doubt Victor Gutierrez is connected with Evan Chandler (I want to make a post about it and prove it if I can). This near-shizophrenic father was so obsessed with his revenge that he employed the all-too-willing Gutierrez to do away with Michael once and for all. Remember that the book came out when Evan was still shaking with rage after Michael dared ‘allegorically’ speak of him in his songs – it was clearly a counterblow and Evan gave Victor a free hand in inventing whatever dirt there was to invent about him.

    Don’t even try to find a piece of truth in this book. Here is a comment from an outraged reader which will give you some idea what ultimate shit the book is. First I thought that the reviewer was being nasty to Michael but later realized that all his sarcasm was targeted at the author – it is clear that he cannot believe his eyes seeing all those incredible details that Victor invented with the sole aim to humiliate Michael. The way he describes it the book is poisonous from beginning to end and in so much poison no single grain of truth can survive:


    Forget Lydia Lunch, Nick Zed, Henry Rollins, Michael Gira and all those contemporary writers trying to achieve an ultimate expression of sordid nihilism and depravity layer by layer.

    This is the shit! This book outstrips them all. Superstar diarrhea dribbling into shoes; tampons up the ass to plug the loose anal sphincter; physically damaging excessive enemas; paedophiliac consensual cocksucking; prostitution of their very own minors consummated via the feigned naivete of compliant parents; gross out greed and paltry pay-offs; a virile, rampant, eruption of egomania that makes Hitler’s megalomaniac ambition a withered stump by comparison, all this pure filth and Macaulay Caulkins warm,wet lips too!

    Yippee! Nobody can ever compete. Everyone should at the very least have this book in their toilet for guests as a matter of decadent etiquette. Perfect water closet reading for the closet cases. Forget the relentless character assassination of Goldman’s Lennon book. Or any Elvis expose. Here we have achieved a nirvana of the gratuitous. Thank you Victor, Oh, thank you Victor!

    All my life I hoped that a book that proclaimed it told you “the whole unexpurgated, shocking story” would really do it. 50 years after my birth, here it is. This is the most perfectly fabulous and amoral book about the excess and undeserved privilege accorded the celebrated, successful and rich in America ever to be inked onto dead trees. Everything it claims to contain is contained within its hallowed bowels, and more, and more.

    Fantastic. I can’t believe that it’s not exposed prominently in every cornershop Bodega, supermarket and bookstore chain across America and number one in the best sellers lists everywhere! As the back says: “The Boy Reveals how he got to know Jackson (and sex); Trips to Foreign countries with Jackson (and sex); What he saw when Jackson got naked in front of him (and sex); the sexual games he played with Jackson (and more sex). There are snapshots, love notes, depositions, even spindly drawings of Michael’s malodorous and “smelly” penis by the boy; (oh, “the boy”, by the way, is Jordie Chandler who rather surprisingly is credited with having co-written the screenplay for “Robin Hood-Men In Tights” with his father at age 10. Go figure!)

    It has to be noted however, that, falling temporarily prey to his acute sense of social responsibility and his principles of investigative journalism with integrity, Victor M. Gutierrez does dwell a little too much upon the mundane legal ramifications and maneuverings of all the parties involved for my prurient tastes. Although, I guess, upon reflection, I am forced to concede that it probably is, in the end, important to be led through the opportunist treacle that glues every character forever together in Michael “Willy Wonka” Jackson’s sexual Chocolate Factory.

    After all, this is a real-life (real?), fairy-tale with multiple professedly happy endings. A terminally degraded Michael Jackson gets his man, or rather his boy, and gets away with it. Jordie Chandler gets his man, or rather his paedomorphic superhero and millions of dollars in perpetuity. Daddy Chandler gets his boys, notoriety and access to millions of dollars. Mummy Chandler gets vacations with her endearing superstar, nice gifts of expensive watches and jewelry, and the rewarding parental pleasure of seeing her beloved son taken good care of by the man, or rather boy, Jackson. Victor gets his man, mother and boys, and, I sincerely hope because he deserves to, his own share of dollars. Yes, sirree, it’s that good old fashioned American success story once again.

    This kind of shameless self-corruption is what made America great; and I for one am deeply grateful. There is something calming, and infinitely reassuring about having ones deepest cynicism about human nature and its innate badness confirmed so rapidly, uproariously and completely. I can sleep better now, safe in the knowledge that the poor scum get banged up, but that the rich and famous scum are, and will always remain, pillars of the community in any truly democratic, and free, society. All hail the American dream.

    Genesis P-Orridge

    Click to access MICHAEL%20JACKSON-%20V.doc.pdf


  18. Truth permalink
    June 18, 2010 10:11 pm


    Yes Victor Guiterrez is crazy – he said that Michael wrote the song “you are not alone” for Jordan – when everyone knows R. Kelly wrote it! He lies through his teeth. An excerpt of his book was serialised in a tabloid paper – it made my skin crawl – it’s absolutely disgusting. I think he is disturbed, he lies knowing that he will easily be found out – e.g. when he lied about the video tape. Absolutely shameless.

    That’s why I do feel sorry for Jordan – can you imagine having a book like that written about you? And the one person in his life that is supposed to take care of him and have his best interests at heart, just exploits him like that, for yet even money (as if what Evan got wasn’t enough). Evan kept saying that he settled intstead of testifying to save Jordan from the media attention so that he could get on with his life – but then had no trouble giving these pictures to Victor and allowing him to write such filth. He had no trouble talking to all those reporters, did he? And then a few years later, deciding to sue Michael again and asking to make an album about the alleged molestation of his son. No wonder Jordan stopped talking to him.


    Tom Sneddon was clearly thinking about Michael in those 10 years – keeping the case open for so long and refusing to hand over the pictures. He acts like he doesn’t give Michael a second thought outside the case but when asked about that, he gets completely riled up – that says it all.

    But I do disagree with you, I think he thought Michael was guilty. I do, however, agree that he knew there was minimal/no evidence and knew that he had no case. He was too involved in the case and that’s his problem.


  19. Incognito permalink
    June 18, 2010 10:17 pm

    @ Truth

    I feel sorry for Jordan too. What Evan did to him amounts to abuse in my eyes. Drugging him up like that and making him think he was molested. Did you know Jordan was suicidal at the time?


  20. June 18, 2010 10:27 pm

    Truth, yes, the incredible thing about V.Gutierrez’s book is that Evan Chandler allowed this filth to be published about his son whose welfare he claimed he was taking care of! Evan’s behavior clearly points to him being a psychiatric case – no parent in his right mind will ever behave like that.


  21. Suzy permalink
    June 18, 2010 11:24 pm

    @ Helena & Truth

    It’s absolutely disgusting – especially Evan’s role in it. And the horrible thing is the media says NOTHING about it! If they do, only to quote Guiterrez’s book as some kind of damning “evidence” on Michael! Not to say “Wait, what is this?! How can a child be put in such a situation by an author and by his own father? What does it tell us about the father?” And of course the stories are crazy and illogical beyond belief, yet noone in the media questions them! That just sums it up what the media are up to with all this! They don’t look for the truth. They don’t care about the children. All they want is dirt, filth, sex, scandal, a sex-scandal – no matter if it’s true or not!

    Yes, no wonder that Jordan emancipated himself.

    @ Incognito

    I’m still undecided whether Jordan knew he was lying or his father used mind-altering medications on him. I’m leaning towards “he knew”. That’s because I believe Mesereau when he said if Jordy had taken the stand during the trial they would have brought witnesses to testify he told them MJ never molested him. Based on that (and the fact he refused to testify, he knows he was lying…..

    Why? Well, hard to tell. But Evan was his father and he could manipulate him emotionally. And when he realized it was wrong it was too late.

    I just wish he would come forward and tell the World he was never molested by MJ.


  22. Incognito permalink
    June 18, 2010 11:42 pm

    @ Suzy

    I don’t know for sure whether Jordan knew. I just can’t see him willfully say those things – especially as Mike was his idol. Also the use of sodium amytal has been confirmed. It may be that afterwards he realised it was all made up – and that’s why he emancipated himself. According to Mesereu – he stopped speaking to his parents for what they made him say …but you could be right.

    I think he didn’t want to testify because his identity would be exposed.


  23. Lynette permalink
    June 19, 2010 2:45 am

    I just finished reading the Settlement Agreemant Again . I did it very thoroughly this time after looking up a couple of legal terms that were not quite clear to me. When I had “with prejudice” and “without prejudice” defined as legal terms it made so much more sense. What is dismissed with prejudice which means that it can not be taken to another court is the settlement amount once it is paid in full. what is dismissed without prejudice which means that it can be taken to another court (i.e. criminal court) are the charges for both sides. It also says that both sides can not write a book, tabloid or other medium information about the settlement amount or either parties criminal charges unless it is in a criminal court. It also included all Chandler family members, so Ray Chandler releasing the book when he did was nothing more than another low blow.He did it at a time when it became inflammatory and Michael was completely wrapped up in the criminal case and could not go after him. Evan Chandler gave him the information and he wasn’t even supposed to talk to his family about it. I think with that clause in the settlement it says that someone had alerted Michaels side to the fact that evan had been shopping a book or movie deal before he even settled. You don’t crank out 276 pages of a book in 3-4 weeks I don’t care who you are. He was writing about this before it ever happened i guarantee it. The agreement also says that they and their attorneys will safeguard to the best of their abilities any discovery by their investigators prior to the settlement . That ended Anthony Pellicano and any exculpatory tapes about extortion he may have had. Michael got screwed.


  24. Suzy permalink
    June 19, 2010 10:53 am

    @ Incognito

    I thought it’s still controversial if sodium amytal was used or not. Geraldine Hughes, for one, doesn’t believe it was.

    But then, reading Helena’s post on this blog about it, I don’t exclude the possibility. And then there’s that extract from Ray Chandler’s book when he writes that one day when staying in Evan’s house Michael got a headache and Evan called over Mark Torbiner who gave him Taradol and Michael became all dizzy and kind of out of himself and Evan used the opportunity to quiz him about whether he was gay and other subjects and Michael said he was not, but started to tell about people in the entertainment business who were….

    This story sounds fishy to me. Ray, of course is not credible, so the whole story could be made up. But if he had made up such a story he could have made up as well Michael saying he was gay. If I made up a story like that it would make more sense to say that under the influence Michael admitted he was gay. The fact he cites him saying he wasn’t gives me the impression the story might be true. Only not that it was Taradol, because that doesn’t cause this altered state of mind. And since “Dr. Sodium Amytal”, Mark Torbiner was involved it makes me wonder about what was really given to Michael! Why do you need to call over an anesthesiologist at all for a headache? Something is fishy there. And if Sodium Amytal was really used on Michael, then it was probably used on Jordan as well.

    So I don’t exclude the possibility it was used. But I don’t exclude the possibility either that Jordan could knowingly lie. I know it’s strange after how he idolized Michael and – according to June’s testimony – wanted to be with him all the time (and this was the case also after the allegeded molestations happened!). But who knows what Evan told him, how he tricked him? It could have been anything from emotional pressure, making him feel sorry for his father to threatening him with something.

    Alternatively, it could be that Sodium Amytal was used and Jordan did not say anything under the influence but Evan told him afterwards he did. And that made him believe something really happened. You know, if Jason Francia could turn tickling into “molestation” in his mind when pressured (and that without sodium amytal), I can imagine Evan talking Jordan into thinking something happened. Children can be manipulated.


  25. Lynette permalink
    June 19, 2010 1:12 pm

    He did manipulate Jordan. He admits in the book that when Jordan was safely out of anesthesia he “had to know the truth”. He admitted that he told Jordan that he had bugged his room at his house and at his mothers and knew about all the “jerking off and stuff”. He kept that up and threatened him saying that if he lied to him he would destroy Michael. He kept at it for over an hour before Jordan finally had to say yes. Evan then promised that he would tell no one. Jordan at that point probably thought that the worst that could happen was that he would not be able to go with Michael on the tour. A long time ago I said that maybe Jordan did it to protect Michael and people said no but after reading pages 90-93 in All That Glitters I’m convinced that is exactly what happened. Someone needs to reach out to Jordan and explain that he cannot be held responsible for his father and Barry Rothman’s extortion. It has been too long and he was 13 he could not have possibly understood the lifelong ramification of the accusation he made against Michael. He also could not have known how deep seated and hateful his fathers greed was. The world should. We saw it again and again in different lawsuits against Michael and his drive to get a book published.As far as I’m concerned Jordan should keep the money, his faather owed him at least that much for what he did to him. I was reading different articles yesterday and thnking about Evan being dead. I hate him still because his legacy also lives on in everyarticle you ever read about Michael. For the very first time in my life I prayed to God not to let a soul enter Heaven because it has no place there. I felt shame at having asked such a thing. I am not a deeply religious person but I was so filled with hate I just had to aske for Gods’ intervention in this . I also have to admit that I was very happy to hear that he was ill and suffering before he died. He deserved it. Sometimes you just loose all objectivity.


  26. Incognito permalink
    June 19, 2010 2:13 pm

    @ Suzy – just to add that in Jordan’s session with the therapist – he actually describes the first time he told his father and confirms that he was given something to put him to sleep. Though this could have been anything.

    @ Lynette – i doubt he will ever come out because there are alot of people who would attack him or even kill him – i have read that in alot of comments. Also the media would try to save face and blame it all on him – when they had ALOT to do with defaming Mike’s character.


  27. Rainbow permalink
    June 19, 2010 3:03 pm

    To those who wish that Jordan should speak out about 1993 … Be careful what you wish for.


  28. Suzy permalink
    June 19, 2010 6:24 pm

    @ Lynette & Incognito

    Yeah, then it seems likely he was really given sodium amytal.

    I don’t know if Jordan will ever come forward telling MJ was not a molester. I agree Lynette that noone should sue him for money if he comes forward (to clear MJ’s name is more important), but with the Jackson family I’m not sure they wouldn’t sue and wouldn’t want money from it. Or maybe the insucrance company who paid the settlement would sue. I don’t know how it is legally and if Jordan could be sued in case he confessed.

    I think he is afraid that he might go bankrupt, and yes, he is also afraid of the anger of the fans and public reaction. But I don’t know how can he live with this burden and how can he look into the mirror every morning. Probably he just buried it deep inside of him. Maybe he blames it all on his father. I don’t know.

    I’m not sure how the media would react. I think the likes of Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace STILL would be in denial! They would somehow try to make us believe that Jordan lies now when he confesses and not when he said he was molested. Just imagine what this would mean for a lot of careers! Dimond, Grace, Maureen Orth, Gloria Allred etc – and generally a LOT of people in the media and law enforcement. It’s so much more at stake than “just” Jordan’s future. And because of that I’m not sure if he isn’t also pressured to keep silent…..


  29. Truth permalink
    June 19, 2010 7:32 pm

    I don’t think Jordan can be successfully sued, in the case that he does recant his allegations. This is because the money was given for ‘claims of negligence’. The settlement did not mention the molestation allegations.

    I agree with Incognito – he probably does not want the attention.


  30. Lynette permalink
    June 20, 2010 2:34 am

    @Rainbow- Why would we need to be careful what we wish for?


  31. Rainbow permalink
    June 20, 2010 4:59 pm

    @ Lynette

    What if what he has to say is something you don’t want to hear?


  32. Lynette permalink
    June 21, 2010 2:11 am

    @ Rainbow Why wouldn’t we want to hear the truth no matter what it is?


  33. Dialdancer permalink
    April 14, 2011 6:20 pm

    I don’t think this has been posted here before. This is fascinating.

    Here is an expose’ video called: “MONTYNE’S INFERNO: The Hot Tub Photo revealed – The Michael Jackson truth.”

    My thanks to the vindication advocate who found the information and passed it on.


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: