Skip to content

Aphrodite Jones’ INTERVIEW about Michael Jackson on Ustream. HOW MUCH CAN ONE PERSON TAKE?

April 30, 2010

If some of us can’t watch Aphrodite Jones’ episode about Michael Jackson on the True Crime show here is a small replacement for it – below is a link to Aphrodite’s USTREAM interview recorded on April 29, 2010 about the ridiculous Arvizo case, Michael’s  last concerts and film, and other issues related to his life and death.  The main thing to note about the interview is that it is honest and brave:

Some quotes (please correct me if I didn’t get all of them right):

“Michael Jackson needs admirers because he had too much of detractors for too many years”

“I wrote the book “Michael Jackson Conspiracy” in 2006 right after the trial. It came out in 2007. At that time no one was questioning the media”.

“Did Michael Jackson endorse the book? Was he aware of “Michael Jackson Conspiracy” being published? No and No. I was very upset about that until the book came out. I now realize that had Michael Jackson endorsed the book, had he had given his blessing I would have been accused of being in day (wrong word? correct my English please!) with Michael Jackson on the project. That would have taken away the validity and authenticity of what I did. He had nothing to do with the book.”

“More and more people are questioning the veracity of what they’ve been told”.

“Martin Bashir made his name on the blight of Michael Jackson. When the trial against him started it started with that documentary. It was actually a piece of evidence we watched in the courtroom… He created a context in which it looked like Jackson had some interest in that young boy – while what we saw was a boy in a wheelchair with no hair and skinny little body. He did all he could for that family out of the goodness of his heart. He helped a cancer patient”.

“They claimed that after the documentary aired that Michael Jackson decided to molest their son, not before!”

“Janet Arvizo was completely insane. Everybody in the court was rolling their eyeballs each time this woman opened her mouth. Her stories contradicted each other”.

“No one corrected the misreporting of the Michael Jackson trial. They made it seem he was acquitted because the jury were star-struck. No, they were not interested. These people were selected by two teams of experts.”

“It killed Michael Jackson spiritually. Michael should have had psychological help, a counsellor, someone he can go to after he was through with that ordeal – because he was taxed, he really needed somebody to help him. Seeing himself betrayed by all the people he knew… [after that] you can’t trust a counsellor or therapist who is trying to help you go through the pain of it”.

“After he died it occurred to me why Michael Jackson was interested in a comeback to the extent that he agreed to 50 concerts. He had been so trashed by the media that he tried to outdo himself and he died trying”.

“He was still being accused even after being acquitted. Wild allegations continued to come out”.


50 Comments leave one →
  1. Truth permalink
    April 30, 2010 8:51 pm

    The episode has been uploaded on youtube: (part 1)

    I didn’t think she put message across as effectively as she could – it was more like an overview – I think that’s due to the time constraint.

    The interesting part is where she talks to Frank Dileo – they talk about tape recorded conversations of people conspiring against Michael – though they cannot release them as they were illegally recorded. – Remember Anthony Pellicano – Michael hired him in 1993 – he was convicted of unlawful wiretapping!


  2. April 30, 2010 11:08 pm

    Truth, thank you for the addition. The problem with me is that I don’t understand every word of it – especially the radio tape on Ustream and would be grateful if someone helped to add something valuable I missed or misunderstood. It is also 3 o’clock in the morning here and I need a bit of sleep. Hope to be with you in a couple of days again. Happy weekend to everyone! Aphrodite has made our day!


  3. David permalink
    June 13, 2010 3:00 pm

    Here is another interview that Aphrodite Jones gave regarding her MJ documentary (which is different from the one you have posted above). Her portion of the interview is during the first 35 minutes of the broadcast, and at the 19 minute mark, Aphrodite talks about how Bashir told Gavin to lean his head on MJ’s shoulder prior to the start of their interview, and at the 23:30 mark, she talks about how Bashir also told Gavin to hold MJ’s hand, in order to insinuate that something improper was going on.

    I always wondered why Gavin held MJ’s hand and placed his head on MJ’s shoulders, but now that I know that Bashir “planted” that evidence, it shows how much of scumbag he really is! I used to think it was MJ’s idea for them to hold hands as a sign of his FRIENDSHIP to Gavin.

    Here’s Aphrodite’s interview:


  4. David permalink
    June 13, 2010 4:53 pm

    Hey, as we all know, Aphrodite Jones has been held up as a hero by MJ fans around the world for bravely reporting the truth about MJ’s trial. But there is someone else who needs to be mentioned as well: conservative commentator Matt Drudge!

    There is a youtube user known as LunaJo67, who is a major MJ fan and is doing a series of videos about the MJ allegations. Each video is 10 minutes long, but as of right now there are 58 videos! And there are plenty more coming! LunaJo67 has been very thorough and detailed in her videos, and she also deserves to be praised for her work alongside Aphrodite Jones.

    In three of her videos, she posted clips from Matt Drudge’s radio show, where he blasts Tom Sneddon, Diane Dimond, Nancy Grace, the mainstream media, and those lying Neverland employees. He truly hits the nail right on the head, and it was very brave of him to do so, considering that most of his fellow right-wing pundits were crucifying MJ along with the mainstream media.

    He also talks about how Sneddon STILL could have subpoenaed the Chandlers in 1993 (despite the settlement of the criminal case), how Jordie’s description of MJ’s penis DID NOT MATCH, the fact that Sneddon is allowing his witnesses to perjure themselves on the witness stand with no penalty, and that the media isn’t accurately reporting Mesearau’s cross examination of the prosecution’s witnesses. Entertainment columnist Roger Friedman is also interviewed, and he corroborates much of what Drudge is saying.

    Admin, you should check out these videos when you get the chance, and write a column on it so that you can use your blog to spread this info across the MJ community! Here are the 3 videos I mentioned, along with the section which Drudge’s commentary:

    Part 45, from 1:20 to 6:30

    Part 52, from 7:16 to the end

    Part 53, from the beginning to 6:49


  5. David permalink
    June 13, 2010 5:38 pm

    Here is some more commentary from Matt Drudge & Roger Friedman. They discuss the possibility of MJ suing Sneddon and the Arvizos for malicious prosecution and perjury, respectively. Sorry that I didn’t include it in my previous post!

    Part 54, from the beginning to 3:30


  6. Lynette permalink
    June 14, 2010 12:38 am

    Great Finds


  7. David permalink
    June 15, 2010 7:08 am

    Looks like Bashir is up to his old tricks again! Somehow, someway, he managed to scam Sean “Diddy” Combs into doing an interview, and he used the same tactics that he used towards MJ! Here’s a breakdown of the interview:

    @ 1:00 Diddy greets Bashir for the interview. They hi-five and hug let they’re bests friends. This is part of Bashir’s plan to “earn” Diddy’s trust and make him feel comfortable. Sound familiar?

    @ 2:00 After Diddy explains the different parts of his business empire, Bashir accuses him of being a “megalomaniac”, and condescendingly asks him if he would promote “Diddy Dog Food”. Would he say the same thing to Donald Trump? I don’t think so!

    @ 4:00 Bashir asks Diddy about the murders of Biggie Smalls and 2pac, and after Diddy says he no longer speaks about the murders, Bashir continues to badger him into answering. (Similar to the way he badgered MJ about the plastic surgery).

    @ 5:45 Bashir calls Diddy a “gangsta rapper”, which is a complete insult to Diddy’s image as a mogul & entrepreneur.

    @ 6:50 Bashir asks Diddy if he feels he setting a bad example by having “multiple children by multiple mothers”, thus insinuating that he’s an irresponsible father. He then asks if it was sensible to buy his son a Maybach, and Diddy answers by saying he “doesn’t owe anyone an explanation”! If only MJ had stood up to Bashir in a similar manner!

    @ 9:15 Bashir & Diddy discuss how to “mindf*^k” someone, which perfectly describes what Bashir did to gain both Diddy’s and MJ’s trust!

    Although Diddy is a huge MJ fan, and respects MJ’s legacy, it’s CLEARLY OBVIOUS that he hasn’t done any research on MJ’s molestation allegations, because if he had, he would have known to avoid Bashir at all costs!


  8. Lynette permalink
    June 16, 2010 12:57 am

    I’ve been watching all of the What Did Happen To Michael Jackson for the last 2 days. I’m up tp 40 now with only 18 to go. They are great videos. I saw what Bashir did to Diddy and I thought to myself that he had pissed off the wrong man but did you notice how he backed down when Diddy said he didn’t have to explain anything to him . It was great I didn’tknow until I watched those videos that Bashir did a second documnetary even more negative on Michael just before the trial started. What a pig.


  9. David permalink
    June 16, 2010 7:27 am

    @ Lynette, here is some more info regarding Bashir. This article, from June 14th 2005, discusses how MJ considered suing Bashir for breach of contract:

    This link is from an MJ fansite, and it describes the testimony of one of MJ’s attorneys who testified about Bashir’s deception in airing the documentary without MJ’s approval, and the unsuccessful legal steps they took in order to stop the airing of it. Unfortunately, MJ and his legal team couldn’t stop the documentary from being aired, and their only recourse was to sue after it aired. But Bashir & his company showed some “class” by promising not to sell the doc. on DVD, and not to show the faces of MJ’s kids. How nice of them!

    This clip is from a 2003 interview where he explains his doc. to ABC News, before he was hired. At the 5:15 mark, Chris Wallace asked Bashir if MJ did anything to try to stop the broadcast, and Bashir gleefully answers that MJ’s legal team “didn’t have a leg to stand on”. A real journalist would have subsequently asked Bashir why he didn’t allow MJ to vet the program before it aired! I would have loved to hear his answer!


  10. David permalink
    July 12, 2010 4:25 am

    Hey Helena, here is another interview with Aphrodite Jones! It’s from June 19th, 2010. I didn’t even know about it, otherwise I would have notified you of it in advance.

    As usual, her interview is informative and full of valuable information, and she spends the majority of her time talking about the 2005 trial and Martin Bashir’s dirty tactics. The interview starts at around the 20:00 minute mark.


  11. David permalink
    August 7, 2010 3:43 pm

    Hey guys, Larry Nimmer recently conducted a 2 hour radio interview, and I have the link for you! He is the producer of “The Untold Story of Neverland” documentary. He shot footage of Neverland for MJ’s defense team after the judge refused to allow the jurors to tour Neverland.

    The biggest piece of info is at the 54:00 and 104:00 marks, where he discusses the current whereabouts of Janet and Gavin Arvizo, and she confirms that they live in Georgia. He met with their friend Louise Palanker (she’s the comedian who helped them when they needed money, and she testified at the trial), and she is so manically biased towards the Arvizos that she STILL believes that they were telling the truth! It’s obvious that this woman is completely oblivious to the facts! In fact, I found a blog she wrote a few years ago, and she condemns MJ as being guilty without bothering to explain how he did it or how he got away with it (as usual!) The Arvizo’s word alone is all the proof she needs! Here is a quote from her “In Defense of the Kids” post:

    “I believed the boy, my friend, before the trial. After seeing the evidence presented in court, I now believe resoundingly beyond any personal doubt that Michael Jackson is guilty.”

    What a joke! And here is her opinion on Janet Arvizo, from “The Mother of the Young Accuser” post. Y’all better sit down for this!

    “MYA (Janet Arvizo) is a good, kind, loving woman. She is an excellent mother. She has raised three of the most spectacular children I have ever known. Her kids adore her, and she them. They form a tight unit that has been through Hell and back together. She has always wanted what’s best for her children. She is working very hard at becoming a better person. And I can’t state this firmly enough… she is not the conniving grifter portrayed by Thomas Mesereau.”

    Another exciting revelation is that Road to Recovery has CANCELLED their protest of MJ’s induction into the Dance Hall of Fame! Mission accomplished! Our hard work paid off!

    They also have an interview with the founder of MJ Truth Now, Catherine Coy, and it’s 2 hours as well.

    BTW, for more info on Gavin and Star Arvizo, read this:


  12. Suzy permalink
    September 3, 2010 9:31 pm

    A great new post on Aphrodite Jones at the All for Love blog:


  13. September 3, 2010 10:24 pm


    I just read Raven’s interview with Aphrodite too. Very insightful.


    Actually there is a comment on Raven’s Aphrodite topic that literally made my mouth drop. It was posted by Ella. She said that Andrea Peyser is related to Evan Chandler! Everyone here is doing fantastic work on researching and presenting the truth of IMO the pure evilness of the Chandlers. I wanted to know, is Peyser really related to the Chandlers? I’m sure all of you are already aware of Peyser’s MO. I was just shocked when I read that this person could be related to EC. I’m not good at researching, truthfully I don’t have the stomach for the things that pop up on the internet. Could someone here please find out if this is true? It would explain a lot. The day her sick article was published. I had found out this was the same “so-called” journalist that was talking smack about Michael’s daughter, a few days after his passing.


  14. lcpledwards permalink
    September 4, 2010 12:44 am

    @ Gigi

    Yes, Andrea Peyser is related to Evan Chandler! She admitted it last year in one of her articles after MJ’s death. I think she mentioned that they are cousins or something. But that article is no longer available in her archives.

    I’ll try to look for it, but I doubt I’ll find it.


  15. September 4, 2010 9:29 am

    “A great new post on Aphrodite Jones at the All for Love blog”

    Yes, Suzy, thank you so much for the fresh link – Raven’s new entry is PRECIOUS.

    I repeat it here for everyone to read:


  16. September 4, 2010 10:41 am

    “..there is a comment on Raven’s Aphrodite topic that literally made my mouth drop. It was posted by Ella. She said that Andrea Peyser is related to Evan Chandler!”

    Gigi, this news also made my mouth drop. The whole Chandlers family seems to be believing the lies Evan’s sick mind concocted – first he suspected a misdeed, then he induced his fantasies into his drugged son’s memory and made him tell a lie, then he fussed over this ‘revelation’ and elaborated on the lie, drawing pictures for the boy, reading the respective literature and discussing every detail with him and everyone around – and finally all the Chandlers believed in Evan’s suspicions as if there were fact.

    This situation is typical though – the more you think about something the more aggravating it looks. It reminds me of the “I’M SORRY” article found by Dialdancer. A grown-up man explains there that when a boy he was forced to slander his teachers in the McMartin school. Now he says it was a complete lie, apologizes for it and explains why he did it but in spite of it all his mother and stepfather still refuse to accept the truth. No matter what he says they still believe he was molested.


    “…the lying really bothered me. One particular night stands out in my mind. I was maybe 10 years old and I tried to tell my mom that nothing had happened. I lay on the bed crying hysterically—I wanted to get it off my chest, to tell her the truth. My mother kept asking me to please tell her what was the matter. I said she would never believe me. She persisted: “I promise I’ll believe you! I love you so much! Tell me what’s bothering you!” This went on for a long time: I told her she wouldn’t believe me, and she kept assuring me she would. I remember finally telling her, “Nothing happened! Nothing ever happened to me at that school.”

    She didn’t believe me.

    We had a highly dysfunctional family. We argued and fought all the time. My mother has always blamed anything negative on the idea that we went to that preschool and were molested. To this day, she believes these things went on. Because if they didn’t, how can she explain all the family’s problems? To this day, I can’t open up with her about my personal problems. She’s always asking me why I never do. That one night skewed our relationship.

    My family has not seen the movies or read the books questioning the prosecution. It’s like skeletons in a closet that you just don’t want to take back out. I’m the only one who ever brings the topic up and who admits nothing ever happened to me.

    I’ve said I lied about everything, but I’ve never gotten a real response from my mother and stepfather. It seems really strange, seeing their reaction to the fact that nothing happened to me. If I had gone my whole life thinking my child was molested, I would be elated to find out that he or she wasn’t.

    I’d like to think learning that your child was not molested would supersede anything. After all, all you have is your next day. It would be a shame to live the rest of your life thinking molestation had happened when you could think it didn’t.”


  17. The 500 permalink
    September 4, 2010 4:05 pm

    Calling The 500

    The 500 is a group of dedicated writers – formed in response to the continuing erroneous assumptions and biased narrative about Michael Jackson that are still actively perpetuated by the media. We are looking for members to join us in this work.

    We are looking for 500 people who can write factually and intelligently, when asked to, with an eye on the pragmatic aspects of reclaiming Michael Jackson’s public image.

    What if around 500 people were to be made aware of misinformed, biased, or otherwise negative mainstream press about MJ, the kind that potentially influences much of Joe Public?

    What if these 500 could muster facts and cool persuasion to articulately respond to ‘MJ-bashing?’ What if 500 could refute the notion that anyone standing up for Michael Jackson is just another “crazed fan?”

    What would happen if instead, we turned out to be concerned and intelligent citizens who’ve had enough of this cess of judgment and persecution, this trampling of ethics in pursuit of profit, that characterized the media during Michael’s trial, and continues today?

    We think it’s possible that if 500 people were willing and able to write the occasional letter, post the comment, or make the call, they could actually function as a check upon the kind of irresponsible journalism that ruins lives unjustly. We’d like to gather a group that takes over the megaphone in the public sphere on Michael Jackson’s behalf.

    As a bloc, we would respond appropriately when we are made aware that a trash story is fed to a gullible public. We intend to call the media on their irresponsibility whenever possible. No longer will silence imply agreement with lazy or malicious reporting on the part of the mainstream media.

    We need good writers who can stay on message and write persuasively. We do have a fairly strong idea about what kind of writers will be most effective, but don’t intend to micro-manage anyone’s comments apart from offering guidelines.

    If you think The 500 is for you, please contact us at:

    so that we can add you to the newly formed Googlegroup The 500. From there, once we’ve built a little critical mass, we will get to work by issuing a set of guidelines and resources to our writing membership, to be followed by regular brief messages about where to direct your comments.

    Thank you.

    The 500 Team.


  18. lcpledwards permalink
    October 2, 2010 7:23 pm

    Hey guys, there is someone named Catherine Gross who does her own radio show about MJ. She invites guests on her show who defend him, and she keeps an archive, in case you guys haven’t heard them.

    She recently did an interview with Seven Bowie (who runs MJ-777), Deborah Kunesh (who runs Reflections on the Dance), Catherine Coy (who runs MJ Truth Now), Larry Nimmer (who did the “Untold Story of Neverland” documentary), and David Llan (who is doing the ” 1 Dot = 1 Person” thing for MJ). She has upcoming interviews with William Wagener (the guy who has been trashing Sneddon), and Patrick Treacy (MJ’s doctor when he was in Ireland).

    Here is the link to her show:


  19. October 30, 2010 8:53 am

    Deborah Kunesh from Reflections on the Dance conducted the 2 hour interview, and the she recently posted the audio!

    Here is another interview with Nordahl that was conducted by Raven Woods for the All For Love blog:

    David, thanks a lot! There is a wealth of great information in both of those links. I hope you guys will enjoy it.

    David, I’ve also used your piece about “loaded questions” in the “See through lies Manual” page. Loaded questions – so this is what the correct word for it is! This is a typical method media people use when speaking about Michael. When they ask a question it is already asserting a false statement and even when the answer is a flat “No” the effect of the conversation is still negative – because a dialogue like “Have you seen it? No, I didn’t” still means that there was something to see, that only this person hasn’t seen anything while others might have seen something different.

    A neutral form of asking is “What do you think?” – a form which is long forgotten by the present-day media.

    P.S. David, as usual I had no time to do what I was planning to. I know you are ready to share some great information with us, so please go ahead with it. It is a pity I’ll be able to get familiar with it only in a couple of days. Have a good weekend, everybody!


  20. lcpledwards permalink
    October 30, 2010 6:42 am

    Hey guys, here is a new interview with one of MJ’s closest friends, David Nordahl! Deborah Kunesh from Reflections on the Dance conducted the 2 hour interview, and the she recently posted the audio!

    It was an amazing interview, and here are 3 things that stuck out to me:

    1. I like how Nordahl mentioned that he didn’t do interviews about MJ because of the way that the media twists around his answers in order to fit their agenda. There is a method to their madness; it’s called asking a “loaded question”, which is a question with a fallacious assumption built in!

    For example, when Oprah asked LMP if she saw any wrongdoing, the assumption is that MJ committed wrongdoing, but did LMP see it? Even if she flatly denied seeing any misconduct, it wouldn’t vindicate MJ, because nobody would believe that MJ would be dumb enough to molest a child IN FRONT of other adults!

    Martin Bashir used this same logic on the day when MJ died, when he said on Nightline that he “never saw any wrongdoing“, and MJ was “never convicted of any crime“. Once again, Bashir is saying that MJ is guilty without actually saying it, you know? He’s saying that MJ could have been guilty, but he didn’t see it, and his celebrity kept him from being convicted! I included the wiki page for loaded questions, and you can do a google search for more examples.

    2. Nordahl touched on a very controversial topic, and I wanted to ask you guys for your thoughts. I think it was in either part 2 or 3, he mentioned that the media’s persecution of MJ may have had racial overtones. What do you guys think about that? Have you ever suspected that race could have played any part, even minor? I know MJ mentioned race briefly in his 2001 speech with Al Sharpton.

    Personally, and I guess you can call me naive, but I never thought race was that much of an issue with MJ, because he didn’t fit any negative black stereotypes. The words “thug”, “ghetto”, “ignorant”, & “hood” were never said in the same sentence as MJ! And as we all know, the media mocked him for not wanted to be black!

    I’ve heard a few prominent blacks say that race had something to do with it, because as a black man he surpassed Elvis’ sales and bought the Beatles’ catalog. But I’ve also heard some whites say that race was a part of it, and Nordahl is only the latest. What do you guys think about it?

    3. The last thing that stuck out to me was when he said that MJ called him from a train that he was taking from NY to Cali. This is because in 1993 a Canadian couple said that they rode on a train and heard “strange noises” from a cabin with MJ and a young boy, and they reported the noises to the staff. If this is true, then MJ was probably just horse playing with the kid into the night. If it’s false, then this “Canadian couple” could consist of Rodney Allen, who teamed up with Dimond in 1995 to frame MJ, until the police thwarted their plans after their “victim” confessed that he was lying!! (This is the report that was on Hard Copy.)

    I never thought MJ would ever ride on a train, as he could easily just fly anywhere that he needed to go. But then again, I never would have thought that MJ would go driving by himself! And we ALL know what happened that fateful day in May 1992 when his car broke down on the freeway!

    4. By the way, here is another interview with Nordahl that was conducted by Raven Woods for the All For Love blog:


  21. Suzy permalink
    October 30, 2010 9:36 am

    @ David

    I’m white and I think there was a racial undertone of the treatment of MJ by the media. No, he didn’t fit “black stereotypes”, but he was all the more threatening because of that, in my opinion!

    Michael himself believed his treatment had racist undertones. Listen to this speech of his in 2001, in Harlem (sound quality is not always good):

    My feeling is that he is onto something. I think the moment he broke so many records with Thriller they (“they” meaning the media) felt they needed to stop him. After Thriller he hardly got any positive reviews by critics for any of his albums. But ask fans and they will likely tell you that not Thriller was the best album Michael ever did. At least when there are polls on fan sites about which album of Michael fans like the most, Thriller is usually pretty down the order! And it’s Dangerous that is usually on top, by the way.

    But you saw critics slag off anything Michael released after Thriller. While the very same critics hyped up acts and records which were completely mediocre and are totally forgotten since. I can’t think of any other reason than that they felt Michael was threatening to the status quo. Yes, they will say they weren’t racist and they will bring up arguments how they honored and praised other black artists. But they only praise them until they are not a threat to the position of “great white kings”, such as Elvis and The Beatles. Had Michael remained strictly R&B (black music), had he only had moderate success and “knew his place”, they would have left him alone too.

    After his death “music” magazine Rolling Stone ran articles about him those were totally tabloid and had nothing to do with his music! Such as whether his nose was falling off, or what was the nature of his relationship with Brooke Shields. Why a magazine that prides itself as a music magazine does that? Why even such magazines turn tabloid when it comes to Michael? Why can’t they honor him for what he really was: a singer, songwriter, dancer, choreographer and a creative genius? Do I think there is an agenda behind all this? Absolutely. And I think it at least partly has to do with his race.

    BTW, David, a couple of weeks ago you introduced us a video about the treatment of black people who were “turning white” in the 19th century. I have found the book that video was based on:

    Apparently there’s also a chapter in it dedicated to Michael, but that part isn’t available online. I have to say it isn’t very well written, or at least I find it hard to follow, but there are some interesting pictures and stories there and also how the public at the time reacted to these so called “white negros”. They put them on freakshows (so had Michael been born a hundred year earlier he would have probably ended up on such a freak show, just like the Elephant Man….) and there was a certain fear surrounding the phenomenon as they thought it was challenging the status quo between white and black people. Even Thomas Jefferson was concerned about “white negros”.


  22. Suzy permalink
    October 30, 2010 9:54 am

    Re: Loaded questions.

    Unfortunately even Michael fell for them. I remember when Martin Bashir asked him if he didn’t go to jail because he paid the Chandlers off. And Michael walked right into his trap by not challenging the question the way it was asked. He answered the question by “yes” – only concentrating on the fact that the allegations ended with a settlement. That’s what he really meant by answering it “yes”. Of course, we know, that despite of the settlement he still could have gone to jail, had there been any evidence against him and that Jordan still could have testified against him in a criminal trial. Michael should have made a point about that, but he didn’t and Bashir tricked him there with this loaded questioning.


  23. visitor permalink
    October 30, 2010 12:36 pm


    About your question if race played a rolle. Yes, but not only race. I don’t know if you have read this article.It’s quite interesting

    I am a Michael Jackson fan. I have no qualms about it. I love his music, I love his dancing. Hell, I even love those gold, glittery shin guards he’s so taken with wearing for special occasions. But I am a young fan — by the time I knew who Michael Jackson was, it was the late eighties. He’d already been pegged as bizarre by the world press so virtually nothing that’s gone on with him since then has shocked me. A lot of people born in the ’80s grew up embracing that Michael Jackson, the one who has come to be synonymous with virtually everything stigmatizing and lurid. However strange, even that Michael Jackson was acceptable — at least until the child-molestation accusations started coming out.

    When the first scandal broke, it gave people a legitimate reason to dislike Michael Jackson, one a little meatier than weirdness. It gave an excuse to question his once unquestionable talent, though it’s somewhat ludicrous to think that an immense talent like his would conveniently cease to exist exactly when public opinion shifted. The case in 1993 where he was sued for — but never charged with — sexually abusing a 13-year-old boy apparently gave the public permission to view him less as a human being and more like a lemming they delighted in watching hurl itself off a cliff. Michael Jackson’s detractors say he has brought this derision on himself, but it was the media who chose to let the allegations define Michael Jackson, not his work. Michael Jackson didn’t suddenly become irrelevant musically when accused.

    Despite the fact his postThriller albums were large sellers and met with general critical acclaim at the time, received opinion today tends to extol the virtues of only Off the Wall and Thriller, crediting Quincy Jones’s magic for their appeal. (Never mind that Jones was also involved in 1987’s Bad.) What may have been the real catalyst for Jackson’s “downfall” began to take shape in 1986, when Jackson acquired the ATV catalog, including the publishing rights to more than 150 Beatles songs, for a reported $47.5 million. Later he merged ATV with Sony’s publishing catalog, creating a music-publishing business worth close to $1 billion. With these moves, Jackson became more than just a simple song-and-dance man. He became one of the most powerful men in the music industry.

    Criticism was immediate. He “stole” the catalog from Paul McCartney. He desecrated the Beatles’ precious songs by licensing them for commercials. Around this time, the epithet “Wacko Jacko” emerged. Were those same critics all over Sir Paul when he purchased the music-publishing rights of other artists? No, he was praised for his business acumen. But Michael Jackson’s purchase of the ATV catalog marked one of the first times a black person (since Jackson’s own mentor, Motown’s Berry Gordy) became a force to be reckoned with in the music industry and, consequently, the business world.

    And indeed, the catalog remains the crux of much speculation, with hopeful detractors constructing elaborate stories with Jackson teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, the loss of the precious catalog imminent: He borrowed $200 million from a Saudi prince to pay off his debts. He’s going to lose the catalog. No, wait, he borrowed the $200 million from Sony. Wait — they’re denying it? Well, then, he borrowed it from Bank of America. Any day now, I swear to you, he’ll lose the catalog. Sources? Of course I have my sources. Jackson’s maid’s former neighbor’s uncle’s cousin’s second husband told me so.

    Well, it’s been eighteen years and Jackson still owns the catalog and yet this unfounded speculation persists. Does McCartney face the same speculation, even though the catalogs he owns include the work of many black artists? Of course not. McCartney lives lavishly without a raised eyebrow or a snicker about his financial savvy. But because Michael Jackson bought the Beatles, he has all the snickering Sams in their efficiency apartments eager for his financial ruin.

    Why such different treatment of the two artists? Arguably, race comes into play. Jackson has been accused of playing the race card during this current situation, as well as during his very public falling out with former Sony Music chair, Tommy Mottola. It could be argued that those who scrutinize Jackson’s business practices more exactingly than those of comparable whites, feel the need to undermine this particular defense. Media pundits and commentators — everybody from the ladies of The View to Bill O’Reilly to Rolling Stone’s resident “voice of all things black”, Toure, tried to strip him of his professional accomplishments, and now they’re attempting to strip him of his race. (though admittedly “Black Man” is now written prominently on his now famous mug shot).

    If the media derision Jackson faces had no racial component, one would expect him to still earn his critical due from the mainstream, much the way other alleged pedophile Roman Polanski has been able to do. If it wasn’t about race, Jackson’s bail wouldn’t have been set at $3 million while accused murderer Phil Spector’s was set at a comparably paltry $1 million. Apologists for Santa Barbara County argue that bail was set in accordance to Jackson’s wealth, to ensure that a significant proportion of his money would be at risk if he skipped town. But, wait — isn’t he supposed to be going broke? Make up your minds, already!

    The fact is Michael Jackson’s persona will always be inextricably connected to America’s feelings about race: at best, color-blind transcendence, at worst, self-loathing. Because Jackson has been a star since childhood, society seems to believe that they own him, and when he overstepped the bounds of what society thought he should be in terms of power, they felt it was their duty to cut him back to size. The man who integrated MTV was loved when he merely sang and danced as society wanted him to, when he posed no threat, when he looked the way any non-threatening black man “should” look. In 1993, Michael Jackson was arguably the biggest international star in the world, reaching people of every color and creed, crushing sales records on a global level left and right with his hugely successful Dangerous tour and his internationally televised record-breaking interview with Oprah Winfrey and his philanthropic effort, the Heal the World foundation. But he was also markedly different looking than he was when the beloved Thriller album came out, and he was coming off the heels of signing his near-billion-dollar deal with Sony.

    And then the first molestation allegations came out. But is the eerie loneliness demonstrated in “Stranger in Moscow” (from 1995’s HIStory album) any less beautiful because it came after the first allegations? Are the intricately orchestrated minor-key strings and driving rhythm line in “Who Is It” (from 1991’s Dangerous) not compelling and gut-wrenching because the song was recorded after Jackson’s “descent into madness?” Is the funky deliciousness of “You Rock My World” (on 2001’s Invincible) lost because the Michael who sang it bore only a slight physical resemblance to the man on the cover of Thriller? I, for one, can’t buy that, but most of the public apparently has, since all of Jackson’s musical efforts seem to be derided and ridiculed regardless of merit.

    It may be that the idea of a black man, especially one who refuses to conform to virtually any societal norms and expectations, having such a profound effect is profoundly scary to some. In his 1997 song, “Is It Scary” Jackson promises “If you want to see eccentric oddities, I’ll be grotesque before your eyes” and indeed, in that simple line Jackson made an important social comment — in terms of public perception, he is whatever people want him to be. Perhaps subconsciously, Jackson’s eccentricities were a way of saying “f— you” to those he felt were boxing him into what the polite society deemed acceptable for a black man. But in destroying the restraints put upon him, these deviations from the norm — his business ventures, his plastic-surgery transformations, his marriages to famous daughters of deceased pop icons — also made the atmosphere ripe for anyone to believe just about anything about him. This in turn allowed the child molestation allegations (both past and present) to serve so readily as ammunition to destroy the dynasty that he began creating back when he was just a little boy in Gary, Indiana.

    Now, following a grand jury indictment, Michael Jackson readies himself to stand trial on several counts of child molestation, administering an intoxicating agent, and conspiracy. It begins a process in which the whole world will find out more about Michael Jackson than it ever thought it would, and it will be very surprised, I suspect, regardless of its current opinions of him. If our system of jurisprudence is effective, then and only then will any of us know this particular truth about Michael Jackson. But iother truths will remain untouched. In the meantime, I’m not going to put away my copies of Dangerous and HIStory, and I’m not going to forget all that Michael Jackson has meant to so many people, not only in terms of his enormous talent, but also his ability to give of himself to help others with his equally enormous wealth and to break down racial barriers in the entertainment and business worlds. No matter the outcome of his journey through the judicial system — and despite what many would have us believe — he has always been and will always be more than just these charges.


  24. October 30, 2010 4:57 pm


    I never doubted the train ride, the best lies are always half truths, but I am still very suspicious of the Canadian couple. The allege train ride in the FBI files took place on 07 March 1992, but the Canadian couple never contacted the police with their story until 24 August 1993, also they said Michael Jackson boarded a train travelling from Chicago to the Grand Canyon, while Nordahl talks about a train trip from NY to California. I do not know if this is the same train trip, but I still think that Rodney Allen was the mastermind behind the FBI Canadian couple scam. Unless you believe it was a coincident that he was from Toronto, and so was the call the FBI received from the concerned Canadian couple.


  25. Susan permalink
    October 30, 2010 6:01 pm

    Regarding David’s question did race play a role in Michael’s mistreatment.

    It certainly seems that way. Very interesting point Visitor’s comment about Paul McCartney, as I always tried looking at the picture using Paul McCartney in Michael’s circumstances and wondered how he would have been treated. Do you think perhaps then people would have paused and said hold on a minute – who are these accusers – let’s look at them, let’s look into their background. Did they do that for Michael? No. Just accuse and believe whatever stories they told; and the more salacious, the more they were believed. For that matter take any beloved, world renown figure and place them in Michael’s position and ponder how they would have been treated – Bono? Bruce Springsteen?
    Just one other point. That damn body search. Can you imagine Paul McCartney being subjected to that without the whole world shouting out against it? To me, that harkens back to the day of slavery when they were put on the block for inspection and sale. I think that was done to Michael ONLY as a means of humiliating him and trying to break his spirit – and nothing else. Michael’s lawyers should have been hung out to dry for allowing such a despicable act to be done to him. I think Tom Sneddon is a racist and that’s why he pushed so hard against Michael.


  26. lcpledwards permalink
    October 30, 2010 6:44 pm

    Thanks everyone for replying to my questions! I know that some of you are foreigners, and may not understand how much controversy the subject of race causes here in America. I’m a 30 year old black male, so I have to be careful of how I address the issue, otherwise I will be accused of “playing the race card”, which means I’m exploiting race to my advantage by making it an issue when it shouldn’t be. Many whites feel offended because a racist is the worst term that you can call somebody nowadays, and is sometimes (but no always!) used as a form of slander.

    Here is a article that I used in my settlements article, and it says that the white-owned media wanted MJ to be guilty because OJ Simpson was acquitted. The author, who is obviously black, was very careful to point out that it wasn’t malicious racial prejudice that influenced the coverage, but the fact that the demographic that most wanted MJ to be guilty was the middle aged white crowd which dominates the mainstream media. It’s no coincidence that the 2 jurors who flip flopped after the verdict were middle aged and white, and admitted their prejudices against MJ in subsequent interviews.

    @ Susan- you’re right! I forgot to mention how Sneddon called Chris Tucker “a good little boy” during the trial. That was NOT a slip of the tongue, that was a manifestation of his self conscious prejudice. He wouldn’t have said it if he didn’t mean it.

    @ Teva – Rodney Allen probably was most certainly behind that train story. The thing we all have to remember, and this will silence any hater who wants to use this as “proof” of MJ’s guilt, is that the FBI investigated this story, and found that there was nothing to it, along with everything else that they investigated.

    @ Suzy – I absolutely forgot to use Bashir’s documentary, as it is FILLED with loaded questions! Another example is when Bashir told MJ: “well, isn’t that the problem? When you INVITE LITTLE BOYS INTO YOUR BEDROOM” . MJ fell for it hook, line, and sinker by replying “You think it’s sexual, but it’s not sexual”, and as we all know that sound bite has been played a gazillion times by the media in a way to convict him in the court of public opinion.


  27. Suzy permalink
    October 31, 2010 10:34 am

    To the subject of racism about MJ. Maybe some of you remember this:

    It’s Justin Timberlake on the cover of the Rolling Stone magazine in December, 2003 (so right after the Neverland raid) – and he is declared “The New King of Pop” by the paper. How utterly ridiculous is that?

    I really think it all had a racist undertone against Michael in the media. The media are ready to crown a white guy who has hardly done anything – besides being in a boyband and then copying Michael Jackson – the “New King of Pop”, meanwhile the very same media doesn’t miss a chance to put the derogatory term “self-proclaimed” in every sentence they mention MJ as the King of Pop. And Rolling Stone especially hated Michael for a long, long time and did everything to slag him off, while giving undue hype to acts like Timberlake.


  28. Suzy permalink
    October 31, 2010 10:54 am

    @ David

    I don’t feel people who are asking this question are “playing the race card”. There were some things going on in the media those cannot be explained with anything else than racism, IMO. The zeal of Rolling Stone to quickly declare somebody (a nobody – may I add) like Timberlake “The New King of Pop” is just one example of the many. What did he do to replace Michael on the throne – apart from being white?

    I’m definitely glad that the race card was never played by Michael’s defense (not even during jury selection!), because that would have given only more ammunition to haters to claim MJ only got off because of the race card, like OJ. It’s great that the jury acquitted Michael despite of the fact there was no black person in it, but there were four latins (and the Arvizos are latins). It tells volumes about the “strength” of Sneddon’s case.

    Michael’s defense didn’t need the race card and it was wise from Mesereau not to play it.

    But while I’m glad it didn’t came up in court, I still think there was racism involved in both how the media and how the authorities treated Michael. It’s a valid point to discuss outside of the courtroom.


  29. Olga permalink
    October 31, 2010 1:23 pm

    David although I am a white 31 old woman leaving in a country with no racism on black people I have to tell you that it was always obvious to me that white media and white music industry always had a problem with the black superstar owning them. I don’t know if this is mentioned in US but it’s like a common knowledge outside America that there is a lot of racism that’s why there are so many laws about that. They can’t even refer to Michael without mentioning Elvis in the same sentence. They just can’t handle it and it’s pathetic. Elvis was nowhere near MJ and that’s a fact. Plus he was used from white music industry to promote black people’s music to a racist audience at the time. There is an interesting article about MJ and racism.

    What They Don’t Want You to Know About Michael Jackson

    November 8, 2007

    By Christopher Hamilton

    What do you think of when you hear the name, Michael Jackson? Wacko? Criminal? Great Entertainer? Businessman? Whatever you think of MJ, throw all your thoughts out of the window and let’s examine some facts.

    For years the media has labeled him “Wacko Jacko.” What happened to MJ? Wasn’t he the biggest thing in music at one point? When did he go crazy?

    All anyone has to do is look when Michael started being portrayed as “Crazy.” It wasn’t during the “Thriller” years. It’s cool being a song and dance man. That’s what they want. DON’T DARE BECOME A THINKING BUSINESSMAN. DON’T DARE BUY THE BEATLES CATALOG. DON’T DARE MARRY ELVIS’ DAUGHTER. DON’T DARE BEAT THE RECORD INDUSTRY AT THEIR OWN GAME. Michael started being labeled crazy when he began making business moves that no one had been successful at doing.

    Michael took two cultural icons and shattered them to pieces. All our lives, we’ve been bombarded with 2 facts. The Beatles were the greatest group of all time and Elvis was the King of Rock and Roll. Michael bought the Beatles and married the King’s daughter. (if that ain’t literally sticking it to the man) If I wasn’t a cynic, I’d say Michael did the Lisa Marie thing just to stick it to the people who consider Elvis the King.

    The Beatles were great, but they weren’t great enough to maintain publishing rights over their own songs.

    Elvis was great, but he didn’t write his songs. His manager, Col Tom Parker, was the mastermind behind Elvis … keeping him drugged with fresh subscription pills and doing all the paperwork.

    Michael could do no wrong as an entertainer. “Off the Wall,” first solo artist with 4 top ten singles. “Thriller,” the biggest selling album of all time, with a then record 7 top ten singles. “Bad,” the first album to spawn 5 number one songs (even Thriller only had 2 number one songs). All this is cool. But that is all you better do. SING AND DANCE. Michael wanted to be greater. He bought the legendary Sly and the Family Stone catalog and no one really cared. When he bought the Beatles, people noticed. The Sony merger took the cake. Sony, in their eagerness to have a part of the Beatles catalog, agreed to a 50/50 merger with Jackson, thus forming Sony/ATV music publishing. Now, Michael co-owns half of the entire publishing of all of Sony artists. Check out the complete lists of songs at A sampling of the songs he owns the publishing rights to are over 900 country songs by artists such as Tammy Wynette, Kenny Rogers, Alabama. All Babyface written songs. Latin songs by Selena and Enrique Iglesias. Roberta Flack songs, Mariah Carey songs, Destiny’s Child’s songs. 2pac, Biggie and Fleetwood Mac songs. In essence over 100,000 songs. “What is this man doing?” None of the greats did this. Not Bono, Springsteen, Sinatra. “Who does he think he is? Get whatever you can on him.”

    To “get” someone, you have to attack what they love the most. I’ll say no more on that.

    The only man who even approaches MJ in taking on the industry is Prince and to a lesser extent, George Michael. They went after poor George Michael, publicly outing the man as a homosexual. Prince fought hard and made his point, but nevertheless still had to resort to using a major company to distribute his materials. There is nothing wrong with that. Prince would get the lion’s share, but the result were years of being labeled crazy and difficult.

    The greatest moment for them was the Sneddon press conference. “We got him.” Never was such glee so evident. Who cares if we have evidence?

    Michael was acquitted, did not celebrate, went home and left the USA. Best move ever. Now what is there left for the haters to do? He’s gone. “Gone, what do you mean he moved to Bahrain? Well, how the hell can we get him if he’s not here? Quick, get that columnist to write a series of articles on how MJ’s teetering on the brink of destruction. Oh we did that? Well, what can we do?”

    On the outer surface, it appears Michael is not doing anything to make money. Don’t even count the weekly sales of his CDs. 15,000 CDs a week is nothing for Michael. The Sony/ATV catalog is money for Michael Jackson every time he breathes. Serious money. The fact that no one reports on the actual amount is proof of that. They would rather you believe he is broke than tell you the truth. Neverland is still owned by MJ. The family home in Encino is still owned by MJ. Michael still owns the Beatles songs through the merger with Sony as well as full ownership of his own songs. But, hey, that’s our little secret.

    Michael Jackson is literally walking in the shoes that no Black person has ever walked in before. If he ever writes an autobiography, it will be one of the most interesting ever. A Black man with no real formal education becomes the most powerful man in the industry, DESPITE hatred, racism, enemies in his own camps and a media willing to be bought to the highest bidder.

    If Sony had any sense, right now they should offer to continue the partnership. That’s the only way they will make future money off of Michael’s catalogue. Tommy Mattola did not lose his job with Sony because he was a bad label head. It was a casualty of war. MJ exposed him and Sony had to cut their losses. Companies do it all the time. Notice no one at Sony nor did Matolla himself ever sue MJ for slander. Michael always was loyal to his bosses at Epic/Sony. Back at the 1984 Grammys, he even brought then label head Walter Yetnikoff on stage with him at one point. He’s always thanked Dave Glew, Mattola and others at Sony in his acceptance speeches.

    Sony can still do right by Michael, but it may be too late. However, they still should make a goodwill gesture, but how many times do businesses do that? If I were them, I’d still want MJ as an ally, not as an enemy. It is/was a mutally profitable merger.

    I’d be scared as hell if I was an enemy of MJ while he is with the multi-billionaires overseas. Believe me, they aren’t just over there discussing designer clothing. A conglomerate is in the making.

    One last note, these facts that I write here should not be the only times you hear this, but the sad fact is it probably is. I was worried that Michael would go down because of the uncertainty of the jury. That’s playing unfair. If I’m presenting these facts here at EURweb, YOU CAN BELIEVE THE MEDIA KNOWS IT ALREADY AS WELL. They aren’t salivating over everything MJ related just because he made “Thriller.” They know what’s up. Think about it. That’s why I laugh when I see shows like BET’s “The Ultimate Hustler.” We all know who that is. (How can Damon Dash know who the ultimate hustler is anyway? He lost Roc-a-fella to Jay-Z)

    In the end, Michael won’t be known for being an alleged child molester. He won’t be known for “Thriller.” He will be known as the man that fought the record industry and won and lived to tell the tale. That is a book worth buying…


  30. Olga permalink
    October 31, 2010 1:49 pm

    David another ridiculus thing is the one that media created about “little boys”. This is their own fantasy and fiction that needs to be addressed. Michael Jackson never said that. He always said CHILDREN. There were boys and girls at Neverland unless people lost their vision and they are not able to see the girls in the video footages and pictures. Plus it turned out from the trial transcripts that both boys and girls were sleeping in his house and bedroom. Needless to remind everyone that these people asked to meet MJ not vice versa. Either people are totally dump or they have an agenda. Or both. Regarding to haters, they are people with low education and intelligence, highly disturbed and they are a very well known category to us (psychologists). Being mentally unstable and immature they can’t afford to actually display anger and hate to the real “object” that caused them these feelings (parents-relatives-siblings-or any significant other) so they project to somebody else, a totally irrelevant “object” to them. You can’t imagine how common that type of psychopathology is. At some point in their life many of them end up in prison or in psychiatric clinics. Anti-social personality disorder is very common among them. Another thing that many people suffer of, is cognitive dissonance, a term coined by Leon Festinger in 1957 for social psychology. It basically states that a powerful motive to maintain cognitive consistency can give rise to irrational and maladaptive behavior. Again cognitive consistency is very important for people with low intelligence and low sef-eteem. They can’t handle incosistent cognitions because they arouse psychological tention and they can’t cope with it.


  31. lcpledwards permalink
    October 31, 2010 4:22 pm

    Hey guys, these two articles represent why race is such a tricky subject when talking about MJ. As a black man, I just avoid the topic altogether because, even though it did indeed play a part in the media’s persecution of him, it wasn’t THE primary factor (the money that they wanted to make with his conviction was the main factor!)

    If I was to try and argue that Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth had racial prejudices in their vilification of MJ, then they could refute that accusation by talking about the positive work they have done in the name of race.

    For example, Maureen Orth went to Africa earlier this year to do humanitarian work. When you open the article, you can see her with a big, fat smile on her face while posing with an African woman:

    Dimond recently wrote an article condemning the racist elements in the criticism of President Obama. She mentions how the number of death threats against him have increased exponentially since he took office, and she attributes much of that to race. She pats herself on her back for taking the courage to stand up for him, and encourages his political opponents to remain “civil”.

    If I was to even remotely accuse them of having a racist element to their coverage of MJ, then they would use those articles as shields to protect themselves from criticism!


  32. visitor permalink
    October 31, 2010 5:57 pm

    I have noticed that the major MJ’s detractors were/are women. Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth, Nancy Grace, Gloria Allder, a psychologist (i don’t recall her name) etc. Has anyone any idea of this?


  33. Suzy permalink
    October 31, 2010 5:58 pm

    @ David

    Yes, it’s too generalizing to say the whole media had a racist agenda. Some had a racist agenda (for example I believe Rolling Stone’s treatment of MJ has racist origins), others agenda was different. Gutierrez for example didn’t have a racist agenda. He had a p. agenda. But racism was a part of it too in certain segments of the media.


  34. lcpledwards permalink
    October 31, 2010 6:36 pm

    Here is a very surprising example of racism against MJ. The reason that this is surprising is because of the time period during which this example comes from!

    From 1979 to 1984, conservative talk show hose Rush Limbaugh was a radio DJ for baseball’s Kansas City Royals, and he would play black music in between innings to mostly white crowds. In a book that was recently written about him, Limbaugh used this fact as a racial “badge of honor” to show that he was a pioneer of race relations during that time. Here is an excerpt from that book:

    “Surprisingly, Limbaugh was a “racial pioneer” while producing the scoreboard at Kansas City Royals ballgames in the late ’70s and early ’80s. He used to play Michael Jackson songs between innings which annoyed some conservatives in the crowd. “They used to say, ‘Where do you think we are, Oakland?’”

    (For more info on Limbaugh, read the bottom of the following post: )

    All I can say is this: if you had a problem with Michael Jackson between 1979 and 1984, then you probably were a racist! That time period was before the “Wacko Jacko” nonsense, and certainly before the allegations, so there is no other excuse for having such a bad reaction to having his songs played at a baseball game! And for those of you who don’t know, Oakland is a poor, majority black city in California with high crime rates and low employment and education rates.

    If MJ had been “normal” like his brothers, or like other rock and pop stars, then he would have been promiscuous, would have had numerous “Billie Jeans” (i.e. women suing him for child support), would have used recreational drugs for pleasure, would have beated on and cheated on both of his wives (like Mel Gibson and Tiger Woods), would have been inarticulate and foul mouthed, would have had disresptful and conceited, and would have been a whole lotta other things! And his critics would say things like “You can take a black man out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the black man!!” Or “Well, he’s just another black man from Gary, Indiana!”, which is ever WORSE than Oakland!

    Here is a 10 minute video on the plight of Gary, Indiana. I swear, if it wasn’t for MJ being born here, there wouldn’t be any reason whatsoever to visit this city!


  35. October 31, 2010 7:21 pm

    I cannot say Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth are racist, I can’t possibly know that for a fact. However there are different forms of racism, you can’t paint with a broad brush. There is overt racism like apartheid which was political as well as economic, and there is covert where a white person would elect Mandela, or Obama, but that does not mean they would like it if their children were to marry someone black. I guess what I am trying to say is you can be against the politcal institution as long as it doesn’t get too close to home. Therefore Orth, Dimond, and limbaugh going to Africa, or playing black music does not prove anything to me. It does not prove to me that these people see Blacks and Whites as equals, e.g. Elvis Presley liked black music, but was against interacial marriages.

    I will not hide my dislike for Maureen Orth. For all I know she could have gone to Africa with the best of intentions, or she could have gone to Africa with superiority complex. I know from history the missionaries went to Africa to save the Africans from themselves. Also wasn’t Tommy Mattola married to Mariah Carrie?


  36. October 31, 2010 8:25 pm

    “I never thought MJ would ever ride on a train, as he could easily just fly anywhere that he needed to go. But then again, I never would have thought that MJ would go driving by himself! And we ALL know what happened that fateful day in May 1992 when his car broke down on the freeway!”

    David, just wanted to make a note regarding the above while I still remember it.

    Driving a car and going by train are incompatible in terms of privacy – when you drive a car and have tainted glass on both sides (I don’t know if it is allowed in the US) you are enjoying much more privacy than on a train. Michael could get into a car in the privacy of Neverland and finally drive into the garage of his Century City building with a private elavator taking him directly to his apartment (this is really how he was getting into his Hideout apartment). And going by train involves a railway station both at the start and at destination point, a common corridor joining the compartments where people walk – things like that.

    I am sure that Michael could never go by train without any bodyguards accompanying him and staying in the adjoining compartments which rules out the possibility of anyone overhearing anything (if there was anything to overhear). The case mentioned in the FBI files was either slander in its purest form, or just another person taken for Michael.

    By the way it was common practice for Michael’s bodyguards to send his look-alikes via different routes to distract the attention from the real Michael when they didn’t want the media to follow him to his real destination. Moshe the bodyguard employed this tactics when they were ushering Michael to a rehab clinic somewhere in Switzerland.

    An absolutely crazy scenario could be for someone to use a look-alike for the purpose of compromising Michael. However knowing what those people were capable of when it came to Michael I do not rule out even such a possibility.


  37. lcpledwards permalink
    October 31, 2010 9:25 pm

    Helena, I called in to the following episodes of Blog Talk Radio: Seven Bowie (of MJ 777), Catherine Coy (of MJ Truth Now), William Wagener, and Debbie Kunesh (of Reflections on the Dance). Catherine Gross, the lady who hosts the show, archives all of her episodes.

    As far as MJ driving, I don’t think he necessarily made a mistake by driving by himself, but the mistake was not being followed by his bodyguards! If they had been driving in a car behind him, then they could have assisted him. I’m sure everyone here can agree with that, right? It’s almost unfathomable that the most famous celebrity on earth would literally be stuck on the side of the road!

    I will post part 2 of the transcript tomorrow!


  38. October 31, 2010 9:30 pm

    “I remember when Martin Bashir asked him if he didn’t go to jail because he paid the Chandlers off. And Michael walked right into his trap by not challenging the question the way it was asked… Bashir tricked him there with this loaded questioning.”

    Suzy, it seems to me that practically all questions journalists asked of Michael were loaded and he had no alternative but ignore the manner in which they were asked. Otherwise he would have had to dispute every single question and its wording. It would have created the impression of him being a wilful, petty, mean and picky star who is never satisfied with anything and is ready to throw a tantrum over every minor little thing. He definitely knew all the media tricks but was too tired and unwilling to fight them. I don’t know how he lived with this constant need to explain himself.


  39. lcpledwards permalink
    November 13, 2010 8:58 pm

    Hey guys, here is the 3 hour radio interview that I did with Raven Woods of the All For Love blog, and Seven Bowie of MJ-777 blog! Catherine Gross conducted the interview. Charles Thomson called in towards the end and spoke for a bit, and he agreed to do his own interview at a future date!


  40. lynande51 permalink
    November 13, 2010 11:13 pm

    Hey David I listened but I didn’t hear Charles did I get the wrong program? And the answer to your other question is yes it is I emailed you about it. It is called a web proxy.


  41. lcpledwards permalink
    November 14, 2010 1:50 am

    @ Lynette
    Charles Thomson called in at 147 minutes into the show. The show was 3 hours (180 minutes) long.


  42. Dialdancer permalink
    November 14, 2010 6:10 am

    Helena said:

    ““I remember when Martin Bashir asked him if he didn’t go to jail because he paid the Chandlers off. And Michael walked right into his trap by not challenging the question the way it was asked… Bashir tricked him there with this loaded questioning.”

    Martin knew Michael could not address this issue without saying too much and leaving himself open to another law suit for breach. Dimond did the same thing when she printed an article which says Michael lied to Diane Sawyer. She too what could and could not be said.

    This was a trap. It is like when you are questioned by the police. The more you talk the deeper the hole you dig. Eventually you will use the words always or never and they will disprove that and charge you with lying to the police.

    It wasn’t until I began reading Michael’s Admin’s Declaration that I realized that this was indeed a setup not something of opportunity. Martin intended to paint a certain picture, he staged the players, lied to and avoided Michael, insured he did not get to see the final product and violated the contract he and MJ had about the film being Michael’s property.

    There was an agreement not to discuss the settlement. Martin knew MJ could not and did not want to discuss this.


  43. Dialdancer permalink
    November 14, 2010 6:29 am

    Visitor said:

    I have noticed that the major MJ’s detractors were/are women. Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth, Nancy Grace, Gloria Allder, a psychologist (i don’t recall her name) etc. Has anyone any idea of this?

    Yes it is noticed and there is a good reason for it. Some very smart person picked up on the fact that women could say the scandlous and inflammatory without the same backlash men got. Think about it, do you thing Palin would say the same things if Mrs. Obama were President? They are our modern bullies, the worst kind. By using the term “entertainment” with news it give these women another something to hide behind. They are just overly opinionated women, or they are just big mouth gossips. In either case it is acceptable because it is supposed all women gossip and this “tactic” is used more now than ever. Look to HLN, E TV, Access all these programs are dominated by slandering females.


  44. lcpledwards permalink
    November 21, 2010 10:58 am

    Hey guys, this is a reminder that today at 1pm Central Standard Time I will be doing a radio interview, along with Seven Bowie, Raven Woods, Nikki Allygator, and Karen O’Halloran. Here is the link:

    Here is a time zone converter for the international readers:

    If you can’t call in, than you can submit questions in the chat room that is available on the page.


  45. November 21, 2010 11:10 am

    Hey guys, this is a reminder that today at 1pm Central Standard Time I will be doing a radio interview, along with Seven Bowie, Raven Woods, Nikki Allygator, and Karen O’Halloran. Here is the link:

    Here is a time zone converter for the international readers:


    It is a pity I won’t be able to listen to it live as I have to leave now. I wish you every success and hope it will gather a big audience.

    The Blogtalkradio hosted by Rev. Catherine Gross has been added to the blogroll – with a direct link you’ve provided.

    If there is an opportunity during the talk say a couple of words about our team and our great readers, please.


  46. lcpledwards permalink
    November 22, 2010 1:58 am

    Here is the radio show! I think I sounded much better this week! LOL!


  47. Amerie permalink
    November 23, 2010 4:32 am

    Your right, he did walk into that trap or it was edited– I think Michael may have explained himself better when Bashir questioned him further- but ofcourse, that part was taken out because of the confidentiality agreement Michael signed.


  48. November 24, 2010 4:41 pm

    Here is information from David he has sent us be e-mail. Let me repeat it:

    Hey guys, I have some great news! “Michael Jackson Conspiracy” by Aphrodite Jones has now been rereleased in paperback! It is published under “aphroditejonesbooks”, so it’s safe to assume that she self-published this herself again. It was released earlier this month, and is available for $31.99!!

    As of right now I don’t know if the paperback version is the same as the hardcover, or if Aphrodite was able to add in the additional info that she wanted to add to the hardcover, which was supposed to be released in August. As soon as I get it I’ll let all of you guys know!

    Here is the link to Amazon! Please spread this great news through the MJ community! Post this link on FB, Twitter, etc.!!!



  49. visitor permalink
    December 8, 2010 1:35 am

    Is it true that CBS is doing a program about Michael’s 2005 trial or something like that? Does anyone know?


  50. sanemjfan permalink
    January 11, 2013 7:16 am

    Tomorrow at 6:00pm CST on Blog Talk Radio, Aphrodite Jones will give an interview to King Jordan (I assume he’s a journalist, but I’ve never heard of him). She will discuss the 3rd season of her television series “True Crime With Aphrodite Jones”, which airs Mondays at 9:00PM CST, as well as her books, including “MJ Conspiracy”.

    I looked through King Jordan’s archive, and he has quite a few episodes dedicated to MJ. For example, he has a series called “Did Michael Jackson Fake His Own Death”, and part 4 aired on December 23rd, 2012. It should come as no surprise that Pearl Jr. has been the guest during this series, and I’m sure she’s been promoting her “Pseudocide: Did Michael Jackson Fake His Death To Save His Life?” crap.

    Here is his archive of shows:


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: