Skip to content

Welcome to the Main Hater’s site. WHO IS IT?

July 6, 2010

The numerous references made in the comments to the formidable Hater’s site are forcing me to run a little ahead and forget about Ray Chandler’s interview for a time being. To be frank with you I tried to shield innocent Michael’s fans from the venom of that site and wanted to introduce it here only when enough antidote (evidence) against it was collected. But my young and reckless investigative partner David changed these plans again and suddenly broke this site upon all of us. I don’t mind it very much though – it is probably only for the better, as now we will be able to do this work together and have more opportunity to analyze its content and the author’s identity. The job was started in a post devoted to Ray Chandler and I suggest we continue it here.

The site is big and deserves our full attention as it is widely referred to by all Michael’s haters as their MAIN source of information . Everything in the site speaks to it being an effort of one person only – the style of the author, his manner of writing as well as the way of his thinking.  Besides provision of some invaluable documents (like a transcript of Evan-David’s taped conversation) the site focuses on a thorough and super-meticulous analysis of major articles and books written in support of Michael Jackson (by Mary Fischer’s and Geraldine Hughes) and the dismissal of Evan Chandler’s $60mln. lawsuit against Jackson et al. by the California court.

The site is quite an enigma  – it does not give a single date for a single post, but the sources quoted by the author testify to him being very well familiar not only with the Chandler case but the events around the 2005 trial too,  so it is safe to assume that the site spans the period of 1993-2005 or longer, up to probably even today.

There is no name of the author either. There are some clues  dropped here and there to it though and in his “rebuttal of Mary Fischer’s article” the author speaks of his identity quite openly. Yes, it is RAY CHANDLER judging by his reference to the book All that Glitters where he discusses certain points not covered in the article and to his former work in developing estate projects (which had been Ray Chandler’s profession before he began studying for a lawyer soon after 1993). This is what Ray Chandler says of himself in the “rebuttal” article:

“The following analysis offers a persuasive argument that Mary Fischer created a report that was at best extremely sloppy, and at worst intentionally false.  One of the prime examples of Fischer’s ineptitude is her manipulation of the dialogue found on the secret tape recording of Evan Chandler.  This was discussed in All That Glitters and will not be repeated here.”

“In 1980 he [Evan] bought a home in Santa Monica and became immersed in a major remodel, which he hoped to parlay into additional real estate projects. I worked with him for one year on that remodel.”

Finding Ray Chandler’s site in the very midst of the Internet providing malicious and distorted information on every single point about Michael Jackson is quite a discovery on its own. However when you read the way the author meticulously explains some personal matters regarding Evan Chandler you start wondering whether it is ONLY Ray Chandler who is standing behind that text. Some of its passages look and sound to me too personal and too self-centered to be written just by a ‘third party’.  And the rate with which these personal points are repeated and their overall totally absurd number suggest that the authorship may be somebody else’s – someone who is simply obsessed with explaining his motives and his behavior to those who are supporting his cause…. Here are several examples only – please decide for yourselves:

  • About Evan changing his last name into Chandler:

“According to Fischer, a “former colleague” of Evan’s stated that in 1973 Evan changed his last name to Chandler because his original name “sounded too Jewish.” In a phone call initiated by Anthony Pellicano, Evan’s mother (then 79 years old) told the PI that many of Evan’s patients found the name difficult to pronounce and spell. She further stated that Evan’s father, a dentist as well, also considered changing his name.

Yes, Evan did not like his original name, but had Fischer bothered to contact Evan’s family she would have learned that although Evan wasn’t religious, he was not ashamed of being Jewish. At the outbreak of war in 1968he called the Israeli embassy and volunteered to fight”.

  • About Evan’s love-hate relationship with dentistry:

“Fischer next quoted “a family friend” who allegedly said that Evan “hated being a dentist” and “always wanted to be a writer.” Fischer followed this by claiming that Evan moved to Los Angeles in the late 1970s because he wanted to become a screenwriter, and that in 1978 he wrote a script but couldn’t sell it.

It is true that by 1993 Evan Chandler had a love-hate relationship with dentistry, like many men do with their profession after practicing for twenty years. It is false that Evan always wanted to be a screenwriter and that he moved to Los Angeles for that purpose. In the early eighties, Evan’s goal was to develop real estate. In 1980 he bought a home in Santa Monica and became immersed in a major remodel, which he hoped to parlay into additional real estate projects. I worked with him for one year on that remodel”.

  • About Evan’s successful career as a screen writer:

“True, in 1993 a nod from Michael Jackson could advance anyone’s career. But the suggestion that Evan extorted Michael to launch a screenwriting career is belied by the fact that Evan was a successful screenwriter before he met Jackson. He had not only sold his first screenplay, a rare accomplishment, but it had been made into a profitable movie, an even rarer accomplishment”

  • About Evan’s violence mentioned by Mary Fischer:

“When asked in a 1994 deposition about Evan’s violence, June said that in January of 1992 she had heard of an argument between Evan and his then wife, Monique that became physical (why is this guy so overprotective of Evan’s wife Natalie that he calls her only Monique – even here?). But June never mentioned any violence by Evan toward her. And she stated that other than the 1992 incident she knew of no reason why Evan presented a danger to Jordie.

Fischer went on to say that when Evan and June were divorced in 1985, “the court awarded sole custody of the boy to his mother and ordered Chandler to pay $500 a month in child support,” but court documents showed that in 1993 Evan still owed June $68,000 dollars in back child support.

The facts of the divorce are as follows. The divorce documents showed that it was a do-it-yourself divorce with no attorneys involved. (Evan personally filled in the forms and made the selections.) In other words, all provisions were uncontested, including the custody and child support arrangements.

As with all uncontested divorces, the court was nothing more than a rubberstamp. But Fischer’s use of the phrase “The court awarded sole custody of the boy to his mother” implies that the court was actively involved in handing down the custody and child support provisions, and that it may have been the result of weighing the fitness of the parents. In the context of her story, Fischer’s choice of words could suggest that the court agreed Evan was violent”.

  • About custody problems in the Chandler family before Michael entered their life:

“Fischer, who according to her own report had seen the divorce file, failed to mention that June’s claim for back child-support was not filed until August,1993, after Evan demanded that she end the relationship with Jackson. There was not one document in the divorce file referring to child custody or child support prior to that time. June and Dave would later testify that there were no custody problems until Jackson came into their lives.

Fischer cast doubt on the molestation charge because it supposedly came in the middle of “a fierce custody battle.” Yet anyone taking an objective look at the custody issue would know that Jackson did not get innocently caught up in a custody dispute; he was the cause of it.

June testified that the relationship between Evan and Jordie was “good,” and she confirmed that they talked every other day by phone on weekdays. (Jordie would spend most weekends at his father’s house.)”

The idyllic picture of the family life described by the Author  reminded me of what the Chandlers’  biographer Victor Gutierrez told his fellow journalists:

“Chandler’s troubles began years earlier, even before Jordie met Jackson, according to Victor Gutierrez, author of “…The Secret Diary of Jordan Chandler”: “This family did not fall apart right after the settlement,” Gutierrez told “This family was dysfunctional way before.”

  • About lack of computer:

“As for the lack of a computer, Evan had promised Jordie a laptop and had not bought it for him by the time Jackson entered their lives. But there was always a desktop computer in the house for Jordie to use. Does a father’s refusal to buy a (second) computer for his child signify that he doesn’t care about the child? Does placing a mask over your child’s face or dangling him over a railing for a few seconds signify that a father doesn’t love his child? Nonsense”

  • About beating up David Schwartz (Jordan’s stepfather):

“Toward the end of her article Fischer reported that two anonymous sources told her that Evan beat up Dave Schwartz during a meeting in their lawyer’s office in 1993. According to the sources, Evan started hitting Dave after Dave said that he believed the extortion claim against Evan.

Here we have two anonymous sources reporting about a single event. There were six people at the meeting: Evan, Monique, Dave, June and attorneys Larry Feldman and Richard Hirsch. Evan, Monique, Feldman and Hirsch were not interviewed by Fischer. Whether June talked to Fischer is unknown, but June was forbidden by the settlement agreement to do so. Dave, however, did not sign any agreement and was free to talk. So if anyone with firsthand knowledge did speak to Fischer it was probably Dave.

In any event, here’s what actually occurred in the lawyer’s office (how does the author know it  if there were only 6 people in the room?). When Dave was told he could not receive money from any future settlement, he became argumentative and demanded millions. At that point Evan laid into Dave verbally, accusing him of having created the problem in the first place (by making the tape and helping Pellicano), and accusing him of being greedy for demanding money at a point when no one knew if there was even going to be a settlement.

The extent of the violence was that Evan slapped Dave’s face once, whereupon Feldman and Hirsch stepped between the two men. Dave testified that it was “a one punch fight” and that he and Evan hugged and cried afterward. Evan, in fact, apologized to Dave.

  • About the time when Evan had his first suspicions about the ‘relationship” and the details he saw in the room (see how confident the author is in his description):

“Fischer wrote that Evan became suspicious of sexual misconduct between his son and Jackson when Jackson stayed at his house during the Memorial Day Weekend of May 28, 1993. This is true. She also stated that Evan “admitted that Jackson and the boy always had their clothes on whenever he saw them in bed together.” This is partly true.  She then stated that Evan never claimed to have witnessed any sexual misconduct by Jackson. This is pure spin.

Michael stayed at Evan’s house for the last two weekends in May of 1993. He slept in a trundle that pulled out from under the bottom berth of a bunk bed where Jordie slept. Jordie’s bed and the trundle were not connected. Jordie’s little brother slept on the top berth every night that Michael stayed over.

To say that the Jordie and Michael always had their clothes on “whenever” Evan saw them in bed together implies that there may have been more than onetime. Evan saw Michael and Jordie in the same bed only once, at about 3 a.m. on the last night of Michael’s two visits. On that occasion Jordie had moved into the trundle with Michael. Evan found them asleep in the spoon position; the back of the boy’s body was pressed against the front of Michael’s. Michael’s hand was resting over the boy’s crotch, outside the covers. These facts were not in Fischer’s article.

  • About Evan’s concerns:

“Fischer mentioned a confrontation between Evan and June on June 9. But she did not mention that Evan’s expressions of concern about Jordie’s welfare at that confrontation resulted in him not being permitted to see or talk to his son until July 12. During that four-week period Michael had been telling Jordie that his father was a bad person and that he shouldn’t talk to him. (See All That Glitters for details about the all-important month of June)

  • About the purpose of meeting Michael and June about which Evan talked to David Schwartz on the tape:

“Evan’s purpose of bringing the documents to the meeting was to show June and Michael that he was fed up with their continued refusal to talk to him about his son. If they refused to address his concerns at that meeting he was going to file the documents and seek a court order. That was why Evan knew that they wouldn’t be going on tour, not because he was planning to renege on an agreement that he didn’t even know would be made”.

  • About Evan being interviewed by the police:

“Regarding Fischer’s statement that Evan was unwilling to be interviewed by authorities, he was interviewed by the police on August 17, 1993, the first day of the investigation. (He declined his right to have an attorney present.) He then submitted a written statement to police under penalty of perjury, and sometime thereafter underwent a lengthy oral examination under oath by the district attorney.”

IS MY GUESS CORRECT and it isn’t ONLY Ray Chandler who is providing all these details about Evan’s inner motives and thoughts about this and that?

If the above excerpts didn’t convince you and you are still in doubt as to the identity of the Author please have a look at the furious retort the man is giving to the ABC company, Diane Sawyer, the American legal system in general (and Michael Jackson of course) after the dismissal of Evan Chandle’s $60mln. lawsuit against Jackson in the year 2000. To refresh your memory about the essence of the lawsuit here are the respective links:

  • to Michael’s interview with Diane Sawyer (which was the reason for Evan’s fury and consequent lawsuit). To sum up the whole thing the most Michael ventured in that interview was:  “The police photographs didn’t match… There was not one iota of information that was found… I could never harm a child…The whole thing is a lie… Most of that is folklore… The terms of the agreement are very confidential…” Could THIS be considered a breach of the agreement?

“developed, orchestrated and carried out a scheme to falsely accuse the minor of lying about his claims that Defendant Jackson had sexually molested and assaulted the minor”.

–  “uttered false and defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff, which were reasonably understood by those who viewed the Interview as referring to Plaintiff”,

-“the words uttered by Defendant Jackson were slanderous per se because they made false statements regarding Plaintiff’s reputation, business reputation, and by innuendo by impliedly accusing Plaintiff of committing the crime of extortion“,

– as a result of those words “Plaintiff has suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification, emotional distress, and injury to his feelings, while suffering general and special damages … in excess of $60 million”.

– The Plaintiff also“suffered panic, trauma, humiliation, disgrace, worry, anxiety, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, all to his damage in a sum of $750,000” (on top of $60mln).

– And since no money was paid to him from the date of the interview (June 14, 1995) to the date he filed his complaint (May 7, 1996) the Plaintiff claimed an additional 10 per cent per annum for experiencing all those terrible sufferings in the period in-between…

This was the summary of the lawsuit. Please compare it with some excerpts from the angry retort by the author of the Hater’s site made to the outside world in reply to the court’s decision to dismiss the case. Will you also have a déjà vu feeling? A vague reminiscence that you’ve read it somewhere already?  Who else can be that meticulous, that petty and that thunderous about it, I wonder? Who else but him can repeatedly return to the ‘poor father’ as the main victim of that innocent interview  Michael Jackson gave to Diane Sawyer?  See for yourself:

“ABC also argued in court that Sawyer was merely repeating Jackson’s allegations, and that she had no legal obligation to investigate the truth of his allegations. But a review of the transcript shows that while Sawyer labeled Jordie’s claims against Jackson as “allegations,” she did not describe the claims against Evan as Jackson’s allegations. She described them as “problems for the prosecution.”

ABC claimed that Sawyer’s monologue was even-handed because her statement that the prosecution had problems with Evan was balanced by her statement, “Whatever the circumstances of the disclosure, authorities say they believe the boy’s story.” On first blush, this assertion appears valid. But a review of the facts shows that while the authorities did believe Jordie, at no point did the authorities state that they believed Evan was talking about money on the tape.

After Pellicano and Weitzman played the tape of Evan to the world, the Los Angeles Times reported that “At no point, however, did the boy’s natural father spell out what he might want from Jackson or detail any allegations against Jackson.” Even GQ reported that “(the father) never mentioned money during their conversation.”

Sawyer mentioned none of this.

Also unreported by Sawyer was Pellicano’s admission that the first mention of money did not occur until August 4, six weeks after the July 8 tape was recorded. “At this point I never heard any extortion, I never heard any demands,” Pellicano said. When money was mentioned for the first time, on August 4, it was part of the talks that both Bert Fields and the police identified as legitimate negotiations to settle civil claims.

But the clearest evidence that Evan was not referring to money on the tape is the tape itself. A review of the transcript indicates that Evan was talking about winning custody of Jordie, not money from Jackson…”

“Why didn’t PrimeTime present Evan’s comment about winning “big time” in context? Why didn’t they report the district attorneys statement that Evan had committed no crime? Why did they fail to report Jackson’s withdrawal of the extortion charge? The answer to these questions cannot be found in ABC’s legal briefs. In fact, they ignored the specifics and argued instead that Sawyer was not legally obligated to report any of these facts.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s argument that ABC and Sawyer failed to include in their report a prosecutor’s assertion that pornography had been found at Jackson’s home (LIE, it was never found there), or failed to report a prosecutor’s assertion that the description by plaintiff’s son of Jackson’s genitalia matched police photographs (the prosecutor did assert it, but the assertion is neverthelss an OUTRAGEOUS LIE), or failed to report that prosecutor’s had decided not to charge plaintiff with extortion, or failed to contact plaintiff or to explain his position, are all irrelevant”

This is an amazing defense for a network news organization, legally sound or not. ABC previously argued that while they felt no hesitation in reporting Jackson’s version, they were not legally obligated to investigate the truth of that version. Now they were arguing they had no obligation to report Evan’s version or the district attorney’s conclusions. In other words, ABC News believed it was permissible to report only one side of a controversy, regardless of whether that side was true or false.

ABC’s legal position is typical of high-profile defendants who are guilty as charged. Michael Jackson went on international TV to proclaim his innocence and accuse another of a crime (please check up the interview if there was an accusation!).

Both Sawyer and Jackson were experts in using media to influence public opinion. They knew that Evan’s statement, “If I go through with this I win big time,” would have a negative emotional impact on the audience if they believed he was referring to winning “big time” money, especially when the implication is that he was using his child to extort Jackson.

Jackson’s goal was to convince the public that he was innocent so he could resurrect his career. To that end, it would carry less weight with the viewers if Sawyer had made it clear that it was Jackson who alleged that the father was talking about money on the tape. Nor would it be of value to Jackson for Sawyer to say that it was only her personal opinion that the prosecution had problems with the father, especially if she made it clear that her opinion was based solely on Jackson’s allegations in the first place”.

“But it would carry immense weight if a top journalist for a premiere news organization made it sound as if the prosecution had problems with the father because he had talked about winning “big-time” money and then asked Jackson for $20 million.

By the end of the interview, the tag-team of Sawyer/Jackson had eliminated all evidence pointing toward Michael’s guilt and Evan’s innocence.

After failing to report the material evidence, Sawyer made the following statement to Jackson and to the audience:

“I guess — let me ask this, and I’m trying to think of how to phrase it, though I can hear out in the country people saying — and you’ve been cleared of all charges and we want to make that clear — people saying, look, here’s a man who is surrounded by things that children love. Here is a man who spends an inordinate amount of time with these young boys”.

Jackson, of course, had not been cleared of the charges (he was never charged to begin with, as Tom Sneddon said it himself). It is telling that Sawyer made that claim right in the middle of asking the most damaging question, the one everyone asked (and is still asking), why Jackson spent so much time with young boys.

But the district attorneys’ statement, taken as a whole, left no doubt that Jackson had not been cleared. The DAs said they had three boys whom they believed were victims. They said they would have charged Jackson if Jordie had been willing to testify. They said that the decision not to prosecute was not based on the credibility of the victims. And they said the case would be  revisited should circumstances change.

The true “gist” of the statement is that the DAs believed Jackson was guilty (of course the prosecutors thought so – it is their job). By no stretch of any reasonable mind does it say they cleared Jackson. Airing one sentence from the DAs’ statement out of context, then twisting it to mean that Jackson was cleared, is the same method ABC used when quoting Evan from the tape. And it suggests that Sawyer did not experience a slip of the tongue when she stated that Jackson had been cleared.

ABC argued in court that even if Sawyer did not capture the gist of the DA’s statement, her claim that Jackson had been cleared of all charges had nothing to do with Evan and he therefore had no valid legal complaint. In legalese, ABC claimed the statement was not “of and concerning” Evan. (For a statement to be defamatory it must refer to the person allegedly defamed, hence the legal phrase “of and concerning.”)

This argument borders on the absurd. Jackson had shouted to the entire planet, “I am innocent, Evan Chandler extorted me!” (reader, please check up the interview again to see that Michael never mentioned any extortion!). And Sawyer told her viewers, “Those were the allegations [against Jackson]. . . but for the prosecution there were problems [with the father].” Later, she falsely exonerated Jackson. Where does that leave the prosecution’s problems with Evan? In the public’s mind the claims were mutually exclusive: if Michael was innocent, then Evan was guilty, and vice versa.

Contrary to ABC’s contention, Sawyer did not offer her personal opinion that the prosecution had problems with Evan; she stated it as a fact, and by doing implied that the authorities believed Evan had engaged in wrongful conduct. Sawyer was therefore obligated (ethically if not legally) to inform the viewers of the authorities’ conclusion that Evan had committed no crime”.

This ardor, this passion, this unnecessary detail  in defending Evan Chandler from the slightest suspicion that it could be an extortion after all… And this incessant talking about “the prosecution having problems with the boy’s father” (?) Seems to be a sensitive issue with the author of this text – I wonder if it could be really the case…

DO YOU STILL HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE AUTHOR? I am not giving you his name – but has it also crossed your mind that it was HIM who created this Hater’s site? And if it was HIM it means that he was harassing Michael behind his back ALL HIS LIFE?

The end of the “California court decision” article is as formidable and hypocritical as the end of the “Rebuttal of Mary Fischer’s article” proving that the hand which wrote the texts is THE SAME both here and there:

HERE, referring to the ABC journalists: “ABC was correct when they argued that the law allows the media “a certain amount of literary license” and “flexibility.” In fact, the law provides the widest possible journalistic freedoms. But those freedoms do not exist to serve the media’s financial bottom line. They are privileges granted in recognition of the media’s vital role in keeping a free society informed. And the law should never permit the media to exercise those privileges in a manner inconsistent with its obligation to make a good faith effort to tell the truth”.

THERE, referring to Mary Fischer: “Time and time again history has taught us that a free and unfettered press is essential for a democratic society to thrive. So self-evident was this to our Founding Fathers that they protected the press in the very first amendment to the Constitution.

Since that time, particularly in recent years, the Supreme Court has continued to safeguard the media’s vital role by awarding reporters increasing protection for refusing to reveal sources, and increasing immunity from liability for reporting what they believed to be the truth, even if it turned out to be false and defamatory.

But along with these privileges the media assumes a weighty responsibility to make a good faith effort to tell the truth. The courts have been lenient in defining what constitutes a good faith effort, and have made it increasingly difficult to prove that a journalist has done otherwise. Disseminating false facts because of a lack of research or a failure to corroborate, or almost any other reason under the sun, is no longer sufficient. The reporter must have exhibited knowing falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth”.

P.S. If I am not terribly mistaken the site has recently added a new piece – “A behavioral analysis of child molesters”. Or has it always been there and I just don’t remember? This is top important as you understand! If this is a new addition it means someone is going on with the work of the MAIN HATER who is dead by now.

UPDATE January 8th,2011

by David Edwards

This hater’s website has been suspended due to the deceptive actions of the administrators!  They copied Charles Thomson’s email address letter for letter (with the exception of it being a Gmail account instead of a hotmail account), and were giving their readers the impression that Charles was running the site!  That idea is preposterous in and of itself! To think that Thomson would maintain an anti-MJ site while simultaneously advocating for his innocence is ludicrous!

Here is how this issue came to our attention: our adversary (who I refuse to name, but if you read this blog regularly than you know who I’m referring to!) sent us an email gleefully exclaiming to us her “bombshell” information on the person running the site.  Here is her first email to us:

I realize that we differ on our views on Michael Jackson but I just wanted to give you guys a heads up.

I remember your site doing a post about the site Wacko Facts and that you guys believed it to be ran by Ray Chandler. But that’s not true.

The site is ran by Michael Jackson ‘defender’ Charles Thomson.

I found this out from my team emailing him about the site and how to expand it with more information on about Michael being a pedophile. When he responded, I found out his email address was the same on his blog, except that it’s a different mail carrier. When a member of my team asked if he was *that* Charles Thomson, he avoided the question.

I just thought you should know because I think it’s really shady to pretend and deceive Michael’s fans and his skeptics. I think he just wants popularity. I had heard he used to believe Michael was guilty.

You don’t have to believe me if you don’t want to but if you pretend to be someone with info on Michael–salacious info–you’ll get to see his email address as proof he is Charles Thomson.


So I IMMEDIATELY emailed Charles Thomson to bring this to his attention, not believing for a millisecond that he could possibly be running that site! Here is his reply to our adversary:


It has been brought to my attention that you are telling people I run the anti-Michael Jackson website,

This is a lie. I have nothing to do with this website and I will seek immediate legal advice should anybody publish anything to the contrary.

Charles Thomson

Here is Charles’ reply to me and the other people who I CC’d on my email to him:

I have emailed Desiree telling her very bluntly that the website is nothing to do with me and I will seek immediate legal advice if anybody starts claiming otherwise.

I have also emailed and left a voicemail with the service provider, Yola, for the offending website. If indeed somebody at that website is intentionally giving the impression that they are me, that needs to be stopped immediately.


Here is Charles’ email to Yola (the service provider):

Dear Sir/Madam,

My name is Charles Thomson and I am a contributor at the Huffington Post.

The owner of one of your websites is impersonating me.

The website contains lots of wildly inaccurate and and hugely slanderous claims about Michael Jackson. When Jackson’s fans are emailing the website to complain, the person replying is reportedly claiming to be me, and using an email address which is very similar to mine.

This is fraud/impersonation and it has the potential to be incredibly damaging to my reputation as a reporter.

Please could you intervene and stop your subscriber from impersonating me as quickly as possible.

Charles Thomson

Here is Yola’s reply to Charles:

Dear Charles,

Thank you for your email. In response to your report we have suspended the site.

If you ever wish to report an abuse of our services in the future please don’t hesitate to contact us.

The Yola Abuse Team

Here is our adversary’s email to me.  If this doesn’t convince you that she, he, or it is a nut case, then nothing will!  How the hell does a full time microbiology major have time to write this crap to me? Shouldn’t she be studying or working on a research project?


I am honestly dismayed that you characterize me in the way that you do. That I have absolutely nothing better to do than trash Jacko? That is so far from the truth. I rarely go on Youtube outside of looking for a video and sometimes a dumb comment thread catches my eye and I do not frequent any Jacko site outside of my own. I’m usually just looking through the Google Archive or talking to my connections or reading documents and books. If I find a vindication website I usually don’t comment. It’s not worth it to me because you guys are not open-minded. Actually, I am so close to being done with everything Jacko because I can’t stand finding all of these terrible things about him. Always another day, another boy he MAY have molested.

And that they could have LIKED it…

Have you read Carl Toms’ book? It’s very good. Lots of info I’ve never heard from various publications.

Anyway, David, I think you’re mischaracterizations of me are slanderous. Or libelous. Whichever one regards things in print. I don’t appreciate people saying that I am a nutcase because I see the obvious: Jacko was a pedophile.

Tell me, David, do you think he was sexually abused as a child? Your answer, if you’d give me the courtesy of a reply, will speak volumes about both your sanity and your level of ‘research’.

So, in sum, please quit with the hater and troll and ‘has nothing else better to do’ stuff. Thomson forwarded that email you’d written. I saw the CCs. Great! Just great! Now everyone will think I’m crazy because of you and your shrillness, David.

What kind of person are you? Just because I differ in opinion? So silly… Charles Thomson stated I did not make the Wacko Facts story up; since you take his word as gospel, you should believe him regarding me as well. Just stick to pattern, okay, David?

Also, if you’ve came to my blog you’d notice I sporadically post entries because the way I write things with all of my meticulous research–as you said; thank you, David–it is just so time-consuming with a science schedule. This semester is filled with physics, calculus, and a microbio lab. Writing on Jacko will be low on the to-do list.

The word ‘team’ was a saber-rattling thing, David! Come off it! I am a one-woman show, with the help of my sister at times. I wish I had a team, then I would be able to write all of the posts I have lying in wait in my brain and be DONE with Jacko. I have no desire to get famous by ‘slandering’ Jacko. Not at all.

You probably know by now, David, that I think you and the whole Vindication gang are nutters and are blind. I am sad none of you have the cajones to come and debate me, as I do not go onto your site very often. And am BLOCKED anyway, although MJ fans seem to think I block comments. Crazy, isn’t it?

I have more write about Jacko. Stay tuned! I have a post with stuff on his books. Lots of pics from his naughty boy books, as well as some exciting info none of you guys know! And not from tabloids, oh no! The posts on his ‘porn’ on VMJ were lacking, as you’d probably guess I’d say. Mine will be better, and more salacious, filled with analysis and info!

Have a great day, David!

Your pal in “Em Jay”,


PS. A lot of you guys think I am using a fake picture of ‘myself’ on my blog. That’s silly. I have nothing to hide. Think about it: if I wanted to use an avatar, I would use someone more attractive! Like Kim Kardashian. Do you think she’s pretty? I bet Michael Jackson would have no reaction to her! 😉 She should be the de facto litmus test in determining whether or not a man is gay… (I’m not saying you are, by the way. No confusion, although I do refer to you as Blaine, as in Damon Waynes’ ‘Blaine Edwards’ from the Men On Films sketches from In Living Color… sorry! It’s your use of exclamation points. )

So as of now, the hater’s site is suspended, and it may never return.  It’s no big loss, because it’s clearly obvious that the admins merely reposted what Ray Chandler posted on his now defunct All That Glitters site in 2004. (That link takes you to an archived version.)

They recently added some info from the FBI Files, and of course they cherry picked through it to only include what they could use against MJ.  For example, they included the account of the couple who claimed that they heard “suspicious” noises from MJ and a young boy while riding on a train (which is absurd, as MJ would have had the entire train car to himself and his entourage), but of course they did NOT include the fact that the FBI found no child porn on MJ’s computers, nor did they include Jordie telling the FBI that he would take legal action if subpoenaed by Sneddon because he had “done his part”.


194 Comments leave one →
  1. Jacqueline M. permalink
    July 6, 2010 5:28 pm

    Hi, everyone. My name is Jacqueline and I love Michael soooo much, not only as an artist, but also as a human being. I think he was one of the most beautiful human beings this world has ever had. I don’t understand why some people hate him. What is their reason to hate a person like Michael? He was so kind, his messages are all about love. I believe he is completely innocent of those things his accusers said against him. Thank you for this website and all the great information. It’s nice to have some truth to read among all the garbage people write in newspapers and say on T.V. The person who owns that Hater’s site said something very funny, in my opinion. It says that Michael were an expert in using media to influence public opinion. What???? This is ridiculous! They used media to influence people against him! Michael hated tabloids and lies. The person who wrote this is kidding, isn’t he?


  2. July 6, 2010 5:46 pm

    “The person who wrote this is kidding, isn’t he?”

    No, Jacqueline, this person is dead serious. And this is what makes me think that it is a psychiatric case.


  3. Susan permalink
    July 6, 2010 5:57 pm

    Hi everyone:

    I have not read the latest post above yet, but I just wanted to pose a question to your great investigative team. Do any of you know if it is considered standard procedure to inspect the genital area of an alleged molester. When that information was first revealed, I thought it sounded unusual. I instinctively thought it was done to humiliate and embarrass Michael for that purpose alone. Personally, I have never heard of that being done before, so I was just wondering if any of you knew. It’s maddening to think of the way Michael was treated beyond what any other person was likely ever subjected to. I don’t understand why the detractors (haters) keep insisting it was a “match” when they know for a fact it wasn’t. Willful ignorance keeps them happy, I guess. Thanks, and this site is amazingly well researched.


  4. Beatriz permalink
    July 6, 2010 6:24 pm

    I’m trying to go to that website but it’s not working…


  5. July 6, 2010 7:15 pm

    Beatriz, hello, this is amazing – I can’t enter it either. Several hours ago it was working… Have they moved it???


  6. Suzy permalink
    July 6, 2010 7:28 pm


    Great article as always!

    I haven’t gone through the whole site yet, but from the little I have seen, to me it is also clear this is not just your average hater, this is somebody personally involved on the Chandlers’ side! Most probably Ray Chandler.
    Whoever is the author of this site he is OVERLY protective of Evan!

    He goes on about pity and irrelevant details of Fischer’s article – which details could only be important if you are somebody close to Evan, or Evan himself. Like the thing about the computer. Who cares why he didn’t buy the promised computer for Jordan? Fischer wasn’t implying that he is a bad dad for not buying a computer for Jordan. What she was implying that Michael did and that might have been one of the things (along with other things like this) those triggered Evan’s jealousy.

    About Evan beating up Dave: Fine. At least he doesn’t totally deny the violence. I wonder though how does he explain away the fact Evan almost killed his own son in 2006?

    “She then stated that Evan never claimed to have witnessed any sexual misconduct by Jackson. This is pure spin.”

    Then Jordan is spinning too, dear Ray! In his testimony he said his father never witnessed any sexual misconduct. Although Ray probably means the “hand on the crotch” scenario. But that is highly suspect if ever happened at all or if it did then it was what Evan suspected: first because it’s just Evan claiming that. Secondly because Michael was drugged by Evan and Torbiner, so how could he possibly be held responsible for where his hand was while sleeping in that drugged state?

    But this is another very telling part about who the author is. He says Fischer is wrong about how many times Evan checked on them during that night. Well, there’s only one person in the World who could know how many times: Evan! And whoever he told. Like his brother.

    “Accordingly, plaintiff’s argument that ABC and Sawyer failed to include in their report a prosecutor’s assertion that pornography had been found at Jackson’s home (LIE, IT WAS NEVER FOUND THERE),”

    Well, if this is the way Ray put it, then he is not lying. Pornography WAS found. Only not child pornography! Possessing pornography is not a crime, so what’s the point, Ray? At least in this he doesn’t lie and say “hard-core commercially produced child pornography”, like he ridiculously claimed at Larry King Live.

    I find it ironic how upset the Chandlers are about ABC being biased to Michael (in their opinion), while 99% of the media were always biased in favour of them and very unfair to Michael. But that apparently is not enough.

    Helena, I think the behavioral analysis was there before. At least it was when I first clicked on that site earlier today.

    However now the site is off. I wonder what’s going on…..


  7. Suzy permalink
    July 6, 2010 7:39 pm

    I wonder if Ray honestly believes the lies of his brother or was he participating in making them up….


  8. July 6, 2010 7:41 pm

    “…now the site if off. I wonder what’s going on…”
    I wonder what’s going on too. Have they been following us or what? Just in case they are doing it and want to change something in their texts – I have ALL of them neatly copied and am ready to post them immediately in a separate page (to enable us do further analysis). Funny that Michael’s supporters have to restore a Hater’s site…

    See here:


  9. Suzy permalink
    July 6, 2010 7:57 pm

    Ah, it’s back. I was kind of hoping they got lost.

    I only wanted to go back there for the Jordan interview in which he states what Mary A. Fischer did (and condtradicts Ray’s claim on the very same site in the GQ rebuttal section):

    “How did your parents learn about this?”

    “I guess, after we had – Michael and I had stayed that night – – ”


    “At my father’s, during the finals. He saw that, like, it wasn’t a healthy relationship for me.”

    “What did he observe directly in terms of the sexual activities?”

    “No sexual activities.”

    “He didn’t observe sexual activities? But there were sexual activities?”

    “There was, but he didn’t observe them.”

    “What did he observe?”

    “He observed Michael and I having almost the same personality, the same interests, the same way of speech.”


  10. July 6, 2010 8:12 pm

    Susan, since MJ had a “unique” anatomy, I don’t find it odd that the Police asked Jordan for a description, and that they wanted to investigate it. HOWEVER, I do find it odd that they would need to take photos. Especially, since the Police know that it was not a match. The photos should have been destroyed in 1999, when the statute of limitations ran out, but they kept them. They still have them. For what purpose are the Santa Barbara Police Department holding on to the photos now? I have to assume that if the photos ever got out it would prove that Tom Sneddon committed perjury. And continued investigating a man that they had to know was innocent.


  11. David permalink
    July 6, 2010 9:17 pm

    Hey guys:
    I’m glad to see that the website is back up now. It almost seemed too coincidental that as soon as we started trashing it, it mysteriously went down.

    I’m glad with what we’ve done so far, but we still have some work to do. In future posts on this subject, we need to look into David Corbett, the private investigator who claims that MJ’s legal team had an UNWRITTEN, under the table clause that the Chandlers’ wouldn’t testify in exchange for the $20 million. What a liar! He’s in the same category as our dear friend Brian.

    Also, we need to look into the press release by Sneddon & Garcetti that named a 3rd “phantom victim” who didn’t want to testify. Other than that, there isn’t much more to talk about because most of the “rebuttals” are irrelevant and don’t answer the pressing questions about the case, mainly “If MJ was so guilty, then why didn’t the Chandlers seek justice in a court of law?”

    I’d LOVE to hear Ray Chandler answer that question! It’s a shame that none of those so-called journalists dared ask him that when he was on his media tour in 2004.


  12. lynande51 permalink
    July 6, 2010 9:48 pm

    No it is not standard proceedure to inspect or photograph the gential area of the accused. This was offered as ” proof ” of the molestation by Dr. stanley Katz. It was their side that suggested it and they knew it wouldn’t matter because theyconffessed in the book that theyknew it was subject to change, so if they were right they were right and if they weren’t they could say it had changed . Ray wrote in the book that Evan said ” ha we got em” ” it’s a no loser for us”. Fortunately for Michael they didn’t know or think he was not circumcised which is a much bigger difference then a spot.


  13. lynande51 permalink
    July 6, 2010 10:02 pm

    How can the police call it negotiations to settle a civil claim prior to a claim being made? Here is the legal definition of extortion under the California Penal Code:
    Extortion is distinguished from blackmail. In blackmail, the blackmailer threatens to do something which would be legal or normally allowed unless paid money or property.

    What is Extortion under California Penal Code 518 PC?
    As previously stated, California Penal Code 518 punishes you for extortion when you obtain property (or an official act) from another through force or fear. “Fear” (as it applies to blackmail), refers to one of four types of threats:

    1. a threat to injure a person or property,

    2. a threat to accuse the targeted individual (or any of his/her relatives) of a crime,

    3. a threat to connect the targeted individual (or any of his/her relatives) with a disgrace, deformity, or crime, or

    4. a threat to reveal a secret affecting the targeted individual (or any of his/her relatives).

    What’s interesting about extortion is that the threat itself could be perfectly legal. If, for example, you threaten to tell the police that your neighbor is growing marijuana, you commit no crime. However, if you tell your neighbor that you are going to tell the police that he is growing marijuana unless he gives you a portion of the drugs, you commit blackmail.
    The purpose behind California’s extortion laws is to protect against self-help by resorting to force or fear. As a result, there are no “claim of right” or “good faith exception” defenses to Penal Code 518 pc extortion.3 So…
    If you threaten another with force or fear, regardless of whether (1) you believe you have a right to the property, or (2) that person actually committed the crime that you threaten to report, the prosecution may charge you with extortion.4
    “Force” is obviously inflicted in person…but the fear that is conveyed via the above threats may be made in person or through other acts. These other acts, though less obvious, may still lead to white collar (that is, non-violent) criminal extortion charges.

    Other acts constituting blackmail

    If, based on one of these threats or a forceful act, you compel the targeted person to sign a check or other written document…even if you don’t intend to use it or don’t have the opportunity to use it…you may be charged with Penal Code 518 extortion.5
    Similarly, if you send or deliver one of these threats in a letter or other writing (an e-mail, text message, etc.), you invite a blackmail charge. This is the case regardless of whether:

    1. you actually receive the requested property and/or act,6

    2. you write/dictate/compose and/or sign the letter,7 or

    3. the letter is actually received by the intended recipient. (The crime of extortion in California is complete as soon as the letter is either delivered or deposited in a post office or other place intending it to be delivered).8

    It should be noted that using the post office, telephone lines, or a computer to convey your threats could subject you to federal charges. Federal charges may be initiated anytime you rely on federal modes of communication to commit a crime.
    Along these same lines, you may be prosecuted for a California blackmail crime if you deliver, or have another deliver, (1) a false document that either claims to be an official court document or is designed to convince the targeted individual that it is an official court document, (2) intending to obtain property or anything of value from that person based on that document.9
    If you sell, publish, distribute, offer to sell, or take any part in the making of such a document, you also subject yourself to criminal charges under California extortion laws.10
    Originally, extortion was only charged against public officials who acted under color of official right. Acting under “color of official right” means that the officer or other official falsely claims authority to take that to which he or she is not lawfully entitled.11
    However, Penal Code 518 has expanded the scope so that anyone in California can be prosecuted for the crime of blackmail / extortion.12
    How Does the Prosecutor Prove that I Committed Extortion under Penal Code 518 PC?
    In order to prove that you committed the crime of extortion (or blackmail), the prosecution must prove the following four facts (otherwise known as “elements of the crime”)13:

    1. you obtained property (or an official act) from another,

    2. the property or official act was obtained with the consent of that person,

    3. that consent was induced through the wrongful use of force or fear, and

    4. you wrongfully used force or fear specifically intending to induce that person to consensually give you property or perform an official act.

    Let’s flush out some of these elements to gain a better understanding of exactly what this means.

    Official act

    An “official act” is one that the public officer does in his/her official capacity, using the authority of his/her public office. “Public officers” include (but are not limited to) elected officials, law enforcement officers, and anyone else employed by the government whose duty it is to uphold the law.
    If, for example, you are a lobbyist trying to persuade a congressman that a particular law is bad for the environment, there is no crime. However, if your approach involves threatening to expose his extramarital affair if he doesn’t vote your way, you would be guilty of the crime of blackmail.
    Since congressmen regularly vote on laws in their official capacity, one would be performing an “official act” in voting down a law in exchange for your keeping his affair a secret.


    Although “consent” typically refers to the free will with which an act is made, it takes on a slightly different meaning with respect to California extortion laws. Under Penal Code 518 PC, “consent” is still a willful act…however, it is coerced, only given to avoid threatened violence or other harm.
    So… coerced and unwilling consent compelled by wrongful force or fear nonetheless constitutes consent in California extortion cases.14
    In fact, the force or fear induced by your threat must be the reason why the other person consented to (1) give you his/her property, (2) perform an official act15, or (3) sign a document16.


    As previously stated, the type of fear that is relevant to California extortion law revolves around four types of threats: (1) a threat to injure a person or property, (2) the threat of a criminal accusation, (3) a threat to expose a disgrace, deformity, or criminal activity, and (4) a threat to reveal a secret.
    You can be convicted of extortion even if you don’t

    • demand a specific sum of money17, or

    • use specific “threatening words” or other obvious language (as threats may be inferred by the circumstances)18,

    just as long as the threat falls into one of the above four categories.19 And, on that note, numbers one, two, and four of these categories require further explanation.

    Defining “Injury”

    The type of injury that is referred to in California extortion law must be an “unlawful” injury. This means that if you have a legal right to do that which you threaten, you are not threatening the type of injury that is required in order for you to be convicted of extortion.20 This obviously wouldn’t apply to a bodily injury, as a bodily injury will always be unlawful.
    So, for example, if you are a policeman and threaten to incarcerate someone (who has done nothing wrong) unless he pays you $3,000, the threat of incarceration qualifies as an unlawful injury.

    Defining “Accusation of a crime”

    With respect to threatening a crime, the crime doesn’t need to be specific. The only requirement is that your intended victim is fearful that he/she may be accused of a crime.21

    Defining “Secret”

    The type of secret that is referred to must be one that isn’t known to the general public (or to anyone who might otherwise be interested in obtaining the information).
    It is additionally required that the secret be of such a nature that it would

    1. have such a negative impact on the reputation or other interest or concern of the alleged threatened person (or his/her family), that

    2. it would likely compel the individual to give up property or agree to perform an official act,

    3. in order to avoid the secret’s exposure.22


  14. lynande51 permalink
    July 6, 2010 10:09 pm

    The one thing that saved them from extortion charges is that Michael didn’t start taping them soon enough. If he had the conversation about the house on tape or the message that he left on June’s answering machine we would have had extortion charges against the father of the boy instead of sexual abuse allegations against Michael.


  15. Beatriz permalink
    July 6, 2010 10:15 pm

    They are back. I denounced them in all the Facebook pages. I’m sure it will start a campaign. Although it will not be easy because didn’t read it but I guess there are not insults, just “facts” as they say.
    I’ll do my best anyway.
    Thanks so much for let us know Helena/David.


  16. lynande51 permalink
    July 7, 2010 1:58 am

    I know they like to focus on the ” all important month of June”. Well let us focus on th eall imprtant month of January that is left out of their book except for the signing of the settlement. Let’s turn the tables and ask them” if Michael Jackson was in such a hot spot why did you settle with him?” IMO it has to be their “damning ” pphotographs. When the police saw that there was no match to the photos it would have supported Michaels case of extortion as descibed below. By that time they had successfully blocked Michaels lawyers attempts to stop the civil trial until the criminal trial was over, leaving him at the mercy of the jury system to understand his forced use of a deposition. He was scheduled for a deposition to be taken on January 26 and the settlement was signed on January 24th 2 days before his scheduled deposition. Like I said before Larry Feldman was just a luckier lawyer than Johnny Cochran was that day that was all. Remember in November before the photos, they were pushing for a deposition in all the press cinferences. They wanted Michael Jackson to give evidence against himself and knew that in the court of public opinion if he invoked his 5th amendment right to not give evidence against himself it would look to the public as though he were hiding something. what they don;t say about the all importanat month of January is that is when the police were closer to a case for extortion than they were a case for abuse.


  17. Suzy permalink
    July 7, 2010 4:25 am

    It seems Ray has forgot what he wrote in his book that he likes to refer to as the Bible on this website:

    He goes lengths to debate Mary A. Fischer’s claim that “they always had their clothes on” – not, because he claims to have seen them with their clothes off, but becasuse:

    “To say that the Jordie and Michael always had their clothes on “whenever” Evan saw them in bed together implies that there may have been more than onetime. Evan saw Michael and Jordie in the same bed only once, at about 3 a.m. on the last night of Michael’s two visits.”

    But it seems in his book he still agreed with Fischer:

    “Evan was tired, too, but the thought that Michael might awake during the night and take more drugs caused him to get up several times to check on the star. On his third visit, around 3am, Evan found the boys still fast asleep. But Jordie was now in Michael’s bed, spooning, with Michael’s arm wrapped tightly around the boy, his hand resting on the boy’s crotch on the outside of the covers.

    Ever so gently, Evan picked up Michael’s arm and moved it to the side, then slowly pulled back the covers. Thank God! They were both fully clothed.”

    At least he should get his stories straight!


  18. July 7, 2010 1:46 pm

    Lynande specifies: California Penal Code 518 punishes you for extortion when you obtain property (or an official act) from another through force or fear. “Fear” (as it applies to blackmail), refers to one of four types of threats:
    1. a threat to injure a person or property,
    2. a threat to accuse the targeted individual (or any of his/her relatives) of a crime,
    3. a threat to connect the targeted individual (or any of his/her relatives) with a disgrace, deformity, or crime, or
    4. a threat to reveal a secret affecting the targeted individual (or any of his/her relatives).

    Lynande, thanks for the clarification – the first three points surely apply to Evan Chandler’s case. Coupled with his threat to turn Michael’s life into a massacre (and I don’t rule out the possibility that he wanted Michael to hear those words) Evan’s behavior was all about intimidating Michael and using his son for both blackmail and extortion.

    We’ve discussed this with you already but I’d like to remind everyone else that it was Evan Chandler who started talking money. I looked into that in a separate post about Ray Chandler’s rebuttal to Mary Fischer’s article – let me repeat my arguments here for the sake of convenience:

    The main idea of the ‘rebuttal article’ is to disprove the fact that any extortion took place and replace it with the idea that the parties were involved in negotiations, usual for out-of-court settlements.

    While raking through the 22 pages of all those innumerable details I searched for an answer to an important question which is really crucial to the matter – WHO WAS THE FIRST TO SUGGEST THE FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT? If it was Michael who offered the money, it could give some grounds for thinking that he was indeed ‘buying the Chandlers’ silence’, but if it were the Chandlers who were the first to demand it, this would point into a totally different direction …

    The matter was not quite clear to me especially since this same article vaguely implied that it was “Pellicano who suggested the movie deals”. I really did not expect to find an answer to my question in this particular article and was pleasantly surprised when I did – which is all the more precious as this is firsthand information coming from the original source (Ray or Evan Chandler).

    After some 12 pages of dwelling on this and that the author finally asks Mary Fischer in a somewhat defiant manner “so when did the extortion occur?” and answers the question himself a couple of paragraphs further: “after the August 4, 1993 Westwood Marquis meeting between Evan, Jordan, Michael and Pellicano ended with no resolution, Pellicano and Rothman met at Rothman’s office later that day, at which point Rothman made a demand for $20 million”.

    So it was Rothman! And consequently Evan Chandler who raised the question of money! Even ‘demanded’ it as the author puts it… Thank God Michael didn’t have anything to do with it…

    To prove the point that the whole thing was nothing but negotiations the author says: “Pellicano did not reject the $20 million demand outright. He stated he would talk to his client and get back to Rothman. Pellicano’s secretly recorded tape of Rothman reveals that Pellicano made a counteroffer of $1 million on August 9, which was rejected by Evan. To punish Evan for arguing with him, Pellicano came back with a $350,000 offer on August 13. On August 17, as evidenced by Pellicano’s recording, the two men were still negotiating”.

    ”The negotiations took over a period of two weeks and were cited by authorities as just one of the reasons they concluded that no extortion had occurred. Another reason was that the police did not hear any words of extortion on the two recordings offered by the Jackson camp. Neither did the press.”

    Now are they serious about that? What a laughable thing to say! The police did not hear the exact word and it hindered them from seeing the true nature of Evan Chandler’s project? Didn’t know the police were so naïve and needed the press to prompt them how to put two and two together…

    The author goes on: “According to the official statement made by the LAPD, the evidence revealed that the parties were involved in legitimate negotiations to settle legal claims out of court – something the law encourages, the police spokesman said”.

    I agree that such negotiations may sometimes be legitimate and the law might even encourage things like that – for example, if the party accused of any wrongdoing offers money of their own free will. But having your arms twisted the way it was done in this particular case is adding a totally different dimension to the whole story….

    No wonder that the author devoted only half a page of his 22 page narration to this uncomfortable issue he clearly feels uneasy about.

    The fact that Michael did not settle then – when it was still possible to avoid all the horror of criminal investigation and harassment from the press – is proof enough he did not feel guilty of any wrongdoing and was still facing the future with a hope to get some justice and fair treatment…


  19. Louise permalink
    July 7, 2010 8:44 pm

    Hi Helena,

    Send you a message!


  20. Kathy-wife-bnepi-but-asking-on-my-own permalink
    July 7, 2010 8:59 pm

    Michael was a victim….I think you have proven that….Who was the the most evil person behind these crimes against MJ?…..The DA…the shrink’s…June….Evan…attorney/sharks…Music business….I think Barry K. Rothman, was one of the first bad guys, that attacked MJ…I really want to know what this group thinks about that?…..I’m not telling anything…just asking…thank you for some information.


  21. David permalink
    July 8, 2010 1:39 am

    Helena, I sent you an email on June 29th called “FW: Michael Jackson Protest”. We need to do an urgent update on it. We have some more haters that we need to deal with.

    The National Museum of Dance, located in Saratoga Springs, New York, wants to induct MJ into their Hall of Fame in August. But there is a group called “Road to Recovery” that helps victims of child abuse by religious authorities, and they want to “protest” MJ’s induction.

    I emailed them and gave them all the evidence that MJ was innocent, and they actually replied and completely ignored me by saying that MJ paid $20 million in “hush money”. (This is the email that I sent to you.) I’ve reached out to other MJ blogs, and they are mobilizing fans to bombard the group with complaints, and to support the National Museum of Dance. The group couldn’t care less about the facts, they only want to exploit MJ’s name for their own gain!

    Here is the story:

    Here is the contact info for Road To Recovery:

    Here is the some info for the National Museum of Dance, with the MJ event in the middle of the page:

    Here is some dirt on one of the lawyers for Road to Recovery, John Aretakis, who was unanimously suspended from practicing law by a panel for one year (from Dec. 2008-Dec. 2009). Have you ever heard of the term “ambulance chaser”? (It’s a lawyer who obtains clients by persuading accident victims to sue for damages). Well, it appears that this lawyer is a “Catholic Church Chaser”, i.e. he likes to file frivolous child molestation lawsuits against priests and their churches. Here are two articles on him, and I have included some excerpts to give you a general idea of what he was charged with.

    “We find that this record clearly shows that respondent has repeatedly crossed the line separating zealous advocacy from professional misconduct,” the court concluded in a per curiam ruling in Matter of Aretakis, D-73-08. “Accordingly, we conclude that, to protect the public, deter similar misconduct, and preserve the reputation of the bar, respondent should be suspended from practice for a period of one year.”

    The court upheld two charges against Aretakis. One was a broad charge that he “engaged in frivolous conduct by making false accusations against judges”; “engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as an attorney”; “knowingly made false statements of law and fact”; and “asserted positions which served to harass and maliciously injure.”


  22. lynande51 permalink
    July 8, 2010 3:42 am

    When Evan Chandler presented Michael with the letter form Dr Abrams he did threaten him and told him ” I will destroy you” after he had hugged him and he read the paper and was refused. Why wasn’t this Extortion just because they weren’t caught on tape demanding money? The police in LA needed their heads examined and well, what can I say about Sneddon, his name says it all.


  23. Suzy permalink
    July 8, 2010 4:54 am


    I have heard about the protest and it’s very sad. It’s obvious they want to get publicity on the back of a death celebrity. They don’t want to know the truth about Michael, because to acknowledge – not that he WAS innocent, but just that he MIGHT HAVE BEEN innocent – that would shoot their whole publicity plan. They should be reminded, an accusation is not equal to being quilty and falsely accusing somebody of such a horrible crime is just as sinful as the the crime itself would have been if it had happened (but it didn’t, of course).


  24. Suzy permalink
    July 8, 2010 5:03 am

    @ lynande51

    Mary A. Fischer mentions in her article that the authorities didn’t take the extortion claim seriously at all, so they didn’t put much effort into investigating it. They were biased from day one, as we all know. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.


  25. Suzy permalink
    July 8, 2010 5:18 am

    More on Aretakis:

    Another John Aretakis Lawsuit

    John Aretakis has repeatedly discredited the cause of legitimate victims of sexual
    abuse by churning out frivolous “press release lawsuits” and making false allegations
    against Bishop Hubbard, other priests and public officials in the Capital District.

    His allegations against Bishop Hubbard were thoroughly scrutinized and
    thoroughly repudiated by an exhaustive independent investigation by former U.S.
    Attorney Mary Jo White, who found that Mr. Aretakis had sought to induce people to
    make false claims against the Bishop.

    Mr. Aretakis has disgraced his own profession attacking judges, including a state
    Supreme Court Judge who fined him $7,500 for repeatedly making false statements and
    who called his arguments “so disingenuous as to be unethical and unbecoming an
    attorney.” He is currently facing criminal charges in Rensselaer County for allegedly
    stealing documents from a process server serving court documents.

    He has publicly acknowledged that he is facing multiple allegations of professional misconduct.
    When it comes to “RICO” lawsuits, Mr. Aretakis is a three-time loser. Threetimes he’s brought
    specious claims against the Albany Diocese to state and federal courts.Three times he’s failed.
    The Albany Diocese looks forward to answering the false and patently absurd claims in this
    lawsuit. Bishop Hubbard has never had — nor has he ever sought to have — any authority
    or influence over Father Hoatson’s priestly assignments.

    Ken Goldfarb
    Director of Communications
    Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany

    Click to access hoatson_albany.pdf


  26. Suzy permalink
    July 8, 2010 10:50 am


    John Aretakis is the attorney of Robert Hoatson, an [b]EX[/b] priest, who filed false allegations against bishop Hubbard. This case was also dismissed in 2009 by the supreme court.

    It seems now they want to raise publicity for themselves and their organization on the back of MJ. Let’s make sure that publicity won’t be the type of publicity they were hoping for…..


  27. July 9, 2010 1:58 am

    Why are Michael Jackson fans negotiating with terrorists? I came across this website several months ago, and found it disturbing on several levels. Why are you giving it unfettered publicity on a fansite? They are no links to “Vindicate Michael” on their site, but you freely publish their link. This is what they want more traffic, more noise. You will NEVER be able to convince this writer Michael Jackson is innocent, that is why I can never understand why fans continuously throw facts at Diane Dimond it is like putting water on a duck’s back.

    If this site is indeed maintained by Raymond Chandler that is not good news, unless you have an MJ insider working for Vindicate Michael you are one step behind. You are arguing with a person who is digging up privelge documents that are not admissible in court, and frankly cannot be validated. This is a ghost writer someone who does not want their identity known. Who you should be getting in touch with is Mark Torbiner before he too dies.

    The phantom child being talked about is either Jason Francia (dismissed in court), or Jimmy Safechuck who it is believe Michael made a settlement with his father. The Safechuck settlement has never been proven by the prosecution, and the kid in later years was married at Neverland. Just like I could never figure out why Mac Culkin would agree to be the godfather of Michael’s oldest children if he were a victim. It makes no logical sense.

    Here is a very indepth article (22 pages) on the 1993 case. One of the best analysis I have read.

    Click to access Michael-Jackson-The-Making-Of-A-Myth-Part-I.pdf

    Alot of MJ fans do not like Sony or Branca, but is this scenario they are really good for the re-branding and polishing of Michael’s image. Think about it, MJ is right now their gravy train, and they are not going to let anything, or anyone get in the way of profit.

    Here is one of my personal reasons for not believing Michael Jackson was a pedophile. We all know about MJ’s gold pants “euphoria”. He was seen on stage physically “happy” while dancing or accompanied by a fan, or just drinking in the moment. Never once while on stage with children did Michael Jackson have an erection. If pedophilia is his sexual orientation then moments with the children should be when he is most “euphoric”.


  28. David permalink
    July 9, 2010 2:40 am

    @ Teva:

    When I suggested to Helena that she write a post rebutting Ray Chandler’s rebuttal by posting a link to that website, it was to help educate MJ fans about the illogical arguments that he uses to justify MJ’s guilt. We have to know their talking points in order to properly defend against them. It looks like that website hasn’t been updated in years, and is just collecting dust on the internet and not being maintained. I also noticed that Ray Chandler has long since taken down his “All That Glitters” website as well.

    As far as Jimmy Safechuck, I’ve heard about that settlement, but it could have been a simple confidentiality agreement settlement? I don’t know. Safechuck has never given an interview regarding his relationship with MJ (to my knowledge), so maybe he signed one? But if he really did get married at Neverland, that speaks for itself.

    But I don’t think it was Safechuck because I believe he and MJ parted ways in the late 80’s, and the 3rd “phantom victim” alleged to be molested in the 90’s and confessing to police in Nov. 1993. Who knows? It could have been another one of those “repressed memory” liars, similar to Daniel Kapone in 2004.


  29. Suzy permalink
    July 9, 2010 4:31 am

    The prosecution/hater side has lied so much about alleged more phantom victims that I don’t believe a word that comes out of their mouth unless I see it. Even on court they said they have five more victims. Then it turned out three of them outright denied the allegations and the other two were Chandler (who didn’t show up to testify) and Francia (who was simply ridiculous). So I suppose Ray Chandler’s third victim is something like that as well. I don’t think it’s Jimmy Safechuck. I also heard he got married at Neverland.


  30. Suzy permalink
    July 9, 2010 6:34 am

    Also Ray Chandler is a big liar on his own right (remember, he also claimed “hard-core commercially produced child pornography” was found at Neverland, he claimed it was Michael who asked for Jordie’s number when they first met, when according to both June and Jordie they forced the number on him and so on), so I take everything he says with a pinch of salt.

    As for whether or not to address such websites as Ray’s. I agree with David. To address and refute hater arguments is exactly the purpose of this blog, so I think it’s important to address Ray Chandler’s website (I’m pretty convinced it’s either him. Or Evan himself – if it hasn’t been updated recently).

    And Teva, I don’t think this blog is “one step behind” Ray’s site. I don’t think he has anything left that he hasn’t yet shown the public and just because it’s him claiming things it doesn’t give them extra credibility (on the contrary, if you ask me). His claims CAN be refuted with facts. It has happened a lot of times here that it was PROVEN that he was lying. You don’t have to have “privelege documents” to do that. It’s enough to have all the court documents and other witnesses accounts to refute him.


  31. lynande51 permalink
    July 9, 2010 11:17 pm

    In my book the rebuttals from the hater site matches the book exactly so we can assume that it has the same author. Every time that I read that book I find another reason to believe that Evan Chandler was a man obsessed with Michael Jackson. When comparing the site and the book I found just another example of Evans obsessive thoughts in page 225 starting paragraph two:
    Evan felt particularly obligated to detective Sicard, a kind and gentle man who had been accused publicly by Jackson’s people of improper conduct while questioning other children who might have been victims of Michael’s abuse. Evan knew all too well what was like to be branded by a lie and he wanted to give Fred the chance to clear his name.
    On the other hand Evan was concerned for the safety of his family. The fear that had been slowly diminishing would soar to even greater Heights if Michael were to be indicted. In the mind of the Wacko- Jackos, poor innocent Pan had just paid the Evil Captain Hook all that money to go away and now the SOB was pulling a double cross in trying to get their hero thrown in jail. Even worse Pellicano was still on the loose and no one knew exactly how far he’d go to get his revenge.
    As for his obligation to society to prevent further molestations Evan felt that the entire world was on notice that no parent should leave their child alone with the singer; it was not necessary for him to risk his family’s safety to ensure that Michael go to prison. Evan also believed that for Michael, the last of his the loss of his career was at her and as punishment. He would continue to make music and sell records, but he’d never be one iota of what he had been. And worst of all, his dream of becoming King of the silver screen was dead
    “I got close enough to Michael to understand his dreams,” Evan commented, “and I knew that his fall from grace would be like stakes in his heart. In that way, at least, justice had been served.”
    Evan and his family mulled over the decision carefully, and told the DA that they would consider testifying if they were placed and witness protection program immediately after the trial. For the reason is that were never disclosed, their request was turned down.
    Nevertheless the DA was insistent that the Chandlers testify, and at times Evan came close to giving in. “The overriding factor was always the safety issue,” Evan commented. “But I also had this gnawing feeling that the DA was more concerned with saving face… With the politics and notoriety of it all, then with seeing justice done. It would have been their O.J. before O.J. ever happened. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s the feeling I got from L.A. that is, not Santa Barbara. I mean, Tom Sneddon wanted us to testify, too. But he seemed genuine, like his entire motivation was to put this criminal behind bars. He understood my fears and my need to protect my family and he didn’t try to push me around. I have a lot of respect for Sneddon.
    We also know from June Chandler’s testimony that she had not seen her son in 11 years. On page 226 chapter 27 he says that June was picking Jordan up and taking him to school in the morning but Jordan would not spend the night at her house because it gave him the willies. Page 227 talks about Dave Schwartz suing Michael for breaking up his family:
    In August of 1994, when David sued Michael for causing the breakup of his family David added his seven year old daughter, Kelly, to the lawsuit by claiming Michael was the cause of her estrangement from Jordie. “They didn’t even tell Jordie in advance,” Evan said. “He heard the news on TV.” According to Evan, Jordie reacted by exclaiming. “That’s bull shit!” I don’t want to go over to that house. It has nothing to do with Michael.”
    Dave’s willingness to drag Jordie back into the fray was the last thing the boy needed. June, though not a party to the lawsuit did not protest when Dave included their daughter in the action. “Michael did not break up Dave’s family” Evan commented “he and June were on and off mostly off long before Michael came into their lives. As for Jordie Dave ended that relationship when he cooperated with Pellicano.”
    Why for heaven’s sake doesn’t it have anything to do with Michael if it was his abuse that gave you the willies was the reason you didn’t want to go there. These people are so full of contradictions it nauseates me that they even got as far as they did.
    The reason that Evan Chandler killed himself was because he had made hating and hurting Michael Jackson his life’s work, it consumed him. When Michael died he lost his job in a very limited market place and had no hope of finding another.


  32. lynande51 permalink
    July 9, 2010 11:22 pm

    I also need to add that in every instance, Evan Chandler’s concern , his outrageous anger that he had for Michael and Anthony Pellicano was being called a liar and extortionist , not what he supposedly did to Jordan. Every lawsuit after that was about him being called a liar. That people is not the reaction of a rational man.


  33. Kendrick permalink
    July 10, 2010 6:18 am

    I am always on the lookout for information to add to my arsenal of rebuttals for MJ Haters.
    Have any of you investigators commented on or read this commentary?

    Evan Chandler Confessed To Drugging Michael. It is a 2 part piece taken from Ray Chandler’s book “All That Glitters”.


  34. July 10, 2010 6:38 am

    “The reason that Evan Chandler killed himself was because he had made hating and hurting Michael Jackson his life’s work, it consumed him.”

    Lynande, absolutely! And when Michael died and Evan saw the hate towards the man subduing and his records selling again it was like ruining the goal he devoted his life to. Just imagine, he spent about 20 years eliminating Michael as a human being and a personality, and to see him being on the rise again after his death – even with the first voices raised in his defense – this was something unbearable, just like the whole of Evan’s life spent in vain…


  35. David permalink
    July 10, 2010 7:04 am

    @ Kendrick:

    Yes, not only have I read that commentary, but I submitted some of the info that was used in it! LOL!

    Both of these blogs are trying to get to the bottom of that 1993 case, once and for all. Since the 2003 case went to court and MJ was vindicated, everything is out in the open, so there isn’t that much to dissect.

    But since the 1993 case did not make it to court, we’re always trying to gather all of the facts so that we can rebut the lame, tired arguments that have been peddled in the media and used by haters. I know there will be more updates on the 1993 case in the All For Love blog, and I’m sure this blog will have additional updates as well, so stay tuned!


  36. July 10, 2010 8:12 am

    @ lynande51

    Thank you for those insight’s in that book again.

    So Ray goes on about how estranged Jordie got from June and Dave because of what they have done to him. So how does he explain the fact that he also got estranged and emancipated himself from Evan?

    And yes, I agree, Evan’s concern never seems to be about Jordie and the alleged sexual molestation AT ALL! It’s all about him, his alleged hurt, “emotional distess” that Michael caused him. It was the case in the Evan-Dave convo, as well as in his 1996 lawsuit against Michael, ABC and Co.


  37. Kendrick permalink
    July 10, 2010 8:07 pm

    Thank you. I will continue to check back for any updates. The best and worst of this is all, well almost all of Michael’s business in on the Internet. It is just a matter of finding irrefutable documents and the like. I bet it never occurred to the vultures that one day the same medium they used to crucify MJ would be the same we use to defend him and show their lies. That’s some serious irony. Poetic Justice.


  38. Kendrick permalink
    July 10, 2010 8:14 pm

    I don’t know your rules for handling some things so I will pass, but I’d sure like to take it on.
    Please remove my post if inappropriate.


  39. David permalink
    July 10, 2010 8:34 pm

    @ Desiree:

    Gee, where do I start? You made so many points that I want to respectfully disagree with you on. Actually, I want to respectfully disagree with ALL of your points!!

    1. Regarding the pornography, the only porn found was LEGAL, ADULT, HETEROSEXUAL porn! There were two books that contained children, but it was not pornographic at all! They are legally available on Amazon and other booksellers! The following is from the “Reflections On The Dance” website:

    (The first, called “The Boy: A Photographic Essay”, was an art book depicting photos taken in 1963 during the shooting of the movie Lord of the Flies. In the book, Michael inscribed, “Look at the true spirit and happiness on the faces of these boys. This is the spirit of boyhood, the childhood I never had. This is the life I want for my children. MJ.” A second book, “Boys Will Be Boys”, contained the inscription: “To Michael: From your fan, Rhonda. Love XXXOOO ♥ Rhonda – 1983, Chicago.” There was no evidence that Michael had ever opened this book.

    It is significant to mention that the mere possession of child pornography is a federal crime. Many states also have criminal statutes for the possession and distribution of child pornography. If the books had been pornographic in nature or substance, prosecution would have been inevitable.)

    The heterosexual porn that was found was dated from 1991 to 2003. Now, when weighing the evidence, you have 12 years of adult porn compared to 2 individual art books that were both confiscated in 1993. No additional art books were found in 2003, which obviously means that MJ didn’t buy or accept any more of those books from fans. Based on that, what do you think MJ’s sexual orientation was?

    2. So you think MJ molested Francia, Chandler, and Safechuck? Well, I’ll give you credit where credit is due. Since you don’t think he molested Gavin Arvizo, that shows that you have at least some common sense! Let me ask you this: have you read the books “All That Glitters” by Ray Chandler and “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” by Victor Guitterrez? Because if you believe MJ molested Chandler, then you have to believe EVERYTHING written in those books, word for word. If you haven’t read those books, then I suggest you do some research and read them! Also, do you believe that Chandler was given Sodium Amytal? If not, then why? Do you think it’s at least plausible, or did Mary Fisher just make it up because she’s a rabid MJ fanatic? (And please don’t tell us that you don’t know who Mary Fisher is!!!)

    If you’re so confident that MJ molested those kids, please explain to everyone HOW he did it, and HOW he got away with it. Explain why Evan Chandler didn’t IMMEDIATELY call police or beat MJ into a coma. Explain why Jordie’s description didn’t match (because if it did, MJ would have been arrested & charged.) Explain why Jordie threatened legal action if he was subpoenaed in 2004. (This was in the FBI Files, if you even knew about them!) Explain why Francia said he wanted to “hit them on the head” when talking to the cops in his interrogation. We’d all like to hear your reasons!!

    3. As far as MJ’s sleepovers, please read the following post where the sleepovers are fully explained. Be sure to read through the comments at the bottom, and watch the youtube videos of Tom Mesereau, Mac Culkin, and Elizabeth Taylor explain and defend the sleepovers.

    4. My advice for you is to continue to do some in-depth research on MJ before jumping to conclusions. You should read this blog, as well as the following:


  40. July 10, 2010 10:56 pm

    Where is your proof that Michael Jackson was a pedophile? Put up or shut up!


  41. lynande51 permalink
    July 10, 2010 11:05 pm

    Remember the Rules everybody?Do not repond to Desiree. Do not ask question or engage him in responses. I will track him(her) and see of he is in fact one of the haters using multiple new identies that attach themselves to this site to spew forth more of their vile hatred.


  42. July 10, 2010 11:22 pm

    Sorry, I am new and was unaware of the rule.


  43. Truth permalink
    July 10, 2010 11:51 pm

    Well Desiree, if you have evidence then show it. Do you expect people to just take your word? Right now the only evidence I see suggests he did not molest anyone. Until I see evidence to the contrary, i’m going to believe he was innocent.


  44. lynande51 permalink
    July 11, 2010 12:17 am

    I am going to go against my own post for one moment. Desiree you can not call yourself a fan then say ” why are all MJ fans blind” you can’t have it both ways if you are a fan you believe in him BLINDLY as you say. It sounds to me as if you are another believer in pedophilia so we will ask you politely to leave our site it is obviously not the right place for you.
    For Teresa apology accepted.


  45. lynande51 permalink
    July 11, 2010 1:08 am

    I read through the list of evidenced items found at Neverland. I found it interesting that they found both clean and dirty underwear in bags in Michael Jackson’s home that must have meant he needed to do his laundry? Another ineresting point would be the Why photo shoot items of half clothed , in very provacative poses, photos of HIS NEPHEWS Tito’s sons that he used for “grooming” his victims, Everythign on there waslabled as ” grooming” material by th edetective becasuse he was supposed to say that. If Michael had been suspected of having consensual heterosexual intercourse with an adult female would this still be grooming or foreplay?


  46. Suzy permalink
    July 11, 2010 1:19 am

    @ lynande51

    We have to realize this is a prosecution document and that shows in the way they describe things – often making innocent things look sexual. The photos of 3T from the “Why” photoshoot is a good example of that. When I first read that part I thought “oh, this looks really bad, it looks like some gay porn and it also says Michael was photographed with these three young males in provocative poses?” and it was labelled as “grooming material”. The way they described those pics it looked like it was Michael posing with three young males naked in some gay pictures. Then of course it turned out they were talking about the well-known pictures of his nephews, 3T and Michael at a photoshoot for the video of “Why”….. So that is how this document should be read.


  47. shelly permalink
    July 11, 2010 1:45 am

    For Schafesuck, according to Mesereau, he denied it

    “Six, Jimmy Safechuck, who we are informed
    19 says nothing happened. They don’t propose to call
    20 him as an alleged victim either, but they’ve got the
    21 same old gang again coming in to try and capitalize
    22 on the case, people who have been adjudged to be
    23 liars, and they are.”



  48. lynande51 permalink
    July 11, 2010 2:00 am

    I know, I was just enjoying some sarcasm at the information given by our newest visitor. Yes he was a Santa Barbara Sheriffs detective so he was supposed to say ” based on my training this could be grooming material. ” All it really proves is that Michael Jackson was a single adult male that enjoyed looking at women. What a surprise.


  49. lynande51 permalink
    July 11, 2010 2:39 am

    Where did you get the information that Michael Jakcosn was sexually abused?


  50. lynande51 permalink
    July 11, 2010 2:42 am



  51. lynande51 permalink
    July 11, 2010 2:51 am

    Desiree if you want to continue writing might I direct you to the Rules of this blog. Link at the top of the page. You have your blog we have ours.


  52. David permalink
    July 11, 2010 2:56 am

    Desiree, let me ask you these questions:

    1. Have you read “All That Glitters” by Ray Chandler?
    2. Do you believe that Jordan was given Sodium Amytal by Evan Chandler and Dr. Mark Torbiner?
    3. Did his description of MJ’s penis match? Was MJ really circumcised?
    4. Why did Jordan threaten legal action to avoid testifying against MJ in 2005?

    If you’re so convinced that MJ molested Jordie, then please answer those 4 questions. We would like to engage you in a respectful conversation about why you believe MJ molested Jordie, Jason Francia, and whoever else you think he molested. If you feel MJ is a pedophile, than that is your opinion, but when it comes to molestations, we want to hear FACTS.

    Lastly, you said that following in your last post:

    “Michael Jackson fought the Arvizos in court because he did not have the slightest interest in Gavin. He only likes fanboys and Gavin was NOT a fan of Michael Jackson.”

    The only reason that MJ met Gavin is because Gavin requested to meet him when he was sick in the hospital with cancer! And after MJ evicted the Arvizo family, that’s when they concocted the molestation story. While on the witness stand, the only time Gavin got emotional was when he stated how mad he was that MJ evicted his family and wouldn’t call him anymore! So Gavin truly WAS a fan of MJ!!


  53. Suzy permalink
    July 11, 2010 6:34 am

    Someone wants to get traffic for her not so popular blog, me thinks.

    Also, on her blog Desiree declares that she gets a kick from provocating people and “push buttons” and I think that’s exactly the purpose of her posting here and claiming the things she claims. So I don’t think we should give her the platform she needs to entertain her bored self here. I don’t like people playing games.

    Just for your information, this is a person who on her blogs says this “disturbing” video ( ) proves that Michael was manipulative and “Machiavellian”. Any more questions?

    Most of the things she says don’t make any sense at all! I mean her theory that MJ didn’t molest Gaving because he wasn’t a fan of Michael. LOL. (He was, BTW.)

    Her argument for MJ molesting children (even ones who never claimed he molested them) is that SHE thinks he fits the profile, period. Also anyone who doesn’t share her opinion she will put down as blind fans and declare things like she, and only she (and the haters, of course) had finally seen the light. As for her sources she openly admits many times they are the tabloids, which she defends on her blog:

    “Also, don’t down my sources because you may feel some of them are dubious; I have discussed this before: so-called tabloids are sometimes the only place to get celebrity-related news. They do serve a purpose.”

    You cannot use logic to argue with such people. They want to provocate just for the sake of provocating and attention.


  54. David permalink
    July 11, 2010 9:22 pm

    @ Desiree:

    Your arguments are completely flawed!

    1. Per Maureen Orth: her articles are biased, one-sided, and she deliberately omitted a lot of exculpatory information. For example, in her first article, she DID NOT mention that Jordie didn’t mention being molested until Evan Chandler gave him a drug so that he could pull his tooth. That drug was sodium amytal, which both Evan and Dr. Torbiner admitted to administering! Dr. Torbiner said that “if I gave it to him, it was for dental purposes”. We don’t know who else was in on the scheme with them, or how many people reinforced those false memories, or how many sessions he had. Have you read “Redemption” by Geraldine Hughes?

    If you believe the Chandlers, then not only must you believe EVERYTHING written in “All That Glitters”, but you also must believe EVERYTHING written in “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”. Evan Chandler was the ghostwriter of both books, so you must take EVERYTHING he says as truth, if you truly believe him. You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe. Until you read those books, and are ready to 100% defend everything written in them, then you have no credibility!
    Here’s some info on the origin of “All That Glitters”

    2. Here is the article that states that Jordie’s description didn’t match. Even if the article had never been written, the fact that MJ was not arrested is all the proof we need to know it didn’t match! The whole point of the strip search was to determine if there was a match, and it if there would have been probable cause to arrest MJ as soon as the match was determined. Jordie said MJ was circumcised when he was not, and he said there was a light splotch when in fact the splotches were DARK. Sneddon has continued to lie and say there was a match in order to convict him in the court of public opinion.

    Click to access photos-may-contradict-michael-s-accuser-1994.pdf

    3. I’m not going to send you an article on Jordie threatening legal action to not testify; I’m going straight to the horse’s mouth! Here is the actual FBI file, on page 4, that states it in living color. Keep in mind, much of it is redacted, but we know it’s Jordie, because he said he believed that he had “done his part”. Gee, I wonder what he meant by that? If he was truly molested the way he claimed he was in his declaration, wouldn’t he be fighting tooth and nail to testify against MJ? How do you explain that, Desiree? How do you explain Jordie legally emancipating himself in 1994 and not speaking to his parents for 11 years, Desiree? Please don’t say the Chandlers didn’t testify in 93 or 05 because of media attention, because had MJ’s insurance carrier not settled, the Chandlers would have had to testify in the civil trial.

    The reason Jordie didn’t testify in 2005 is because Meserau had witnesses ready to testify against him!

    Click to access 305b-la-239204.PDF

    4. As far as MJ being molested as a child, well, maybe he was and maybe he wasn’t. If he was, that does not IN AND OF ITSELF mean that he molested anyone. What you’re doing is INSINUATING that MJ was guilty, which is what people like you try to do. Don’t insinuate that MJ is guilty. Prove that MJ is guilty with factual, tangible evidence, not these crazy assumptions. The same thing applies with his so-called homosexuality. Even if he was gay, that still doesn’t PROVE he molested anyone, although people like you would use it to insinuate he did. He porn collection proves he wasn’t gay!

    5. One last thing: you keep mentioning that MJ’s settlement makes him guilty, despite the fact that we have told you that his insurance carrier negotiated and paid it without MJ’s consent (meaning MJ wanted to go to civil court). Prior to this, MJ’s request to have the civil trial delayed was denied by the judge (which means MJ wanted to go to criminal court, which was exponentially more important because his freedom is on the line.)

    After Evan Chandler received his settlement, some of his former patients filed frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits against him, and a few were paid with Evan’s consent because it was cheaper to settle than to defend them. Does that make Evan guilty of medical malpractice, Desiree? If you had actually read “All That Glitters” before making your decision, you would have known about this. Also, one of his patients said that Evan molested her during a dental procedure. Do you think Evan was guilty of that, too?

    Here is the actual excerpt from “ALl That Glitters”, page 226:
    “After the media announced that Evan controlled his son’s fortune, several of Evan’s patients all of a sudden threatened malpractice suits against him. Most of these claims were so frivolous they died a quick death. One or two were paid because the amount was so small it was more costly for the insurance company to defend than to fight. And one went to trial, but was dismissed when the plaintiff, knowing she was losing, attempted, in the middle of the case, to admit new evidence that a repressed memory had surfaced of her being sexually molested while under sedation in the dental chair.”


  55. lynande51 permalink
    July 11, 2010 10:05 pm

    I knew you were going to say La Toya, why don’t you Twitter her to see if she confirms you’re information. As for the rest of your “sources ” well what ever. I read in your blog that you sometimes fantasize about being Michael Jacksons daughter and older sister to Prince , Paris and Blanket so tell me, you would like to have a person you believe to be a pedophile be your father?


  56. lynande51 permalink
    July 11, 2010 10:08 pm

    David if you’re outthere do you have administrative rights to this blog yet? I was going to get them but haven’t yet. If you do block this twit so her stuff with her ” sources doesn’t show up here. She just want to lead our serious readers to her site.


  57. lynande51 permalink
    July 11, 2010 10:38 pm

    By the way I have worked as a Forensic Nurse in the State prison system. Chemical castration that you say his Doctor was giving Michael is against the law because it is considered inhumane,even if the person requests it, so my guess is he wouldn’t have done it. Dr Alex Farshchian’s specialty is regenerative medicine or stem cell research and he is world reknowned for his work on rebuilding joints. I doubt if he would have even thought of such a thing. It is my theory that Michael was seeing him because of his work in regenerative reasearch. He manages a stem cell line that regenerates soft tissue like cartiledge in knees for an example. Michael was probably having Dr. Farshchian help him with a joint problem say for instance, his back after he suffered compression fractures to his lower lumbar vertebrae from a fall on stage in 1999 in Munich. The timeline of their association coincides with my theory.
    Baby girl you just have all the wrong answers to our questions and all the wrong sources of information to support your opinion..


  58. lynande51 permalink
    July 11, 2010 10:59 pm

    Still no facts only gossip.


  59. lynande51 permalink
    July 11, 2010 11:08 pm

    One last thing. You say that Michael used Gavin to make him look better after the “baby dangling” incident. Well I have some information for you. The piece with Gavin was taped when Bashir was at Neverland in the month of May of 2001. The incident with Blanket occured in November. If you LISTEN carefully to Bashirs documentary you will hear him say this, that is when he says ” I met young Gavin”. He also TOLD Gavin to hold Michaels hand and put his head on his shoulder this can clearly be heard in the outtakes.


  60. Lynette permalink
    July 11, 2010 11:38 pm

    Why are you repeating yourself? Look at page five of the autopsy report where it says ” The genitalia are of a normal adult male . Penis appears uncircumcised.”


  61. Lynette permalink
    July 11, 2010 11:43 pm

    Oh and if you have any other questions related to the autopsy report feel free to ask me. I have my Masters in Nursing so I know a little bit about it.And you will never guess what I did while I worked my way through RN school. I was a hairstylist. Think about that when you watch that video of Michael getting his hair done by Karen Faye and use this as an example of manipulation? You will need to explain that one too if you stay here much longer.


  62. Lynette permalink
    July 11, 2010 11:52 pm

    Read about circumcision on this site and then tell me that it can be a match. If Jordan Chandler had seen Michael Naked at any time or if he had touched his penis erect or not he would have seen and felt the difference.


  63. Lynette permalink
    July 12, 2010 1:03 am

    Norma Staikos: Testified to the Grand Jury
    Grand Jury Hears Ex-Jackson Aide
    Investigation: Former chief of staff at Neverland ranch testifies in child molestation probe.
    February 11, 1994|From Reuters
    SANTA BARBARA — A grand jury looking into allegations of sexual molestation by pop superstar Michael Jackson heard more testimony behind closed doors Thursday.
    A woman identified as Norma Staikos, Jackson’s former chief of staff who ran his Neverland ranch in Santa Barbara County, testified for two hours.
    The Story of Jason Francia:
    When Francia was questioned while giving her sworn deposition before a grand jury in 1993/4 as part of
    The criminal investigation of Jackson, she would admit she had never seen Jackson showering naked with
    a young boy, or seen him naked in a Jacuzzi with young boys at Neverland. Stating that when she had
    observed Jackson playing water games with children he always had swimming trunks on, Francia’s
    statements before a grand jury in November and December ’93, would substantially undermine the
    sensational story she had told Dimond in the Hard Copy interview.
    Years later, when questioned by Messereau in the 2005 trial, Francia would admit that she had embellished
    her story for Hard Copy. She would also admit that she had sold her story to the National Enquirer.
    Francia’s son – Jason, when cross-examined by Messereau in 2005, would claim not to remember a
    statement he made in his grand jury deposition in late ‘93/4 about being pressured by police investigators
    when they interviewed him. His statement, “they made me come up with stuff. They kept pushing. I
    wanted to hit them in the head,” is evidenced in the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings. Jason
    Francia’s testimony in Jackson’s trial would later prove to be underwhelming.
    British journalist, Charles Thomson, in ‘One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History,’
    “The fourth ‘victim,’ Jason Francia, took the stand and claimed that when he was a child, Jackson had
    molested him on three separate occasions. Pushed for details of the ‘molestation,’ he said Jackson had
    tickled him three times outside his clothes and that he’d needed years of therapy to get over it.”
    Thomson makes the point [that,] “although Jason Francia claimed that the acts of molestation occurred in
    1990, he didn’t report them until after the media storm over Chandler’s claims, at which point his mother,
    Neverland maid Blanca Francia, promptly extracted $ 20,000 from Hard Copy….and $ 2.4 million in a
    settlement from Jackson. ”
    The deposition was scheduled prior to the signing of the Settlement. The Settlement was signed January 24th 1994.
    Superior court Judge Rothman had already ordered that Jackson’s deposition in the civil case had to
    confirmed before the end of January, and the convening of the two grand juries in November had brought
    the threat of the criminal case ever closer. Agreeing to be deposed on January 18, and having agreed to
    the search on the basis that it took place at Neverland, and lasted 25 minutes, Jackson finally returned to
    America on December 10.
    On December 14, Feldman, Cochran, Weitzman, Deputy DA Lauren Weis met Judge Rothman in closed
    chambers to discuss the depositions that had already been made in the civil case. After the meeting,
    Feldman, who had been continually dispensing cynical soundbites about Jackson’s absence for months,
    told reporters waiting outside, “ what I’m surprised about is that Jackson made such a speedy recovery. It
    was supposed to be eight weeks, and as soon as there is an agreement with the DA’s office, he’s back. ”
    The warrant itself, which was to examine, photograph and videotape Jackson’s entire body, “including his
    penis, anus, hips, buttocks and any other part of his body ” was executed on December 20 at Neverland.
    Jackson’s lawyers were denied a copy of the affidavit which would have indicated the ‘probable cause,’
    in other words, some clear sign on Jackson’s genitalia that Jordan alleged existed.
    In front of his two attorneys, Dr Arnold Klein, Louis Swayne who was Jackson’s photographer, Sergeant
    Gary Spiegel, the sheriff’s department’s photographer, Dr Richard Strick (the DA’s dermatologist,) and a
    bodyguard – Jackson, in some degree of distress – removed his bathrobe and stood in the center of the
    room for 25 minutes while he was intimately examined.
    For Jackson, someone who, arguably, was body-dysmorphic and chronically, even pathologically shy,
    this experience would be a watershed moment. Profoundly shaming, Jackson’s family and friends in later
    years have said that Jackson was irrevocably shattered by this event. For Jackson’s lawyers, with the
    judge’s refusal to defer the civil case effectively rubber-stamping the growing appeal of the settlement
    idea, the body search – would make that idea a certainty.
    Far from being the definitive match Feldman heralded the photographs as, the comparison between
    Jordan’s description and Jackson’s body differed in the most obvious area:
    Jordan had categorically stated that Jackson was circumcised. He was not. It could be speculated that as
    the child of a Jewish father, Jordan, possibly circumcised himself, may simply have assumed that
    everyone else was also. If so, that would also mean Jordan did not have an intimate knowledge of
    Jackson’s body.
    Vitiligo, is a constantly evolving disease. It is progressive, and markings differ markedly between
    sufferers. Some sufferers have huge blocks of color pigmentation, others like Jackson, present as intricate
    markings. If one can imagine flicking paint very lightly over a surface and then observing the results, this
    is what Jackson’s vitiligo looked like.
    The idea that Jordan would be able to identify such subtle markings, but yet could not, as a mixed Jewish
    child, discern the difference between a circumcised penis and one that was not – is unsustainable.
    For any male, the difference between the two is defining. Any claim therefore that such a fundamental
    difference in penis types could be termed a ‘match,’ is a leap – and a substantial one..
    The “dark spot” that Diane Dimond claimed Jordan said was positioned on the underside of Jackson’s
    scrotum, was not photographed during the session, according to the sheriff’s photographer present. This
    fact – that a photograph was not taken of the so-called only ‘tell-tale’ mark, and apparently the reason
    why the body search was allowed in the first place – is somewhat remarkable. However, speculation on this point is unnecessary, as the clearest divergence from Jordan’s description has already been stated.
    Since no photograph of this ‘dark spot’ was taken, and there is no evidence to suggest that there was, any
    claims about its existence can neither be refuted nor claimed as absolute.
    The drawing, Jordan drew as a likeness of Jackson’s penis was a generic likeness. Unless Jackson had
    some significant peculiarity to his genitalia, there would inevitably have been some ‘likeness’ in the
    widest sense. In short, a penis, whatever color it is – is still a penis.
    Too answer your question regarding tom sneddons desire to bring in the photos at the end of th etrial it was for sensationalism. He wanted to shock the jury and force Michael to “bare himself to rebut his evidence. In other word he wanted to once agai nhumiliate Michael Jackson.


  64. Lynette permalink
    July 12, 2010 1:11 am

    Also everyone who has vitiligo goes white not pink. Pink is the base color of caucasian skin.find photos of others and look closely it is not pink, pink indicates the presence of melanocytes which are the pigment producing cells of the skin.


  65. Lynette permalink
    July 12, 2010 1:16 am

    For confirmation on Jordans refusal to testify and the law suit threat read the Michael Jackson FBI files. Try reading the whole thing instead of just the part you want to, I know you don’t like to but try.


  66. Lynette permalink
    July 12, 2010 1:27 am

    Photos may contradict Michael’s accuser
    [FINAL Edition]
    USA TODAY (pre-1997 Fulltext) – McLean, Va.
    Date: Jan 28, 1994
    Start Page: 02.D
    Section: LIFE
    Text Word Count: 106
    Document Text
    An unidentified source told Reuters news service Thursday that photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.
    If so, this could weaken any possible criminal actions against the singer. Already, speculation that the 14-year-old boy may not be willing to cooperate with officials is swirling.
    The boy’s civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy’s lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against his will.
    Lawyers for both sides could not be reached for comment Thursday.

    The boy’s civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy’s lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against his will.


  67. Lynette permalink
    July 12, 2010 1:30 am

    Posted: Wed., Nov. 24, 1993
    Jackson told to cooperate in civil trial
    Attorneys for singer Michael Jackson were ordered by a Los Angeles court Tuesday to make the singer available before year’s end in the civil case lodged against the entertainer. The judge also set a date for the civil trial to begin and urged both sides to cooperate with discovery attempts.
    Jackson’s lawyer Bert Fields dropped a bombshell during the court hearing Tuesday, claiming a Santa Barbara County grand jury had been impaneled and was close to indicting his client.
    “A grand jury convened already in Santa Barbara County and they are about to take evidence,” Fields said. “And that means we should have a charging decision very, very soon.”
    But Fields later backpedaled outside the courthouse, saying the district attorney there had only issued subpoenas for two witnesses, and a grand jury had not been sworn in. A hostile exchange between Howard Weitzman, Jackson’s criminal attorney, and reporters ensued when Weitzman said Fields “misspoke” during the hearing.
    Larry Feldman, attorney for the 13-year-old boy, told the court that it could delay the civil case if the criminal case went forward. “I don’t know if there is even going to be an indictment,” Feldman said. “It may be an open file for six years.”
    Feldman said his client would be pleased with Tuesday’s courtroom developments. “This is the first good news he’s had,” he said.
    Superior Court judge David M. Rothman denied Fields’ motion to delay the civil proceedings until the criminal investigation involving Jackson had been completed, and set March 21, 1994, as the trial start date.
    Read the full article at:


  68. David permalink
    July 12, 2010 1:32 am

    @ Desiree:

    I’ll have the administrator of this site do a new post answering your questions. It requires too much research to be included in the comments section! But they will be answered!

    I want to give you two other examples of celebrities who settled civil lawsuits that were filed against them, and I want you to tell us if you think they were guilty of their respective crimes. Now, I don’t have time to thoroughly explain them, but I’ll give you the articles and you can read them for yourself. One is FOX News’ Bill O’Reilly, who was sued for sexual harassment in 2004 by a female employee who recorded his sexually explicit phone calls. The other is NBA superstar Kobe Bryant, who was sued for rape after the accuser and the DA both agreed to drop criminal charges (because both knew they couldn’t get a conviction since she initiated the sexual intercourse.);contentBody

    In the meantime Desiree, try reading this report (it’s the word document at the bottom of the page). If you still think MJ is guilty after reading it, please let us know why! Remember, instead of focusing on what happened AFTER the scandal went public (i.e. description of MJ’s penis, settlement, etc.), focus on the timeline of events that occurred BEFORE the scandal went public (like the situation under which Jordie admitted to being molested, Evan asking MJ to move in with him, the court order Evan to return Jordie to June, etc.)

    And when you get the chance, please answer my follow up questions that I gave you in a previous comment!


  69. Lynette permalink
    July 12, 2010 1:34 am

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

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

    This document provided by HighBeam Research at


  70. Lynette permalink
    July 12, 2010 1:37 am

    Grand Jury Calls Michael Jackson’s Mother to Testify
    Michael Jackson’s mother, who has steadfastly proclaimed her son’s innocence in the face of allegations that he sexually molested a 13-year-old boy, has been ordered to testify before a Los Angeles County Grand Jury on Thursday afternoon, one of Jackson’s lawyers said Tuesday.
    “In all the years of my experience, I’ve never before seen the mother of the target of an investigation called before the grand jury,” said Howard Weitzman, one of two lawyers representing Jackson, who has been under investigation since last summer. “It’s just done in real poor taste. It borders on harassment.”

    Ads by Google
    • Grand JuryEverything to do with Grand Jury items.
    • Courthouse SecuritySurveillance, Monitoring, CCTV and More. Learn How ADT® Can Help.

    Jackson’s mother has frequently given interviews and made public appearances to defend her son, but a source close to the investigation said she may be questioned about Jackson’s physical appearance. Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January.
    Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said Tuesday he expects to wrap up the Jackson investigation within the next month or so. Although grand juries are meeting in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties, Jackson’s attorneys say they have been told that neither grand jury is considering an indictment, at least for the time being.
    Because they can issue subpoenas, grand juries often are used to elicit statements from witnesses who otherwise are reluctant to speak to investigators.
    Weitzman said Jackson was “very, very upset” to learn that his mother had been called to testify. Officials from the district attorney’s office declined to comment.
    Ads by Google
    • Superior Court HouseSuperior Court-Cases, Codes, Forms, Opinions, Info. All Free at FindLaw
    Ads by Google
    • Superior Court HousesSuperior Court-Cases, Codes, Forms, Opinions, Info. All Free at FindLaw
    • Court Appearances CoveredCourt Appearances Nationwide We’ll be there when you can’t be.
    • Local EntertainmentFind Phone Numbers, Links, Prices, Maps & More – Faster on Bing™!
    • Search All Public RecordsCriminal Records, Background Check. Court, Public Records. Search Free.
    • Investigations
    • Child Molestation
    • Mothers
    • Michael Jackson
    • Los Angeles County Grand Jury
    • A grieving son’s journey comes to a crossroads
    December 12, 2004
    • What Does the Future Hold?
    June 14, 2005
    • Grand Jury to Convene in Jackson Case : Law: Sources close…
    February 5, 1994


  71. July 12, 2010 6:15 am

    Circumcised and UNcircumcised aren’t the same thing. So, how in the world is his description still considered a match to you? And you’re wrong. Jordan is not correct about everything else. He was wrong about the color. He said the blemish was white, but in reality it was dark. He said there was only ONE blemish, but according to Dr. Strick his whole penis was covered in dark and light skin. This site has all the info I have just written. Please look at it before you try spouting out lies and nonsense.

    You have to be able to admit to yourself that Jordan’s description was not a match. A match means that EVERYTHING was accurate. Jordan being “right” about MJ having short pubic hair has to be considered a lucky guess. Especially, since he was wrong about everything else.


  72. July 12, 2010 7:22 am

    Desiree, it’s only now that I am starting to read all the comments for the past two days. I haven’t read even half of what you’ve written here, but even the little I’ve seen shows you are abusing our main rule – to try and avoid using the word “ped..le” in combination with Michael’s name (see the rules and the reason why I introduced it here).

    So the first action I will take with all your posts will be to erase these words from your messages.


  73. July 12, 2010 7:58 am

    Johnny Jackson’s legal guardian was Joe Jackson; he’s only a family friend. When he was killed in the mid-2000s Janet Jackson covered his funeral expenses. This is why I consider him a legitimate source because he continued to be a family friend up until his death. Anyway, he states he saw Michael Jackson being molested by a male relative and a male employee. He stated they all appeared to be sexually aroused. He told this to a record exec at Steeltown Records in Gary, Indiana. Basically, Michael was quite young when this happened. You can read about this in Chris Anderson’s book, as well.

    Desiree, in the process of deleting the non-accepted words in your messages I came upon this passage and was surprised to learn that someone allegedly saw Michael BEING abused by TWO people and he as a grown up evidently DID NOT interfere in the process (as the abuse attempts were evidently successful). And he was still a family friend after that?

    Stories, stories…


  74. David permalink
    July 12, 2010 8:31 am

    @ Desiree

    I wrote 2 comments directed at you, dated July 11 at 9:22pm and July 12 at 1:32am. Please respond to them when you get the chance.

    I know everyone on this board has been responding to your attacks and we’ve probably overwhelmed you, but just try to reply to each of us so that we can try to understand your logic and defeat your talking points.

    To everyone else, you should go back and read those 2 comments too. In one of them I included links to 2 articles that discuss the settlements that Kobe Bryant and Bill O’Reilly paid out. Next time you’re talking to an MJ hater and they try to say that MJ’s settlement is a sign of guilt, ask them if Kobe and O’Reilly are also guilty because they settled?

    In fact, ask them if Evan Chandler is guilty of medical malpractice since his insurance company settled the frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits that were filed against him! And ask if JC Penny was guilty since they settled their lawsuit with Janet Arvizo! We need to apply their logic to other cases to point out to them how ridiculous they sound!!


  75. Susan permalink
    July 12, 2010 11:12 am

    Hi David;

    Here is another – Oprah Winfrey settled the defamation suit with the head mistress of her girls’ school in South Africa back in March, 2010.


  76. David permalink
    July 12, 2010 10:06 pm

    @ Desiree:

    I’ll address a few of your points here:

    1. You’re contradicting yourself because you say MJ is a CM, but you have doubts about the Chandlers. If you don’t defend or believe everything in “Michael Jackson Was My Lover’, then what does that tell you about Evan Chandler’s character, considering he played a significant part in the book coming to fruition? He gave Guiterrez those private photos and other materials, and he probably was the ghost writer for most of it. What kind of father whose son was truly molested would even participate in such a book?

    Even if you dismiss “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” as pornographic fiction written to slander MJ, you still have to believe “All That Glitters”. The following excerpt explains it all! From page 128:

    “Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”

    So that proves it was extortion! Now if you say that MJ really did molest Jordie, and he was given an opportunity to “silence” the Chandlers in August 1993, please tell us why he DID NOT PAY THEM? In fact, why didn’t he OFFER to pay them? We’d all LOVE to hear your answer!! When you read “ATG”, you’ll finally see that their actions both before and after the scandal broke are NOT CONSISTENT with what honest parents would do if they thought their child was molested!

    I guarantee that after you read “ATG”, you won’t believe MJ molested Jordie, and if by chance you do, then you’ll also have to agree that the Chandlers should be thrown in jail for aiding and abetting MJ by not prosecuting him when they had every chance in the world! I’m sick of people saying MJ molested Jordie, but not bashing the Chandlers!

    And about them being “silenced”, they never wanted to prosecute MJ in the first place! They FIRED Gloria Allred because she wanted to send MJ to jail first, and then sue him, which was the antithesis of what Evan, Robert Shapiro, and Larry Feldman wanted! This was in the book, which as you can see I’m using AGAINST them! If they wanted “justice”, then Evan would have IMMEDIATELY called the cops himself! Instead, he reluctantly called Dr. Abrams and had him report it to the cops only AFTER the courts ordered Evan to return Jordie to June!

    2. MJ did not have “numerous” books about nude men, just the 2 that were found in 1993 and ONLY 1993! They are not pornographic in nature and intent, and he did not purchase any more, or accept any more that were sent to him by his fans.

    3. Jordie emancipated himself from both parents in 1994! We know he didn’t speak to June for 11 years per her testimony in the trial, and he moved in with his grandmother. Both he and Evan may have lived in the New York/New Jersey area, but they had limited, if any, contact. Since Evan didn’t testify in the trial, we’ll never know for sure. We also know that Evan, being the caring father that he is, almost MURDERED Jordie in August 2005. He hit him from BEHIND with a 12.5 pound weight (which was not self-defense as the blow came from behind), then maced him, and then choked him! Jordie filed a permanent restraining order and never saw him again!

    4. As far as Jason Francia, he initially denied being molested to the cops, and acknowledged that he wanted to “hit them over the head” for harassing him into a confession. But then he gave them the “tickling” incident, which was nothing but innocent horseplay, which the cops could not prosecute as a child molestation. He testified for 2 grand juries, and we all know how that went! (i.e., no indictments!) So his mom threatened to file a civil lawsuit, and MJ settled IN ORDER TO AVOID NEGATIVE PUBLICITY! The people like you who say the settlement is a sign of guilt would have said that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” if that lawsuit would have been made public, and when he would have been acquitted you would have said “well, OJ Simpson was acquitted too!”.

    Read this to get more info on Francia:

    5. As for Maureen Orth, let me once again remind you that she purposely OMITTED the most crucial aspect of the molestation accusation: that Jordie didn’t admit to being molested until his tooth was pulled under whatever drug that Evan used! Evan himself admitted he drugged him, and Dr. Torbiner implied that he may have given him sodium amytal. The point is this: for all of the “graphic” things that Jordie claimed in his declaration, his description DID NOT MATCH! MJ wasn’t circumcised, & he didn’t have the splotches that Jordie claimed he had (they were the wrong color)! Don’t you think he would have been immediately arrested if it matched! And don’t you think the photos would have leaked by now if they truly matched! We don’t know who the source is for that USA Today article, but MJ was not arrested because the description did not match. End of discussion.

    6. The Arvizos wanted to sue MJ when they decided to accuse him, which is why they went to Larry Feldman, who sent them to Stan Katz, who then notified the cops. But the law was changed as a result of the 1993 case, and civil lawsuits cannot be brought to court before the criminal case anymore. So their only shot at getting money was to convict MJ, and THEN sue him! (Which is what Gloria Allred wanted to do in 1993.) And they still could have sued him after his acquittal, but what lawyer in his/her right mind would take that case? Also, Feldman told Larry King that Janet was a “wacko”, but King could not testify in court because it was considered hearsay.

    7. Kobe Bryant’s situation is similar to MJ’s situation with Jason Francia. Kobe’s accuser and Blanca & Jason Francia could not win in criminal court, so they both filed and threatened to file civil lawsuits, respectively. Both Kobe and MJ could have fought the lawsuits, but there would have been substantial negative publicity, so both settled and (in my opinion) made the right decision. Kobe has since gone on to become the best and most marketable player in the NBA (especially with LeBum going to the Miami Heat, LOL!), and with the money he makes from endorsements he has re-earned the money he paid in the settlement 10-fold. MJ was able to have 10 years of peace after the Chandler debacle, and had he fought the Francias in civil court, it would have damaged his public image too badly and hurt his record sales.

    As for Bill O’Reilly, he may have sexually harassed that female co-worker, but it could have been consensual (which is what the lawyer was trying to say). You can’t flirt with someone and have a relationship, and then accuse them of sexual harassment. He sued her for extortion (similar to MJ suing the Chandlers), and for all we know he may have been forced to settle by Fox News. Either way, both parties have greatly profited, and O’Reilly has continued to dominate cable news. Whatever amount he paid in the settlement he has already re-earned 10-fold as well, as he and Kobe are both multi-millionaires.

    8. Sneddon called Chris Tucker a “good boy” during the trial, and the jurors were very offended! Watch Aphrodite Jones elaborate on that in the following video at 3:50. But I’m sure he’s not a racist! It was probably a slip of the tongue, right? I’m sure he was stressed out watching his case fall apart daily!

    9. When you’re ready to reply to me, instead of doing it here in the comments section, cut and paste this comment into your blog and reply to me there. It’s more constructive to do it that way! We can’t wait to see your research!


  77. Lynette permalink
    July 12, 2010 11:26 pm

    David I don’t believe anymore that she can be reasoned with. I will not be visiting this blog unti lshe is gone . This is not a place to debate the blind hatered she has for Michael and some of thehaters will never give up their hate. When you read her blog you will soon be able to see how unfortunatley disturbed she is.


  78. Dialdancer permalink
    July 12, 2010 11:56 pm

    I spend much time reading, learning and gathering information from MJ Vindication and Fan sites. This person’s style of writing is eerily familiar. The name is not the same. The story of their background while altered is set within a certain pattern. For each lie debunked, every liar exposed persons like this will fight harder and become more vicious.

    No, Michael Jackson was not God, nor the monster portrayed, for profit, because of prejudice and to bolster others aberrant pride.


  79. Lynette permalink
    July 13, 2010 2:02 am

    Simply put, Evan Chandler is the reason for the 1993 allegations against Michael Jackson.
    Evan Chandler’s greed and jealousy led him to do the worst. Chandler couldn’t stand to be on the outside looking in on the close relationship that Jackson had with his ex-wife June Chandler, whom he also hated, and Jordan Chandler, his son. Initially Chandler had urged Michael Jackson to stay in contact with him and encouraged a friendship. In a phone conversation secretly taped by David Schwartz, the then husband of June Chandler, Evan Chandler can be heard saying many things about his plan to ‘destroy’ Jackson and how he felt things were.
    “I sat in the room one day, and I talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship, what I want okay, so he wouldn’t have to figure me out. And one of things I said is we always have to be able to talk to each other”.
    Chandler felt shut out of the relationship when Jackson and his ex-wife were not giving him the attention he wanted. Keep in mind that reportedly, before Chandler had found out of his son’s friendship with Jackson, he showed no interest in the boy at all. Evan Chandler saw Jackson as an opportunity to get his big break as a script writer for films, but when Jackson wasn’t helping him along things began to go sour
    Anyhow, Chandler was now on his mission to destroy his ex-wife and Michael Jackson as well.
    “Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I’ve given him full authority to do that.”
    Chandler then predicted what would, in fact, transpire six weeks later: “And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I’ve checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever.

    Does that help (the boy) Schwartz asked
    “That’s irrelevant to me,” Chandler replied. “It’s going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want.
    What a loving father.
    Chandler’s plan was carried out just as planned. The only problem is that he didn’t receive as much money as he thought he would. After the allegations had subsided with the settlement in place, Michael Jackson was moving on. Jackson was able to revive his career and married for the first time. Jackson appeared on ABC program Prime Time Live, with then wife Lisa Marie Presley. They both very vaguely discussed the settlement and Jackson strongly denied any wrongdoing and declared his innocence.
    Angered by this, Evan Chandler sued everyone in sight for breaching the settlement contract, including Jackson, Presley, ABC, and even Michael’s record company. Chandler claimed that in Jackson’s 1995 album HIStory, Jackson had breached the contract by singing about certain ‘backstabbers’ and about situations that seemed to be about the allegations. Chandler demanded that he get at least $60 million and a chance to release his own album which he would call — EVANstory. No joke. Nothing came of his lawsuit and we haven’t heard from Evan Chandler since. Until he luckily died after shooting himself in the head. What did he have to live for if he could no longer obtain the object of his obsession?
    It’s sickening that Evan Chandler never pursued a criminal trial against Michael Jackson. Had Jackson really molested his son, wouldn’t that be the most reasonable action?
    Evan Chandler never wanted a criminal trial or justice for any crime because there was no crime, he wanted money and revenge.


  80. July 13, 2010 2:24 am

    You are one of those people who believe all of the media lies about MJ and the allegations. Let me correct you on a few points. MJ DID want to go to trial before settling with the Chandlers. The Chandlers are the one’s who wanted to take the case to civil trial before the criminal trial could start.

    Larry Feldman, attorney for the 13-year-old boy, told the court that it could delay the civil case if the criminal case went forward. “I don’t know if there is even going to be an indictment,” Feldman said. “It may be an open file for six years.”

    Feldman said his client would be pleased with Tuesday’s courtroom developments. “This is the first good news he’s had,” he said

    Superior Court judge David M. Rothman denied Fields’ motion to delay the civil proceedings until the criminal investigation involving Jackson had been completed, and set March 21, 1994, as the trial start date.

    If MJ realy didn’t want to take the case to criminal court, then why didn’t he give Evan the $20 million dollars he asked for back when he still hadn’t reported the allegations to the Psychiatrist?

    And the 365 days with Brett, as well as the 30 days with Jordan are complete fabrications made up by the media. According to June Chandler’s testimony, MJ would stay at her house a week or two at a time. She never mentioned where MJ slept while at her house. The Prosecutors and media added-up all the days he spent at her house over the course of a year. And added “in bed with Jordan” to it. The 30 days are not consecutive, nor was he in the same bed as Jordan Chandler.

    The 365 days with Brett is a media manipulation. They lied on Karlee Barnes (Brett’s sister). She never said they slept in the same bed as each other for 365 days or nights.

    Taken from court transcripts on May 6, 2005.
    2 Q. How many nights would that have been,
    3 approximately?
    4 A. Let’s see, let’s divide 365 days into half.
    5 Q. Okay. Is that about it? About —
    6 A. Well, if I said I spent half the year
    7 overseas with him one year and half of the year
    8 overseas with him the other year, I think that would
    9 total about 365 days altogether.
    10 Q. Okay. So 365 nights he spent the night
    11 alone with your brother in his room?
    12 A. Yes.

    And all the witnesses who the Prosecutors claimed were abused, but testified that they weren’t did say MJ would hug and kissed them, but they never said it was in bed under the covers. Where did you get that information from? Please provide a source.

    What you’re saying is not new. I have dealt with people who spout the same old lies as you for a while now. I have heard all those arguments before. And I have discovered there opinion like yours are based on incorrect information.



  81. David permalink
    July 13, 2010 5:47 am

    @ Desiree:

    I addressed some of the topics you asked about in my comment from July 12 @ 10:06pm. It had to be approved because it was so long and had many links.

    Please read through it, and you can briefly respond here, but I want to see you update your blog with answers to everything that I addressed!

    Lastly, about Jason Francia, make sure you read the summary of his testimony that I included in my last comment! Those tears he cried were crocodile tears! His mom blackmailed MJ into settling because she knew he wanted to avoid negative publicity, and it was NOT an admission of guilt. Similarly, MJ’s insurance paid his settlement without his permission, the same way Evan’s insurance paid his settlements!

    As far as Evan Chandler is concerned, look at the timeline of events from May 1993 to August 17th, 1993, and PROVE to us that the molestation happened, and explain why Jordie emancipated himself and threatened legal action to avoid testifying. Please use “All That Glitters” as a source of your research, since that is their story! LOL!

    Meseareau didn’t call those witnesses because Jordie did not testify! There are strict rules in regards to the 1108 evidence, because it has to be approved by the judge, and he cannot allow you to re-litigate a previous case. The trial was about Gavin, not Jordie, but the Neverland 5 were allowed to say they saw “grooming” patterns, and then Mesereau was allowed to call in Culkin, Barnes, and Robson to rebut them.

    We look forward to seeing you PROVE that MJ molested Francia, Chandler, or anyone else you want to name. Remember, the burden of proof is on YOU!!!


  82. Suzy permalink
    July 13, 2010 6:07 am

    There’s one thing common in all those boys who ever claimed MJ molested them (Chandler, Arvizo, Francia): they had something to gain from it financially. They either sold stories to tabloids for cash (Francia) or/and pushed for a civil settlement (Chandler/Francia – and most defnitiely that was the ultimate goal of the Arvizos as well).

    Interestingly the boys who had their money and career of their own (Culkin, Robson, Barnes) – so didn’t need anything from MJ – said they were never touched by him.


  83. July 13, 2010 6:32 am

    Brett Barnes said that he WAS NOT abused. He even quit his job to be able to testify to that fact. You are proving my case for me. Brett Barnes’ testimony proves that MJ was more than capable of being in the same room with a child and NOT ABUSED them. So, are you saying that you think Brett Barnes was lying about not being abused? If so, then why would he continue to spend so much time around him even up until his adulthood? And Brett doesn’t say he slept in MJ’s bed when he was 19, he says he slept in his room. He even says that 3 or 4 of MJ’s relatives were in the room, too.

    You believe Evan Chandler was an extortionist. Which means you think that man was capable of using his child to get money from MJ. But how can you not believe that if Evan would use the allegations to extort MJ, he wouldn’t use his son to lie about the allegations? How do you reconcile the two opposing concepts in your mind?

    And if all Evan truly was only interested in was money, then why didn’t MJ just give it to him when he asked on Aug. 4. Thirteen days before he reported the allegations to the Psychiatrist? MJ’s attorney, Bert Fields, was helping with the negotiations. This was a man who was making millions of dollars off of MJ. If anybody didn’t want him to go to jail it would be Fields. So, please explain to me why Fields didn’t advise MJ to give into Evan’s extortion?

    I am not attacking you. A lot of people share your viewpoint. I just want to understand and follow your logic. Why do you believe that the only kid MJ supposedly abused just happened to be the kid with the extortionist as a father? He had many children as friends (girls included), and only felt the need to hurt the kid whose father was extorting him for $20 million dollars? That doesn’t make any sense to me. Please explain. Thanks!


  84. Emma permalink
    July 13, 2010 9:05 am

    Desiree i love the fact that you have said that under hypnosis by Uri Gellar Michael said he paid the Chandlers in order for it all to go away. What you have failed to state is that under the same hypnosis he said he was innocent!


  85. Lynette permalink
    July 13, 2010 3:41 pm

    Glad to here of your departure Desiree. With you came tracking cookies , trojan horses and tons of spam onto this site. Check your computers fellow vindicators.


  86. lynande51 permalink
    July 13, 2010 8:07 pm

    I thought you said you weren’t going to come to this site anymore if we didn’t come around to your’e thinking? Trying out you’re Psychiatrist suit? Instead of spending time blogging spend some time on your math because without it you’re level of chemistry is not going to get you into med school.


  87. Emma permalink
    July 13, 2010 9:45 pm

    How can you say that we are blind to the evidence, and that we follow Michael like sheep? The person who created this blog only did so after years of having doubts herself, and i am sure that at least some people had their own doubts at some point. As a uk citizen, i can tell you that we were force fed story after story on Wacko Jacko by the media. BTW – i can ridicule your sources if they are the mirror and the sun, i know the trash that they print and i’m not just talking about Michael. For a start all of their so-called scientific reports on levels of fat/salt etc are completely taken out of context when you look at the original research. To look at the so-called credibility of these papers, watch the documentary starsuckers. The people that created this documentary made up stories and sold them to the papers, which were then printed without checking any facts whatsoever. I don’t care whether he was gay or straight; a persons sexuality is their own business. The point is that i have done a hell of a lot of research, as has everyone on here, and we have all come to the conclusion that he was innocent. This is not a knee-jerk reaction but one given careful thought.


  88. Emma permalink
    July 13, 2010 9:47 pm

    Plus- if you don’t care why are you even on here?


  89. lynande51 permalink
    July 13, 2010 10:57 pm

    Well Dez I’m none of th ethings you think I am, that said , you gave me the bullets and loaded the gun. Did you think I wouldn’t shoot? By the way, from the reaction I would guess it was a bullseye. Want to talk about your father?


  90. lynande51 permalink
    July 13, 2010 11:41 pm

    I’ve been reading your blog archives Dez. For a girl who doesn’t care enough about Michael Jackson I would have to ask why 100% of your blogs and replies have his name in them,albeit you are usually name calling him the half asian half white man and ridiculing him in every way possible. Nuff said, nothing you wrote leads me to believe you like him, so get that point across and remove your sheeps clothing.


  91. Suzy permalink
    July 14, 2010 11:28 am

    @ lynande51

    Looking at Desiree, Diane Dimond, Brian and the likes, it seems to me that there exists a certain type of, perverted obsession with Michael Jackson. They claim they are just trying to be objective, but in fact there’s nothing objective in their approach: they are negatively biased, yet they cannot look away and deal with something else instead of the subject of their obsession.

    BTW, does anybody else think Michael’s lyrics to “Is it scary” are brilliant? 😉


  92. Suzy permalink
    July 14, 2010 11:54 am

    It’s funny how Desiree is asking us all over and over again not to “poo poo” her sources. Well, one of the first things I check out when I’m looking into an information is checking out the sources. Because it IS very important if a claim comes from a reliable or unreliable source. It is very important to see whether the source had any motives to lie or not. And so on. Checking out sources is very important to evaluate an information. When she says it isn’t important she basically calls us to believe everything we read and give everything the same value – wether it’s court document or a tabloid article -, just like she does.

    When somebody gives a testimony on court, his level of reliabilty IS important, don’t we agree? It’s the same with the media and people who talk in the media. To ask “let’s not examine, let’s not question my sources” is simply ridiculous.

    It’s so predictable with all these haters. When they are out of arguments they all say the same things. Like we are just delusional (and she, who hasn’t told a single argument, just came here bashing and trolling, is the voice of reason, of course). Then she says she is actually not that interested in Michael Jackson (well, really? look at her blog LOL). Oh and finally we always come to our favourite conclusion: “I cannot prove he was a CM, but you cannot prove he wasn’t either”. LOL. Where did I hear that before? This is always the last “argument” haters have.


  93. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 5:11 pm

    Burt Kearns was the producer and Godfather; so to speak, of Tabloid TV he started it all with Hard Copy. He wrote a book commemorating the heyday of the era which is titled Tabloid Baby. It has become sort of a cult classic and has a website. I went to the website one time after typing in a search on Diane Dimond that led me to it. On the site it promised me that the truth on how Dimond broke the Michael Jackson story was on page 276. I couldn’t find it online so I ordered a used copy online. I read page 276 and it completely refutes her version of how she broke that story.
    In her version she receives an anonymous phone call to meet her in a restaurant. She takes a producer with her in case it is a crank or someone dangerous and meets the person that delivers her a copy, which she has to copy down in short hand, of the DCFS statement of Jordan Chandler. This was a brilliant career break for her by her own words “it was either going to be a case of celebrity extortion or the world’s biggest celebrity was a child m******r. She knew she couldn’t lose.
    In his book, and keep in mind that he was her boss at the time, Burt Kearns tells us that this “leaked, top secret” DCFS document was mailed to them and an associate producer handed it to her. No one knew who it came from or who had mailed it to them. She did not bother to trace its origin she only ran with it. She got to take credit for breaking the story and therefore became the self proclaimed Michael Jackson expert because of her reckless disregard and personal ambition.
    It is also important to know that there was a big lull in “celebrity stories” at the time and he writes about how the Michael Jackson scandal saved tabloid news. They didn’t have to go into reruns for an entire season because of all the people they paid to come forward with information, thus saving the waning industry.
    It has always been my belief that Evan Chandler or Barry Rothman were behind that leaked DCFS report. Why? Because as the investigators were leaving they would have handed Evan a copy of the report for their records, everything was still on carbon paper back then. In the report that Diane Dimond was given was Jordan’s actual account of what happened, there would not have been a conclusion by the DCFS it would not have been completed in that time. We got the allegations and they took any kind of confidential conclusion of the investigation away when they went public.
    They had the motive which was to publicly humiliate Michael Jackson and bring him to his knees to pay them their 20 million dollars. It backfired because they did have an accurate vision of how public it would become. They were so self consumed that they miscalculated the importance of Michael Jackson. They had created a monster that was out of control because they were no longer the ones that controlled it, the public did.


  94. Suzy permalink
    July 14, 2010 7:12 pm

    Thank you, lynande51! Another valuable information from you!
    I’m not surprised Dimond is a liar, she always has been, always will be. And yes, it probably came from the Chandlers. Just shows how much they were all about the money, not justice.


  95. David permalink
    July 14, 2010 8:39 pm

    @ lynande51

    You’re right, DD is lying about the DCFS report that she says she obtained at that restaurant! She even had the audacity to imply that there were other DCFS investigations that had been “covered up” to protect MJ’s image. She has the following quote on the back cover of her book:

    “There’s only one thing both of us want you to promise,” the person said, still nervously clutching the sheaf of documents. “We want you to promise that this won’t get covered up again this time.”

    What pure garbage!!


  96. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 8:53 pm

    I just made desiree really mad at me when I posted on her blog to email Dr Farshchian and ask him for confirmation on her Mirror story. This was her response to me.
    Desiree said…
    You know what?

    I shouldn’t even dignify this with a response, but I will…

    Are you idiotic enough to believe a highly respected and, perhaps, very busy doctor would even tell me the details of the medical records of Michael-fucking-Jackson?

    Are you serious?

    If you read the Mirror article linked in my entry, it said Dr. Farshchian was not going to comment, on the record, regarding Michael’s treatments. It’s why he had a spokesperson (or a sneaky secretary who went through the files in his office) comment.

    I cannot believe you, lynande. I cannot believe it! Why don’t you email him, genius? It was your ‘bright’ idea in the first place!

    Farshchian has better things to do than entertain Michael Jackson’s fans.
    I don’t think she really does like Michael Jackson or his music do you?


  97. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 9:14 pm

    I can remember thinking at one point: why Diane Dimond? The main “anchor person at the time was the much more eye friendly Maureen O’Boyle. She was the face of Hard Copy so why would the “snitch” from the DCFS call a desk writer?Well the answer was there in the book she was just picked because she wasn’t busy that day.


  98. July 14, 2010 10:52 pm

    There was a time I was not so sure about Michael’s innocence around children. Even when I believed something must have happened, there was something in the back of my mind that didn’t make sense. Thomas Mesereau. The guy is not a dummy, he is sharp; therefore, why does he look so pained when he talks about Michael Jackson? He is out there defending his client after death. As his defense attorney Sneddon would have had to declare all of the evidence he had against Michael, even from the 1993 case because that case became part of the 2005, and Mez would have to put on a defense for his client. It occurred to me that Mesereau may have known more than Sneddon. Due to the civil settlement the prosecution was never revealed the defenses strategy, but Mesereau would have had to question Micheal about 1993 in order to properly prepare his defense and not look like an idiot in the court room. With all the so-call damning evidence against Michael Jackson TM believes 100% in his ex-client’s innocence. That kind of undying, unwavering loyalty I could never rationalize with regards to MJ being guilty. It just didn’t make sense. Plus Mesereau is not some shyster lawyer, if he felt Michael was partly a pedophile why not just plea the fifth?

    Of course they are other reasons why I cannot throw Michael under the bus, but I will mention later.


  99. Suzy permalink
    July 15, 2010 4:24 am

    @ lynande51

    Desiree says she is 20-year-old, but she behaves like a 10-year-old. I don’t care about her blog, to be honest. I only went there once to see where she was coming from, but now I know and I don’t care about the rest of her rants.

    She runs around with this Farshchian story as if it would be some big bombshell. LOL. First of, people like to run to tabloids for money and attention. Tabloids often pay for these stories! And the more juicy the details are the bigger the paycheck is. That’s a well-known fact about tabloids – apparently not for Desiree. Second, after a story is told, the tabloid itself likes to add its sensational spin as well. I know that because I worked a little in the media in my country – not tabloid media, but sports media, but even there it is present. Sensation is everything! And in tabloids and in the entertainment business it’s a lot, lot worse.

    But even if Farshchian really thought Michael’s relationship with kids was unhealthy, it’s, well, just an opinion, nothing else. He said he never witnessed abuse. That’s the bottom line.

    In another version of the story that I have read last year it was Michael who asked for the medicine to repress his sexual drive (so which version is true? LOL). Let’s pretend for a moment it’s the truth, nothing but the truth. If he wanted to repress his sexual drive doesn’t have to mean he had a drive for young boys. That’s just speculation on the part of the paper and Farshchian’s colleague, if you notice. It comes from their own initial OPINION that Michael’s relationship with kids was “unhealthy”. In fact, Michael could have asked to repress his sexual drive because he had an unstoppable desire for woman. Considering his large collection of porn and girlie magazines, considering the fact he sometimes got an erection on stage when a girl hugged him during You are not alone, that’s more plausible than a desire for little boys. Maybe he simply got embarassed by the fact he got an erection on stage. If he had a desire for little boys and he was so desperate to stop it that he was willing to undergo medical “castration” for it, then why did he take little friends with him? To tempt himself? That doesn’t make any sense. Probably it were not little boys who were tempting for him.

    But that’s just if we give credit to the version where Michael asked for this medicine, but quite honestly, I do not believe that.


  100. July 15, 2010 8:23 am

    Suzy: “In fact, Michael could have asked to repress his sexual drive because he had an unstoppable desire for woman. Considering his large collection of porn and girlie magazines, considering the fact he sometimes got an erection on stage when a girl hugged him during You are not alone, that’s more plausible than a desire for little boys. Maybe he simply got embarassed by the fact he got an erection on stage”.

    Absolutely! I never knew about the fact until Teva mentioned it and the embarassment he might have felt in such situations could indeed make him ask his doctor to give him some mild (not ‘castration’!) medicine to cope with the problem while in concert. It was enough for someone who knew about it to hint at it just once for journalists to multiply it by a thousand, turn it into ‘chemical castration’ and apply it selectively to boys only. This is how lies are fabricated.

    I am just wondering why they are so specifically nasty towards Michael and why none of them feel or are held responsible for what they are doing.


  101. shelly permalink
    July 15, 2010 7:02 pm

    “Suzy: “In fact, Michael could have asked to repress his sexual drive because he had an unstoppable desire for woman.”

    It would be very strange considering the fact that nothing happen when he was with Brooke Shields according to of them


  102. lynande51 permalink
    July 15, 2010 7:22 pm

    Like I said in a former post about this story of the Depo provera. Dr Farshchian was on th esame plane with the Arvizo family and Michael and his children when they came back from Miami to Neverland.If Michael Jackson had indeed been given Depo Provera the 2005 allegations could not have happened. It isn’t something you take every day. It is a shot taken every3 months in both the case of chemical catration or birth control.


  103. Paulie permalink
    July 16, 2010 3:32 am

    Why isn’t ‘ol Ssssneddon writing a book? You know disseminating all that “evidence” that proved Michael guilty.

    I read your post about the two jurors (why is it whenever Michael was accused of something *money* was always involved?). Let’s say they are telling the truth (they believed he was guilty) that means nothing, it only means they thought (like a lot of people do) where there is smoke (or more accurately with this case), where there is an accusation, there must be a fire. But of course since they had book deals at that time and have since gone away (when no book and no moola were forthcoming), they have gone on with their mundane lives. As opposed to IDK helping children of abuse to make up for the fact they let a pedophile go roaming free.

    God, people can be really awful can’t they? Are we ever motivated by anything other than selfish needs?


  104. Paulie permalink
    July 16, 2010 3:37 am

    @Desiree when you are posting on here, you are not out saving the world…why don’t you stop posting about a corpse and do something useful…and take yourself up on your own suggestions


  105. lynande51 permalink
    July 16, 2010 4:19 am

    Hey Dez why are you posting to yourself. Come on out and play like a big girl now.


  106. Suzy permalink
    July 16, 2010 6:09 am

    @ Shelly

    And what does Brooke Shields have to do with anything? Having a strong sexual drive doesn’t mean you act upon it. Michael was very religious in the 80s. I have always thought Michael often repressed his sexuality (and didn’t need to take medicine for it) but it wasn’t because he was gay or a p, but because he found it difficult to trust women (and people in general). What do you think his porn means? That he wasn’t interested in sex and women?


  107. lynande51 permalink
    July 16, 2010 3:53 pm

    What”s wrong Dez? Don’t you like to have your writing critiqued?You know writing is an art and art is in the eye of the beholder. Your problem though seems to be more directed to me and what I say than particularly at Michael Jackson. I questioned your profile at first but your behavior shows what you put there to be true. You are 21 and you do like to provoke and push buttons. The trouble is you can’t take it when it comes back at you.
    Oh, by the way, it is true that you can’t slander the dead but you have actual names of the living in your fan fiction.Names like Prince Jackson, Blanket, and Paris, Grace and others. In order for this to be a work of fiction you must change the names any and all publishers will tell you how important that is. Think Jackie Suzanne, not Kitty Kelly. It would actually be a better read if it were not so overt and just a little more suggestive, make people guess who it is you are writing about. If you don’t like to be misunderstood, or called out about the things you say, make sure you have plausible deniablity.Then blog all you want about Michael Jackson, I won’t visit you and you won’t have to visit me. If you don’t believe me I could probably tell you that the reason that All That Glitters had to be self published outside the USA is because none of the “information/documents” could be verified to be true therefore the publisher would have held a large liability. That goes for the website for the book which was shut down even prior to the trial in 2005.
    In the meantime when you say that negative attention is better than no attention, I know for a fact that you will find out just how untrue that is over the next few years as you become a Doctor and then through your residency and fellowship to become a psychiatrist. Once you see a truly mentally ill human and just how sick they are you won’t find it as easy to ridicule either the living or the dead.


  108. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2010 8:53 pm

    @ Suzy

    I am not saying he was a p or gay. I just find it strange that he had all this porn with him and didn’t touch Brooke. I can understand that he was very religious and also think he had tremendous personal problems like his vitiligo which can explain that.


  109. July 16, 2010 11:04 pm

    Don’t you see what is happening here? This site started off with good intentions, to offer another voice for fans against the 17 year incessant rant from Michael’s detractors. However, as fans we are responding to the most ridiculous of trash: DEPO PROVERA?! DEPO PROVERA?! This BS was not even part of any prosecution evidence, or criminal case. This s**t only existed in tabloid world, where evidence is not mandatory, and an accusation is proof of guilt.

    VindicateMJ should stay true to itself. Continue to write sensible, and well thought out articles and not be seduce into the gutter. You can only play in the dirt so long before it gets under your nails.

    Haters love nothing more than to get under the skin of fans. It is their delight and joy, it is like crack on the brain.

    Michael Jackson could never get out from under the media pedophilia stain, he knew it, and eventually he gave up. If people want to see Michael Jackson as a child molester they will go looking for anything to enforce that belief. If he had pornography it was for grooming, if he had a zoo it was to lure Kids. Nothing will convince a hater of MJ’s intentions; even if Jordan Chandler had to say nothing happened haters will say the estate paid him off.


  110. David permalink
    July 16, 2010 11:05 pm

    Hey guys, I think that we should all just IGNORE Desiree from now on. I read her new post hoping that she would answer the tough questions that I posed to her, asking her to PROVE that MJ molested Francia, Chandler, or whoever else she thinks he molested. Instead, she writes a short novel about MJ, which is completely DEVOID of any substantive facts regarding the allegations and total garbage.

    Until she gives us facts ON HER WEBSITE to support her assertions that MJ was guilty, let’s just ignore her once and for all. If you want to communicate with her, I think you should do it on her site. She’s only polluting this site with her irrelevant comments!

    BTW, Helena I suggested in an earlier comment that you should contact the owner of the Reflections on the Dance website, and ask her for Lisa’s contact info so that we can get her opinion on Jordie’s declaration. (She’s the attorney who co-wrote that M.O.N.E.Y. article.) Let us know how it goes!


  111. July 16, 2010 11:42 pm

    “Helena I suggested in an earlier comment that you should contact the owner of the Reflections on the Dance website, and ask her for Lisa’s contact info so that we can get her opinion on Jordie’s declaration.”

    David, yes, I will contact LisaG next week as I know of a direct way how to do it. Not tonight (it is night here) or tomorrow (I’ll be away), but next week for sure.


  112. July 16, 2010 11:56 pm

    “This site started off with good intentions, to offer another voice for fans against the 17 year incessant rant from Michael’s detractors. However, as fans we are responding to the most ridiculous of trash: DEPO PROVERA?!”

    Teva, you are right. Guys, please don’t dignify the hater with your replies. She is not worth it. I was probably too patient with her but the reason I didn’t block her at the very beginning was curiosity – I just wanted to give her all the rope to hang herself with (which she is actually doing now).

    I’ll be away for a couple of days. Please ignore her whatever she does or says – she is seeking your attention and is trying to divert us from our research. If we involve ourselves in an never-ending argument with her we will NEVER do anything else but that. Getting us into a squabble is the main idea. Ignore her completely and that will be the end of it.

    If she becomes rabid we’ll take a decision about her presence here jointly and if her posts go on to be an insult to Michael and his supporters I’ll delete her posts altogether so that they don’t poison the atmosphere.

    If she thinks I am above it she is mistaken.


  113. lynande51 permalink
    July 17, 2010 12:21 am

    Helena I do owe you and the others here an apology. She became very upset with me.Her posts may be to entice me into a full blown battle of the posted word. It was my intention not to reply to her and I now stand by that intention.


  114. Paulie permalink
    July 17, 2010 5:47 am

    @Desiree…I’m a fan and I find him inspirational beyond his music. You referred to him as a corpse…certainly his body is…as yours and mine will be some day…you, however, will inspire no one…I have a job where I change people’s lives everyday…I would ever so be humbled if one of them mentioned me in some setting to say that there was this one person that inspired, helped, encouraged, changed their lives…what a legacy for me…Michael did that. I assume your referring to him as a corpse was supposed to make someone feel bad. How sophomoric. You must be very young. For you have no idea that all of us will die…if only we could inspire one person in our lives…when you get older you know what I’m talking about about…money, fame, fortune mean nothing…Michael’s corpse means nothing….his body of work…OMG…his inspiration…well, I finally fostered a child because of him…oh forget it…you sound quite young…you know nothing about life…you know nothing about anything…as you should…you, I…all of us will be decaying corpses…hopefully we will leave something behind more than a dead body…that we will leave behind our spirits…Michael didn’t molest any kids…I will post about that later…anyway as you said, he’s dead…what’s your interest?…the time you spend posting about a corpse you could spend doing something useful with, what I assume, is a young life…one year later and the fans and most of all the haters can’t stop themselves….that man was something else wasn’t he? I haven’t posted one thing about anyone I can’t stand or don’t give a hump about this past year…what’s your excuse? He’s dead…get over it. Move on…your hypocrisy is showing…


  115. Suzy permalink
    July 17, 2010 6:44 am

    @ shelly

    I think Brooke was a PR relationship. I don’t think he was ever in love with her. They were friends, they used each other for PR and that’s it. On the Glenda tapes Michael talks about a lot of women he liked or loved (from Tatum O’Neal to ones who are unknown for the public – like a woman called Melissa), but he never once mentions Brooke among those women. That’s pretty telling. I think he wanted to keep his private life private. Imagine a guy whose every move is under media scruteneering all the time. I can see why he would try to keep his private business out of sight. Too bad that some people think that’s because he had something sinister to hide.

    @ David

    Re Desiree: “If you want to communicate with her, I think you should do it on her site.”

    I agree wholeheartedly.


  116. shelly permalink
    July 17, 2010 4:02 pm

    @ suzy

    I agree with you on the Brooke story but are we sure that the Glenda tapes are legit. I heard the tapes were made to prove he was not gay and were for the 93 allegations, but are we sure it’s true


  117. Suzy permalink
    July 17, 2010 4:49 pm

    @ shelly

    If the tapes were made for the 93 allegations to prove he was not gay (by whom?) why didn’t they release them in 1993?

    I have about 3-4 hours of those tapes (which is more than what’s on YT, but not the full tape which is about 8 hours long) and I’m sure it’s Michael and they are legit. I’m also sure they were not made to prove anything. This is a totally casual conversation between two friends. Most of it is not even about love or sex, but about totally everyday topics.


  118. shelly permalink
    July 17, 2010 8:50 pm

    @ suzy

    When I said the tapes were made I wanted to say that MJ’s lawyers allegedly wanted to use them in case of a trial. We are still not sure if they are legit.


  119. Suzy permalink
    July 17, 2010 9:03 pm

    @ shelly

    Well, I have them (at least 3-4 hours) and I’m sure they are legit. And as far as I know the thing about MJ’s lawyers wanting to use them in a trial is an urban legend. What use these tapes would have in a trial? Nothing. If the tons of heterosexual porn didn’t mean anything for those who want to think he was gay/p, then a couple of mentions of him dating girls won’t mean anything to them either.


  120. David permalink
    July 21, 2010 8:03 pm

    Hey guys, I found another hater’s website! He talks about a lot of topics, but he has an entire section to MJ! But don’t worry, he’s harmless! Wanna know why? He actually uses the two jurors who tried to write books after the trial as “evidence” that MJ really was guilty! And of course he doesn’t tell his readers that they lost those book deals almost as soon as they got them! He just lost ALL credibility right there!

    He also tries to discredit Mary Fischer and Aphrodite Jones as well! And that’s not all! He uses Ian Halperin’s books as “proof” that MJ was gay, he says MJ took drugs to curb his “attraction” to young boys (the same garbage that Desiree tried to say), and he says MJ had ties to the mafia.

    We should all skim over his articles just to see what logic he uses, but for the most part he’s harmless compared to Ray Chandler’s site because at least Ray never tried to say that MJ was guilty in 2005, nor did he ever say that MJ was gay.

    Here is the link to his home page. Scroll down, and on your right hand side you’ll see the section titled “Michael Jackson’s pedophilia/mafia & fascist ties/media cover-ups/death” section, where all of his hateful MJ articles are archived.


  121. zeromarcy permalink
    August 30, 2010 1:20 pm

    @Desiree permalink

    “In my view, there is a lack of common sense in the fan communities re; Michael’s behaviors. He used the Childhood video/song/story as a way to get the public to accept his REFUSAL to keep his own bed for himself. You people have bought it.”
    – you are right: THIS IS ONLY YOUR VIEW, and I can add that you are no one to judge why we believe in Michael
    “He was abused, physically, emotionally, verbally, sexually. His behaviors towards young boys (cut it with the ‘little girl friends, too!’ crap; he liked young boys of a specific age) showed a man with a pathology. He was too much of a narcissist to ever try and get help. ”
    _-How sad u judged him even without knowing him

    His abuse history is only an explanation.
    “Lastly, when I reply with a blog entry, do not ‘poo-poo’ my sources. That is no way too debate. You cannot participate in legitimate debate if you don’t have an open mind.”
    -and do you believe do u have an open mind?? are u totaly sure?? Oh well let me say: you are the one who are judging others for their beliefs, and who act like: he had this behavior that society do not accept so he is a “P”, This is just too simple girl….
    “I am worried you do not. Like I said, I’m only raising questions; I am NOT trying to convince you.(-oh are u sure ?) I was hardcore like all of you once so I’m not saying it is impossible to ‘change’ but I’ll say, at least for you guys, it’s unlikely.”
    -And why we should change??
    “I am continually amazed at how people are willing to lie to themselves. The Dog Whisperer (genius) Cesar Millan said humans are the only organisms on Earth that will follow an ‘unbalanced’ (as he says, LOL) pack leader.I’ll get to that entry. Thank you…”
    -here it is once again…u judge the others….
    And i can say: I’m really amazed how people still continue to come on MJ’s websites and act like “they are obejective” and do not pretend to change the others opinions, when in truth they continue to try to do that like the only know the truth.
    He’s damned right. As they say, ‘Ignorance is bliss.’
    -And just to add: if EVER Jordan chandler come to us saying that the accusations were true, but with PROOFS, who said we could’n t believe him?
    But til now he didn’t, and all the things surrouindig the allegations are totaly bogus, or at least questionable, expecially if the sources(talking about the media) are the mirror, the sun….


  122. Ashley permalink
    August 30, 2010 2:10 pm

    The way I see it, if Michael Jackson was guilty, he would have paid the money up front rather than go through a strip search and let his name get dragged through the mud. Besides, he didn’t settle. His insurance company did. I don’t for one second believe anything criminal went on except for on the Chandler’s and Arvizo’s parts and their extortion attempts.


  123. Anonymous1 permalink
    September 6, 2010 4:54 am


    What a waste of flesh and oxygen you are. Devoid of intelligence and a shinning example of human failure. I agree with others who have ignored this retard. It’s difficult to feel sorry for such an ignoramus when evidence and court documents are readily available. Perhaps she can’t read? Beyond being a racist, she is a homophobe. When confronted with facts, the only retort this person can muster is an awkward laugh and a slur. Embarassing and pathetic; why are the zealots the one’s with the least sense?
    Michael Jackson was never a threat to harm anyone. The man had been in the public eye practically all his life. Though the public didn’t “know” Michael personally, we heard and read about him for decades, it amazes me how quickly people accepted some stories about him from people we know even less about. Where are his hundreds of victims typical to known pedophiles? With all the hundreds of employees and shady people in and out of his life, why did it take so long for this story to become public? With all the cameras around his home, nothing was caught on tape? People are so gullible. What I really want to know is the real reason behind this media assasination (greed, racism?)and is it still possible for the truly guilty to stand trial: i.e. National Enquirer propositioning boys to lie about being molested, Sneddon contaminating evidence and presenting it in court, etc…?


  124. lcpledwards permalink
    January 7, 2011 8:25 am

    Hey guys, our adversary emailed us and said that she had “proof” that the person running this anti-MJ site was none other than Charles Thomson! Her “proof” consisted of the fact that someone on her “team” emailed that site, and a reply was sent from an email address that looked eerily similar to Thomson’s.

    I forwarded her email to Thomson, and he replied to our adversary by threatening legal action against her and her web hosting company if anyone posted any lies about him owning this site. Our adversary replied back to Thomson and attached 2 screenshots showing the reply that she received from the owners of this site, whose email is a Gmail account, while Thomson’s is a hotmail account. Other than that discrepancy, the emails were exactly the same, and that’s where the confusion happened!

    Our adversary did something that haters usually do: jump to conclusions! When she saw that Gmail email address, she jumped to the conclusion that it was Charles Thomson, and immediately assumed that he was running this site. This is how MJ haters conduct their “research”!! Our adversary got played!

    You’ll notice that I said that she referred to her “team”. No tell me this: what kind of full-time college student has the time and money to hire a “team” to help her with her site? Exactly! I never believed for a second that our adversary was who she claimed to be!

    One last thing: here is an excerpt of the email that the real owners of this site sent to our adversary. They claim to be “fans” who don’t like the fact that MJ’s crimes have been “whitewashed”, or whatever. Here it is:

    “I can state categorically that the site is NOT run by Ray Chandler as alleged in the link you provided. It is run by a loose collection of people who are concerned about the lack of L.O.V.E. shown by a certain section of rabid Michael Jackson fans, and the attempted whitewashing of Michael Jackson’s dubious actions. If you hate Michael Jackson, then we are not your kind of people. We merely do not like some of the things Michael Jackson did. Most of us continue to enjoy his music and also understand he was an entertainer with flaws. Nobody (outside a particular circle) will ever be entirely sure if he was guilty of molestation or not, unless further compelling evidence comes to light.

    Ladies and gentlemen, that is the “description” of the people who run that site! Personally, I don’t believe it at all! I think there is something very suspicious about that answer, because I don’t know how anyone can claim to think MJ is guilty and still like his music. I think that answer was a smokescreen for their real motives, which they will surely tell to our adversary once she earns their trust. We’ll see!

    In the meantime, Charles has posted this new entry to his blog, and has reported the impersonators to the webhosting company responsible for the domain name. Let’s hope that site gets shut down!!


  125. January 7, 2011 11:04 am

    “our adversary emailed us and said that she had “proof” that the person running this anti-MJ site was none other than Charles Thomson! Her “proof” consisted of the fact that someone on her “team” emailed that site, and a reply was sent from an email address that looked eerily similar to Thomson’s.”

    David, I regard this information as top important. Our adversaries are employing very dirty methods of figthing real Michael’s supporters – Charles Thomson in the first place. This “impersonator” thing may be one of their novel methods and none of us are immune to their attacks. I wouldn’t be surprised if we find things like ch.thompson or c.thomson fake mails and nicks appearing in the same way fake trade brands appear on the consumer market.

    You cite their statement:
    “I can state categorically that the site is NOT run by Ray Chandler as alleged in the link you provided. It is run by a loose collection of people who are concerned about the lack of L.O.V.E. shown by a certain section of rabid Michael Jackson fans, and the attempted whitewashing of Michael Jackson’s dubious actions.
    If you hate Michael Jackson, then we are not your kind of people. We merely do not like some of the things Michael Jackson did. Most of us continue to enjoy his music and also understand he was an entertainer with flaws. Nobody (outside a particular circle) will ever be entirely sure if he was guilty of molestation or not, unless further compelling evidence comes to light.”

    Aha, so this is how the people running the site describe themselves? Whoever they are their statement is a marvelous example of incredibly catchy phrases where one thing contradicts the other and the overall impression is that of a deep confusion. The whole thing is meant for effect only and is targeted at those who don’t look into the essence of words but go by their “outer look” only.

    There are a couple of things which are meant to poison the minds of true Michael’s supporters:

    1) They say that by defending Michael we do not show L.O.V.E. for him (so are we showing hate this way?). This is crazy logic even for a hater, so let us assume there is some sense in what they are saying – most probably they mean that in order to really show love we need to be objective to Michael’s “deeds”.

    But we are objective because we have studied every bit of haters’ “evidence” and found nothing there to prove their point. We are not rabid fans but are serious researchers into the real facts and support Michael consciously.

    2) They say that they are concerned about our lack of love for Michael. If they are “concerned” it means that it is probably them who really love him? So they think him guilty but “love” him, while we think him innocent and “don’t love” him? Incredible logic…

    3) They say we are not their kind of people. This is true – we indeed have nothing in common.

    4) They say they don’t like the things Michael Jackson did and hint at “molestation”. This is meant to imply that we, in contrast to them, approve of “it”. This way they shift the focus from the fact that Michael was innocent to the idea that we blindly believe in his innocence and are ready to forgive him anything.

    5) They say they are waiting for some compelling evidence (and before it appears they will keep calling him disgusting names). We say we don’t need anyone to tell us that Michael Jackson was innocent – we can prove it ourselves and by proving that can even create a certain favorable environment for the former accusers to come up with the truth.

    6) They won’t defend MJ because they think him guilty. We will defend him because we not only think but know him to be innocent.

    7) But what they are doing is not only thinking him guilty. They are not passively waiting for the exonerating evidence to appear – no, they have a blog of their own where they collect all possible hateful information about Michael and press it on their readers with the zeal only Diane Dimond and Bashir can rival.

    With “fans” like that who needs ENEMIES?


  126. Suzy permalink
    January 7, 2011 11:39 am

    I wonder what perverted person can be a fan of someone whom he/she believes to be a pedophile.

    Either it’s not true they are fans, they just say they are because they believe that would give more credibility to it when they say they believe him to be guilty. Diane Dimond, Nancy Grance and Martin Bashir all used this tactic, mentioning how they used to be big fans of Michael’s music.

    Or these are people of the Thomas O’Caroll type….

    As for the “compelling evidence” they are waiting for. I don’t think ANYTHING would convince these people. Not even Gavin Arvizo and Jordan Chandler themselves if they confessed. We already have experience with that, when some “fan” claimed to “know” MJ molested kids like Brett Barnes, Wade Robson etc. when said boys always denied it. So no, I don’t think there’s any “compelling evidence” for these sick minds.


  127. January 7, 2011 1:35 pm

    Either it’s not true they are fans, they just say they are because they believe that would give more credibility to it when they say they believe him to be guilty. Diane Dimond, Nancy Grance and Martin Bashir all used this tactic, mentioning how they used to be big fans of Michael’s music.

    Suzy, I fully agree. This is the sheep’s clothing all of them are wearing. That is why it is necessary to look at what they are doing (and at the results of their work) and not at what they are saying.

    As for the “compelling evidence” they are waiting for. I don’t think ANYTHING would convince these people. Not even Gavin Arvizo and Jordan Chandler themselves if they confessed.

    Absolutely! They will always find a way to explain it by them being “paid” by someone,”intimidated” by Michael’s fans into confessing a lie, jumping on the bandwagon when the see the tide turning in favor of Michael, etc. Haters can go as far as start screaming that Jordan should return the money and Gavin should go to prison for perjury. In fact they will do anything for the young men either to never speak up or discredit them if they do so.


  128. January 7, 2011 3:43 pm

    “Our adversary emailed us and said that she had “proof” that the person running this anti-MJ site was none other than Charles Thomson! Her “proof” consisted of the fact that someone on her “team” emailed that site, and a reply was sent from an email address that looked eerily similar to Thomson’s.”

    David, the more I read about it the more I understand what a bombshell it is. Not only did you (via Desiree) uncover a fraudulent scheme to set up Thomson but we now know the stealthy methods they are using for slandering Michael’s supporters (and Michael). In fact this is the SECOND major discovery since haters attached false Monster lyrics to Michael’s song and gave them away as his confession of “being a monster unable to hide the dark side of himself any longer”.

    Over there they took Michael’s song and attached false lyrics to it creating the impression it was Michael, thus slandering him.
    Over here there is a haters’ blog whose owners use an email similar to Charles Thomson’s pretending it is him and heavily compromising him too.

    Guys, it seems that we are uncovering THE METHOD they are using to disredit people and spread lies about them. The way they are doing it there will always be someone to doubt – “I’ve read Thomson say this” “And I‘ve read him say the opposite” (showing the email as a proof). Who will take the trouble to check whether it is real Thomson’s email address or not? And if there are two identical email addresses (with only the mail-sender being different) will anyone check which one is true?

    I am amazed.. They seem to be doing it on a mass scale and what we’ve seen is just the tip of an iceberg!

    Now did you pay attention to their own information that there are several people running that yola blog? Whether Ray Chandler is among them is not important – they are just using his and Evan Chandler’s materials. But what we know for sure now is that there are several of them – a haters’ group who pose themselves as fans both in their emails (~ “Charles Thomson”) and in the content of what they are writing or posting there!

    And the explanation they gave – using (and abusing) catchy L.O.V.E. phrases which they attach to themselves though they are actually haters – is also a standard way of misleading people.

    Guys, these people are professionals and they know what they are doing….


  129. shelly permalink
    January 7, 2011 9:59 pm

    This is what Charles Thomson posted

    An Update on the Impersonation Saga
    I received an email today from Yola, the webhosting company responsible for the anti-Michael Jackson website whose owner has been impersonating me in correspondence with fans.

    In light of its owner’s illegal behaviour, Yola has suspended the offending website.

    However, the owner’s phoney gmail address, designed to look very similar to my own email address, will continue to exist because it is nothing to do with Yola. So if you try to contact me, please make sure you use the right address. Similarly, if you receive any correspondence claiming to be from me, please double check the email address.


  130. January 7, 2011 11:03 pm

    So the owner of the site thought he/she would start a compaign to destroy the fans from within. Devilish. I wonder how many haters are doing this, but the more important question is, why? This is sociopathic behaviour really extreme not to mention: illegal.


  131. January 7, 2011 11:05 pm

    Maybe this will flush out who the owner is. I wonder who really is on the lunatic fringe now.


  132. shelly permalink
    January 7, 2011 11:42 pm

    “This is sociopathic behaviour really extreme not to mention: illegal.”

    They are haters, it’s people who spend hours and hours on Internet just to spread hate on someone they didn’t know. They are sociopaths.


  133. shelly permalink
    January 7, 2011 11:48 pm

    I think someone should tell Aphrodite Jones and the others people who defend MJ. It’s very important.


  134. Anna permalink
    January 7, 2011 11:58 pm

    I glad someone thought to mention it to VindicateMJ. Even if it is one of VindicateMJ’s adversaries. I bet the owner didn’t expect anyone to report it to Charles. They probably thought if a fan noticed the similarity with the e-mail addresses that they would be so hurt and dissppointed that they wouldn’t say anything, hence thinking the information on the website was actually valid. I guess they didn’t wager that a hater would brag about it to the VindicateMJ team about Charles being one of them. It’s just scary what some of these haters will stoop too.


  135. January 8, 2011 8:06 am

    “In light of its owner’s illegal behaviour, Yola has suspended the offending website. However, the owner’s phoney gmail address, designed to look very similar to C.Thomson’s own email address, will continue to exist because it is nothing to do with Yola.”

    Shelly, the news of their site being suspended is great. I hope they block it for good. It is a pity that it happened somewhat at Charles Thomson’s expense, but now at least we know what dirty tricks haters are up to.


  136. January 8, 2011 8:09 am

    “So the owner of the site thought he/she would start a compaign to destroy the fans from within. Devilish.”

    Teva, we’ve got a reply from that site – in fact forwarded to us by our adversary – which says that SEVERAL people were working for that site. I suspect that now they will start anew somewhere else, so we should be on the lookout.


  137. January 8, 2011 8:51 am

    “I glad someone thought to mention it to VindicateMJ. Even if it is one of VindicateMJ’s adversaries. I bet the owner didn’t expect anyone to report it to Charles. They probably thought if a fan noticed the similarity with the e-mail addresses that they would be so hurt and dissppointed that they wouldn’t say anything, hence thinking the information on the website was actually valid. I guess they didn’t wager that a hater would brag about it to the VindicateMJ team about Charles being one of them. It’s just scary what some of these haters will stoop too.”

    Anna, your conclusions are absolutely correct.
    – The site and fake “Charles Thomson” was mentioned to us by Desiree, our long-time adversary – for which I am very grateful to her and to God who was guiding her hand.

    – Our David was the first to immediately react. He sent a letter to Charles relating the whole thing – which means that the trust we have for Charles is so big that even seemingly truthful but adverse information about him did not prevent David from sharing it with Charles.

    – Charles clarified the situation by saying that the email address cited by those haters had nothing to do with him.

    – He then complained to the yola hosts and they suspended the haters’ blog within its framework on the grounds of fraudulent and illegal methods being used.

    This is how it came about. And let me stress it again – if we hadn’t developed the relations of trust between each other and had been fuming with suspicion towards Charles Thomson (following the previous slander campaign against him) the outcome of this situation would have been totally different.

    This is why haters are trying to erode trust in the relations between Michael’s supporters and find “novel” methods of compromising each individual person.

    I don’t know any other way of safeguarding ourselves from any slander except the universal recipe given to us by the heavens – You will know the tree by its fruit. So let us judge people by what DO rather than by what they or other people say about them.

    It concerns everyone (and me too).

    I would very much like David to update this post by placing there the reprints of the messages sent to us by Desiree and explaining the story in more detail.


  138. ares permalink
    January 8, 2011 1:21 pm

    Ok. I didn’t expect that that girl would have gone so far as to do something that stupid. I am now totally convinced that she is simply a lunatic, a sociopath who really should seek a professional help. I start to feel sorry for her actually and sypmathise those who read her blog because either they have not realised that the girl is a total nutcase or they belong at the same category. And we should sympathise people who are mentally ill. Oh, and i would also like to thank her for helping us with that Charles Thompson e-mail. I don’t think she realised that she worked for us but she did. Thank you.


  139. Jan permalink
    January 8, 2011 2:34 pm

    part 7 of interview of william with tom mesereau:


  140. Jan permalink
    January 8, 2011 2:37 pm

    here are quick links for william campaign:


  141. lcpledwards permalink
    January 8, 2011 7:29 pm

    Helena, I will update this post with all of the correspondence between myself, Charles Thomson, our adversary, and Yola in another day or two.


  142. lcpledwards permalink
    January 9, 2011 12:58 am

    @ Helena
    I have updated the post with all of our emails!


  143. Jan permalink
    January 9, 2011 8:46 pm

    see william wagener latest:


  144. Laura permalink
    January 15, 2011 1:32 am

    Don’t believe the little worm.

    Chirping Charlie has his website back up at

    A simple Google search for information that was on his old site brings up this new one.

    His ugly comments about Michael are proof of his credentials.


  145. Laura permalink
    January 15, 2011 1:44 am

    How easy would it be just to put a Yola logo, “This website is not available.” and a link on a web page, and then claim it has been suspended? Maybe one of you web gurus can say.

    Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?


  146. visitor permalink
    January 15, 2011 2:14 am

    What are you saying? I don’t understand you?


  147. Anna permalink
    January 15, 2011 2:25 am

    Umm, all this means is that the owners of the site found a way to host the site somewhere else. It was silly for the owner to try and impersonate Charles. Honestly if Charles was the owner I don’t think he would have had a e-mail that would not have resemebled his hotmail address in anyway. He is a young freelance journalist, having his name associated with such a site like this one could seriously damage his credibility as a journalist.


  148. mjfanforlife permalink
    January 15, 2011 3:30 am

    “having his name associated with such a site like this one could seriously damage his credibility as a journalist”

    And having his name associated with The Sun tabloid newspaper wouldn’t? Don’t be so naive. It looks to me like he’s having a bet each way. Laura made a good point – we only have Charles’ word (for what it’s worth) that the other website has been suspended. This looks like an elaborate ruse to deflect a bit of heat. I bet Charles wasn’t counting on our adversary emailing VindicateMJ – that must have given him a shock. Look at the spin he is putting on. As the old saying goes… “methinks the lady protesteth too much”. In this case the “lady” is Charles.


  149. gigi permalink
    January 15, 2011 3:38 am

    umm…ok i’m with Visitor. the recent posts from Laura, Anna, mjfanforlife. what in the world are you guys/gals talking about?


  150. visitor permalink
    January 15, 2011 3:45 am

    Anna is making a valid point. Now Laura and mjfanforlife are in my opinion the same person who is trying to slander C.Thompson. Pretty pathetic in my opinion.Enough with the games.


  151. Anna permalink
    January 15, 2011 4:12 am

    So the only evidence we have is that Charles is the owner of the website is the fact that ‘our adversary’ got an e-mail from a user saying he was Charles Thomson and using an email that resembled Charles yahoo account. Yeah I think being outed as secret hater who’s out there writing articles for the public about Michael being innocent of the allegations would damage his credibility more than being associated with the Sun. How does that make me naive, especially when there is not other solid evidence to support that he is infact running this site, it’s just specualtin at this point.


  152. lcpledwards permalink
    January 15, 2011 4:14 am

    @ mjfanforlife and Laura:
    Did either one of you bother to read the email correspondence that I posted in the update at the end of the post? Do you guys honestly believe that Charles is behind that website? Yola replied to Charles and suspended the account (which proves that we have more than Charles’ word), and if you open the link to the original site above, you’ll see that it is no longer there, and it has since been moved to a new site. Also, the new site makes reference to us “crazy” fans who used “unscrupulous” tactics to get their original site taken down, and directs their readers to visit Topix, which I assume is an MJ haters forum.


  153. Anna permalink
    January 15, 2011 4:14 am

    Opps hotmail acct. not yahoo acct.


  154. Anna permalink
    January 15, 2011 4:20 am


    Good to see you David, I find it ironic that Charles’ name is getting slandered so soon after he posted that rebuttal of the TMZ Blanket/Dentist story. Coincidence? Hmmm.


  155. January 15, 2011 6:04 am


    My apologies to you. I did read you post and what you said made sense to me. Lot of comments here, so I was scrolling back/forth to make sure I had the names right in my comment and wrote your name by mistake.


  156. Suzy permalink
    January 15, 2011 7:05 am

    If Charles really thought MJ was guilty, why would he write articles for the public saying he was innocent? Doesn’t make sense.

    It’s odd how desperate some people are to slander Charles by any means. Guess some people don’t like the fact that he is so successful at publishing in MJ’s defence on popular websites, hence he became a target. I don’t know if it’s “just” jealousy or there are deeper agendas going on behind the curtain.


  157. Suzy permalink
    January 15, 2011 7:17 am

    BTW, if this is an attempt to make Charles grow tired and shut up about MJ’s innocence then I hope it will only make him more determined to defend him in public!


  158. January 15, 2011 7:32 am

    Laura: “Don’t believe the little worm. Chirping Charlie has his website back up at His ugly comments about Michael are proof of his credentials.”
    MJfanforlife: “As the old saying goes… “methinks the lady protesteth too much”. In this case the “lady” is Charles.”

    I can’t believe what I see here and don’t know how to interpret it.
    On the one hand, ugly comments like the above may be proof of these people’s own credentials, but on the other hand, it may be indicative that some Michael’s fans are completely blind and deaf. I don’t know which one it is and frankly, which one is better.

    If we give them the benefit of the doubt let them think over a couple of simple questions:

    – If somebody is cunning enough to live a “double life”, will he want to disclose himself by sending out e-mails from the address which is identical to his real e-mail address (except the mail system)?
    – Won’t it be an invitation to open fire at him? Will you open fire at yourself this way?

    But trying hard as I can I still cannot help asking the rest of us and myself another question:

    So there are many of them here? Calling themselves die-hard fans?


  159. January 15, 2011 8:19 am

    “It’s odd how desperate some people are to slander Charles by any means. Guess some people don’t like the fact that he is so successful at publishing in MJ’s defence on popular websites, hence he became a target. I don’t know if it’s “just” jealousy or there are deeper agendas going on behind the curtain.”

    Suzy, I fully agree – Charles being a target again is not a chance occurrance. All of it looks like a systematic effort to discredit him, done via several blogs and various covert methods like the one we are witnessing in the haters’ site. And I am not prepared to think that it is simple “jealosy” on the part of his less successful colleagues – there is a much deeper agenda behind it all. They are trying to silence him this way. I bet if he stops writing about Michael they will leave him alone.


  160. Anna permalink
    January 15, 2011 8:31 am

    ‘If somebody is cunning enough to live a “double life”, will he want to disclose himself by sending out e-mails from the address which is identical to his real e-mail address (except the mail system)?
    – Won’t it be an invitation to open fire at him? Will you open fire at yourself this way?”

    Well, that’s why the whole thing doesn’t add up for me, and honestly it’s so easy to make a fake e-mail account, and steel someone’s internet identity really. I’m sure anyone could replicate the first part of anyone’s e-mail address if it was available.

    Back to your point which I agree is with is if he did own the hater site why would he reveal his true name, when he would know very well how much the MJ haters dislike him, they can’t keep their name out of their mouths over at Topix. Just today on twitter he was talking about how they always say he’s Deborah Ffrench, which has become kind of a joke by now. So if through this hater site or whatever he wanted to appeal to haters who frequented that site using the name in an e-mail reply that many haters associate as being “a floon” as they like to call it, well wouldn’t that challenge his credibility as a true hater on their end?

    It just doesn’t add up in my opinion.

    “But trying hard as I can I still cannot help asking the rest of us and myself another question:
    So there are many of them here? Calling themselves die-hard fans?”

    I think I see what you are asking, are you asking if their are people here masking as die-hard fans but are really haters?


  161. January 15, 2011 8:48 am

    “are you asking if their are people here masking as die-hard fans but are really haters?”


    And not only here, but everywhere else.

    With all these people changing their faces so quickly, moving from one site to another, making random comment here and there, screaming that they are fans – and than suddenly striking against the most ardent and proven Michael’s supporters like Charles Thomson, it is easy to develop a paranoya of a type they accused Michael of. I can understand Michael’s loss at not knowing whom to believe – with so many hater chameleons around nothing can be easier…

    By the way the reason why they accuse Charles Thomson of being two-faceted is exactly because they behave that way themselves. It is a classical self-identification phenomenon, in which people reveal their true identity by attributing their own dirty thoughts and actions to others.


  162. Anna permalink
    January 15, 2011 9:02 am


    Sadly I do think that might be the case. I’m going t be sending an e-mail your way if you don’t mind checking sometime today.


  163. January 15, 2011 9:08 am

    “I’m going t be sending an e-mail your way if you don’t mind checking sometime today.’

    Anna, please do. I will be away for some time but hope to still have a chance to communicate with you and the blog.

    “honestly it’s so easy to make a fake e-mail account, and steel someone’s internet identity really”

    Nothing can be easier. Mind you that we never do it for them, while they easily do it for us. I think that somebody is already masking as me somewhere in the web as I couldn’t register with one internet service provider recently because they said my usual nick containing a not too easy combination of numbers added to my name was already taken by somebody else!


  164. Suzy permalink
    January 15, 2011 10:39 am

    The interesting thing to me is what motivates these people? Is hate really such a strong motivating force that they can make it a living and an obsession to hate a dead person?

    I mean, David is right: for someone to spend so much time on writing posts and articles attacking someone who is dead, well, it makes you wonder if they have a life outside of posting hateful comments on Michael Jackson on the Internet?

    I love Michael but I have my life and interests outside of him as well. The haters seem to be occupied and obsessed with him 24/7. Odd. So that makes me wonder if it’s just hate (can it be THAT strong still, after he died?) or is there some kind of deeper interest behind all this that motivates this “movement” (Like the interest of Victor Guiterrez….) or maybe it would require a deeper phsycological analysis to understand these people.

    Anyway, like they say, only truly great people evoke such strong feelings on either side of the spectrum (be it love or hate).


  165. Olga permalink
    January 15, 2011 2:24 pm

    “By the way the reason why they accuse Charles Thomson of being two-faceted is exactly because they behave that way themselves. It is a classical self-identification phenomenon, in which people reveal their true identity by attributing their own dirty thoughts and actions to others.”



  166. Alison permalink
    January 15, 2011 7:51 pm

    I just subscribed my email address to the link to William’s campaign. I will support the documentary, but he does say one of the goals would be to indict ssss..d..on and co, but i thought it was too late for that to happen??

    i agree these haters must have a bigger agenda than just expressing hate, and for all we know they could just be a few people who use many different names to make it seem that lots of people hate Michael Jackson. i stop going to sites where there’s loads of hate because its too horrible. its weird to hate someone you don’t know so much, its different to loving someone as fans that you don’t personally know. you can love as fans because you admire what they do, say, you think they are cool, you share their perspective and values, you might fancy them and desire them, you see the person and love what you see. but why hate so stongly?, it doesn’t make sense. and especially Michael. I can understand that a person may be neutral if they are not into pop stars or music or dancing, or someone could appreciate his technical skill and not be bothered further than that.

    But whats to hate?? even if you believed he was guilty of those crimes,that still doesn’t make ‘hate’ a logical response for loads of people. I’m not sure if you can hate someone you don’t know unless you hate a group and they are a part of that group.

    I think what hitler did and what stalin did and what the bloke that kept the little girl locked in the shed and had his baby did were all really terrible and unforgiveable things and they are vile people who have to answer to God for their crimes, and i hate what they did, but i personally don”t hate them. how can i? , i don’t know them and what they did did not affect me or my family personally.
    If my family or people i loved had been affected i am sure i would hate them.

    Gary Glitter was guilty of the p..le crimes he was accused of and i would never support him, i don’t like him (well i didn’t before that either) but i don’t hate him, i have no emotion towards him except ‘euhhr what a horrible person’, and then ignore him. i wouldn’t waste time and energy going on the internet to comment about how horrible he is.

    so with Michael i feel its maybe all driven by someone who knew him in some way and has nursed a personal vendetta against him, either out of jealousy or from bitterness about something where they think they lost out or should have got something they didn’t. either that or its a racist agenda, or people – corporations – with lots to lose if lots of people follow Michael’s way regarding ecology or some humanitarian cause.

    i don’t know, its beyond me. i spent the afternoon watching dvd’s of Michael, and i don’t understand why everyone doesn’t love him!!
    fabulous bod! beautiful face, eyes and smile! great moves – love the way he moves his legs and flicks his hips! gets me every time! and love everything about him.
    actually i never saw the video for man in the mirror before today and it was so moving. how anyone can think the man who did that could also be a p..le! ridiculous!

    oh i am going to have a large martini now!
    sorry for long post. i only have the internet to express myself about Michael, my friends aren’t interested and think i am a bit mad.however one did buy me the Michael CD for christmas which was thoughtful, she didn’t know i hadn’t decided about getting it or not. so i have been listening to it and i quite like quite a lot of it actually, it just doesn’t have that extra pzazz it would have had if he had finished it himself.


  167. ares permalink
    January 15, 2011 8:38 pm

    @ Alison
    Loool. I loved your comment and especially this part -i don’t understand why everyone doesn’t love him!!- Yes, this is what everyone of us is wondering ahahahahaha.


  168. Chris permalink
    January 15, 2011 9:37 pm

    @ Alison

    I agree with everything you said, but there is one thing that is bothering me when people talk about why people hate on MJ and always seems to be over looked.

    Everyone talks about race and stuff but knowone seems to mention one of the most fundemental prejudices. The class divide.

    Michael was a kid from a 4 roomed house who wasn’t educated at a Cambridge or Harvard and ended up becoming so sucessful that he gave the best part of half a billion to charity and told president Clinton you need to do something about AIDS. LOL how many people can tell the most powerfu man on the planet wat to do?

    Even though now we are referred to as common isn’t that just progressive from peasant?
    The class divide has become bigger now than it ever has been before. There are still people struggling yet the rich get richer and richer. Just because living conditions have improved doesn’t change the fact that we are considered lesser than our middle and higher class “superiors”.

    Michael broke the trend, when you become rich your supposed to bask in glory and look down on everyone else. Not Michael he spent his money on trying to hold every1 else up. Yeah he bought some expensive things but he had earned it and needed it to escape from society fo a while.

    I really do believe that it is the most overlooked thing regarding Michael’s outragous treatment. Your not allowed to question politians, your not allowed to go to Brazil and stick up a middle finger at policemen who standby and allow criminal activity (didn’t that video cost the Brazil government the olimpics or World Cup?), your not allowed to question the people who decide what is socially acceptable.
    “You must behave like a high class respected citizen” which they determine for you and then lie and act like hypocrites but when they do it it’s acceptable. E.G. Illegal wars and expenses scams.

    People only build lower class people up to knock back down and put them in their place. MJ was the undisputed people’s champion. He inspired, raised hope and brought attention to things others didn’t have the testicular fortitude to speak on. Long live the King!


  169. lcpledwards permalink
    January 15, 2011 10:29 pm

    @ Sharman
    Here is the link to the FBI files, direct from the official FBI website. Although Jordie’s name was redacted, we know it was him because the FBI travelled to New York to interview a “witness”, and the witness threatened legal action because he had “done his part”. Who else could it be besides Jordie? Jordie has lived in New York since the mid-90s, and they wouldn’t have flown out there unless they really wanted him to testify.

    Open the file that is dated September 14, 2004 to December 9, 2004, and read page 4, and you’ll see it for yourself. The FBI typically redacts the names of people listed in their files who are alive, are alleged victims, who are dignitaries, who are informants, or anyone else whose privacy must be protected.


  170. lcpledwards permalink
    January 15, 2011 10:58 pm

    @ Sharman
    The FBI didn’t “assume” anything: they were there when Jordie was interviewed about testifying against MJ. When the files were released in December 2009 under the Freedom of Information Act, they intentionally redacted numerous names throughout the files, and also chose not to released hundreds of pages as well.

    I think you may have incorrectly assumed that his name was going to be listed, but that would be a violation of his privacy, and thus it was redacted, as were many other names (for example, the names of the FBI special agents who interviewed him as well).

    Jordie Chandler is the only person who Sneddon and his goons would have flown to New York to interview during that time period. His threatening to take legal action is totally consistent with the actions of his uncle Ray, who DID take legal action to quash Mesereau’s subpoena (which is discussed in this post: ) NOBODY just “assumed” that it was Jordie in order to fool everyone into thinking MJ was innocent. When you look at everything in its totality, you’ll see for yourself that MJ was innocent in 1993 and 2005. Judging from the tone of your comment, I presume that you are on the fence about MJ’s innocence, or you may believe he’s guilty?

    Please browse through the other posts we have on this site before jumping to the conclusion that we have the same standards as a tabloid. This is one of the best sites on the internet for MJ research. To be honest, since you claimed to have searched through “every single FBI document” and couldn’t find Jordie’s name, and couldn’t conclude that it was him who threatened legal action, what does that say about your research and reasoning skills? Did you really expect the FBI to name him?


  171. Alison permalink
    January 15, 2011 11:32 pm

    @ Sharman

    aren’t all names redacted off the files? why pick out Jordie’s as not there?

    it was known long before the FBI files were released that Jordie threatened legal action, and that he left the country to avoid being subpoenaed, its not something David made up from the files.
    Personally I visit this site because i think it carries the most truth and is working hard to sift through information to wrestle for the truth, which hardly anyone does.


  172. lynande51 permalink
    January 16, 2011 5:15 am

    @sharman. I don’t think it is fair for you to be able to come here from your lovely spot and question us when you don’t let us comment on yours.


  173. January 16, 2011 9:18 am


    – Jordan Chandler did NOT show up to testify against Michael in 2005 (although was asked to).

    – The guy in the FBI files is quoted saying he’s “done his part”.

    – The guy in the FBI files lived in New York and Jordan Chandler lived in New York.

    – Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler was running scared too when Michael’s DEFENSE team tried to subpoena him.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know who the guy in the FBI files was…. Of course, they wouldn’t name him, but it’s clearly Jordan Chandler. Or has anybody seen him testify against Michael in 2005? Does anybody seriously believe Sneddon didn’t try to get him testify?


  174. Suzy permalink
    January 16, 2011 9:19 am

    Last one was me, Suzy.


  175. January 16, 2011 11:48 am

    Sharman, you’ve asked a few questions. Let me answer as best as I can:

    “Do you possibly have the original version without names blanked out? Do have have a different copy of the FBI files?!?!”

    No, we don’t have the original version of the FBI file without names blanked out and a different copy of it. If we were spies we probably would but we are not and have to comply with the rules.

    “If so, where can I get a copy??”

    I think you can try to apply to the FBI directly. If your effort is successful we would be exceptionally grateful to you if you showed us the original. Tell us if you need any help (including financial) from our side, please.

    “OK, I read all that, so they are just assuming it was Jordie? Pretty sloppy, don’t you think? The advice of this site is not to take things at face value, yet here they are doing just that. I like to base assumptions on things rather less ephemeral.”

    Yes, we are assuming it was Jordie because:
    – on the one hand we have the FBI explicitly saying that the witness refused to provide a testimony for the prosecution and threatened to take legal action if they insisted,
    – on the other hand we have the prosecution and Ray Chandler who equally explicitly said Jordan Chandler would not agree to testify though he was (repeatedly) approached with such a request.
    So we’ve just put two and two together though admit that the actual name of the witness is blanked out.

    If this is agreed let me ask you a question too – if you think our conclusion ephemeral, than you will surely disregard the information from some vague “witnesses” who came up with some vague stories about hearing some suspicious noises from an adjoining train compartment where they saw someone who looked like an international superstar traveling all alone with a child, won’t you?

    As their names are blanked out too you’ll surely agree that:
    – you don’t know who they are,
    – you don’t know whether they are not mentally ill, have normal eyesight or are complete imbeciles who took an impersonator for the real thing, even despite total lack of bodyguards usually shielding the star from mobbing,
    – you don’t have a possibility to check the motives of these “witnesses” as they may be seeking fame for themselves and money from the fame gained this way, or are a simple example of nosy and burdensome citizens who terrorize everyone in their own neighborhood by gossip, innuendoes and meddling in other people’s affairs.

    The final question will be:
    Since the FBI closed that case can you assume that their story was complete BS? Or do you need to have their name to make sure of it?


  176. Alison permalink
    January 16, 2011 12:04 pm


    “if we were spies we probably would but we are not and have to comply with the rules……… you can try to apply to the FBI directly…tell us if you need any help (including financial).

    LOL !!!!!!! love it!


  177. lynande51 permalink
    January 16, 2011 5:01 pm

    Is anybody game to ask for the FBI files on Evan Chandler under the Freedom Of Information act. We could get one on him now that he is deceased. Wasn’t it Charles that asked for Michael’s to be released. If he would like to tell me how to go about it I will ask for Evan Chandler’s.
    Actually I just answered my own question, I visited the FBI Freedom Of Information Act website and found out the procedure. I am just going to ask you Helena if I should ask for them for personal use or should I say I want to use them for scientific/research purpose. I do intend to disseminate the information to the Public if and when I get them and I am not sure if I can do that without journalistic credentials. I have read all of the exclusions and have not found any reason that they would be witheld under the law except for redacting the names of the Law Enforcement and FBI Special Agents involved in any investigations. If I understand the FOIA correctly we could ask for Jordan’s as well, the person does not have to be deceased to make the request. Which if my understanding is correct can we then ask for any files they might have on Victor Gutierrez as well.


  178. January 16, 2011 6:43 pm

    “Is anybody game to ask for the FBI files on Evan Chandler under the Freedom Of Information act. If I understand the FOIA correctly we could ask for Jordan’s as well, the person does not have to be deceased to make the request. Which if my understanding is correct can we then ask for any files they might have on Victor Gutierred as well.”

    Lynette, what a smashing idea. I am nearly fainting with it. Oh, I do believe in your system of justice and the opportunities it gives. Incredible opportunities. And we definitely need those files for scientific/research purposes and we definitely intend to disseminate the information to the public if we get them. Keeping my fingers crossed so that we get them…

    If we are not journalistic enough to approach them could we ask Charles Thomson to initiate the process?


  179. Olga permalink
    January 16, 2011 7:02 pm

    Lynette, I remember reading in an article and also hearing the FBI agent who was on tv that the files can be released after death. But you can ask Charles


  180. Alison permalink
    January 16, 2011 11:07 pm

    Wow! yes, yes YES!!
    get them Lynette! do you have to pay? do you need some money, not sure how to send it to you but willing to.
    but also, can people stop it or object to it? if so, you better delete the posts below.


  181. Alison permalink
    January 16, 2011 11:22 pm

    i can give money to Charles Thomson, he is in UK.
    got some other suggestions too when you’ve deleted the posts, if you do. if you don’t, i’ll post anyway but they will definitely object if they know. and people may be watching.


  182. Alison permalink
    January 17, 2011 1:02 am

    Lynette there is some useful info here about the process and what Charles’ experience was:


  183. Olga permalink
    January 17, 2011 8:02 pm

    Charles told me that Evan doesn’t have an FBI file. He has already checked it


  184. Dialdancer permalink
    January 18, 2011 1:27 am

    Olga said;

    “Charles told me that Evan doesn’t have an FBI file. He has already checked it.”

    I would have been surprised if he had a file or if he had there would have been a report on the 93 extortion. Neither DA Office was interested in looking into that. There was no State investigation nothing which crossed into Federal criminal jurisdiction it was not a Federal case. It would have taken one of the DA’s to request FBI investigative assistance to open one. Only once a case is opened does it create a file. Remember Michael’s file was originally created due to the death threats and attempted extortion of him and Bush Sr. which required Secret Service, DOJ & FBI teams.

    There was the embarrassment factor which played in both investigations. If you knew or found out you were looking at the wrong person how do you go after the right one without looking more of an incompetent? That scenario only works on TV. The FBI working in SB knew Sneddon played fast and loose with the timeline and withheld exculpatory evidence, but they did not say anything about either nothing written in MJ’s File about that……Embarrassment.


  185. nan permalink
    January 21, 2011 4:39 am

    well that desiree might be right about just one thing . Michael probably wouldn’t be interested in kim kardasian in a sexual manner.
    especially since she had her birthday party at neverland when she was little girl and her family, as well as paris hilton family, were good friends with him..seems she doesn’t even know the basics about mj..
    beyonce was much more his type..


  186. January 21, 2011 5:17 pm

    We are back with a brand-new domain name , and there’s nothing you menopausal child hating women can do to shut us down. We will expose Michael Jackson for the true child mol-r he/it was.

    Ha ha ha ha ha.


  187. visitor permalink
    January 21, 2011 5:30 pm

    @Topix Haters Rule
    welcome back. We didn’t miss you at all 🙂


  188. Sharman permalink
    February 4, 2011 11:11 pm

    No getting away from that 300lb gorilla, is there? LOL



  189. ZEROMARCY permalink
    March 21, 2011 12:21 pm

    @Topix Haters Rule wowowowowow i didn’t miss u –
    get a life.
    for desirèe…hahah wtf ? didn’t she say that she was done with Michael?? and then another post?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
    @Lynette the idea of the fbi files is great


  190. shelly permalink
    September 3, 2011 1:16 pm

    This is the email Charles send me last months

    The owners of this website were banned by their former webhosts
    because they were caught impersonating me – sending emails under my
    name from an email address closely resembling my hotmail address. I
    wrote two blogs about it:

    Since they got caught and banned, they’ve stopped impersonating me in
    correspondence but still host a link on their website to my blog, in
    an attempt to make people think they are me.

    I have no idea what their reason is for doing so. It’s beyond
    childish. But I have no connection to that website whatsoever.



  191. mjjyo permalink
    May 17, 2012 3:39 pm

    Michael JACKSON’s Fans Forever!


  192. Hilary permalink
    May 17, 2012 4:22 pm

    OMG I find this hilarious. The only site with the most information against Michael is straight from the enemy’s camp!


  193. vulcan permalink
    May 18, 2015 11:03 pm

    “Regarding Fischer’s statement that Evan was unwilling to be interviewed by authorities, he was interviewed by the police on August 17, 1993, the first day of the investigation. (He declined his right to have an attorney present.) He then submitted a written statement to police under penalty of perjury, and sometime thereafter underwent a lengthy oral examination under oath by the district attorney.”

    So the police and Sneddon knew that Chandler demanded 20 million and knew that MJ refuse to pay but that somehow
    didn’t raise their eyebrows!

    They knew that Chandler didn’t even mention any kind of molestation in the documents he filed to get custody of Jordan but
    they didn’t find that contrary to his claim that he wanted to talk to MJ because he believed he was molesting Jordan.

    Or Chandler was never asked about any of those? Or he lied under oath?
    Neihter version support Chandler’s innocence.


  194. vulcan permalink
    May 19, 2015 3:08 am

    @Topix Haters Rule

    Before you could “expose” MJ as a child molester first you should find a victim who is remotely credible.

    You know, not someone who claims that he doesn’t know what ejaculate is then claims that he knows more about sex than MJ and claims that MJ happened to say the exact same thing about mastrubation as his grandmother and admits that he told his teacher MJ never did anything sexual with him and lies about never being in MJ’s room while MJ was not in Neverland and admits that he lied under oath to support his schizo mother’s false sex abuse claims etc.

    Someone who doesn’t want us to believe that despite being Jewish he doesn’t understand what circumcision is and somehow can miss the foreskin while mastrubation an uncircumcised penis 10 times!

    Someone who doesn’t want us to believe that at age 23 he doesn’t know what sex abuse is and doesn’t realize that rape is wrong and lies about not knowing about the Estate and
    contradicts not only his but his sister’s and mother’s 2005 testimonies etc.

    Someone who doesn’t change his story after the judge catches him in a contradiction that he cannot say on the on hand he didn’t testify in 2005 because he didn’t want his mother to learn that he was abused but on the other hand he didn’t understand that he was abused until he saw another liar’s lawsuit.

    You know, you should find someone like Aaron Fisher who was a real victim.

    In the meantime compare those “victims” to all these kids who defended MJ.
    I think the numbers speak for themselves.

    5 liars vs. dozens of truthtellers:

    Brett Barnes, Sean Lennon, Omar Batthi, Mark Ronson, Kelly Parker, Corey Feldman, Michael Jacobshagen, Derek Emerson, Ryan Folsey, Bobby Newt, Mac Culkin, Kirean Culkin, Dakota Culkin, Quinn Culkin, Bryton McClure, Dave Dave, Emmanuel Lewis, Alexandra Martin, Princess Elizabeth and Prince Albert von Thurn und Taxis, Billy Ramirez, Karlee Barnes, Simone Jackson, Rashida Jones, Kidada Jones, Michael Gibb, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ahmad Etabad, Perly and Morly Qi Zhen, Paris Hilton, Nicky Hilton, Marie Tourelle, Tracy Dyer, Harriet Lester, Amy Agajanian, David Agajanian, JC Agajanian, Sage Galesi, Lala Romero, Nisha Kataria, Roman Barett, Natalia Barrett, Brock Goldstein, Rhonda Ross, Chudney Ross, Nicole Grierson, Damon Stein, Megan Stein, Amanda Porter, Pudence Brando, Richard Matsura, Soleil Moon Frye , Ryan White, Austin Brown, Anthony Jackson, Taj Jackson, Taryll Jackson, Donte Jackson, Randy Jackson Jr, Mason van Valin, Bianca van Valin, Brian Romero, Bobbi Kristina Brown, Andrea White, Mallory Cyr, Deja Riley, Tamil and Lana Ramirez, Sky Ferreira, Evan Ross, Laura Chaplin. Shane Brando, Lucy Lester, Jo Jo Elatab, Rodney Allen Rippy


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: