Skip to content


June 10, 2010

This is a short question and answer piece which I decided to turn into a separate post not to interfere in the great discussion taking place in the comments section now. The questions were asked by someone skeptical about Michael’s innocence:

In fact, have you ever thought what if Michael did molest this child?

I have. I had been thinking that way for many years until he died. When those dark rumors reached my part of the world I didn’t take the trouble to look in the matter closely and thought that “there could be no smoke without fire” and “if everybody were saying that all of them couldn’t be wrong”. It was only when I started reading about Michael after his death that I realized my terrible mistake – and the pain of the resulting awakening was simply unbearable. That is why I started this blog – to repay Michael for all the wrong I personally did to him.

But your lack of objectivity shows more and more in every article you write.

I have been absolutely on Michael’s side since the very beginning – just look up the title of the blog. However I was under the impression that the majority of people didn’t know the truth about Michael same as I didn’t and as soon as they learn it they will be horrified same as I was and will immediately repent for the terrible injustice they did to him – same as I am doing it now.

To provide the truth about the matter (objective or non-objective is not the right word – the truth is absolute in its essence) I looked into every minor detail of Jordan’s accusations to check the validity of its every little piece. I found NOTHING to support his claims as my three parts of “All you wanted to know about it…” show it.

What you’ve noticed as a change of my attitude is no loss of objectivity – it is my loss of patience with Michael’s doubters and increasing surprise that after reading about the results of my and other people’s research there might still be people who are still finding fault with Michael and suspect him of molestation.

Jordan’s case was the most serious one, so I gave it a very thorough look and among other things found that his description of Michael’s “private parts” (which is the basis of his allegations) did not have a leg to stand on. After discovering the truth and writing about it I naturally thought the subject closed and already thrown away into a wastepaper basket.

But to my complete amazement here we go again – with a question already asked and answered a hundred times here:

What if Evan really believed that Michael molested his child?

Well, he did, as I myself came to such a conclusion – so what of it?

If your child had slept in the same bed as Michael and he later says he was molested by him – then would you believe him or would you believe Michael?

NONE of the children said to their parents that they had been molested – all the allegations came after someone had ‘worked’ on those children. Even Jordan repeatedly refused to say so until he was brainwashed by his father or was subjected by him to that sodium amytal procedure Evan Chandler himself was talking about. If someone tried to alter my mind by giving me a drug I really wouldn’t know whether I could believe even myself after that.

There are also facts that support the possibility that there was wrong doing. Sleeping in the same bed is one of them.

Do you have anything else besides that? I also know that your dog is sleeping in the foot of your bed every night, so what of it?

Whether this was completely innocent is irrelevant – if you choose to share your bed with a child after being accused several times– then you have to live with the consequences.

Your innocent sleep with the dog is irrelevant? Even if your wife/husband and other family members say it was perfectly OK and they never saw anything bad? Will it still be my, your neighbor’s or anyone else’s business whether your dog sleeps in your bed or it doesn’t?  Especially if you have a special guard who always stays besides you to see what’s happening – like Frank Cascio who always slept in Michael’s room after 1993 if there was a child there (actually to protect Michael from any allegations)?

And how dare you be adamant that a dog in your bed is none of my business? Of course it is! Have you slept with a dog or not? You have? So face all the consequences if you did…

You keep giving weak excuses as to why Michael continued to share his bed.

I don’t know whether weak or strong, but it is exactly excuses that I am not giving here. Michael does not need any excuses, same as you do not need excuses for sleeping with your dog. What I am really trying to do – besides sorting out all those crazy allegations against him –  is trying to UNDERSTAND him. Understanding others is a very useful thing in general because misinterpreting other people’s motives has never been good for finding common language with anyone at all.

However in Michael’s case no one ever tried to understand him. Everyone seems to have only claims to him as if he owes them an explanation for everything he did. In fact what I’ve noticed about all Michael’s detractors is that they’ve long forgotten how to mind their own business and lost all sense of reality about what is acceptable or unacceptable when it comes to interfering with other people’s lives. If someone thinks it is okay for a journalist (Diane Dimond) to show anyone’s underwear on TV and still remain credible in the eyes of the viewers I have no more questions to these people… good bye, darlings…. we are from different planets… there is no point in discussing things any longer.

You say that I am making excuses about Michael’s behavior? Actually I think the case is exactly the opposite – it’s you who are making excuses for many years of ruthless harassing Michael and finding fault with his ways. Since there is no evidence to be produced against him there is nothing else for you to do but express suspicions only – he SLEPT! he gave GIFTS! he INVITED them to his home! he provided things FREE! He ….he … what else…. what did we forget…

Is it your way of making excuses for the gross interference into another person’s life which was never any of your business? Are you trying to explain now that you had certain reasons for this outrageous behavior towards another human being? Do you also have a terrible sinking feeling that he was innocent after all and you need to say at least something in your defense? Do you begin to feel guilty for driving a healthy and strong young man to an untimely death? Are you afraid you’ll have to answer one day for what you have done to an innocent person?

And isn’t it because of this fear that you’ve been terribly wrong towards him that you are refusing to accept the truth about Michael’s innocence now?

13 Comments leave one →
  1. Skeptic permalink
    June 10, 2010 11:51 pm

    What’s all this about a dog? I don’t have one and never have… bizarre.

    I never said it was acceptable for anything Diane Dimond did – I think she’s like you in a way, she is clearly not objective either. But just because I have doubts about certain things you automatically think i’m some sort of ‘hater’ – and just because I don’t agree with you on some points you feel the need put me in the same boat as anyone else who ever doubted Michael Jackson and thus you put words in my mouth (e.g. like I agree with Diane Dimond).

    And no, I don’t have anything to feel guilty about, I never harrassed him – I’ve never met the guy – I didn’t tell him to make any of the choices he made. I’m in your shoes, looking at this from the outside, in. The whole situation is NOT black and white – it is not obvious what went on – that’s why people are still discussing it to this day. That’s why people visit websites like yours.

    I don’t really have anything else to say – I merely intended to add to this discussion but its is clear to me that if I don’t agree with everything you say, I am not welcome here. So I guess we can just agree to disagree and leave it at that.


  2. June 11, 2010 11:16 am

    Skeptic, the dog is just an example – you might substitute a child, grandchild, adopted child, a niece, nephew, distant relative or even a visiting friend’s child for the ‘dog’ to see what I mean.

    The essence is the same – if the children are happy and adamant that they are having fun only, if they vehemently deny that anything bad has ever happened, if they crawl into your bed of their own free will and no one pushes them there, and their parents know about it, sometimes take part in all the fun and can enter your room whenever they want it – there are no reasons for worry and for those on the outside to interfere in the process. It is just NONE of our business as it is none of MY business whether your niece sleeps in your bed or not (in case all those conditions are fulfilled).

    What I mean is that some standards of behavior in other people’s homes may look a little strange to the outsiders but even if they do this is no reason to believe that they are in any way criminal.

    The only cause for worry appears when those who’ve been to your (or anyone’s) home complain about mistreatment there – then the whole thing ceases to be someone’s personal business only. If all the evidence points to a crime, then prosecution steps in, but if the accusers are found to be liars – then it is you as the master of the house who can sue them for perjury, slander and the enormous damage done to your good name, reputation and health. Is that correct?

    So – back to Michael Jackson – if there is NO evidence found despite millions of dollars spent on the investigation and examining his life under a microscope for some 15 years too, is it your or anyone’s business to judge him on the basis of what some liars said about him? Or is it his turn now to find fault with all those who despite the nightmare he went through (for nothing at all) allow themselves to speak of him as if he were a criminal? Even if all the fun still goes on in his home?

    When I say ‘you’ I don’t mean you personally, Skeptic – I mean all those who have lost their sense of balance in their treatment of Michael Jackson and who think they can feel okay even if they never harassed him directly. I never harassed or said a bad word about him either – but I was in doubt and know that I was more on the other side when Michael needed me on his and this is what gives me all my disquiet now. It is just the pangs of conscience, you see….

    Even if we haven’t harassed him ourselves we never stopped those who did it. This is why I mentioned Diane Dimond – it was at that stage when she bragged about seeing some love letters from Michael to a boy (which even Tom Sneddon never heard of) and when she unspeakably humiliated Michael by taking with her two fingers some underwear found in the street as if it were his – it was THEN that reasonable people should have taken the right decision and voiced their disagreement with the disreputable way he was treated and the amount of lies poured on his head.

    Being ‘in-between’ or ‘skeptical’ now, in a situation when it is clear that there was NO evidence on the side of the accusers, is absolutely not the same thing as being ‘unbiased’ or ‘neutral’. It is more like watching an innocent guy being beaten and now bleeding heavily and asking for help – but you turning your back on him and saying ‘it is him who was to blame for it’.

    P.S. Jordan described Michael as CIRCUMCISED while he was NOT. This makes the whole of the Chandlers’ story just a big-big lie. Very intricate, very clever, very elaborate – but nevertheless a LIE.


  3. skeptikos permalink
    June 11, 2010 4:26 pm

    Have you noticed that for decades we are taught to be just good consumers (look upon sales and marketing)? We already lost ART (not the art-business) – “art is the most complex expression of longing and aspirations of a society” – as a tool to erase bias and express global experiences. Art reveals how democracy looks when rights are deprived or upheld, demanding distinctions between right and wrong.
    Without real ART we are about to lose our common-sense too.
    As Proust said, it is not new places, but NEW EYES that are required, and opportunities to see without prejudice.
    Think about that.


  4. Incognito permalink
    June 11, 2010 8:21 pm

    Hey guys i’ve just finished reading Taraborelli’s bio on Michael Jackson. Of course, the Jordie Chandler segment was very interesting.

    It says that June did not believe that Jordie was molested but then the police had questioned her and had told her about another child who had cliamed to be molested by Michael before Jordie ever went to the police. It says she got worried and tried to contact Michael but at this time he decided not to get in touch with her. It was then that she decided to join Evan’s side. Seems there are always twists and turns in this saga.

    What are your thoughts?


  5. June 11, 2010 9:30 pm

    Skeptikos, I am not sure I understand what you mean by art but I fully agree with you that we need new eyes to be able to see the truth (in general and about Michael too).

    Michael had this new vision because he maintained a state of inner innocence which brings about freshness of perception (he wrote about in his Dancing the dream book) – the innocence which is often mistaken for naivety or foolishness.

    Nothing can be more wrong that mixing up the two! Freshness of perception is typical of children and of very pure people – and it gives them a unique opportunity to see things the way they are and uncover any falsehood without much effort. No wonder children often see the truth easily and blurt it out when adults are at a loss…

    It seems to me that it was Michael’s freshness of perception that made him so smart in business. Everyone says he could immediately detect a problem or inaccuracy in any financial or legal paper and no one could outwit him. I am not surprised – innocence (in the meaning of freshness) can beat even those who are the most street smart…

    However many people let Michael down. It seems to me it was not because he didn’t see what they were like but because he always gave people the benefit of the doubt and hoped that the good in their nature (which each of us possesses) would prevail over the evil side. Some did really show themselves at their very best (like Macauley Culkin, the Robson and the Barnes families), some didn’t (like the Chandlers and Arvizos). But it wasn’t his mistake – it was the choice they were making.

    (Just my opinion).


  6. Suzy permalink
    June 11, 2010 11:46 pm

    @ Incognito

    I don’t know how much Taraborelli can be believed, but it’s interesting. So the policed used the same mind trick on June as they did on Jason Francia…. (lying to her about other kids being molested).

    To me in her 2005 testimony she seemed to be unsure about whether Michael did it or not.

    By the way, Traborelli. This is what he wrote on his Facebook when Evan Chandler committed suicide last winter:

    “I actually knew Evan Chandler. I met him several times in the 1990s. I had lots of secret meetings with Evan Chandler, trying to get to the bottom of what was going on. I was pretty young, sort of green and wish I had my present level of expertise to be able to have applied back then. I have stories about that guy that I have never published.

    “He was about as inconsistent as they come. He was so determined to get me on his side, I thought he was just a tad scary. If you read my book you sort of get how I felt — feel — about him. When [the book] came out he called me screaming at me for not just buying his story 100%. He actually threatened me, and I thought… okay, pal, now I know who you really are.”


  7. skeptikos permalink
    June 12, 2010 2:01 am

    Sorry, vindicatemj, I’ll try to explain my point of view.
    I was taught that «best things in life are free». Who believes this nowadays? I suppose a few still know the meaning of: Sleeping in on a rainy day; Hearing the right song at the right moment; Smelling fresh clean bed sheets; Admiring a beautiful view (landscape); Hearing the waves at night; Praising silence; Having a good laugh; Playing in the water (water balloons battles); Skinny Dipping; Reminiscing About Old Times with Your Closest Friends; or even just playing with children…. etc…
    and why just a few know/remember the feeling of these simple things?
    Because most of us are too busy working (workaholics), being more and more competitive in this global market, trying to survive to its tough rules. After work most of us sit in front of a Tv screen (the bigger the better), looking for some entertainment created by the same market where we try to survive on a daily basis.

    For decades children were taught this way, to be competitive, to be better, to be the best and to consume every product that marketers find suitable for them/us; Post-modernity education means to teach children to be «productive rather than to think critically and become knowledgeable and empathetic citizens. This shortsighted focus on profitable skills has eroded our ability to criticize authority, reduced our sympathy with the marginalized and different, and damaged our competence to deal with complex global problems. And the loss of these basic capacities jeopardizes the health of democracies and the hope of a decent world.» [1]

    Therefore, the humanities and the arts “are being cut away” and dismissed as “useless frills” in the context of an overriding imperative “to stay competitive in the global market.” The result is that abilities crucial to the health of any democracy are being lost, especially the ability to think critically, to evaluate evidence, to write papers with well-structured arguments, and/or to analyze arguments.

    All this and much more explain why REAL ART and COMMON-SENSE are so difficult to perceive, or even why to the eyes of most people ARTISTS are “weird”, eccentric, whatever… most people can’t understand this: if they are unique, they can’t be equal to others, or feel like everyone else. Their art is all they have and matters; Through it they can feel and express themselves freely; Through it they are whatever they want to be, or simply transcend themselves; Through art they can be loved!
    Art is form and content. Art heals and as far as I know better MJ (after death) I’m convinced the real, the unique and public MJ was the one we saw live on stage, performing, expressing his art, his feelings, his passions, his self-giving. We must not forget that he committed is entire life to create, practice and perform nothing less than the best show on earth -perfection – nothing more or less than any real artist dreams to achieve!
    Can you imagine life without art? I can’t. Imagine him… without his art.

    Art is what makes us all grand, more thoughtful and well-rounded humans. Art is everything, everywhere, timeless.
    Mankind has been blessed from time to time with great artists/genius (Da Vinci, Picasso, Van Gogh, Mozart, Beethoven… to mention a few) and often our payback/reward has been jealousy and hate. Most of us can’t understand the true value of these human beings and we never learn and keep on breaking hearts that should be cherished!
    Definitely, we need NEW EYES and new opportunities TO SEE without prejudice. 🙂

    [1] Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities
    by Martha C. Nussbaum


  8. June 12, 2010 6:22 am

    Skeptikos, no need to be sorry about anything. Your message is just another great way to vindicate Michael and turn all of us back to art, nature, perfection and other equally fantastic things in life. Up till now I haven’t mentioned Michael as a genius of an artist and you are surely filling in the gap. “Admiring a beautiful view; Hearing the waves at night; Praising silence; Having a good laugh; Playing in the water ” – you can definitely hear all these great things in Michael’s music and see it in the perfection of his dance. He was drawing inspiration from the basic life elements – the nature, children, true friendship and love – as he himself said:

    People say I’m not okay
    ‘Cause I love such elementary things…

    I’ll make a separate post of it now for everyone to enjoy and will then leave for a few days to draw from the elementary forces of nature too. Hope to see you and everyone next week.


  9. Incognito permalink
    June 12, 2010 3:03 pm

    @ Suzy – yeah you’re right – I have read lots of articles where the prosecution has lied to boys saying x y and z have said they have been molested when they actually have not. Like the Goldsteins (in article about the Bermuda trip) have said – they don’t like that kind of interrogation.


  10. Suzy permalink
    June 12, 2010 3:17 pm

    @ Incognito

    I don’t know if that kind of interrogation is legal at all. It’s definitely not ethical.


  11. Lauren permalink
    July 4, 2011 9:19 am

    “It was only when I started reading about Michael after his death that I realized my terrible mistake – and the pain of the resulting awakening was simply unbearable.”

    Omg! I know exactly what you mean! I went through the exact same thing! I cried after I read about what really happened behind those allegations. I mean I really really cried! I can’t even imagine how he must have felt. I hugged a magazine with his picture on it and told him I was so sorry he had to go through all that, hoping his ghost could hear me. Lol. It’s embarrassing to admit that now, but I really did. And of course I flipped out and lost my sh*t when I saw his daughter talk at his memorial. I wonder if most ppl in the world had the same reaction we had or if most of them still think he’s guilty? Poor thing. I hope most ppl know he’s innocent now.


  12. July 4, 2011 10:31 am

    “I hugged a magazine with his picture on it and told him I was so sorry he had to go through all that, hoping his ghost could hear me. Lol. It’s embarrassing to admit that now, but I really did.”

    Lauren, there is nothing to be embarrassed about – I hope he does see our repentance now. He probably doesn’t need it and it is us who need it most – for our own good. Let those who are still in the dark be embarrassed about their total lack of reason and human feeling.


  13. nakanoyoshimi permalink
    April 24, 2012 8:08 pm

    vendicatemj – L.O.V.E.*************************************************

    Michael, at that time…You was the only truth like a dew pure and illuminated in dark fiction extended infinite.
    When I think of your suffering at that moment,
    when I feel the pain of your soul in those long days,
    my heart breaks.
    My soul trembles by that world without truth,
    in the infinite darkness where you consumed your blood, in the nothing … and then,
    in a fit of rage, the mine, to the all those evildoer… their.
    Michael … my sweet love …….


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: