Skip to content

“PORN” found in Michael Jackson’s home

July 13, 2010

SPREAD THIS NEWS

Our latest hater visiting here raised the issue of “porn” found at Michael Jackson’s home. She claims that “Michael Jackson was not a heterosexual. His porn collection proves absolutely nothing outside the fact he was a desperately tortured man who could not at all relate to real women. Also, he had numerous books in which the subject was nude men. One book even was a photographic study of homosexuality; very explicit and it’s content shows it was for erotic purposes. Also, the photo book that was a romantic documentation of two NUDE mens love. What straight man has that? Wake up!”

Our DAVID EDWARDS has honored her with a reply which I fully support: “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: http://lordoftheflies.org/img/kent.htm

Kent Fletcher playing PERCIVAL in the movie Lord of Flies

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?”

*    *    *

I also decided to participate in this discussion and make my own contribution to the sensitive “porn issue”. For a start I looked up THE LIST OF WHAT WAS FOUND AT NEVERLAND sometime in 2003 (which evidently included some old pieces from the 1993 case): 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-stfayCXLjudXY1b0d2c2JoSUU/view

The list is 18 pages long and I’ve been able to find information on the main evidence only but have nevertheless decided to post the interim results to show you THE WORST of what was found among the tens of thousands books in Michael Jackson’s library.

The first item is UNDERWORLD by author Kelly Klein which is probably the most ‘damning’ piece of all. The police say about it, “The book contained numerous photographs of partially and/of fully unclothed men, women and children.The majority of the pictures within this book  are of people who were wearing only underwear”.

See what the Amazon customers say about it:

  • Very interesting and capivating look at underwear, and body. Photographs taken by old masters of photography,new masters,and amatuer photographers make underworld complete. This book is as safe as you can get to another person in their underwear or lack of without the risks we face,today. Very sexy, innocent, and liberating! Bravo,Kelly…
  • A lovely book, safe on the most conservative coffee table and full of moments that generate emotions. Underworld is one of the collections of classic photography. Underworld touches me at a certain deep level and I only usually realize after I’ve paused long enough to do my occasional casual flick through it. Underworld takes my emotions back in time. Underworld obviously so well captures the sense of history that I find myself re-living being a child in the `60s and `70s flicking through the magazines in the newsagent of a small remote town. I don’t just remember those moments but for some moments I am there again. I see the images of the lifestyles that seemed so surreal to the bright starry eyes of my innocence in the photographic styles represented, possibly taken by some of the same photographers.
  • Kelly Klein, Underworld is a very nice book, in which you can see pictures taken by the world’s most renowned photographers.

The next item is ROOM TO PLAY by author Simen Johan. The police: “This book contained numerous photographs of children some of which appeared to be altered such as “morphing” a child’s face onto the body of an older person..

There is only one customer review here the essence of which I didn’t understand much (but we have a picture as an additional bonus instead):

Haunting, cinematic & wonderful. Why he hasn’t made the apparent splash loretta lux has had is beyond me. Whole worlds of mystery and intrigue are created here. These are like Crewdson children but with power.”

The next item is DREW AND JIMMY by John Patrick Salisbury. The police (you can’t imagine how boring this police review of evidence is): ..“Two Caucasian male juveniles that appeared in their early to mid-teens…. primarily clothed with occasional photographs of them wearing swim-trunk type of clothing”.

The customers say:

  • Visually pleasing as well as heart felt sicerity. I came across this book on the recommendation of the author’s mother. She was my grade school art teacher and mother of a long time classmate-Burton. I had not seen her since Burton’s funeral, but when she mentioned Patrick’s book I couldn’t resist. I had been back in Walnut Grove for a weekend visit for a girlfriend’s wedding. I had left for college a few years before and kept going. My family was not as deep rooted there as the Salisbury’s were, but I grew up there and those roots run just as deep. Whenever school or life was getting stressful, the Delta was the first place I’d run to. It was a truly wonderful place to grow up, and the book depicts the eviroment beautifully. When I saw the pictures of the glass-like water, it made me want to be behind a ski boat once more. I knew Burton well, but Patrick was always the quiet older brother. I did know that they were total opposites personality wise. Burton was always the daredevil; class clown, as well as very gifted artistically like his mother and now as I see, Patrick also. My earliest memory of Burton I have is: him standing on a huge round table in our kindergarten classroom, which he then fell off of and cracked his head open for a few stitches. We grew apart after graduation, but he was part of many good memories I had while growing up in Walnut Grove…including one of my first crushes. I think about him often, though my life is far away from where I knew him last, and I miss him. Thank you Patrick for a little more closure.
  • Beautiful and thoughtful. Salisbury has created a wonderful jounal of growth and sensitivity. He has pulled at his heart to create this cronology of youth to adulthood. A somber passing, it would seem, for him.
  • The best Christmas present ever. Through the medium of photography you watch the development of the personalities of two young men in a more personal and detailed way than words could ever express. Drew & Jimmy is a journey from adolescence to manhood for both the boys and the reader made all the more personal by the poignant story of the author and his brother. The growth and development of the author are also evident in the beautifully cropped works of art that make up this extraordinary book. I received this book for Christmas and it is one of my treasures.

Now at last we are coming to something worthy of attention judging by the title of the book: THE FOURTH SEX, ADOLESCENT EXTREMES. The police are naturally playing the same old tune: ” “The vast majority of the pictures were of teenagers and/or young adults. Some of the pictures depicted individuals wearing no clothing, or in a state of partial dress. The theme of the book seemed to be adolescents and counter culture”.

There is only one customer’s review here but the picture speaks volumes both about the book and the wild ways adolescence is usually all about:

  • “Totally a good book to buy” – Odd but awesome book! an expressionistic piece of art. a book filled with a colaboration of photographs that show the feeling of being an adolesent and shows real life in action. a fun book to look at with friends. also in this book is diary entries from different people and old magazine covers. an allover nifty buy. i promise youll love it!”

The Amason.com however describes the book as a top serious study:

  • “If we consider the male, female and homosexual as the first, second and third sex, the fourth sex might be that of adolescents. But adolescence is above all a sexually undefined state. Teenagers are not little boys or little girls, and they are not yet men or women. They are part of a parallel, fluid universe in a state of becoming. They belong decisively to the present, but in symbolic terms they are the seeds of the future. Adolescence is also a state of mind, an existential condition with a powerful impact on lifestyles and trends. Teenagers are omnivorous, tireless consumers, careless but at times attentive, easily influenced but autonomous. Off balance between the present and the future, they seem overexcited and at the same time strangely passive. They often give form to their world and their culture in an aggressive manner, but at the same time they are forced to come to grips with the labels, judgments and formulae of adults. Their behaviour patterns are constantly monitored because they represent a decisive segment of the strategy of consumption. This book is constructed with images of fashion, art, music, cinema and the news, accompanied by an anthology of writings that mixes poetry, literature, journalism and research, highlighting the increasing importance of the teenage tribe in a society such as ours, where the inadequacy of sexual and demographic identities is reflected in a violent, contradictory way in the social changes in progress.”

The next item is CRONOS by Chantal Grande and other authors. The police (why are they so tedious and uninventive?) say about it: “The book appeared to be a compilation of numerous photographs depicting men, women and children of both sexes. The majority of the photographs depicted the subjects completely unclothed, including the male and female children… This type of material may be used as part of a “grooming process” facilitating the molestation of intended victims”

The picture is somewhat contradictory to the ‘grooming’ issue declared.  The customer gives a clearer idea as to what the book is really about:

“Photos stop time to show life’s motion”: “Catalan photographer Pere Formiguera’s repeated photographs of family and friends, many nude, chronicle his subjects in the same pose and setting over ten years-– showing, variously, the blooms of pubescence, adulthood, and the gentler transformations of middle and old age. Birth, puberty, aging, and death are each and together fundamentally sexual: single-celled asexual creatures just divide, never growing, coming of age, declining, or really dying. Being sexual we are “clocks of meat,” as poet Allen Ginsberg said famously. Like a strobe, Formiguera’s magnificent photos stop the clock precisely to show life’s motion”.

To save up your and my time on this unbearably wearisome police routine let me group the next three items together:

– the book “SCENES DINTERIEUR”, consisting of a compilation of photographs “of nude and/or semi-nude women, in sexually explicit poses”.

–  the book “CAMP COVE PHOTOS SYDNEY MEN”  which is a compilation of photographs of “naked and semi-naked men… the photographs were not sexually explicit in nature”

–  the third book “DRESSUP: PLAYACTS AND FANTASIES OF CHILDHOOD” being a compilation of “photographs that appeared to depict either pre-teen or early teen age individuals. Some of the pictured children were nude or fully-nude… none of the pictures were sexually explicit in nature”.

Well, there are several SCENES DINTERIEUR” on sale at Amazon.com – the worst being of women dressed in the 19th century clothes in some explicit postures and shot by French photographer Alexandre Dupouy. Very French and very naughty I would say, if this is the book the police are talking about (see more if you like). No customer reviews here.

– The second book “THE CAMP COVE: PHOTOS OF SYDNEY MEN” is by Rod McRae. The author turns out to be (you’ll never guess) a children’s  book illustrator. The customer says about the book:

“Rod McRae is a children’s book illustrator and gay art photographer who lives in Sydney, Australia. “Camp Cove” is a collection of his photographic efforts — 60 black-and-white, sepia-tinted, and color photographs of men he found in and around Sydney. Some of the images are Polaroid transfers created for a show in 1992, but others are hand-tinted images created specifically for this book. McRae’s technical skills cannot be faulted in the slightest. His composition is especially interesting. The first image in the book shows a naked man from the neck down, standing between two stuffed kangaroos. The image is fascinating – it is this unique “Sydney sensibility” that McRae says he aims to capture in his work.

McRae comes closest to achieving his goals in the sepia prints. The color photos also seem more thematic (focusing on wings, flight, and angels), but less interesting because the thematic nature of them seems to overwhelm the models rather than accentuate their innate “Sydney-ness.” Similarly, his outdoor photographs are not nearly as successful as his studio images. Here, the models are more of an afterthought. In some images the models lay on rocks as if “scattered” like stones. In others, the printing process merges the shape of the men’s bodies with the shape of the rocks. One is left with the sense that his focus seems to be on Sydney-ness, rather than on the men of Sydney. Often, the models seem lost, covered up, and obscured by the other elements of the photos. As art this works (and doesn’t”)”.

INTERESTING point about those wings, angels and flight, isn’t it?  So now we know where Michael took fresh ideas for some of his videos or concerts – for example, those angelic wings in “You are not alone” video or the flying angel coming on stage in “Will you be there”, don’t we?

– The third book titled “DRESSUP: PLAYACTS AND FANTASIES OF CHILDHOOD” hasn’t been found at Amazon.com but the rest of books listed in the “dress-up” category include innocent items like: “Fairy Fashion Dress-up book”, “My dress-up party” and so on. I wouldn’t worry much here if I were you – the “evidence” we have here seems to be a manual for children’s dressup parties where Michael’s own children would most probably take part too.

I am dying of boredom by now, but here is our next item: THE ART OF DAVE NESTLER -WICKED INTENTIONS. The title is promising to say the very least, so probably here we’ll be more lucky … The police: “the book appears to be a compilation of drawings of clothed and semi-clothed women”

The customers are more impressed by the book:

  • Original and flawless. Wow. I don’t even know where to begin because there are just so many elements to this book that I just love.

I met Dave Nestler at the Glamourcon in L.A. and looked at his art up close and personal with my own eyes and I had a long talk with him about his art and his book. And I saw with my OWN EYES the originals to these prints in this book, so I KNOW it hasn’t all been photoshopped and airbrushed for the sake of mass audience.

  • He prides himself in doing the ENTIRE book in acrylic. That’s right. Acrylic. No watercolor. No airbrushing. No photoshopping. No oil. Just acrylic. That itself is a master achievement because you RARELY find ANY artist who does erotic nude pinups with acrylic…That being said, is a HUGE achievement for ANY artist. But aside from that, there are many other reasons I like this book and one of the main ones being that half of the photos are of women in poses where they are surrounded by (what appears to be) a form of shiny duct tape or bluish leather ribbon. He has taken a form of bondage and designed it to enwrap the flesh of beautiful sexy women in a way where it defies any bondage you’ve seen before. He captures the beauty and sensuality of the skin, while putting such DETAIL into the ribbon (and again, he did NOT use the shortcut of airbrushing) that you can see every highlight and detail, you can see the leather as though it is shining right at you.
  • The first half of the book – pages 1-27 are all pictures of that (with different sexy and original pictures involving light ribbon bondage). The second half of the book – pages 28-48 are completely different and are not bondage at all and vary from a sexily dressed angel with wings and a halo, a bikini wearing woman in a fireman’s hat with water hose, a sexy female vampire, a dominatrix straddling a chair with a leather whip, a woman giving a car a carwash while straddling the hood (and the DETAIL of the car’s chrome grill will leave you BREATHLESS!), a woman in a lake surrounded by waterfalls holding a frog, a sexy woman in a safari freaked out by a snake, a sexy semi-nude brunette dressed in army camouflage, the list goes on.
  • I really cannot stress to you how valuable I think his work is. The fact that each strand of hair is done in acrylic is mind-blowing to me. If I were to compare it to something else, it’s like giving someone toothpicks and asking them to build a house out of it. He has done that. I wish I could give this 6 stars, he is fascinating!
  • Great book from a great artist. Wicked Intentions is one of the few books I own by Dave Nester and is a must for the library any pin-up art collector or tattoo artist or enthusiast of the female form. His treatment and painting style acknowledges the dignity of the subject matter while creating a seductive hunger that would make Hugh Hefner proud.
  • With every bit of Nestler’s images created meticulously by hand with layered acrylic washes and a small brush, Dave gives credo to traditional craftsmanship that most who celebrate the term “old school” cannot relate to. Out of all his books, Wicked Intentions is my personal favorite. This is a must-have for any fan of pin-up art!

I really hope this is our last: THE GYNOIDS GENETICALLY MANIPULATED by Hajime Sorayama. The police singled this book as the worst evidence of all: “..The Gynoids” appeared to have a fetish (bondage, sadomasochism, piercings, beastiality etc.) related theme”.

The customer says to that:

“This is a fantastic book which I’ve owned for along time now. It is one of the first books I obtained while starting out on the road of the Fantasy Art genre. Sorayama is a master of the Airbrush methods. His paintings are of an adult nature depicting women in bondage, characters restrained and of course, lifelike beautiful women. Sometimes I have to remind myself that I am NOT looking at a photo because the art is so lifelike”.

There are some other items on our list of ‘evidence’ including a picture of Macauley Culkin taken from a scene from one of the Home Alone movies with Doo Doo Head written on it (by the way the name was coined by Culkin himself), some drawings by Prince and Paris, a baby book named Spiel Mit Mir with a note stating “Shay from Israel”, and another of those terrible books called NAKED AS A JAY BIRD by Dian Hanson which was described by the police as “depicting sexually explicit activities”.

The customer says about it: The carefree, nude hippies of the 60s, too much fun. “Feeling a little retro? Old enough to remember the “Summer of Love”? Want to know how a small segment of the southern California population spent 1967? They all got naked in nudist camps, letting down ALL their long hair, boys and girls alike. Sure enough someone thought of the idea of publishing periodicals based on this “hippy naturalism”. Thus the JAYBIRD line of publications was born. This book celebrates the “models” and the all-natural and sometimes unusual settings. It is loaded with photographs, most in wonderful color. Sure there are some recognizable models in here, but the bulk are somewhat silly looking late teen/early twenties kids who got naked in the sun with each other, were given props and told to have a good time while a shutterbug went about his merry way. Sure it is groovy to look back on this time of innocence and that is what gives this book its charm. The presentation is very colorful and reminds one of “Laugh-In” backgrounds and decorations. Yet I cannot help but wonder what these sunshine worshippers are doing now…”

The police officer repeats after EACH entry in his review:

NONE OF THE BOOKS AND MAGAZINES CONTAINED PICTURES THAT DEPICTED ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

He concludes the review with the following words: Due to time constraints I was unable to complete reviewing the remaining items I checked out of evidence.

Let me conclude in the same way: Due to time constraints I am also unable to give comments on the above ‘evidence’. Please do it yourselves  – adding to the above the complete NOTHING found on Michael’s ten computers by the FBI in the same year of 2003.

*    *     *

SUPPLEMENT:

Here is an excerpt from Michael Jackson’s interview with Diane Sawyer (May 18, 1995) where he speaks on how various things often find a way into his home (in addition to the practice of numerous guests raking through his closet which he even encouraged, according to Macauley Culkin’s testimony):

Michael: The idea, it just isn’t fair… what they put me through. ’Cause there wasn’t one piece of information that says I did that. And anyway, they turned my room upside-down, went through all my books, all my videotapes, all my private things, and they found nothing, nothing, nothing that could say Michael Jackson did this. Nothing! …

Diane Sawyer: But let me ask you a couple of questions…

Michael: … to this day, nothing. Still, nothing…

Diane Sawyer: Let me ask you…

Michael: … nothing, nothing, nothing…

Diane Sawyer: Nothing. We got nothing. As you may or may not know, we have called everyone we could call, we have checked everything we can check, we have gone and tried to see if what we heard before is in fact the case… I want to ask you about two things. These reports that we read over and over again, that in your room they found photographs of young boys…

Michael: Not of young boys, of children, all kinds of girls and… everything.

Diane Sawyer: And that they found photographs… books, of young boys who were undressed.

Michael: Noooo.

Diane Sawyer: It didn’t happen?

Michael: No. Not that I know of, unless people sent me things that I haven’t opened. People send, people know my love for children, so they send me books from all over the world. From South America, from Germany, from Italy, from Sweden, I…

Diane Sawyer: So people say, that they found those things, that there’s an indication, let them come forward. Let them produce them, right?

Michael: Yeah, because I get all… I get all kinds… you wouldn’t believe the amounts of mail that I get. If you say to somebody, you know, if I let the fans know that I love Charlie Chaplin, I’ll be swarmed in Charlie Chaplin paraphanalia.

Diane Sawyer: What about…

Michael: If I say I love children, which I do, they swarm me with everything pertaining to kids….”

216 Comments leave one →
  1. August 28, 2016 4:13 pm

    “Helena, I need to contact you in FB ¿How can I find you? Need to talk with you, is urgent!!!” – Dalia Burgos Garcia

    I need to apologize to you and everyone for not being accessible for a time being. These days I follow too many topics all at once. As to contacting me you can always send an email by pressing the “Contact me” button here.

    Like

  2. Dalia Burgos García permalink
    July 14, 2016 7:46 pm

    Helena, I need to contact you in FB ¿How can I find you? Need to talk with you, is urgent!!!

    Like

  3. June 22, 2016 5:57 pm

    “The list of items found is no longer available. Is there another way to be able to see it?”

    Let me make a try: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-stfayCXLjudXY1b0d2c2JoSUU/view

    P.S. Now it is very late here. I will return to this matter tomorrow and first of all will read everything there is to read about it at the moment. If you think there are any links we need to study together please advise.

    Like

  4. June 22, 2016 4:47 pm

    “The list of items found is no longer available.”

    How very interesting. The moment we started discussing the trial documents ALL of them suddenly disappeared from public view. Are they erasing everything that proves Michael’s innocence?

    P.S. I have this list of items on my computer, only don’t know how to post it here as it doesn’t have an URL. The document looks different from the one posted on Radaronline which was evidently doctored specially for the purpose – the original document didn’t have any pictures, not only in the body of the text, but even as a supplement to it. The pictures were evidently introduced only now, and we can’t be even sure that they come from those very books.

    Like

  5. June 21, 2016 5:04 pm

    Reblogged this on Michael Jackson – Fact or Fiction and commented:
    Did Michael Jackson really have child porn in his house?

    Looks like yet another LIE debunked!

    Like

  6. Ghuleh-ZombieQueen permalink
    June 21, 2016 2:30 pm

    The list of items found is no longer available.
    Is there another way to be able to see it?.

    Like

  7. November 12, 2015 5:16 pm

    That picture of the 2 boys on a beach brings to my mind the book: Lord of the flies.I read it long ago and cannot remember if there where any photos.Anyway it was not pornographic,though tragic in a way.

    Like

  8. Char permalink
    November 7, 2015 3:42 pm

    So from all this research you have just posted, it sounds to me this photo is just folklore like a lot of all this info out there thats supposed to be “hard evidence”. If this photo was anything like they said, and it was listed as evidence, it would have been a big deal I would think, so it couldnt have been anything and I just dont know how the haters can explain that!

    Like

  9. November 7, 2015 10:17 am

    If there are people here who tend to believe Victor Gutierrez’s stories (about Jonathan Spence, for example), here are some quotes from an absolutely great “Turning the table on the Chandler allegations” website who had an investigation of their own and interviewed journalists, detectives, media brokers and even Gutierrez’s friend Rodney Allen: https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/three-stooges-dimond-gutierrez-and-allen/

    Here are some quotes:

    “I also wrote to Rodney Allen in prison and merely stated that a friend named “Victor” (no last name) encouraged the correspondence. Allen wrote back confirming that he knew Victor Gutierrez and even stated, “I would really like to hear from him. It is funny how he pops into my life every now and then and changes my life so much.”
    In future correspondence Allen warned me about,“Victor and his scams to get my money –for his own personal use,” and called Gutierrez,” sneaky and underhanded.” Additionally he confirmed a 1999 internet post that read in part, ” I was to be paid a large amount of money when things shuttle down, I was promised by Victor Gutierrez and Evan Chandler that it would be paid. But they didn’t pay me. Michael never touched him [Jordan] and sexually hurt him. Michael paid out the money to close the chapter on this scandal.”
    Allen went on to write that he stayed with Gutierrez in LA –paying the landlord 500 during his month long stay. “Victor owed his land lord 8 months back rent,” he said. Confirming the NBC journalist statement that Gutierrez was broke and, “needed money.”

    Another piece:

    “Gutierrez was accustomed to making up stories and perpetrating elaborate schemes, as became apparent in court documents filed in Jackson’s suit against him. A tabloid broker named Ken Wells availed himself to Michael’s legal team in 1997 claiming to have information relevant to another litigation then pending in Santa Maria, California involving Mr. Jackson and Evan Chandler. Wells had discussed, among other things, meeting Gutierrez during the course of his work as a broker. During their discussion Gutierrez bragged to Wells, telling him all about his connections in the tabloid business and that he had sold many stories, some of which had been “BS” and simply made up. According to Wells, Gutierrez said that money in the tabloid business was easy, even for false stories. Wells asked Gutierrez about the videotape at issue in this case. According to Wells, Gutierrez said that “the judge told me to produce the tape and I couldn’t produce it.” Wells asked Gutierrez whether he had ever had or seen the tape and, according to Wells, Gutierrez smiled and said, “Well, you know how that is. You know how these things are.”

    Or this one:

    “Gutierrez stated during his deposition in the “Neverland 5” case that he was moving to Chile to start a new life. He also stated that he had just bought a home in Chile. When asked whether the home was nice, Mr. Gutierrez said, “The home has 21 bedrooms.” Notably, during Gutierrez‘s case with Jackson, which was running simultaneously, he cried poverty.”

    The “Turning the table” blog is a must read.

    Like

  10. November 7, 2015 8:10 am

    As a further read on Leroy Thomas’ story let me remind you of this piece from Thesis’s post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-part-2/

    It was time for the infamous “Hayvenhurst 5” (five ex-Hayvenhurst employees) to crawl out for money and revenge. These guards (not personal bodyguards) were Leroy Thomas, Morris Williams, Donald Starcks, Fred Hammond and Aaron White.

    The Quindoys’ and Lemarques’ filed a copycat suit against Michael Jackson, claiming that they were fired on February 1, 1993 because they knew too much (case no BC093593 filed November 1993 in Los Angeles). Of course they never reported anything to the police, and they went to the tabloids to sell their stories, like all the rest. Not creative and very boring, but the tabloids bought it and sold it to their audience.

    In fact, this was their second lawsuit. They filed for the first time when they were terminated (their lawsuit was dismissed), but they didn’t mention any salacious recollections. Their second lawsuit took place after the 1993 allegations broke, and this had a different effect on their memory. Their lawyer was Charles Mathews. Bert Fields vehemently denied the allegations and said “That never happened. Nobody ever has been fired for anything they know or not know about Michael Jackson”.

    As usual, it also turned out that the guards were paid from tabloids for their stories (Hard Copy gave them $150,000) and they admitted they needed that money for their lawsuit. The Jackson family discredited their claims, and so did other guards that were working with them, and had also been fired too. They called in to shows in order to discredit the 5 ex guards, and said they were lying to gain money, and that Jackson never had inappropriate behaviour with anyone.

    Leroy Thomas said that MJ asked him to go to his private bathroom and destroy a picture of a nude youngster. He asked people to actually believe that Jackson, who hadn’t lived in Encino for years, who wasn’t their employer, suddenly decided to trust one of them, gave him his key, and then created himself a witness instead of destroying the photo himself!

    Leroy Thomas enjoyed seeing his face on TV so much that he made the mistake of taking a lie detector test for Maury Povich’s show. Leroy Thomas failed the lie detector in his naked picture fairy-tale. His motivation became more obvious when he announced that he was working on a book about Michael Jackson. Actually the guards, when questioned, said they never witnessed inappropriate behaviour, and they had a different story for police than the one they gave to the tabloids.

    From William’s 1994 deposition:
    “So you don’t know anything about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?” one of Jackson’s attorneys asked former security guard Morris Williams under oath.
    “All I know is from the sworn documents that other people have sworn to.”
    “But other than what someone else may have said, you have no firsthand knowledge about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?”
    “That’s correct.”
    “Have you spoken to a child who has ever told you that Mr. Jackson did anything improper with the child?”
    “No.”

    When asked by Jackson’s attorney where he had gotten his impressions, Williams replied: “Just what I’ve been hearing in the media and what I’ve experienced with my own eyes.”
    “Okay. That’s the point. You experienced nothing with your own eyes, did you?”
    “That’s right, nothing.”

    Lisa Campbell also wrote about it in her book “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”:

    Nervous that these guards “knew too much” about his private life, Michael naturally disclosed to one of them where he hid his key, and asked him to go to his private bathroom, take down a polaroid picture of a naked boy and destroy it Assuming there ever was any such picture, if Michael had something so potentially damaging to hide and was worried these guards were too well informed about his personal life, he would have certainly destroyed it himself. There would be no need at all to let a soul know the photo ever existed.

    Despite what the tabloids tried to derive from the guards’ statements, they did admit they never witnessed Michael molest anybody, they never witnessed any improper behavior by Michael around his guests, and they never saw one unhappy visitor at Hayvenhurst. Some very significant facts must be considered in connection with these statements besides the important questions of the credibility of their claims. First, they were paid handsomely for their public statements. Hard Copy had paid the guards a reported $150,000 for their story. Leroy Thomas, Fred Hammond and Morris Williams also made the rounds to talk shows to discuss what they “knew”. Also, if these guards had important suspicions or concerns about Michael’s behavior, why did they not contact the police at the time rather than turning up on a long line of talk shows some ten months later?

    and

    “The police executed a fourth search warrant in their investigation on November 8, on Hayvenhurst, the Jackson family’s Encino home. Although some media outlets reported a nude photo of a young boy was found at the house, a source from the police department said there was nothing found in the boxes of video tapes and photographs taken in the search to incriminate Michael.”

    Like

  11. November 7, 2015 7:58 am

    “I read on another sight (hater of course) that the picture depicted was of the boy naked from a side view holding his penis. But where did anyone get that info? It was also said that a security guy was asked to destroy it but it wasnt destroyed because it was a Polaroid and couldnt destroy it easily, which didnt make sense to me because if you want to destroy something, you could easily do so.” – Char

    Char, now that you said it I also made myself familiar with the haters’ story and find that they give an answer to where this information comes from. Of course it comes from Victor Gutierrez:

    Victor Guitterez, who appeared to have excellent contacts in the Los Angeles Police Department, wrote
    …the police raided Jackson’s parent’s house in Encino from about 2pm to 9pm. During this raid, the police seized a photo of a blond boy of about 7 years old who was nude and seemed to be holding his penis.

    Then they continue about Leroy Thomas, a bodyguard who was terminated from his job with four others (and lost their suit against MJ for unfair dismissal):

    “Thomas said he was instructed by Jackson to destroy the photo, but as it was a Polaroid all he could do was “rip the back off of the picture.” When Thomas appeared on the Maury Povich show, he offered to take a lie detector test over his allegations. Interestingly, he passed the question about finding the picture, but failed the test when questioned about destroying it. Why would Thomas lie about destroying the photo? He probably wanted to deflect criticism when challenged as to why he saw that photo but failed to report it to law enforcement. In light of the evidence that the the police found the photo later, we have to assume that Thomas’ story about seeing the picture is true. ”

    Now even if we also assume that Gutierrez and Leroy Thomas are not lying, can anyone explain to me why Sneddon didn’t put Leroy Thomas on the witness list for “prior bad acts” concerning Jonathan Spence?
    Or did Leroy Thomas also die?

    Like

  12. Char permalink
    November 6, 2015 7:50 pm

    Nowhere is there a description of that photo found, the one “believed to be Jonathan Spence?” I read on another sight (hater of course) that the picture depicted was of the boy naked from a side view holding his penis. But where did anyone get that info? It was also said that a security guy was asked to destroy it but it wasnt destroyed because it was a Polaroid and couldnt destroy it easily, which didnt make sense to me because if you want to destroy something, you could easily do so.
    Its crazy the haters have just so few things that they use to back up their “truth” and if you put both sides on a scale, the truth for MJ’s innocence so outweighs what few things they hang to, yet I just like having to know every fact and and answer to everything.

    Like

  13. Char permalink
    November 6, 2015 5:23 pm

    true enough…..sending him something that to him seemed harmless but they knew how it would be viewed by authorities. Almost seems to ingenious to give them credit for. hmmm

    Like

  14. November 6, 2015 11:28 am

    “These books were actually harmless , but first off, any obscene material , couldnt be handed to MJ to have him write a quote on it , about childhood” -nannoris

    EXACTLY.

    Like

  15. nannorris permalink
    November 6, 2015 10:49 am

    VMJ wrote
    As to why they didn’t plant “real child porn” instead of those two books, then we need to assume that Blanca Francia was a complete villain and not just a “useful idiot” used by some people.
    ————-
    I tend to think she was a greedy idiot .
    These books were actually harmless , but first off, any obscene material , couldnt be handed to MJ to have him write a quote on it , about childhood,
    Also IF there was actual illegal porn there, arrests would have been made, and MJ would have had to defend himself in court.
    And , Blanca would have had to explain , why she had a key to a file cabinet of illegal stuff, why possible her fingerprints were on illegal stuff.
    This wasnt about going to court, this was about getting money and making MJ look like he belonged to a particular group , who view themselves as misunderstood .
    The only person that wanted MJ in jail was Sneddon, so he could be a hero

    Like

  16. November 6, 2015 8:03 am

    “if they really wanted to plant evidence on MJ, then they could easily sealed the case by planting real child porn, so thats only thing that makes me doubt that. Also if that photo was of Jonathan Spence naked, where did it come from and how did anyone obtain it? But we just dont know. What year was Blanca terminated?”- Char S

    As far as I remember Blanca was terminated at the end of 1991, two years before the Neverland police search in August 1993.

    As to that photo of “Jonathan Spence” and “naked” at that, the prosecution said that they only “believed” that it was Jonathan Spence. If they had had anything concrete about that photo they would have at least mentioned 1) the age of the boy 2) in what “position” he was – from his back, front, side, etc. But the way it was presented we can imagine that it could be a usual photo of a baby lying on his belly and smiling. Something like this:

    Well, we can also claim that it is “Jonathan Spence”, can’t we?

    As to why they didn’t plant “real child porn” instead of those two books, to assume that it was possible we also need to assume that Blanca Francia was a complete villain and not just a “useful idiot” used by some people.

    Actually, the whole thing started with her terrible brainwashing by Victor Gutierrez, another Spanish-speaker who infiltrated MJ’s home and became a big “friend” of all those maids, drivers and bodyguards. To begin with it was probably him (or Rodney Allen) who sent those books to Michael in the first place, and when the books were there it was no problem for him to convince Francia to put them into a cabinet and keep them locked until the time “when the truth about MJ was finally told”.

    To understand how Victor Gutierrez was able to win confidence of Blanca Francia and other Spanish-speakers in MJ’s household, remember that he had a very influential person to introduce him as someone credible – it was Don Francisco (Mario Kreutzberger), host of the super-popular Spanish-language program in the US called Sabado Gigante.

    Quote: “For 53 years Don Francisco had a tremendous appeal to Latino households. Don Francisco became a fixture in many households”.

    And in his book Gutierrez openly spoke of Mario Kreutzberger and even thanked him “for being a source of reassurance and confidence for the many witnesses”. So he did reassure them and did make them confident that it was okay to tell their stories to Gutierrez.

    Imagine who Don Francisco was for someone like Blanca Francia, who could hardly even speak English – he was no less than Larry King for many of us. If Larry King calls you and assures you that you can trust a certain journalist who will come to your home for a private conversation, won’t you open your arms to him and believe every word he says? You certainly will.

    This is how it must have started. At first Blanca Francia certainly did not have any idea about the plans of people like Gutierrez and probably even thought that she was “working for law enforcement” and “was entrusted with an important task” by them.

    Like

  17. Char S permalink
    November 6, 2015 5:26 am

    its an interesting idea you plant about Blanca but the only thing is if they really wanted to plant evidence on MJ, then they could easily sealed the case by planting real child porn, so thats only thing that makes me doubt that. Also if that photo was of Jonathan Spence naked, where did it come from and how did anyone obtain it? But we just dont know. What year was Blanca terminated?

    Like

  18. November 6, 2015 4:46 am

    “When I think back to Evan Chandlers tape saying he had paid people to be in place and it was costing him a fortune , it makes me wonder who he was paying , I would assume, through VG, and why the police didnt pursue that” – nannoris

    Yes, that Evan Chandler’s reference to “many” people involved in this matter is something I always keep in mind. And it isn’t only the factor of who Evan was paying (though it is also interesting – who else could he be paying except his lawyer?) But it seems that Evan meant not only him, but was referring to someone else. Look here:

    MR. CHANDLER: — this guy will certainly get it. That’s the next step. And you want to know something? I even have somebody after him if he doesn’t [tape irregularity]. But I don’t want [tape malfunctioned]. I’m not kidding. I mean what I told you before.

    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    MR. CHANDLER: It’s true. I mean, it could be a massacre if I don’t get what I want. But I do believe this person will get what he wants.

    By “this person” Evan means his lawyer (“the nastiest son of a bitch”), but there is someone else here too, the one that would create a massacre if Evan didn’t get what he wanted: “I even have somebody after him”. And he even told David Schwartz who that person or people are – “I told you before”.

    Or look at this part – “There are other people involved”, “everything is going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine”!!!

    MR. CHANDLER: There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are intentionally going to be in certain positions
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    MR. CHANDLER: — [tape irregularity].
    I paid them to do it. They’re doing their job. I gotta just go ahead and follow through on the time zone.
    MR. SCHWARTZ: Um-hmm.
    MR. CHANDLER: I mean the time set out. Everything is going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine. There’s other people involved –
    http://mjtruthnow.com/2011/02/transcript-of-david-schwartz-and-evan-chandler-taped-conversation/

    “I wonder why they knew to go to her , since she didnt work there anymore.”

    I also wonder why the police simply didn’t break it open like they did it with everything else. It looks like they knew in advance whom to approach for that key. And consequently knew – also in advance – what was inside. And this gives much room for thought.

    Like

  19. nannorris permalink
    November 5, 2015 11:07 pm

    I would also mention , that they never found anything criminal anywhere , during any searches , not even after his mansion was searched when he was killed , and the police were going through cupboards and closets ..

    Like

  20. nannorris permalink
    November 5, 2015 11:00 pm

    Vindicatemj wrote
    Also please note that there is no evidence that Michael went any further with those books than just writing a message to someone on one of its covers. Surprisingly both were found in a closed file cabinet in a closet and the person who was called to open it was the maid who wasn’t even working for Michael at that time (Blanca Francia).
    Why did that woman who had left her job long ago keep the key, I wonder?

    —————
    When I think back to Evan Chandlers tape saying he had paid people to be in place and it was costing him a fortune , it makes me wonder who he was paying , I would assume , through VG, and why the police didnt pursue that ..
    I wonder why they knew to go to her , since she didnt work there anymore
    I wish that Mr mesereau could have asked Blanca Francia if she was being paid by anyone other that Diane Dimond , or if anyone paid her to talk with Hard Copy in the first place

    Like

  21. Char permalink
    November 5, 2015 4:24 pm

    Thanks Helen, it makes sense to me. It seems to be a bib point with haters and I just didnt know much about this photo, if it was actually shown in court or not.

    Like

  22. November 5, 2015 4:12 pm

    “What about on the prosecution list the supposed naked Polaroid photo of Jonathan Spence or so they believe it was him.” – Char

    This matter was several times discussed in the comments and if we ever have a moment to relax I will make a post about it one day. At the moment here is just an earlier comment:

    Since no photos or videos incriminating Jackson were found during the raids of Neverland in 2003-2004, on January 18, 2005 Sneddon requested that the evidence seized during the search in 1993 should be introduced at the 2005 trial. This evidence was three books with photos of children and two photos.

    Sneddon’s document described this damning evidence in the following terms:

    Books:
    “Boys will be boys” containing photographs of boys under the age of 14; full frontal nudity. The book is personally inscribed by Michael Jackson;
    “In search of Young Beauty”, containing photographs of children, both boys and girls; some nude;
    “The Boy, A Photographic Essay”, containing black-and-white photos of boys, some nude

    Photographs:
    A photograph of a boy, believed to be Jonathan Spence; fully nude.
    A photograph of a young boy holding an umbrella; wearing bikini bottoms, partially pulled down.

    My little comment on the above:

    1) The cover of “Boys will be boys” showed boys jumping into water. The inside of the cover had an inscription from MJ saying: “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces, this is the spirit of Boyhood. A life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.”

    This was followed by his “MJ” signature which means that the book was most probably given to him and he was inscribing it for a fan. Why and how it came back into his possession only God knows.

    2) “The boy, a photographic essay” was sent to him by a fan and was signed “From your fan, xxxooo, Rhonda. 1983 Chicago”. There is no evidence that Michael even opened it. Most of the book is shots from Lord of the flies movie, but some show boys “in full frontal nudity”. The strange circumstances around these two books look like a provocation to me.

    3) The third book depicted boys and girls, “some nude” and since no “frontal nudity” was ever mentioned it suggests that the book was the most innocent of all. This is probably why the prosecution never addressed this issue again.

    Now come the two photos which were found after searching the whole of Neverland inside out (in 1993).

    4) One of it was of a boy in bikini and umbrella. The bikini was “partially pulled down” which was the worst they could say about it. Since no “frontal nudity” is mentioned, it can very well mean that the bikini was seen from the back, side and was surely not displaying any private parts.

    5) The second photo was “believed to be Jonathan Spence” and was “fully nude”. Again no “frontal nudity” is mentioned which means that the boy could be shown from his back, side, lying on the beach and his private parts may not be seen at all, as otherwise “frontal nudity” would have been mentioned. The boy is also very small as it is impossible to say who it belongs to and it is only believed to be Spence.

    Why Sneddon couldn’t contact Spence’s parents and find whether the photo was indeed of their son is unclear. Well, probably he did and probably his people even made rounds of all parents who were friends with Michael to check if this could be a photo of their son. And most probably none of them recognized their son there, Spence’s parents included. So it surely wasn’t Spence.

    Now what does one photo of an unknown baby (?) boy, even fully nude (but not in “full frontal nudity”) mean in terms of the big ranch like Neverland? And its innumerable guests who stayed there for days or weeks and left there whatever they cared to leave? Or people sending tons of letters to Michael with their photos and whatnot inside? And some of them not being friends of Michael at all and sending him things of doubtful nature – in order to test him, provoke him or probably even with the idea to plant some things in his home like this “Rhonda” thing?

    What does this one photo of a baby boy mean when nothing else was ever found against Michael – either in 1993 or in 2003-2004 when Neverland was raided by the police several times and even when Michael was not there?

    I’ll tell you what it means. It means NOTHING.

    Let me also note that despite the defense’s objections this horrid evidence WAS admitted at the 2005 trial and the jurors looked into all of it, possibly including the photos mentioned above, however none of them were impressed – because there was nothing to be impressed about.

    P.S. Let me add that the above is the ONLY evidence which Michael’s haters call the so-called “child pornography”. Naturally it isn’t pornography but why and how even these books found their way into Michael’s home is extremely interesting to investigate.

    Also please note that there is no evidence that Michael went any further with those books than just writing a message to someone on one of its covers. Surprisingly both were found in a closed file cabinet in a closet and the person who was called to open it was the maid who wasn’t even working for Michael at that time (Blanca Francia).

    Why did that woman who had left her job long ago keep the key, I wonder?

    Like

  23. Char permalink
    November 4, 2015 9:28 pm

    Just a question I cant find an answer to. I just like to have all the answers I can. What about on the prosecution list the supposed naked Polaroid photo of Jonathan Spence or so they believe it was him. It was on the prosecution list of evidence that was found in 1993 along with a few of the “boy” books. Some people say it didnt exist but it must have if it was on the list? It did not make the court room though. Im confused on this. I just want to know how to answer this one with accusers.

    Like

  24. October 9, 2015 8:09 pm

    Thank Goodness for you breaking down the comments of each book and under the customer reviews. But, it would be best if you described what each book was about. However, I do enjoy this site though.

    Like

  25. Lynda Ellis permalink
    July 18, 2015 4:48 am

    All fans of all gender, sexual orientation, fetish, religion, whatever you will sent him stuff all the time. I doubt he looked at each gift as it came in by the truck load and he would be on tour and recording most of the time. His assistants for mail and fan club admin would have dealt with all that and maybe would have put stuff away without even knowing exactly what was within…let you without sin 😇 cast the first stone….or….leave him the hell alone, he has passed! 😡

    Like

  26. May 27, 2015 4:36 pm

    Vulcan, I need to apologize for some of your and other people’s lost comments. They were left for an old post of 2010 about the “porn” in Michael’s home and how haters twist facts about Michael, where I quoted a highly selective list of items from Michael’s home made by his haters (“mjfacts”).

    Telling lies about Michael is not enough for these people – they don’t want the truth to be ever known about MJ and therefore use every loophole to fight this blog. This time around they complained about me using their “copyrighted material” which is actually the list of items selected by them from all the materials taken by police from Michael’s home.

    I don’t treasure this list at all and decided to delete the post altogether, especially since at the time I wrongfully attributed this list to Ray Chandler. Though the earlier materials used by that site indeed belonged to Ray Chandler, the later entries were made either by a British or Australian judging by the British/Australian spelling of some words.

    The only thing I wouldn’t like to lose after deleting the post are the comments left there by its readers, so I decided to repeat them. First comes your very latest comment:

    vulcan
    May 17, 2015 8:00 pm
    Isn’t it incredible that despite Neverland being “loaded with porn” somehow noone even knew about its existence for more than 15 years until the Arvizos broke into MJ’s room while he wasn’t even on the ranch and rummaged through his things like they always did whenever they were in someone’s place??
    Isn’t it amazing that Jordan Chandler himself never talked about any kind of porn that he accidentally saw in Neverland or in Las Vegas or in his apartment
    What’s his point about the artbooks with naked men? That MJ was somehow into adult men too? Based on the books and magazines they found in Neverland we should assume that he wanted to have sex with men, women, boys and girls. And of course that never happened so what’s the logic behind the “he had books with naked men therefore he was a pedophile” argument?
    There wasn’t even any evidence that he ever opened those books let alone that he was sexually aroused by those pictures.
    No, MJ was not hooked on Xanax and noone professional ever claimed that he was hooked on Xanax and I don’t know what the point is about painkillers anyway as if other homes didn’t have drugs especially if someone with chronic pain and sleep disorder lives in it.
    No kid ever claimed that they found drugs or were given drugs in Neverland, except of course the Arvizos who then quickly dropped this element from their story realizing how ridiculous it was for them to claim that they retained the sleeping pill for months just in case in the future they will accused MJ they would have the evidence.
    I don’t know what his point about Mac Culkin’s picture being in the bathroom is, that picture was completely innocent just like the picture of Liz Taylor or Shirley Temple which was in his bedroom.
    As for porn being in that bathroom isn’t it amazing that not even the Arvizos managed to find those ones? They only found the ones in suitcase in the closet.
    Also, doesn’t it hit you that the only porn which MJ actually bought and had his fingerprints all over them were all HETERO ADULT stuff? How does he explain that a boylover would be interested in that kind of thing for years and years? Why did he keep buying those mags if it wasn’t him who wanted to see those pictures? Why did he buy even more even after the Arvizos left? Why did he buy them in 1991 1992 1993 the very year when he was supposedly interested in having sex with Jordan Chandler?
    Are we supposed to believe that on the one hand he got off looking at hetero adult sex and naked women on the other hand he got off looking at Jordan Chandler’s penis??
    Yes those two books with naked boys may be favored by pedophiles but they sure as hell do not get them from fans like MJ did and they sure as hell won’t write this in those books:
    “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces, this is the spirit of Boyhood. A life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.”
    Anyone who has those thoughts looking at those pictures is not interested in whether they are naked or not but whether they look happy or not. Which is what all those paintings and statues in Neverland were all about: kids who looked happy.
    Needless to say there was no fingerprint evidence that MJ ever looked at the pictures inside the book, that inscription would indicated that he was commenting on the cover which featured four happy boys wearing swimming trunks jumping into a lake.
    In all likelihood MJ simply looked at the cover, opened the book, inscribed it then put it aside along with other items he signed for fans.
    The fact that he didn’t try to obtain those books after 1993 clearly shows that they were not important to him. Unlike Playboy, Hustler and Penthouse which he kept buying year after year. I supposed because he was gay and/or he was into boys.
    No photo of any half naked boy was introduced during the trial so we can be sure they never existed and them being mentioned in the prosecution motion.
    If Ray Chandler wants to dwell on naked photos he should explain why a supposed boylover would have all those nude women on his hard drives and why he would have nude photos of M. Monroe and Bo Derek. Not to mention why he would cut out articles about the G-spot.
    Bloody bedsheet? What’s the point. I had bloody bedsheets when I had some injury or got an injection.
    In short: haters attempt to spin what was found in Neverland as some kind of proof that MJ was a pedophile is ridiculously desperate and only shows that they don’t have real evidence meaning DNA evidence, or taped evidence or photos of his “victims” or emails or files or documents or letters, any physical evidence that actually PROVES he molested anyone or had a sexual interest in boys.
    The books and magazines all put together prove three things:
    1. People sent books to MJ which he never even opened
    2. He was interested in looking at hetero adult sex and nude women
    3. He was interested in photography
    Nothing else.

    Like

  27. vulcan permalink
    May 14, 2015 5:00 pm

    Paul Joseph Barresi,

    Are you completely nuts?

    1. There is no evidence that MJ even saw those pictures let alone that he enjoyed them.
    Or that he bought the book, if in fact he bought it, because he wanted to look at those pictures.

    2. You really want to argue that everyone who ever had that book is a sadist? That the athor himself is a sadist?
    Art is often disturbing. That’s often its very purpose to upset and challenge people. In case you forgot MJ was an artist who was interested in pretty much everything. Do you have any fucking clue how many disturbing things I have seen in my life?
    And so did hundreds of millions of people, in books, in movies, on paintings you name it.

    3. Even if he saw them he sure as hell felt horrible looking at them after all , and this is what you liars never tell about him,
    he cried even if someone just mentioned children suffering. Even as a child he couldn’t bear seeing starving kids, ask his mother,
    Deepak Chopra said that when he talked about starving kids in India even without seeing them it made MJ cry,
    Theresa Gonsalves who gave a book to MJ title When a child cries described how disturbed MJ was while reading it,
    you can as Ryan White’s mother how MJ left the room to go to the bathroom to cry when Ryan said he didn’t want to be buried in T-shit and jeans,
    or read Frank Cascios’s book where he talks about MJ visiting hospitals and how he often cried seeing those sick kids,
    or when he was only 14 and the J5 gave a benefit concert at a hospital and spent the following night crying over the memory of those sick kids, the next day he started to send hand written letters to them.
    Even as a kid he was very sensitive , far more than you ever will be.
    Or think about this:

    or this:

    or this:

    What about his concern for his nephews when Taj Jackson revealed that he was molested by an uncle on his mother’s side?
    Do you think someone who doesn’t care about the effects of child sexual abuse would write such a note:

    What the hell do you want to say? That MJ was a sadist? That he liked to see suffering kids?
    Seriously?
    The guy couldn’t hurt a fly, he was proufoundly gentle and caring, far more than you ever will be or could be.
    That’s why he had all those statues and paintings showing HAPPY kids all over Neverland?
    That’s why he visited so many hospitals and orphanages all over the world and tried to cheer the kids up?
    That’s why in a half-asleep state he was talking about helping sick kids who were depressed by building hospitals with game room and movie theaters? Are those the toughts of a sadist?

    You demand the full truth about MJ and you ignore all the good thing he did for others,
    all the examples which showed his sensitivity ever since he was a kid to the very last days of his life,
    all the quotes from people, who unlike you, actually knew him and unlike Chandler or Arvizo didn’t try to get his millions
    and condemn him because he had a book which had some distrubing pictures??

    Seriously?

    Listen to Little Susie, a song he started to write in the late 70s.
    Or Do you know where you children are? which he wrote in the early 90s.
    Both before any allegation hit him.
    No way someone who was not disturbed by child abuse would write or even think about writing such songs
    let alone sing them the way he did.

    The problem is you don’t even realize how ridiculous and hypocritical your argument is.

    Like

  28. vulcan permalink
    May 14, 2015 3:55 pm

    If MJ had owned Leonard Nimoy’s Full body project these idiots would have argued that it can be used to groom young boys.
    After all they are totally naked.

    Like

  29. vulcan permalink
    May 14, 2015 3:46 pm

    Drew and Jimmy early to mid-teens???

    Freaking liars!

    They are late teen early 20s. Those are not kids they are young men.

    They tried to spin everything because they had no real evidence.
    Disgusting

    Like

  30. September 2, 2014 6:15 pm

    Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is a very well written article.

    I will be sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your
    useful info. Thanks for the post. I will certainly comeback.

    Like

  31. lynande51 permalink
    June 13, 2014 4:04 pm

    Paul, why would someone of your stature come to this blog and nitpick at these articles? I’m sorry the value of your information has decreased but that’s what happens when you sell information. It has it’s value when it does and then later new information might surface that makes yours obsolete. Personally, I like to look at the bright side. You were able to sell it a couple of times so you still saw that profit and had that money to spend. Perhaps you have information on a different celebrity that is still marketable.

    Like

  32. Mariam permalink
    June 7, 2014 9:41 pm

    MJ has that (pain) feeling since he was himself a chilled, he wrote and song a song about children:

    http://t.co/HqDEBd27GF

    Thank you and well explained Helena & Rodrigo, that is a typical example of how MJ was ”miss understood” all his life but thank God to you guys and MJ’s true fans because of them MJ still has a voice

    Like

  33. June 7, 2014 1:31 pm

    You got some nerve characterizing those images in such an untruthful manner. What a sham! – Paul Barresi

    Paul Barresi (or whoever you are), I don’t have access to the book and was quoting from those who did. Now I have found a different description of the book which is in line with what you are saying:

    Room to Play

    Simen Johan creates surreal and narrative tableaux of corrupted youth. His images of children and adolescents are constructed by digitally manipulating and combining parts of faces and bodies belonging to people of various ethnicities, ages, and genders. His fictional identities are depicted in equally fabricated scenarios that are replete with references to both the art historical tradition and Freudian sexuality. The poster-perfect finish of his prints belies the disturbing nature of their content; a pubescent girl hula hoops against an idyllic seaside backdrop, as the hoop leaves bruises on her waist; an androgynous teenager cradles the head of a dead sheep on which flies are beginning to land.

    Some pictures by Simen Johan that I managed to find:

    From these pictures and what you and others are telling me it is obvious that irrespective of what the author wanted to say by his book, for Michael it was a symbol of the idea that in the place of innocent “room to play” kids often have suffering, trauma and offense inflicted by adults who most often don’t even realize what they are doing.

    They ignore and neglect their children. They may occasionally give them presents but have total disrespect for their feelings. They “discipline” and abuse them the way Michael was disciplined and abused, and as a result kids get what they get – psychological complexes for the rest of their lives, fears, self-hate, the habit to obey in combination with suppressed violent feelings which flare up as acts of aggression against others or themselves, as well as hopelessness and depression, the desire to run away or self-inflict injuries or commit suicide, and much-much more.

    The book is echoing Michael’s own complexes developed as a result of many years of humiliation and beatings sustained from Joe. Seeing that other children feel the same and he was not alone in his sufferings could at least reassure him that his own problems were not unique but are quite common for physically abused children. Realizing that you are not alone can even have a therapeutic effect.

    The book could also help him understand some of his siblings. Kids who were severely abused rarely grow up into compassionate adults with delicate feelings. These children turn into small aggressive animals who learn to deal with problems through similar harsh, coarse and cruel methods – even if they love someone.

    Michael fortunately avoided this fate, but his brother Randy (for example) didn’t. His flares of aggression and lack of subtlety is also the product of Joe Jackson’s “disciplining”. Randy takes it out on others while Michael took it out on himself. He even said something to that effect about his and his brothers’ reaction to the abuse. All this was the reason why he was so shy, so unsure and so dissatisfied with himself. This is also where his perfectionism is stemming. All of it goes back to the glorious Joe.

    Though in respect of several other books I am sure that they were presented to him, in this case I am inclined to think that Michael selected the book himself. It falls very well with his own feelings and childhood experience. And these pictures surely made him sympathize with kids and stand up for their protection even more.

    Like

  34. Rodrigo permalink
    June 7, 2014 10:57 am

    Well, it wasn’t Helena that said that the book, Paul. It was a customer on Amazon, if you didn’t know already.
    I’ve had a look at those images myself, and I do agree with you – the images are pretty disturbing. But that’s the whole point. It’s a representation of the suffering and corruption of chidhood. Childhood gone wrong. That meant something to Michael. I’m not going to say I like the book either, but I see it’s point that it created.

    Like

  35. June 7, 2014 10:14 am

    You characterize one of the disturbing books seized by authorities in Jacko’s home entitled ‘Room To Play’ as haunting, cinematic and wonderful. Why don’t you show the photos of the little girl strangling herself or the child with a hood over her head who just finished beating an animal to a bloody pulp with a tire iron? If you are going to make such a stupid attempt to defend Jacko, at least give everybody the truth. Even for me, I found the exhibits of images in other books of children, beat up, bloodied and tormented– in various stages of pain, suffering, abuse and misery extremely sadistic, sick and disturbing. You got some nerve characterizing those images in such an untruthful manner. What a sham! Paul Barresi

    Like

  36. September 12, 2013 10:55 pm

    I hate to hear this.
    What do they care if Michael Jackson had art books “porn” in his home?
    The Vatican since the Medieval Era is FULL of PORNOGRAPHIC ART made by Miguel Angel (who was gay), they are full of NAKED CUPIDS (which are CHILDREN) and they even have him NAKED GOD (of ass) and they have a string of priests rapists and cardinals themselves (highest ecclesiastical rank) have a history of inappropriate behavior, and yet people are going to the Vatican museums to see religious homosexual pornography FOR ADMIRE them and pray for the princes of the Catholic Church.

    And now they see that MJ had a couple of porno books and get scared?
    Hypocrites!
    And if he liked it, do they care?

    He probably had a very unusual preference but came hand in hand with a unique talent much more rare to find.

    Like

  37. February 15, 2013 1:22 am

    “There were other dates that also showed porn had been accessed on MJ’s computers, but none on the dates around the Arvizo timelines, and all of it was heterosexual”

    There is one thing I need to say. When some Michael’s guests were having parties in Neverland Michael often tried to stay away from them, so there is no way to know what these people were doing in his absence and what kind of porn they could be watching. Vam Vallin is writing that sometimes MJ would come to his home and stay the whole day while Van Valin went to his work. I’ve retyped some pieces:

    Michael went in, picked up a magazine off the coffee table and sat down alone in the living room in what would become his favorite spot. … I went in and woke my wife and told her that Michael was out in the living room. She said, “Tell him I’ll be right out” which I did, told him goodbye, and left for work. … My wife called me at noon to say that Michael was still there. The kids had awakened to find him in the living room and she had decided to let them stay home from school to play and keep him company. She said they were all watching cartoons and eating pizza. Michael had sent Manuel (driver) out to get lunch and snacks. When I got home, at about six o’clock, his rather nondescript blue van was still parked outside the fence. Manuel was in the front seat reading a gook, patiently waiting for Michael’s next instructions.

    …Inside the house, Michael and my daughter Blanca were sitting on the floor playing Monopoly. The couch cushions were scattered all around the room. Pizza boxes were here and there and a few empty bottles of Martinelli’s apple juice were on the coffee table. Along with these were remnants of other board games that had been half played and abandoned for other games that must have seemed more interesting at the time. Cartoons were still playing on the TV. When I entered the living room, Michael looked up with a smile and said, “Hi Barney. How was your day?” I told him “Good thanks. How was yours?” He replied, “The best!”

    When I asked Michel why he would abandon his ranch for our small house in Ballard, on any given visit, he always gave basically the same reason: “I have company up at the ranch and I’m not really up to spending time with them. I know they’ll be well cared for by my staff and they’re free to use the ranch as they would their own home. I just like spending time here”.

    Van Valin got acquainted with Michael Jackson in October 2001 and was friends with him for 5 years until he left for Bahrein. The Arvizos’s stays in Neverland fall into this period, though we cannot be sure that Michael was speaking of this family in particular.

    Like

  38. February 15, 2013 12:23 am

    “Marcel Jackson wasn’t Levon’s nickname, it was Elijah’s. Levon’s nickname is Lee.”

    Lacienegasmiles, I am amazed by how many details you know. And when I read all these and other small details I cannot help thinking that real Michael and his life are exceptionally interesting to know. On occasions his life is a real thriller – his love life for sure. And imagine how much interest the media could generate for themselves if they reported the truth about Michael and not lies!

    The fact that they did not use (and are not using) this opportunity is what surprises me most. They preferred to invent some flat stories about him instead of just reporting the truth which is much more colorful than anything they ever invented about him.

    Like

  39. February 14, 2013 11:41 pm

    the fact was that is was cached on November 17th,2003 and was accessed under the name of Marcel Jackson. That was another name that Levon Jackson used which is how we know that they were there the night before the raid. I believe Joana Thomae ( spelling?) was there as well because they had a party which explains why everybody was nervous when 70+ police officers as well as Tom Sneddon himself showed up.In Norway and many other countries in Europe the drinking age is 18 or even 16 years old. Here in the US it is 21 years of age which is where Sneddon got the idea that MIchael let “kids” drink.

    I thought Joanna and other fans were in NL around mid-late February or early March. Many of these fans had met the Arvizo kids. One of the women from that movie Castaway was also on MJ’s defense list, even though they hadn’t done any shooting in NL, so I wondered why she’d been added.

    Marcel Jackson wasn’t Levon’s nickname, it was Elijah’s. Levon’s nickname is Lee.

    There were other dates that also showed porn had been accessed on MJ’s computers, but none on the dates around the Arvizo timelines, and all of it was heterosexual. Though the Arvizo kids couldn’t seem to decide who’s computer this porn had been on – MJ’s, their own laptop, or even I think Frank’s. They also claim Frank was showing them this porn too, Frank was heavily involved in all of these things according to the Arvizo’s, makes it odd that the police has had zero interest in him.

    Like

  40. lynande51 permalink
    February 14, 2013 8:37 am

    They did find some heterosexual porn on the computers that Sneddon wanted to use but the fact was that is was cached on November 17th,2003 and was accessed under the name of Marcel Jackson. That was another name that Levon Jackson used which is how we know that they were there the night before the raid. I believe Joana Thomae ( spelling?) was there as well because they had a party which explains why everybody was nervous when 70+ police officers as well as Tom Sneddon himself showed up.In Norway and many other countries in Europe the drinking age is 18 or even 16 years old. Here in the US it is 21 years of age which is where Sneddon got the idea that MIchael let “kids” drink.

    Like

  41. Truth Prevail permalink
    February 14, 2013 2:20 am

    @Helena

    You can share it with me if you wan’t I am not bothered by it it’s just that i like to know every detail even small ones about the cases there good to know about especially when tackling a hater.

    Like

  42. February 14, 2013 12:42 am

    I’d imagine most guys would become nervous when asked about pornography. He was about 18/19 then, wasn’t he? That’s normal. Try and randomly ask anyone you know about porn without any reasons, who doesn’t get a bit weird when asked about it? I’m a full grown woman and if the police asked me about porn I’d act weird too LOL It’s stupid.

    Like

  43. Rodrigo permalink
    February 13, 2013 8:35 am

    I had no idea Omer was there with his friends. Haters fail to mention that…just that he was uncomfortable when the porn was mentioned. So it seems clear that Omer was a snooper too while at Neverland.

    And as mentioned, look at other so called “victims” reactions about the adult material – they had no idea Michael was into that, because they never ever saw anything about him during their times at Neverland or anything related to the idea that Michael was “sexual in manner” in anyway. Omer was nervous because he knew what Michael was being accused off and had knowledge of it from his snooping…and obviously if he said he had viewed porn at Neverland on his own, he probably worried how the prosecution and media would spin it.

    Like

  44. February 12, 2013 7:41 pm

    I actually mentioned possible links to adult sites on MJ’s computers because in articles about the 19 year old Omer Bhatti and his two Norwegian friends there was some talk that he “looked nervous” at mentioning the word “porn”.

    Well, even without the media puritan innuendoes I am more than sure that while those three guys were in Neverland for four weeks they did look those sites on Michael’s computers, and therefore let Michael down on a massive scale.

    Actually I really don’t understand why everyone looks so shocked and pretends that all this is something out of the way and totally unheard of. If we are to listen to some people one will imagine that their 19 year old sons see the first naked girl only when they get married.

    It is all this pretence which is outrageous indeed (and hilarous too).

    P.S. Here is an example.

    “Now he’s an aspiring rapper who goes by the stage name O-Bee.

    He also has remained a staunch defender of Jackson. Bhatti was living at Neverland when Los Angeles police raided the estate in 2003 looking for evidence of child molestation.

    An investigator later testified before a grand jury that Bhatti became nervous when he was asked about pornography.

    He “seemed to have trouble forming a sentence. It was almost like a stutter,” the investigator, Jeffrey Ellis, said on the stand.

    Ellis testified that when he questioned Bhatti about the consumption of wine and alcohol, referred to as “Jesus Juice,” he saw “that same type of uneasiness in him that I noticed when I started talking to him about pornography.”

    Last year, Bhatti recalled the day police swooped in.

    “It was totally sick. It was the whole squad from Santa Barbara Police Department,” he told a reporter. “We didn’t know why they were there. Michael was not at home.” Ultimately Bhatti appeared only on the defense’s list of prospective witnesses.”

    http://www.apsense.com/article/131213.html

    The article says that Omer Bhatti was even living in Neverland in 2003. So he surely had access to all rooms. And of course they were browsing the net for porn and of course they were drinking wine in Michael’s absence. But they were 19 years old, for God’s sake! And Michael must have covered up for these three guys when he returned from Las Vegas and didn’t shift any blame on any of them.

    Here are some pictures of Omer Bhatti with some friends of his:

    Like

  45. February 12, 2013 7:04 pm

    “Did they find links to porn sites on MJ’s computer?” -Truth Prevail

    Frankly, I simply don’t remember. But assume that there were some links to adult sites. Just because there were heterosexual magazines like Playboy, etc. (in that suitcase). I am talking of usual stuff – something like those sites that intrude into your computer when you just want to see some news. It exasperates me. Or does it happen only to my computer?

    The only thing which I really remember is that there was nothing even remotely connected with children. The only site connected with children was an adoption site.

    All the rest doesn’t even bother me. But I can check it up if you really want it (and it bothers you).

    Like

  46. Truth Prevail permalink
    February 12, 2013 6:42 pm

    @Helena

    “about and probably links to some porn sites found on computers.”

    Did they find links to porn sites on MJ’s computer?

    Like

  47. February 12, 2013 11:30 am

    “There is proof that things were planted…if not by the police at the raid, then who at Neverland before it?” – Rodrigo

    There might be another explanation for those magazines scattered there (if they were scattered). While Michael was away his old friend Omer Bhatti who was at least 19 at the time was staying in Neverland with his two Norwegian friends. The idea was that they would stay for a week only, but in reality they stayed for 4 weeks. The friends should have been the same age as Omer Bhatti – 19 or so. Michael was sponsoring that trip.

    Omer and his family were so close to Michael that I would not be surprised that he had access to all premises in Neverland. His mother was (or used to be) a nanny of MJ’s children – this is how close they were to him! And Michael’s room was not actually a bedroom – it was the part of the house where all fun was centered. So we cannot rule out that they were hanging out exactly in Michael’s quarters, at least occasionally.

    It would be a great attraction for guests to be able to hang out in the room of the King of pop.

    This will explain why some magazines could be lying about there – these young men could have brought them with them, and later the magazines were attributed to MJ. This will explain why the police “seized” some wine bottles there too (what was the point of “seizing” wine bottles from the wine-cellar? of course they “seized” them in MJ’s room). And this will equally explain some “semen stains” which were found on MJ’s mattress which is something MJ haters like to speak so often about and probably links to some porn sites found on computers.

    I think that Michael covered up for these young men when the police attributed all those things to him. Technically Omer Bhatti and friends were not yet of age, though they were quite grown-up to engage in all those things, and being not of age they would have had to answer for their deeds. Or Michael would have had to answer anyway as it was him who gave them access to his home.

    Lynette sent me a marvellous article about Omer Bhatti and friends in Neverland:

    Norwegian boys in USA on Jackson’s tab

    Three Oslo teenagers have been on a secret private visit to pop idol Michael Jackson at his pleasure park Neverland Ranch in California. After police raided Neverland Tuesday morning with a warrant for Jackson’s arrest on suspicion of sexually assaulting a young boy worries have run high in Oslo, newspaper VG reports.

    One of the mothers said she was waiting to hear from her son, and was considering calling Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    Two youths were invited along to California by Jackson’s Norwegian-Pakistani friend Omer Bhatti, 19.

    Bhatti, from Oslo’s Holmlia district, became a celebrity of sorts after Jackson discovered him in 1996. Bhatti was standing outside Jackson’s hotel in Tunis dressed like Jackson and bearing a red rose in his hand.

    Since then they have been close friends, and Bhatti and his family have been frequent guests of Jackson’s. Bhatti was most recently photographed with Jackson at the star’s 45th birthday celebrations in Los Angeles. Bhatti has been unswervingly loyal to Jackson during their relationship, according to VG.

    VG’s sources claim that the Oslo trio’s USA holiday is bought and paid by Jackson and was a secret to all but their nearest family members. The trip to Neverland should have lasted a week, but the boys have now been gone nearly four weeks.

    “I have faith in the judgment of both Omer and my son. Besides, I don’t believe all the claims and rumors about Michael Jackson, even if I have them in the back of my mind.”

    “I am more worried about the conduct of American police than I am about the claims against Michael Jackson,” the mother of one of the boys told VG.

    Omer Bhatti was a friend of Benjamin Hermansen, an African-Norwegian teen that was killed in a racist attack in Holmlia. Jackson dedicated his album Invincible to Hermansen’s memory at Bhatti’s request.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20071203012742/http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article673853.ece

    Like

  48. February 12, 2013 11:10 am

    “There is proof that things were planted…if not by the police at the raid, then who at Neverland before it? Did someone at Neverland do that whilst Michael was out of the country? Plant evidence to aid police and Sneddon? Under instructions perhaps? I wouldn’t be surprised.”

    I won’t be surprised either. Let us remember that Michael was away from Neverland for THREE WEEKS prior to the raid. He was in Las Vegas working on the album, “One more chance” song and shooting a new video. The time was pressed as the song debut was evidently timed for the release of the Number 1 album which was November 18, 2003 (the day when the raid was arranged) or at least for the MJ special to air on TV on November 26th. So there was no time for Michael to go back and forth, especially since his children were with him in Las Vegas.

    Proof that Michael was away:

    Police Raid Jackson RanchPolice Raid Jackson Ranch
    Officers search pop singer’s house

    By Gil Kaufman
    November 18, 2003 12:00 AM ET

    Dozens of Santa Barbara County sheriff’s deputies armed with warrants swarmed Michael Jackson’s Neverland Valley ranch Tuesday morning to search the compound. The officers arrived at the gated ranch at 8:30 a.m. to conduct the searches, which are part of an ongoing investigation, Sgt. Chris Pappas said in a statement.

    Court TV reported that the raid was tied to allegations made by an unnamed twelve-year-old boy, though authorities would not comment on those reports. Jackson’s spokesperson could not be reached for comment.

    The raid came on the same day that Jackson’s Number Ones greatest hits album was released. The collection features the new song “One More Chance,” written by R. Kelly. A Jackson TV special is scheduled to air on CBS on November 26th.

    Jackson and his three children were not at Neverland during the raid because he has been in Las Vegas for three weeks filming footage for the TV special.

    In 1993, a fourteen-year-old boy alleged that Jackson had improper sexual contact with him; that case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
    http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/police-raid-jackson-ranch-20031118

    Like

  49. February 12, 2013 11:03 am

    “Fact is. Michael did not like kids to see things like that. And as I stated before, why didn’t he show Jordan things like that if he was guilty???” – Rodrigo

    I remember the great amazement with which Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes and Wade Robson were leafing through those magazines in the courtroom. This alone shows that they had never seen Michael reading them in their presence, so they never knew he possessed them at all.

    Sneddon asked questions like “Would it change your opinion of MJ if you knew that he had these magazines?” but the real meaning of those questions was lost on everyone. And the real meaning was – they DID NOT KNOW that Michael ever had these magazines.

    And this means that HE NEVER SHOWED any adult materials to any of his teenage friends.

    Like

  50. February 12, 2013 10:57 am

    What Kit Culkin describes about Michael rings true to what Mark Ronson said on this matter http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/261375/mark-ronson-i-made-michael-jackson-watch-porn

    Great article, Rodrigo. Just what the doctor ordered:

    Monday 23 June 2008
    Mark Ronson: I made Michael Jackson watch porn
    But star producer says the singer didn’t approve

    Musician: Mark Ronson hung out with Sean Lennon as a kid
    Mark Ronson has revealed that he used to watch porn when he stayed at Michael Jackson’s home as a kid.

    The music producer met the Thriller star through his then neighbour Sean Lennon, son of The Beatles legend John Lennon.

    ‘We were just hanging out. We used to watch the porn channel because we were 10 and like: “Oh my God, tits!”‘ Mark said on Channel 4’s Sunday Night Project.

    ‘Me and Sean said: “Michael, do you want to see something cool?” We turned the dial to the porn channel and there were strippers. We were like: “Michael, Michael, how cool is this?”

    ‘We turned around and he was cringing, saying: “Ooh stop it, stop it, it’s so silly.”

    ‘I think he had really strong feminist views on porn and the use of it.’

    Mark, 32, is currently dating model Daisy Lowe, 19.

    http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/261375/mark-ronson-i-made-michael-jackson-watch-porn

    Like

  51. Rodrigo permalink
    February 12, 2013 7:27 am

    Also looking at Neverland, it seems Michael was perhaps a compulsive hoarder? Where no matter, one is unwilling to get rid of items. And with Michael’s attachments to fans who sent him gifts, it would show why he kept so many things the prosecution took from him. To discard them would have brung him some form of upset/distress.

    Like

  52. Rodrigo permalink
    February 12, 2013 6:34 am

    What Kit Culkin describes about Michael rings true to what Mark Ronson said on this matter

    http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/261375/mark-ronson-i-made-michael-jackson-watch-porn

    And didn’t Michael’s account of events with the Arvizo’s have him snatch the adult mags from them and lock them away in a briefcase?

    Fact is. Michael did not like kids to see things like that. And as I stated before, why didn’t he show Jordan things like that if he was guilty???

    Yes, he may have had things like that, being single heterosexual…but clearly he didn’t like people knowing about it, being incredibly shy and private, and he especially didn’t like kids knowing about it. He didn’t know the Arvizo’s were such little moochers, did he?
    Children mooch of course, but remember, Michael had those things hidden away under lock and key. So no matter how haters try to spin it, he was responsible as he could be.

    As for the porn being scattered everywhere…I can put that under many circumstances. But what I’d like to think is, can we chalk it under the category of how cocaine was sprinkled on some underwear? Conveniently placed dirty clothing and sheets. How did all that happen so well that it ALMOST gave Sneddon and the rest, the perfect case and opportunity to put Michael away and prove what they’d been saying since the start? The chance to feed their case and just throw Michael under a classic pe-le category? Which they all said since 93?

    There is proof that things were planted…if not by the police at the raid, then who at Neverland before it? Did someone at Neverland do that whilst Michael was out of the country? Plant evidence to aid police and Sneddon? Under instructions perhaps? I wouldn’t be surprised.

    Like

  53. November 4, 2012 5:28 am

    Lynande51,you tube doesn´t show it in my country, due to some rights, they menrion Fox..

    Like

  54. November 3, 2012 7:27 am

    Kaarin they weren’t innuendos it was pretty blatant if you ask me. I’ve watched it and if you ever watched anything by Mel Brooks it isn’t any different. You can watch the whole thing on you tube.

    Like

  55. November 2, 2012 8:44 pm

    To me it seems somewhat inapropriate to write a film script with sexual innuendos with a 12yo. I have not seen the film, so I don´t know the exact nature of these innuendos.

    Like

  56. Rodrigo permalink
    November 2, 2012 8:04 pm

    How can anybody say he’s gay aftering watching this?

    Like

  57. November 2, 2012 5:04 pm

    You know what I think is funny Helena is whenever you make a post that actually names Desiree out comes so little someone trying to post a comment that supports what she thinks is true. Who knows maybe applehead 12v is Desiree with her proxy server.

    Like

  58. November 1, 2012 11:54 pm

    “I thought Michael was straightO_o ??”- applehead

    Corey Feldman answers you:

    “‘No, he’s not gay. No, he’s not a weirdo.’ You don’t understand the toll that it takes, having to be friends with somebody like Michael Jackson, because you spend your whole life defending [him].”

    The quote is from Corey Feldman’s interview with Bashir (when Bashir worked on ABC with Gutierrez as his assitant). Now all of us do understand how heavily Corey Feldman was misquoted by Bashir/Gutierrez in that interview, don’t we? Corey had his disagreements with Michael but he never really suspected MJ of anything even remotely close to molestation.

    Jackson “never did anything out of line,” Feldman told police detectives. “I mean, the closest he ever came to touching me was maybe slapping me on the leg once to talk about that I had lost weight.” “He never harmed me. And he never harmed any children in front of me.”

    Even this phrase sounds more like an irony to me:

    Bashir asks, “Were you ever shown any images that were inappropriate?” Feldman responds, “If you consider it inappropriate for a man to look at a book of naked pictures with a child that’s 13 or 14 years old, then your answer would be yes.”

    The author of the article repeatedly calls the medical book “pornography” while all it was was a medical piece showing images of venereal diseases. This wasn’t “grooming” for sure, as this kind of pictures can only avert from sex and sexual ideas.

    However this article tries to squeeze as much negativity as it can from the story:

    http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1496823/feldman-jackson-showed-him-nude-photos.jhtml

    Like

  59. Applehead12v permalink
    November 1, 2012 5:19 pm

    I thought Michael was straightO_o ??
    no offense, but i cant stand gays. sry.

    Like

  60. December 15, 2011 10:55 pm

    “It wasn’t meant to offend or demean homosexuals; it was only meant to reiterate the fact that MJ was straight, and did not have any sexual fantasies about experimenting with gay or bisexual sex.”- David

    “But the thing is, that you don’t actually know if Michael had any desires or inklings towards that side. How can you say that he never had any fantasies when you’re not in his head? Haha!” – youngearlgrey

    @youngearlgrey, since you are not in his head either I think it would be mere speculation to say that Michael did have those thoughts. But even if the above two statements balance each other, David’s statement outweighs yours as on numerous occasions Michael said he was not gay.

    1. Michael said it to Bashir when he asked him a direct question. Michael stopped the recording and said that he was not gay, but he didn’t want his answer to be in the documentary as he had many gay fans and didn’t want to offend them.

    2. Michael said he was not gay to Evan Chandler in the scene described by Ray Chandler in “All that glitters”. When Evan gave Michael some medicine for his headache which suddenly knocked him out Evan took the chance to interrogate Michael on the gay issue and Michael said “Not me”. Considering that he was hardly controlling his thoughts and feelings at that moment, we can safely say that he was revealing his innermost thoughts to Evan – which is a way to find out what he really thought.

    3. His “friend” Uri Geller – the one who bends spoons by a mere glance – said he once hypnotized Michael and asked him if he was gay (almost everyone seemed to take advantage of Michael this way, poor thing) and Michael again denied it. And again this was said when he was in a half-conscious state which is proof that he could not be pretending.

    There were many more similar occurrences, but even these three show that Michael was heterosexual and did not have any thoughts about “experimenting” you so freely suppose about him. Given the facts we know about Michael all these suppositions are totally irresponsible to say the very least.

    Michael never said a bad word about gay men – his best doctor was gay, and Michael never had any issues about it, but what he also did say to one of his friends was that the Lord was against it. I don’t remember who he talked to but when asked about homosexuality he replied something like “Do you know what the Gospel say about it?”

    I personally don’t remember what the Gospel says about it (so please don’t ask me), but Michael did refer to the Bible. It does not mean he accused anyone of anything – all it means is that for him personally some things were not acceptable and even in his thoughts he didn’t allow himself experimenting (as the Lord knows our thoughts).

    In fact, in matters of sexuality Michael was very prim – prim as a Victorian old maid, as Kit Culkin put it: “Michael was always very prissy and proper and prim, and the very essence of the proverbial Victorian old maid.”

    So whenever you or someone else makes any statements to the opposite I will ask you to substantiate them with facts, please.

    Like

  61. December 15, 2011 9:24 am

    Oh boy here we go indeed.

    Like

  62. December 15, 2011 7:16 am

    Oh boy here we go….LOL.

    David, I’d like to thank you for your post after mine. I’m sorry that I came off a bit attacking, I just have dealt with many fans in the past who feel the need to prove to everyone else how knowledgeable they are and it’s one of my biggest pet peeves. I apologise for putting you into that group from your post, because now I see that you’re not like that and honestly, you just want the truth to get out there. And I’m very thankful for that!

    The fact is, I’m very much aware of all these things but my original post was in reply to what I felt was a bit of shaming of homosexuality. That’s how it came off to me, and that’s how I worded my post based on that. Not on the original article that was posted here at all. Once you understand that, then you can see where I’m coming from.

    “Rock”, I don’t agree with you at all. I think it’s just as damaging to go around pretending that we knew what Michael’s thoughts were and what feelings he had. The fact is that we didn’t. That’s the bottom line.

    At that I will close this discussion and thank you guys for the interesting thoughts, at least!

    Like

  63. rock permalink
    December 15, 2011 7:07 am

    I respect your blog very much but you need to stop with this attitude that you and the others that run it are more knowledgeable on Michael than the rest of us fans, just because you run a blog intent on clearing his name.

    I don’t believe David came across like that in his post. It seemed very polite.

    He said he was straight more than a few times, is he not entitled to being able to say what he was or was not? I don’t believe it’s putting homosexuality down by saying he was not gay. Being straight wasn’t his way of insulting gay people.

    then I don’t think you should have had a blog in the first place.

    So you want to censor people who you believe are censoring people who agree with you? It’s a private blog, people are entitled to have their own rules about what is posted and discussed here.

    2. Michael was very accepting and loving of his gay fans. You should do the same as WE are fans too.

    Stating that MJ isn’t gay isn’t meant as an insult to gay fans. Sometimes people seem to project their own feelings about things onto MJ, so I think you need to question about why you need to believe he was possibly gay or bisexual when he said he wasn’t. If Michael had said he was gay and we as fans decided to insist he was straight or that he could’ve experimented with women, I would find it to be an issue of projection there too.

    Insisting that Michael still had desires he’s said he didn’t have, it seems like some bias on your part, not on the part of people here. Maybe you should question why this is important to you.

    BTW I’m a huge gay rights activist… I used to work in a gay bar for a long time. I’m only defending Michael’s rights to being straight the same way I’d defend your right to be gay. It’s insulting to ask gay people if they still have secret desires for the opposite sex, it belittles their sexuality, why should it be any different for Michael?

    Like

  64. sanemjfan permalink
    December 15, 2011 7:04 am

    @youngearlgrey

    I’m sorry if I came across as being condescending towards you. I don’t know you personally, and this is your first time commenting on the blog, so I don’t know how knowledgeable you are about MJ.

    You’re right. I don’t know MJ personally, and I can’t irrefutably say what thoughts ran through his head 24/7. Hypothetically, MJ could have had gay and bisexual thoughts. Hypothetically, we all could have gay and bisexual thoughts from time to time.

    But the problem is when people try to say that he acted upon those thoughts by acquiring his huge art collection! The media tried to spin it as gay porn, or gay erotica, and they tried to spin those 2 children’s books as child porn, and those rumors helped to kill him in the court of public opinion. That’s what Hana was implying a few months ago when we refuted her comments about “maybe MJ had those thoughts”. His art collection had nothing to do with his sexual desires; it was his 10 year collection of straight, legal, adult porn. While he may have “hypothetically” had those thoughts, and I’m not saying there’s anything wrong if he did, there is no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion! Everyone around him has said for years that he is 100% straight, like women, flirted with women, talked to and about women, and nobody has ever said anything about him possibly being into gay or bisexual relationships and/or sex.

    The purpose of this series of posts that we did was to show the world what his art collection actually consisted of, and what the prosecution labeled as “porn”! (Hence the title.)

    I understand your strong feelings on this subject, and let me be the first to say that it’s totally hypocritical that the same people who attack MJ for being gay or effeminate are the same people who would attack him for being an irresponsible, dead beat dad if he was a womanizer with multiple children out of wedlock!

    Like

  65. December 15, 2011 6:35 am

    But the thing is, that you don’t actually know if Michael had any desires or inklings towards that side. How can you say that he never had any fantasies when you’re not in his head? Haha! Look, I think Michael was mostly heterosexual too. But you can’t go around saying that you’re 100 percent sure and you know what was going through his head and etc etc etc, because the fact is that you DON’T. None of us do. Michael could very well had a thought or two about that kind of thing, and what’s that to us or the world? That’s his private business, and he was perfectly okay to think things like that if he ever did.

    I’m very much aware of the rumours that have dogged him since the 70’s. I am extremely well versed in Michael’s history in the media. I am very knowledgeable on these things, and I feel as though you are talking down to me as if I don’t know Michael’s history. I do know it, but thank you for pointing it out.

    I respect your blog very much but you need to stop with this attitude that you and the others that run it are more knowledgeable on Michael than the rest of us fans, just because you run a blog intent on clearing his name. That’s pretty silly, don’t you think? We’re all equal, we all love Michael just as much as the next fan. I don’t have time to run a blog to do these sorts of things, but I do posts things from time to time when I feel that things need to be cleared up on tumblr or on MJ forums.

    I mean no disrespect to you or your blog, but I am giving you some feedback here on the way you guys come across.

    Like

  66. sanemjfan permalink
    December 15, 2011 6:26 am

    @youngearlgrey

    I’m David, and I wrote that comment that you took offense to, and I’m sorry that it offended you. It wasn’t meant to offend or demean homosexuals; it was only meant to reiterate the fact that MJ was straight, and did not have any sexual fantasies about experimenting with gay or bisexual sex. Those gay rumors have dogged MJ since the 1970’s, and they played a big part in people thinking that he was guilty of child abuse. For example, Tom Sneddon asked several witnesses about MJ’s sexual orientation during the 1994 grand jury proceedings, he insinuated that MJ had gay porn, some of his ex-employees said he was gay, the media said MJ had connections to gay porn because he unknowingly hired a former gay porn director who didn’t disclose his background, and several tabloids offered six-figure payments to MJ’s friends if they said he was gay! (Read this post for more info: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/how-to-recognize-and-refute-the-fallacies-used-by-michael-jackson-haters-part-1-of-5/)

    I’m not trying to say that there is anything wrong if MJ was curious about experimenting in other forms of sexuality, but the fact of the matter is that he did not experiment, or have those thoughts or desires. When we debunk the gay rumors, it’s no different than debunking the rumors of him converting to Islam, or wanting to be white. Nobody is accused of being anti-Islamic or racist, respectively, when they debunk those rumors, but some fans have been accused of being homophobic when they debunk the gay rumors. I can assure you that I don’t have any hatred towards homosexuality, and there is no correlation between homosexuality and child abuse.

    I’m glad that you like our blog, and I hope that we can put this issue to rest, move on, and carry forward with our mission to clear MJ’s name. I hope that this issue is resolved, and I’m sorry for the confusion.

    Like

  67. December 15, 2011 6:17 am

    LOL oh come on. I don’t have to know who writes the articles to love a blog! That’s a little assuming, don’t you think? This is just getting ridiculous. I don’t automatically search for “rules” when I visit a blog, because you know what a blog is? It’s a place for people to write their personal thoughts on something. And as such, rules don’t really fit into that equasion. Again, I appreciate what you’re doing for Michael and the community. But the way you’re going about it is all wrong.

    I am not attacking you. I am attacking the notion that seems to be an undercurrent in posts here that fans NEED to defend Michael’s sexuality and put homosexuality down. That’s not okay. You can NOT let your personal thoughts get in the way of something subjective. That’s destroying the whole point of what you’re trying to do here, which is educate people on the ins and outs of Michael’s career and personal life. Again, this is what I’m fighting against. Not you. Not this blog. Not the writer. Just this idea/thought that you’re planting in people’s minds that it’s not okay to think of Michael as homosexual.

    Yes I did read all the comments and I stand by what I said. You cannot command me to read your rules when I have given you nothing but facts, but straight talk since my first comment. I have retained a casual tone through out most of my posts, I have given you feedback and I have praised your blog. I’m not really seeing why you’re getting so upset about this – I’m not upset at all, haha! I’m frustrated that you can’t see what you’re doing and how damaging it is, though. And I’m frustrated that you’re appointing yourself to speak for the MJ community at large. That’s not your job. That’s not anybody’s job.

    People will always have differing opinions, and if you can’t handle that and feel the need to police people’s comments on this blog, then I don’t think you should have had a blog in the first place. Again, it’s destroying the very idea of it. You should look at people’s opinions in a subjective manner; they are not attacking YOU personally, they are not attacking the author’s personally. They are seeing what you’ve written, and they are responding to that. The minute that you understand that this isn’t personal, the less you will be upset and the less you will feel the need to talk down to people like me. Because that’s exactly what you’re doing right now.

    And it ain’t cool, dude.

    Like

  68. lynande51 permalink
    December 15, 2011 6:07 am

    The link to the rules is at the top banner after the contact us. I did not write this article, the rules or any of the comments that you have taken offense to. I suggest that you read through them to understand the reasoning like I said. It was you that separated yourself from us and very interesting that if you love our blog you are not familiar with who you are addressing in your replies. Now please read the rules. I for one have not linked gays to p******** on this or any other comment. What I am taking offense to is your tone of attack toward us and commenting on a 5 month old comment. Did you read the comments previous to his that inspired what he wrote? And by the way I think your art is fantastic.

    Like

  69. December 15, 2011 5:40 am

    And in answer to your question, I refer to fans as an inclusive word. Meaning both you and me. Here you are finding ways to separate me as a hater, LOL. Nice try.

    Like

  70. December 15, 2011 5:39 am

    Oh honey, don’t jump the gun!

    1. I am not a “hater”. As I stated in my previous post, if you check out the link in my name it will lead you to my tumblr which is FULL of drawings of Michael. I have been a fan since 2008. However I do not pretend the sun shone out of Michael’s ass because let’s be frank, it surely didn’t. I am a realist and yes I will defend Michael to the bitter end, but not to the extent of shaming homosexuals which you continue to do in your posts.

    2. Michael was very accepting and loving of his gay fans. You should do the same as WE are fans too.

    3. This is a blog. Not a forum. Therefore anybody can post their opinions. If you don’t want opinions, don’t start a blog. I will say the word paedophile as much as I want because it is not banned in the english language. If you find it offensive, you need to question WHY you find it offensive. You are only feeding into the haters by “banning” the word. Be up front and frank, don’t hide behind things.

    4. I have no clue who David is, but as any curious person would I read this article and then read through the comments, saw that one that was shaming homosexuals and replied to it. I actually stated in my ORIGINAL comment that it was in reply to that. I didn’t quote it, but I did state it.

    5. Please, come down off your high horse. You do NOT speak for the community of Michael fans. No way in hell. I really respect this blog, I respect what you’re doing. But you are a small selection of fans and you do not represent what the rest of us think or feel about Michael. Please keep that in mind.

    6. I do believe that Michael was heterosexual. But that doesn’t mean that he didn’t experiment and it certainly doesn’t mean that he didn’t have respect for homosexuals. From your posts here, it seems like you are hell bent on putting heterosexuality on a pedastal and putting homosexuality down with the pigs. Being straight is NO better than being gay. Let me make that clear. And like I said, Michael was very loving and accepting of the gay community. Please do the same.

    You are so quick to brand people as “haters” when their opinion differs from your own. That’s not what an MJ fan should be. An MJ fan should incorporate all opinions of fans, should respect all fans. And you have done neither for me. Yes I have come on your blog and said these things, but it’s an OPEN WEBSITE. It is NOT a forum. There is no clear link to your “rules” and as I stated, a blog does not need to have rules. If you don’t want what you’ve written to be commented on, then take the comment section out.

    Let me be clear to say again that I respect what you’re doing and I love this blog, but the way you’re going about some things is not okay.

    Like

  71. lynande51 permalink
    December 15, 2011 5:22 am

    Oh I see it is time to look up previous comments made by David to attck the commentor/author. Are some people getting nervous about his popularity? First you should have clarified who and what it was the inspired your comment. When you post a new comment in response to a five month old comment it is confusing which is just what your statement was meant to be. Also if you read the rules you will find that writing out the whole word P******** is not allowed on this site. When you read the rules it will explain the reasoning for that. It is inspiring to say the least that you are all now going through our posts and comments to attack us as individuals. What a novel idea. It is the same stuff different day. Make yourself clear about what you are responding to and your reason for responding to it otherwise you just look very suspicious. Now what is your problem and who is your problem with? Is it that you belive that MJ was a different sexual orientation than what he repeatedly stated that he was or is it that David is becoming very popular? I think there is a horrible misconception in the public that we here are vindicating Michael are actually trying to say something that Michael Jackson himself said a thousand times. He was not gay. He was not a P********. Why is it that we have to keep repeating the truth over and over again or better yet why did he? Whenever I see comments like yours I have to ask myself why do people continue to question his sexuality? It was not his behavior that comes into question it is yours. All doubters say that we have no proof that he was not gay or a P******** when we do in fact have the words of the man himself. It is you that do no believe him and yet it is also you that have nothing but salacious gossip on your side. We like to take the truth from the man himself.

    I’m a 20 year old girl fan of MJ. If you click through my tumblr you’ll see that I draw Michael a lot. Do I need to prove my “fandom” to you? I can’t believe fans pull this kind of crap still, haha!

    So my next question from that comment is; Are you a fan or aren’t you? Yous say you are and then in the ver ynext line call us fans. I do not ask you to prove your fandom just explain the inconsistencies on your statements and the reason for making them.

    Like

  72. December 15, 2011 4:03 am

    My comment is in reply to this one:

    “Michael was NOT a homosexual, bi-sexual, tri-sexual, or any other sexual orientation except HETEROsexual!! We have been through this topic already on this blog, and you’ve been a regular reader for several months (and maybe longer), and you should know that we’ve already debunked those rumors that were re-energized by our adversary. We can all hold hands and sing “Kumbaya” and pretend that MJ’s sexuality doesn’t matter because we’re all “tolerant”, but the fact of the matter is that it DOES matter, because MJ was accused of harming young boys, and if people suspect that he’s gay or bisexual, they’re more likely to believe that garbage.”

    And the poster is making a direct comparision between being gay and molestation. There is NO evidence to prove that. As I said, a paedophile is more likely to identify as straight than anything else.

    Yes I am from Australia. But you can check out the link to my tumblr through my name, LOL. I’m a 20 year old girl fan of MJ. If you click through my tumblr you’ll see that I draw Michael a lot. Do I need to prove my “fandom” to you? I can’t believe fans pull this kind of crap still, haha!

    Like

  73. lynande51 permalink
    December 15, 2011 3:57 am

    The above post does not have any reference in it from the authors on this blog that states that there is a corelation between homosexuality and pedophilia. I think you may have misplaced your comment or misunderstood that they were quotes from the book reviews. That said you are also from Australia like Kurt. I can tell by the spelling of P*******. So are you just another version of Kurt? Your statements have obvious truths about you in them. The first of course that we are wrong when we write something that was not even written. The next is to accept Michael as he was, which is what we do. It is you tht say he was something different that what he says he was.

    Like

  74. December 15, 2011 3:44 am

    But the way you’re “stressing” it makes it out to be that there’s a link between homosexuality and paedophilia. Actually, most paedophiles are STRAIGHT men, or they identify as straight. Not gay. So your link between the two is incorrect. I feel that you are shaming homosexuality in favour of presenting Michael in a “normal” light, and yet you are overlooking the fact that there is absolutely nothing wrong with loving men, or both men and women.

    Michael may have experimented. He may have been curious. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that! It’s natural, it’s human and it’s beautiful. So please stop this shaming. You are letting your own personal opinions on what is “right” to cloud your need to vindicate Michael. I understand where you’re coming from, but you need to get some of your facts right and you need to see that if Michael was indeed homosexual or bisexual that that would be perfectly okay. It’s just a natural part of life.🙂

    Like

  75. Julie permalink
    December 14, 2011 6:22 pm

    youngearlgray – I think you are missing the point. No one is saying anything about homosexuality or bisexuality in general. It is just being stressed that Michael was neither of those things, but a heterosexual man who was NOT a pedophile. The purpose is to dispute the lies that have been told about him.

    Like

  76. December 14, 2011 11:06 am

    Also just want to make note that there is NO connection between homosexuality and paedophilia. I adore this blog but please don’t spread misinformation like that because homosexuality makes you feel uncomfortable. Again, there is NOTHING WRONG with Michael perhaps being bisexual or finding men attractive. NOTHING. And if you think that gives haters more room to budge in on the argument, I think you’re a liiiiiiiiiiiiiittle off course there haha!

    Like

  77. December 14, 2011 11:00 am

    Just saw some comments about Michael’s sexual nature; there is absolutely nothing on this earth wrong with being gay or liking men, or heaven forbid liking men AND women. There is nothing damning about that. There is nothing insulting about that. I think Michael was mostly interested in women because of his upbringing, but if he did experiement with men there would be absolutely nothing wrong with that. Why? Because it’s natural! Loving all people is natural. So if people come on this blog and say similar things, we’re not “suspicious” or “haters in disguise”. We’re merely people with open eyes.🙂

    That said, I am a huge MJ fan and this blog is just amazing. A personal favourite of mine.❤

    Like

  78. hana permalink
    August 19, 2011 12:10 pm

    @lcpledwards

    ok no problem. I don’t wanna spark any drama, so lets squash the issue and move on.

    Like

  79. lcpledwards permalink
    August 19, 2011 7:24 am

    @ Hana
    I never said there was anything “wrong” with being gay,bi-sexual, or whatever. Regardless of what anyone of us thinks about homo- and bi-sexuality, this blog is NOT the place to have that discussion, and I want to respectfully end this issue once and for all.

    There are certain topics that generate a lot of emotions, with religion, politics, race, and sexuality being the top 4. Look at that argument about race we had here a few weeks ago! I don’t want to have another incident like that ever again, whether the topic is race or anything else.

    You’ve read this blog long enough to know that we have argued incessantly for MJ’s heterosexuality in light of our adversary’s repeated assertions that he was a homosexual due to some dirty linens found on his bed. We got suspicious when all of a sudden, you posted that MJ could have been bisexual (to paraphrase what you said), and it seemed like you were trying to distract us into talking about what essentially is a dead issue. MJ was a heterosexual, period. Regardless of his taste in art, or who slept in his bed, or whatever.

    I didn’t meant to jump down your throat like that, but haters are CONSTANTLY using MJ’s art to paint him as gay, and we really, really got suspicious when you used this technique, as well as bringing up our adversary’s blog. Let’s just end this right now, and move on, because we have more important issues to deal with.

    Like

  80. August 18, 2011 9:34 pm

    @lynade

    Your right. I probably shouldn’t have said that..It was just a thought.

    Like

  81. lynande51 permalink
    August 18, 2011 9:28 pm

    hana, I don’t think that projecting your sexual curiosities on anyone else is very productive. Not as many people question their sexuality nor do they ruminate on it in the way that you do. Let me put it this way; why do you somehow try to connect your own “curiosity” as you say on a male. Wouldn’t you be better off trying to find a connection to someone that has these same curiosities? What I mean is why not look at some female celebrities as a comparison instead of Michael Jackson. I know that this will come as something of a shock to you but on this I think Desiree may be right. I think that there is something wrong with your desire to connect yourself to Michael Jackson, his fans and his detractors. When you post to all of these blogs on both sides one has to wonder what your thought processes might be. In my opinion they are definitely altered. I think it would be wise of you to find a side that you want to follow and stick with it. Your thoughful comments might have more credibility.

    Like

  82. August 18, 2011 9:18 pm

    oh and also, yes it’s me the real hana that’s been here for 7 months. As for the Aaron Carter post, sorry if I offended anyone. I wasn’t trying to promote that psycho Desiree in any form. I just posted it so you guys could see how she twists things around.

    Like

  83. August 18, 2011 9:07 pm

    @lcpledwards

    There’s nothing wrong with being bi-curious. I’m a happily married heterosexual woman and I sometimes fantasize about other women, even though I’ve never had the balls to actually get with one. Not saying that MJ was definitely interested in men, but just saying there’s nothing wrong with it.

    Like

  84. shelly permalink
    August 16, 2011 8:25 pm

    I don’t know but maybe there is a way to contact Mary Minow and asked her a few questions about those books. Some of the pictures from those books are on Internet, the photograph is Hajo Ortil.

    Like

  85. lynande51 permalink
    August 16, 2011 7:53 pm

    Yes D does love drama, if she didn’t she wouldn’t show her attention seeking behaviors that are so apparent in her posts and her comments to them ( which far out number any of her readers comments). But knowing that what could we possibly do if she did post those photos uncensored with her article? I mean it isn’t that the entire world recognizes her personality disorder so we will just post the actual books in his possession with the inscriptions. Just because she sees ish where there is no ish doesn’t mean the rest of the world does. Besides Blogger and the FBI have very clear laws and rules about content like that, the FBI especially. Hopefully she will contact them to see what she should do rather than ask her readers I think that would be the best course of action on her part. Find out how she can do it legally before she goes off half cocked and gets herself in trouble.

    Like

  86. shelly permalink
    August 16, 2011 7:20 pm

    She said she will and she asked her follower if she should censure the pictures or not, and I really do.’t believe D is not Hana.

    Like

  87. lynande51 permalink
    August 16, 2011 6:45 pm

    Gee, I hope she doesn’t. For her sake.Since a private email session with her she has blocked my IP address from viewing her blog so I can’t see the content any longer. I wonder if she did that in preparation for the post. Who knows what her motivation is.

    Like

  88. shelly permalink
    August 16, 2011 6:28 pm

    I don’t believe it’s the same person, you should read the comments on D’s entry about Barnes, she loves drama.

    D is going to show the pictures of the naked kids.

    Like

  89. Suzy permalink
    August 16, 2011 6:16 pm

    I agree with Lynette.

    Can’t we just stop paying attention to D (because that’s what she seeks) and move on? Her opinion is irrelevant. As long as fans pay attention to her, they are feeding her. Let her and her handful of fans enjoy themselves in the dirt they created for themselves. But we should move on.

    Like

  90. lynande51 permalink
    August 16, 2011 6:10 pm

    I know that it is the same person. She may be looking for us to stop a post about those books. We have known for a long time that she intended to do that. I for one am not worried about that. What could she possibly say about books that hadn’t been in his possession since 1993? I say let her do it, we will be ableto refute it because there are photos of those two books with the inscriptions inside in Aphrodites Jones’ book. we can just show the inscriptions and prove what Michael saw. There really is no point to attempting to make her see reason. It can’t be done so why bother.

    Like

  91. shelly permalink
    August 16, 2011 6:01 pm

    It’s someone who is stalking D’s blog for months.

    Like

  92. shelly permalink
    August 16, 2011 6:00 pm

    The name which goes with that Gravatar was the same 6 months ago.

    Like

  93. August 16, 2011 2:27 pm

    Don`t forget that Jordans father had custody of him at the time.When chosing between parents a child mostly choses the one who appears stronger,be that parent treacherous or not.The mother had also behaved in an avoidant manner and was not seen as supportive if him.
    I don´t think Jordan alone was able to take the role of standard bearer for justice for Michael against both of his parents.

    Like

  94. August 16, 2011 2:07 pm

    lynande 51,Jordan knew very well that his father just was after money.Once that was settled there was no need for Jordan to be dragged to various interviews or cross (as he expressed it).He actually feared cross, it might have been hard to keep lying in court, much worse than doing it for one person at atime.”This is a good day”= I am finally outta here!

    Like

  95. shelly permalink
    August 16, 2011 11:50 am

    She used that gravatar for a few months.

    Like

  96. lynande51 permalink
    August 16, 2011 8:58 am

    Ther is something wrong with the Gravatar and address that hana is using. It is different than all of her previous Gravatar names is it possible that she is not the one writing this? Someone might want to contact her to see if that is her comment.Hana has posted a couple of other comments lately that would come into question. She recently posted a comment that linked to Desiree site to her article about Aaron Carter. I say someone should contact her to see if this is her comment.

    Like

  97. Suzy permalink
    August 16, 2011 8:51 am

    David and Rockforveveron said it all, but I will also add that none of those male art books depicted male on male sex except for one (Sexual Study of Man). Even the prosecution’s note for each of them was “the pictures weren’t sexually explicit in nature” or “the subjects weren’t photographed in sexually explicit poses”. Most of those books were vintage ART – rare books from the 60s, 70s or even 1800s!

    It was a bit different for the nude female art books, because some of them were described as sexually explicit and they were – for example Scenes’d Intereur, Gynoids or Wicked Intentions. But they depicted nude females.

    Out of ten thousands of books and about a hundred magazines “Sexual Study of Man” was the only publication in Michael’s possession that showed male/male sex. Like Rockonforever said it was found in the downstairs area of Michael’s bedroom suit (he slept upstairs – that was his actual bedroom) in one of the boxes those had all kinds of – thousands of – books in them: art books, entertainment books etc. Basically he had thousands of books in that area, even in the bathroom there were bookcases and boxes, bags full of books! How do I know? It’s in the testimonies of the officers who accumulated these items during the search. He was a huge collector of books, all kind of books. “Sexual Study of Man” is also a rare vintage book – it was published in the 60s.

    I don’t think a gay or even bi guy would be satisfied with having this one book depicting male/male sex in his huge collection and nothing else. And even this one book wasn’t found in his nightstand, but in boxes downstairs together with hundreds of other art books.

    Meanwhile, like Rockforeveron pointed out, his all of his porn magazines were heterosexual. They were found in his nightstand right beside his bed, in a box at the base of his bed and in a briefcase that he kept in his bedroom.

    Like

  98. August 16, 2011 7:50 am

    Remember too where these books were kept:

    In boxes amongst thousands of other art books downstairs from his bedroom and only in 1993.

    His pornography was underneath his bed, in his bedside drawer and where he kept his liquor in his bathroom. And on his computers, which had caches dating back to 1998.

    Like

  99. Julie permalink
    August 16, 2011 7:00 am

    @lcpledwards

    You go! That’s awesome!

    Like

  100. lcpledwards permalink
    August 16, 2011 5:15 am

    @ hana
    Michael was NOT a homosexual, bi-sexual, tri-sexual, or any other sexual orientation except HETEROsexual!! We have been through this topic already on this blog, and you’ve been a regular reader for several months (and maybe longer), and you should know that we’ve already debunked those rumors that were re-energized by our adversary. We can all hold hands and sing “Kumbaya” and pretend that MJ’s sexuality doesn’t matter because we’re all “tolerant”, but the fact of the matter is that it DOES matter, because MJ was accused of harming young boys, and if people suspect that he’s gay or bisexual, they’re more likely to believe that garbage.

    His art collection is absolutely irrelevant! What you should focus on is his extensive, 12 year collection of straight, legal, heterosexual porn magazines, which are far more indicative of his sexual preferences. He liked all kinds of art, but purely for artistic means, and not for sexual gratification. I think that that “David” statue by Michaelangelo is a great work of art, but does that mean that I have homosexual desires? Of course not! That same logic should apply to MJ.

    Like

  101. August 16, 2011 4:05 am

    Judging by the gay and heterosexual material found in his home, is it safe to say that MJ was most likely a bisexual man, or at least a heterosexual man with homosexual curiosity?.

    Like

  102. Terry permalink
    August 14, 2011 10:55 pm

    Some of the books were surmised by the police as that of which could be used as “grooming” material. If this was the case, why wasn’t it? None of the so called victims ever said that Michael showed them any of these materials….they did say that they saw the porn that was legitimate and legal and that of of a heterosexual nature. Just thought I would add that. And wasn’t that the same stuff that MJ hid away in a locked briefcase or somethign like that?
    Thanks for a thorough analysis of some of the materials found.
    All this proves to me is even more, what a truly intellectual and arty guy he was!

    Like

  103. shelly permalink
    July 18, 2011 12:30 am

    I was speaking about what Lynande said here

    “The prosecution said in another pleading that the defense had known since the beginning that the prosecution would not be using anything from the bed.”

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/no-evidence-of-evidence/

    Like

  104. shelly permalink
    July 17, 2011 7:31 pm

    @suzy,

    I know that document, but if I remember well she was speaking about something else.

    Like

  105. Suzy permalink
    July 17, 2011 6:52 pm

    @ Shelly

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/013105pltmotrd14itms.pdf

    On Page 14: “The DNA on the bed will not be referred to by the People”.

    Like

  106. shelly permalink
    July 17, 2011 5:21 pm

    @lynande,

    If I remember you said in one of your post that the DA told the defense at the very beginning of the case that they didn’t want to use the male DNA they found on the bed. Do you have that document?

    Like

  107. shelly permalink
    July 17, 2011 12:29 pm

    I don’t think they will, it was redacted in order to protect privacy. We have to wait until Jordan dies and it’s not going to happen before a long time, at least it’s what I hope for him.

    Like

  108. Teva permalink
    July 17, 2011 7:00 am

    They might release more information as the years go by.

    Like

  109. lynande51 permalink
    July 17, 2011 5:59 am

    I’m just sort of thinking out loud here so to speak. has anyone ever wondered about Jordan’s statement to Zonen and Auchincloss in 2004 that was found in the FBI files. I mean part of it is redacted but what you can get from it was the it was him, he would not testify, would fight it legally if they tried to subpoena him. It is the last part that is interesting the ” he felt he had done his part” and then the rest is blacked out.
    what do you suppose he felt he had done his part in? I mean if he had done his part to stop Michael Jackson wouldn’t he have testified against him in criminal court in 1994? Or at the very least wouldn’t he have been deposed or gone to trial in the civil case? What did he believe was doing his part and what was the part that he thought he had done? Because the only thing that happened was Michael’s insurance sompany paid him some money and his reputation took a hit. Was that his part? Was that enough for him to be satisfied after he was allegedly abused by Michael?
    Then there is the redacting itself. Why was the rest of that even blacked out? Did it have someone elses name in it. Before they are released they have to contact others that are mentioned in there to see if they object to their information being released. So who might have objected?

    Like

  110. Teva permalink
    July 17, 2011 5:21 am

    Okay, I see your point.

    Like

  111. lynande51 permalink
    July 17, 2011 5:08 am

    Actually I think they would have known that one would never have been handled by Tom Mesereau but by someone on the team. They did not even have to respond to it other than to not say anything in the closings. It is kind of funny because if you look at it when they are refering to the defendant or the his or him they italisize the word. Those guys were just plain pissy from the beginning til the end of their little circus.

    Like

  112. Teva permalink
    July 17, 2011 4:59 am

    @lynette

    The motion was much about nothing. Any statements made by the prosecution or opposing counsel during opening arguments cannot be considered by the jury as evidence. The jury is instructed to disregard. Mez could have said Michael Jackson will be testifing, but later changed his mind and the jury could not hold it against him. I think Sneddon & Zonen were using the considerable resources of their office to get Mez tied down in filing counter motions in hopes of spliting his attention from the court room. Diversionary tactics if you ask me.

    Like

  113. lynande51 permalink
    July 17, 2011 4:42 am

    @Teva, Right he couldn’t very well ask the photos of they were true or not, not much response. I think Sneddon wanted to do 2 things with those photos. He wanted to make it very salacious in the final hours and the only witness that could rebut the photos was Michael. He wanted to force him to the stand ripping away his right not to testify. It was right after the attempt to introduce the photos on 5/25/2005 was denied that they introduced this.
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/053105pltreqctlmtexp.pdf
    I forgot to add something. In the state of California even if a person under the age of 14 is under oath they cannot be held resposible for perjury. That is why the declaration that Jordan gave on December 28th 1993 was about as worthless as Sneddons’ was. It meant nothing because he was not 14 until January 11th 1994, 13 days after the declaration. You thnk Feldman didn’t know that when he attached it to his motion for Michael’s financial statements?

    Like

  114. Teva permalink
    July 17, 2011 3:28 am

    @lynette

    Correct. If the photos had been allowed in Mez could not perform a cross examination of the evidence, not without Jordan, and it was Michael’s right to not testify. If I remember correctly from a previous post here Jordan never gave a criminal deposition which could have been used in court in place of his absence. A deposition is also subject to perjury.

    Like

  115. lynande51 permalink
    July 17, 2011 3:11 am

    No because the photos prove nothing. It has to have a direct link to the crime that he was charged with not who the complaining witness was. That was why they got the 1108 in the first place. They were saying that it was to prove a propensity to commit the crime. Now all of the witnesses except Jason Francia were “eyewitnesses” to the crime but not the alleged “victims”. They can’t very well question Ralph Chacon about Jordan’s description and he was the one that said he saw Jordan (someone might want to tell D that he testified that it was Jordan not Brett like she keeps saying). Jordan did not testify that he gave that description and that it was accurate. If he had then they could have used them because the defense could have cross examined him. But let’s face it by the last week of the trial they knew full well that he wasn’t coming, everybody did. They just wanted the photos in there for purely salcious and sensational value nothing else.
    Here is a link to a few quotes from Sneddon and an article search that someone did on the first days after the arrest.
    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/11/19/867/02974
    A common theme that runs through the pleadings and every statement he ever made was that Michael had bought Jordan’s silence even though they were told and fully expected him to testify. Ask yourself why they think that? Who told them that he wouldn’t because of the settlement? Who knew that Michael settled the civil case to concentrate on the criminal case? It was Jordan Chandler. He never wanted or expected to testify because it would prove that he and/or his father was an extortionist. He told Sneddon no because they got the money and that was good enough for them.

    Like

  116. Teva permalink
    July 17, 2011 2:55 am

    …but Jordan was not going to testify. He was not going to take the witness stand and explain one way or another. The photos would have been allowed in without direct testimony. That is my understanding.

    Like

  117. shelly permalink
    July 17, 2011 2:17 am

    What about the 1108 evidence?

    Like

  118. shelly permalink
    July 17, 2011 1:40 am

    Do you mean, because the pictures are not link to the Arvizo case?

    Like

  119. shelly permalink
    July 17, 2011 1:39 am

    “He could have ruled differently but if the evidence of the photos was proven on appeal to have been the one that altered or influenced the outcome of the verdict in a negative manner that would have been reversible error.”

    What do you mean by that?

    Like

  120. shelly permalink
    July 17, 2011 1:20 am

    By the way, thank you Lynande for the glenda tape link.

    Like

  121. lynande51 permalink
    July 17, 2011 1:19 am

    The defense used what is called a point of law or a case law, in this case the Crawford case which was heard by the Supreme court. They use it as an example of something similar that happened regarding evidence. They did not consult the Supreme Court about this particular case. He could have ruled differently but if the evidence of the photos was proven on appeal to have been the one that altered or influenced the outcome of the verdict in a negative manner that would have been reversible error. The Appellate court, of which there are many levels could then grant a retrial based on the reversible error and overturning the verdict. A quick answer would be that no Judge wants to have his findings reversed in any case but in this one definitely not. It doesn’t look good, it insinuates that they don’t know their job.By the way my father was a judge.As for did they know he would say no my guess would be yes they just wanted to do it just to do it.

    Like

  122. shelly permalink
    July 17, 2011 12:05 am

    If it’s the final say, then they k.ew for sure the judge was going to say no.

    Like

  123. Teva permalink
    July 16, 2011 11:50 pm

    Not 100% sure but I think it is the equivalent to the Privy Council in the the English commonwealth territories.

    Like

  124. Teva permalink
    July 16, 2011 11:47 pm

    I don’t believe a state court can go against the rulings of the supreme court. The supreme court is the final say.

    Like

  125. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 11:25 pm

    Do you know what is the power of the US Suprem Court over a judge in California? Does he have the possibility to disagree with them and take a decision wich contradict the Supreme Court?

    Like

  126. lynande51 permalink
    July 16, 2011 11:22 pm

    That’s right it was only done for the sensationalism nothing more. That is the same reason that they went for the 1108 and 1101 evidence in the first place. The ultimate goal was to make Michael Look bad in the court of public opinion. Couple that with a pro prosection media and you have the results that they hoped for. Michael Jackson was never going to be truly found not guilty. Slimeballs all of them.

    Like

  127. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 11:11 pm

    You are right, but that document is such a mess that I wonder if it wasn’t done on purpose. I mean you have Sneddon who said several times that he isn’t under penalty perjury, you have those mystakes.

    I am sure, Sneddon knew very well that the judge was going to say no. I don’t know what is the power of the US Suprem court, but I doubt a judge would choose to not follow a decision from that court.

    Like

  128. lynande51 permalink
    July 16, 2011 11:04 pm

    Read page 1 then paragraph 3. They both say that the interview was September 1st. Then he says when they got the search warrant on December 13th and executed it on December 20th. The interview was on September 1st. The last reference was either a typo or he misspoke when he was dictating it. There were tons of typos in those things and the prosecution ridiculed every single one of the ones that the defense made so they had to file an Errata Motion.

    Like

  129. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 10:54 pm

    I don’t think it’s a typo, they spoke about the December interview at least 4 or 5 times in the document.

    Like

  130. lynande51 permalink
    July 16, 2011 10:51 pm

    Shelly there was no December 1st interview with Jordan. The interview was September 1st 1993. It is just a typo. He never actually went in to be interviewed again regarding the description he just sent it in.

    Like

  131. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 10:45 pm

    I just asked because when I read the document I first understood that Sneddon saw the statement on the 1rst of december 1993, but in fact it was an interview by Jordan which was done on that day.

    Like

  132. lynande51 permalink
    July 16, 2011 10:34 pm

    You mean Detective Ferrufino’s account of Jordan’s description? Who knows? He doesn’t say when he reviewed it and he doesn’t have to. He could have done it the day before the Declaration or he could have done it 11 years before the Declaration.What we do know that it was not in the course of the trial because he would have had to petition the court to go view the photos and bring them to court, because they were filed under seal and the only way to get them was with a court order. If he had petitioned the court for them the defense would have known and either tried to stop them or used them to their advantage since they were exculpatory.And he would have had to use them to prove what Jordan said if he had appeared in court so he could be cross examined.
    When he filed his pleading to introduce them he used it not for the truth of the matters asserted in the declaration, but to show that Michael was not shy or modest. The defense and the Court were right he just wanted to use them for inflammatory purposes for sensationalism and to humiliate Michael.

    Like

  133. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 10:13 pm

    When did he review Jordan’s description.

    Like

  134. lynande51 permalink
    July 16, 2011 9:56 pm

    The affidavit has the official “description”. The other was “information” from Detective Ferrufino. Not the official one that was used for the search warrant. If it is not an official description and it is wrong it is just rank hearsay and he can’t help it if he believed something that was wrong.
    If you want to know why he was not prosecuted or sued for Prosecutorial Misconduct look up Harmless Error and Reversible Error. It seems that in order for there to be Prosecutorial Misconduct there must be a reversible error. Michael would have had to expect a better verdict outcome. Well you don’t get any better than 14 not guilties. That jury let Sneddon off too.

    Like

  135. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 9:48 pm

    “Shelly what he says is that he reviewed the drawing and the description given to him by Detective Ferrufino. He does not say he read the affidavit.”

    What is the difference?

    I understand that he isn’t under under penalty of perjury when he said that.

    Like

  136. lynande51 permalink
    July 16, 2011 9:42 pm

    Shelly what he says is that he reviewed the drawing and the description given to him by Detective Ferrufino. He does not say he read the affidavit. In the book ATG there are actually 2 times Jordan gives a description and one where he submits a drawing. What Sneddon did was say that he reviewed the Sept. description not the suporting affidavit by Detective Linden that was sworn based on Jordans description. That was based on the drawing and description given in October.it was the Santa Barbara Sheriff Detective LInden that swore out the only affidavit, LA detectives did not seek a search warrant.
    That said read it again and see how many times he says ” information” and his “belief”. If you look at it the whole thing is “information and belief”.I know it takes awhile to figure out all the legal trickery that they used to skew evidence, mislead the court and vilify Michael. You practically have to have a legal dictionary next to you.

    Like

  137. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 9:10 pm

    It’s the judge’s answer

    “It’s the judge answer to the penis pictures

    MR. SANGER: Very well, Your Honor.

    18 THE COURT: I’m going to deny the request to

    19 bring in the evidence of the blemished penis. This

    20 is the reason: It’s twofold, really. And under a

    21 352 analysis, the Court agrees with the defense,

    22 that shyness really was not an issue of any

    23 proportion. I think you’ve reminded me — I knew

    24 there had been some statement somewhere in the trial

    25 about shyness, but the — I think you’ve reviewed

    26 that with me, and I think I agree with — my

    27 recollection now has been refreshed to exactly what

    28 that was. But I knew it was only a small thing to 12182

    1 start with, if anything. And you’re saying it was

    2 actually nothing.

    3 But the analysis there would be, even if

    4 shyness had been raised as an issue, the prejudicial

    5 effect would far outweigh the probative value of the

    6 shyness issue. And secondly, I think — even though

    7 your analysis is I think correct, I keep going

    8 through it, but I think it is not hearsay. I still

    9 think Crawford would apply to the ability to

    10 cross-examine the boy — or the — you know, Mr.

    11 Chandler. He’s not a boy anymore — on that issue,

    12 and that’s definitely not available, so that would

    13 be my reasoning for excluding that evidence.”

    D always forget the second part, where the judge clearly it would be a violation of MJ constitutional rights.

    Like

  138. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 9:08 pm

    It’s from the defense

    “R. SANGER: Yes. I don’t want a lack of 12176

    1 volume to suggest that this didn’t take well into

    2 the night to get done here. And I don’t want to

    3 repeat everything, but I think because it is such an

    4 important issue, we’re right at the end of the case,

    5 I feel compelled to speak about it just briefly, if

    6 I may.

    7 First of all, this seems to come directly

    8 within the California Supreme Court’s discussion in

    9 the Carter case, which basically says it’s not

    10 proper to bring in evidence that magnifies evidence

    11 that the opposition has not had a chance to meet

    12 squarely during the case-in-chief, which we haven’t,

    13 because this was not offered, it was not hinted at.

    14 It was not even in the original 1108 motion from

    15 which the Court made a cut and reduced what they had

    16 presented originally. So it wasn’t even in there.

    17 I mean, we had no notice to deal with these

    18 issues — with this issue at all. So there is

    19 certainly unfair surprise, as stated directly in the

    20 Carter case.

    21 And Carter also says that the Court is

    22 supposed to avoid dramatic evidence introduced late

    23 in the trial that’s going to have an undue effect.

    24 Now, as we pointed out, this was not
    offered. I mean, this is really a stretch to even

    26 come up with any kind of an argument as to why this

    27 should — why they could even ask to bring this in.

    28 And they’re not asking to bring it in as 1108 12177

    1 evidence. They’re asking to bring it in as 1101(b)

    2 evidence.

    3 And the idea is, I think they’ve said in

    4 their pleadings, that this goes to the issue of

    5 whether or not Mr. Jackson was shy or modest. Now,

    6 that’s not what Mr. Zonen just said when he got up

    7 here and argued. I think he shifted the argument a

    8 bit, if I’m not mistaken, and talked about things

    9 happening in the bedroom.

    10 They didn’t offer — I mean, we can’t just

    11 keep having a moving target here. They didn’t offer

    12 it in their moving papers. They didn’t offer it for

    13 that purpose. They offered it on the shy and modest

    14 purpose. So it would be 1101(b) evidence on kind of

    15 a collateral matter, if it ever happened. But it

    16 didn’t happen in this case in the defense.

    17 We went through and did a word search on the

    18 entire transcript, several different words, “shy,”

    19 “modest,” all sorts of things. We found one

    20 question that used the word “shy,” not even in this

    21 context. It had to do with whether or not a maid

    22 saw Mr. Jackson change his shirt. And the objection

    23 was sustained to that question. So it was never

    24 answered. So it didn’t happen.

    25 We also went through and — just to be sure,

    and read — we read all the testimony from the key

    27 witnesses in the defense who might have said

    28 something like that if anybody said it. And the 12178

    1 only thing we can come up with is an investigative

    2 report where the word — I think “shy” — it was

    3 either “shy” or “modest,” one of the two was used.

    4 We quoted it in there. And it turns out that that

    5 was never brought out from that witness on the

    6 stand.

    7 So it seemed to me that, when I was looking

    8 at this, this was a pocket brief the District

    9 Attorney had originally prepared in case somebody

    10 did this. It didn’t happen. Now they’re trying to

    11 bring it in by way of rebuttal, and it would just be

    12 absolutely inappropriate as 1101, because it doesn’t

    13 rebut anything, okay?

    14 What really they’re trying to do, and I

    15 think that’s what I heard Mr. Zonen just argue, is

    16 they’re trying to argue this is 1108. And it

    17 doesn’t meet the criteria for 1108. It doesn’t meet

    18 the criteria the Court set down that it would be

    19 somebody directly observing something. So it would

    20 have the prejudicial effect of the jury considering

    21 it, obviously, for 1108 purposes. Because it would

    22 be very shocking to see pictures of — anatomical

    23 pictures and all that sort of thing.

    24 So just from that standpoint, they’ve made

    25 no — show no basis. There’s no foundation to admit

    his as rebuttal, because there’s — they haven’t

    27 shown what they’re rebutting under 1101(b). And

    28 obviously, if they did that, the prejudice would be 12179

    1 so overwhelming, because it would go to the 1108 and

    2 it shouldn’t come in for that reason.

    3 And as we said before, 1108 — as the Court

    4 is well aware, 1108 is a very delicate kind of an

    5 issue. The jury is given tremendously prejudicial

    6 evidence, that is, prejudicial in the sense that it

    7 is propensity evidence, and that propensity

    8 evidence — under this weird law we have in

    9 California that doesn’t exist most other places,

    10 propensity evidence is allowed to come in, but the

    11 Court has to exercise discretion in limiting it, so

    12 it doesn’t overwhelm the trial. And the Court made

    13 those rulings. And to bring this in at this point

    14 and emphasize 1108 in rebuttal with something that

    15 isn’t even really 1108 evidence would be

    16 tremendously prejudicial.

    17 But when you get right down to it, the main

    18 reason that it has to stay out is it violates

    19 Crawford and the confrontation clause. It’s not

    20 admissible hearsay. It is testimonial directly

    21 under Crawford. This is the kind of stuff that

    22 Crawford is talking about, when police officers do

    23 interviews, and they get information and they write

    24 it down in reports, and then they preserve that and

    25 the prosecution wants to bring it in, that violates

    26 the confrontation clause. You cannot do that.
    So you would have a violation of a federal

    28 constitutional right were this allowed in, in any 12180

    1 event, and so the Court can start at either end.

    2 Either just decide it on that and it’s over, or you

    3 look at the other end. It’s not proper rebuttal,

    4 because there was no evidence to rebut. And under

    5 the Carter case, it’s simply dramatic evidence that

    6 would be overwhelming at the end of the trial and

    7 really, in my opinion, and as we briefed, totally

    8 meaningless. There is no probative value. But if

    9 there was, by a stretch, it would be on a collateral

    10 matter.

    11 And so I think — I feel very strongly about

    12 this that this is absolutely inappropriate. And I

    13 will submit it, Your Honor. Thank you.”

    Like

  139. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 9:05 pm

    “Now knowing that you can see in that Declaration that he says that he looked at the photos and that he was told what the description was and he compared it to what he was told.”

    He said in his declaration that he had seen Jordan’s statement.

    Like

  140. lynande51 permalink
    July 16, 2011 8:11 pm

    Just so everyone knows I visit and I have commented on her site. She of course is all about the argument. She never actually answers a question she just fills peoples heads with BS. I would give a list of her many misstatements like all biologicals were semen and they were all from other men. She just basically berates my evidence that in a black light all biologicals except blood glow a yellow green, for that matter fabric softeners do so who knows. Does that mean that because the prosecution said something it means it was true? It does not as a matter of fact if you look at Tom Sneddon’s declaration that the photos were a match you will notice something that he says. As a matter of fact it is included in a lot of their Declarations. It is a line in them where they say “except those based on information and belief”. Here is the legal definition of information and belief:
    information and belief n. a phrase often used in legal pleadings (complaints and answers in a lawsuit), declarations under penalty of perjury, and affidavits under oath, in which the person making the statement or allegation qualifies it. In effect, he/she says: “I am only stating what I have been told, and I believe it.” This makes clear about which statements he/she does not have sure-fire, personal knowledge (perhaps it is just hearsay or surmise), and protects the maker of the statement from claims of outright falsehood or perjury. The typical phraseology is: “Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges that defendant diverted the funds to his own use.” (See: declaration, affidavit, complaint, answer, perjury)
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Information+and+Belief

    Now knowing that you can see in that Declaration that he says that he either based it on a report by Detective Ferrufino or looked at the photos and that he was told what the description was and he compared it to what he was told. In other words he did not compare it to the actual affidavit. He is not however responsible if what he was told is wrong just because what was said to him was a lie. In essence it means he could not help it if he was told a lie and believed it therefore he is not to be held responsible for perjury just because he was dumb enough to believe a lie.
    The 1993 affidavit was Filed Under Seal Since July of 1994, but it was opened and added to the affidavit for the 2003 search warrant for Neverland, Brad Millers office and Hamid Moslehi house. They again filed that part of the affidavit Under Seal and on January 24th 2004. It was opened for approximately 2 months. The Smoking Gun Website had the Linden Affidavit available to them for that long. The article “The Case of The Tell Tale Splotch” was out on the web on January 6th 2004. We can assume that the Linden affidavit used in that article was in fact the true affidavit and it says that it was a light spot and that Michael was circumcised. However Sneddon says it was a dark spot located somewhere in the same area that he was told it should be based on what he was told.All other accounts of the body search say this quoting detective Russ Birchim that was in the room that day. According to him he saw a dark spot.That means that not even the areas of discoloration were not correct according to the actual description.
    That Declaration of his was as worthless as a 3 dollar bill. It meant nothing, in fact Bob Sanger called it a pocket brief meaning it was just added for the sole purpose of using the photos and humiliating Michael. The thing is that the public at large have no idea how many cases of Prosecutorial Misconduct there are in a given year here in the US. They should look it up because it is a real education.
    Shelly if you want to hear Michael talk about the women in his life that he cared about listen to the Glenda tapes. That too is a real education.

    Like

  141. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 5:42 pm

    By the way, it’s why I really like to talk to that Pauline woman, because if she really set up a false facebook account, she just did a great service to the vindication.

    Like

  142. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 5:29 pm

    I don’t know, I guess it’s her level of stupidity and hate which is interesting.

    Like

  143. ares permalink
    July 16, 2011 4:52 pm

    But why? You know that that woman is a total whack job. Why do you poison your mind with the lies that she is writting? I mean, i would consider visiting a blog of a person who is not fan of MJ and he/she is trying to prove that MJ did something wrong based on hard cold evidences. But Direse is twisting anything in order to make them fit her opinion about MJ. Am not accusing you or anything like that am just curius as why giving attention to a person who is a proven liar.

    Like

  144. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 4:32 pm

    Yes, sometimes, but I never post and never will.

    Like

  145. ares permalink
    July 16, 2011 2:41 pm

    Shelly, can i ask you something? Do you visit Desiree’s blog?

    Like

  146. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 11:32 am

    Thank you Lynande.

    Like

  147. lynande51 permalink
    July 16, 2011 7:04 am

    If I understand the question that you are asking about Demerol. Susan Yu explains the 2 blood spots on either side of the back of the underwear as being caused by an injection for Vitiligo. First if an IM injection is not given right it can cause a small spot of blood which is what I am sure they are reffering to since there is one on each side.Susan Yu is not a liar there is an injection that causes increased clotting time or bleeding easier for autoimmune disorders. And contrary to what she (D) likes to think primary Vitiligo is an autoimmune disorder in itself however Michael also had discoid lupus secondary to the vitiligo the two often go hand in hand. If he had a flare of the discoid rashes in different areas of his body he might have been prescribed Plaquinil. It is an injection, an antimalarial that increases clotting time or bleeding. Just because she doesn’t like the answer she calls everyone else a liar. I would give up on answering her it just creates more attention for her and she just like to create attention. If everyone just ignored her she would go away because it would be like screaming to an empty room which is what answering her is.

    Like

  148. July 16, 2011 5:44 am

    @Shelly

    http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Neurology/Shot-of-Demerol-in-the-butt–still-have-pain-from-that/show/350426

    I was in the hospital for two months, and first three weeks, I had Demerol shots every four hours, so they rotated diff sides of my rear end and my arms, because the shot sort of goofs up the muscle where it goes into. For about a year after I was released, those places were sore, fiber tissue was there, scars there too, which all eventually went away.

    It sounds like an IM injection which is known to cause bleeding

    http://www.aurorahealthcare.org/yourhealth/healthgate/getcontent.asp?URLhealthgate=%2233266.html%22
    http://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/why-do-some-106101.html

    Like

  149. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 5:14 am

    By the way, did they explained one time why they believed there were 7 victims in 2005 but only 3 in 1994?

    Like

  150. shelly permalink
    July 16, 2011 5:12 am

    @lynande,

    I just have a question, I don’t know if you can answer that, but do you know if a demerol injection can cause bleeding?

    I am asking that because I posted the Susan Yu link on imdb and guess who answered that Yu was a liar?

    Like

  151. lynande51 permalink
    July 16, 2011 5:03 am

    @ Shelly. You are right I did see where Zonen said that in regard to Michael and Brett saying that was the only explanation for spending a year in his bed. Zonen of course used the statement not from Brett but from Karlee to say that. But then he also said that Ralph Chacon was telling the truth about Jordan Chandler but never explains why it was Jordan in 2005 and Brett in 1994.

    Like

  152. shelly permalink
    July 15, 2011 11:11 pm

    @lynande,

    We all know what Brett always said, but, if I remember well Zonen said MJ was in love with Brett.

    For Carter, he is on tape saying that. It’s why I said they have him, because it’s why they are using against MJ.

    As for sleeping in the same bed, I know what he said but lots of people think he said he slept with boys a’d they are mixing that with the books.

    Like

  153. lynande51 permalink
    July 15, 2011 10:52 pm

    The haters do not have Aaron Carter. He was a non story from the beginning. It was and still is the fan community that caused it to run amok. Some of the commments on here are starting to read like a comment by Sneddon or Zonen. I read a comment yesterday where someone said that Zonen insinuated in the closing statements that Brett was Michael’s lover. HE DID NOT. I just read the whole thing. It was never insinuated by anyone other than Desiree. Why do you guys continue to repeat and beat what is actually a dead horse. Brett has denied this and all of the other allegations since he was 10 years old. Give it up.
    Michael Jackson never said in Bashirs documentary that he slept in the bed with boys. He said children. Now being a father of both boys and a girl do you think he exclusively meant boys with that remark?

    Like

  154. shelly permalink
    July 15, 2011 6:29 pm

    Yes, but now, the haters have A. Carter, even though there is no way on earth that MJ could have forced a 15 years to sleep in his room. I mean MJ was so thin, I don’t know how he could have done that. Carter stayed in his room, if it happened, because he wanted to.

    Like

  155. July 15, 2011 6:06 pm

    I think Brooke Shields photograph as a ten year old, naked, with full grown up make up, in a bath and standing up looking oiled up is one of the most controversial things I’d ever seen, but it’s been in art galleries and her mother and the photographer weren’t arrested for their work. I’m a very open minded person but I find that photo disconcerting.

    Imagine if Michael had taken that photo or if Michael had consented to photos like that of Paris being taken, he would be in prison.

    Like

  156. ares permalink
    July 15, 2011 5:47 pm

    Yes but Michael didn’t force anyone to sleep in his bed. This is the misconception. Those kids, again girls and boys and even adults , wanted to be in MJ’s room, bed whatever because he was freaking Michael Jackson, the biggest star ever, they guy who turns into a robot or a black panther, the guy who dances like no one else,the guy that represents magic. The cool guy.
    People think that Jackson picked a kid and said, Right, now you are going to sleep with me. Now, the kids wanted to sleep in his room because they had fan with him and Michael let them. Just take a look at “Michael Jackson : Home made vidoes.” Did he force anyone to do something that he didn’t want to do? No.
    Yes, he said that he had slept with kids in the same bed and didn’t find anything wrong with that. So, why he should say otherwise?Sleeping in bed with a kid in not something wrong, even though the haters repeat that stupid argument over and over again like a broken record. When you know that you are not doing anything wrong, why should you say what the others want to hear? Michael neve hide his love for kids, even from his early age. If some people want to take that as something sinister, is their problem. Actually, i find their attitude totally hypocritical because what they are basically saying is that Jackson should have never admitted or said that he had slept tin the same bed with kids. I really believe that that is their main problem. That Mike didn’t have a problem saying it.

    Like

  157. Suzy permalink
    July 15, 2011 4:57 pm

    I also feel sometimes people in the US overreact about nudity. Nudity is not porn and it’s often not sexual. See the nudist movement. When I was a child I was running around naked in our garden and we have photos taken of me. Does that make my parents suspect of p-lia? We have lakes around the town I live and people often go there and bath naked. Often there are kids there too. Does it make these people p-les?

    It’s laughable when haters are trying to turn these books into “porn”. Tells more about their minds than about MJ’s. (MJ’s mind about these books is displayed in his inscription.)

    Like

  158. shelly permalink
    July 15, 2011 4:46 pm

    I believe one of the problem is people are mixing that with he said about sleepjing in the same bed with kids. I think it’s 2 differents things.

    Like

  159. Suzy permalink
    July 15, 2011 4:45 pm

    If Michael’s interest in those photos had been sexual they would not have found just those two books and both in 1993. If someone has a sexual interest in that stuff he certainly isn’t able to stop at two books and he would have gone much, much further than that too. I mean he would have had child porn.

    A usual hater argument I have heard about those books is that these books are often found in the possession of p-les. I don’t know if that’s true or not, I certainly can imagine that some p-les have them. (As well as many non p-les.) However I’m sure that when in a p-le’s possession they are accompanied by lot more incriminating stuff such as child porn. When I hear about p-les on the news, 99% I hear that they had child porn. How come Michael didn’t, if his interest in those books was sexual? How come the prosecution had to bring in these books from the 1993 raid because they found nothing in 2003? Also p-les won’t have inscriptions like MJ had in those books. That inscription by Michael gives us an insight in his thoughts when he was looking at it. He didn’t see sex objects in those photos.

    Like

  160. shelly permalink
    July 15, 2011 4:18 pm

    @ares,

    It’s exactly what I believe. Those books are available in lots of library in the world. You can find it here

    http://www.worldcat.org/

    Lots of the books he had in 2005 are at the BNF which is the french Library of Congress.

    Like

  161. ares permalink
    July 15, 2011 4:08 pm

    @Shelly

    You know people tend to forget that MJ was an artist, he was interested in photography, in drawing ,anatomy etc. Artists by nature are creatures interested in exploring things the averege mind can’t comprehent. And by that i don’t mean criminally things, just things that for some people might seem weird. This is a photo taken by a well known photographer that Elton Jonh bought and created controversy. Would you label this photo as child photography and John as a potential p..le? Would you believe that Jonh should have been arrested for this photo?

    I believe this photo is more graphic than some of the stuff found in MJ house. So you see, art is something subjective. Those books of nude people that MJ had in his house are considered Art and not pornography. There is a difference.

    Like

  162. shelly permalink
    July 15, 2011 3:41 pm

    By the way, I’d really like to know what Mary Minow had to say about those books. Minow is or was a librarian and was supposed to testify for the defense in 2005. Unfortunately, she didn’t.

    Like

  163. shelly permalink
    July 15, 2011 3:37 pm

    @Julie

    The problem with those books is the pictures of full frontal nudity of children. I don’t know what he saw in those pictures, but I tend to beleive that he had a general interest in nudity. I mean nudity is a part of arts.

    Like

  164. Suzy permalink
    July 15, 2011 10:44 am

    It would be nice not to have links to D’s blog here. Why promote her?

    Like

  165. Lauren permalink
    July 15, 2011 10:28 am

    @lynande51
    Re: Desiree’s hateful MJ fanfic-
    Lol! This Desiree fool seems to be more than just a little bit confused about her feelings on Michael Jackson. Check out this other fanfic she wrote about him just a month prior to that.😄

    [VMJ: The link to D’s site was erased. No promotion will be given to D. in this blog]

    Like

  166. Julie permalink
    June 19, 2011 3:04 pm

    Shelly, those were both excellent finds. It’s sad that back when the book was printed it was thought of differently than it was made out to be. Also, if the other book is in the Library of Congress, why should it be bad that MJ also had a copy? That’s all they could find in his collection to twist to suit their needs. So sad!

    Like

  167. shelly permalink
    June 19, 2011 12:23 am

    I found that old article, it’s about The Boy a photographic essay

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=D55fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zzEMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4397,1755348&dq=book-horizons&hl=en

    Like

  168. Suzy permalink
    September 24, 2010 6:56 am

    @ Dialdancer

    This is great news. Thank you for sharing.

    Like

  169. Dialdancer permalink
    September 24, 2010 4:45 am

    I went book shopping today. A favorite past time of mine. While there a man and lady were inquiring about a book called “Underworld” by Kelly Klein at the customer service desk. The name rang a bell but I could not remember from where. I almost turned away to browse more aisles, but something nagged me. I approached the lady asking about the book saying it sounded familiar. The man answered. He said it was one of the most wonderful representations he’d seen and it reminded him of old Hollywood, like Monroe’s movie “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend”, sexy but not vulgar.

    The lady said that it was one of the books that was used against Michael Jackson. BINGO…. She went on to say that the people in California must not read or not as literate as they pretend. She said half the books the police had published in the newspapers had incorrect depictions and many could be found in any city library.

    They began talking to each other about the size of MJ’s library and seemed to approve of his literary tastes. He asked me if I was interested in photography. I stood there grinning like some kind of fool. I said I was interested in Michael Jackson. I spoke of this site and about the Media, and its’ treatment of Michael. The book was not available, but they were given some places to look for it. The lady turned out to be a retired psychology professor and she spoke of the witch trial mentality being something different than the mob mentality. She explained why some people join in to falsely accuse . (looking that up is on my to-do list)

    I gave them the name of the court record database so she could look up the link if they chose to see what wasn’t reported. I’d love to hear what she makes of Sneddon after reading some of his documents. We must have spent an hour talking. It was one of the best hours I’ve spent in a months. That hour and conversation gave me renewed hope and chased away a feeling of anger and depression I’d been carrying around since hearing the results of the LACBAS Seminar. I could not wait to get back Google the books and see what I came up with.

    Police inventory and description of books found. I chose the first three listed.
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/060804sdcontsheet.pdf

    Drew and Jimmy, by John Patrick Salisbury
    John Patrick Salisbury’s first book is the result of five years of reflection on his family’s past. Hailing originally from an isolated farming village in Northern California, Salisbury was preceded by seven generations. Family relations still live there, and Salisbury relives his past vicariously in this book through the lives of his cousins, Drew and Jimmy. What results is a poignant and moving portrait of boyhood in rural America.

    http://johnpatricksalisbury.com/P01.01.CHOICE_menu.html
    http://www.twinpalms.com/?p=backlist&bookID=42

    Room to Play, by Simen Johan
    In his photographs, Simen Johan explores darkly the human proclivity towards fantasy and our attempts, knowing or otherwise, to craft alternate realities for ourselves

    http://www.kochgallery.com/artists/contemporary/Johan/index.html
    Underworld, by Kelly Klein. Other than the fact that part of the proceeds from this book seems to have gone to some charity, I have nothing new to add which Helena has not already covered.

    Like

  170. August 10, 2010 9:07 pm

    Thanks for this post. I was wondering about those books (not suspicious, just curious) and it was an interesting research.

    Like

  171. August 9, 2010 5:42 pm

    LMAO @ Desiree. Heterosexual porn isn’t reflective of a person’s sexuality? How ironic. Imagine if that had been gay porn or child pornography, I’d wager hard money that you’d believe it was incredibly indicative of his sexual behaviour.

    Michael Jackson haters are amazing. They can deny and twist anything.

    Like

  172. 111FAS permalink
    July 19, 2010 4:57 pm

    Why are people so bent on saying crap about Michael Jackson BEFORE researching it for themselves? They, who ever “they” are — the haters or skeptical, whatever planet they’re from should know it only causes embarrassment for them. These hypnotized-by-the-media aliens should know who and what kind of “force” they’re dealing with when messin around with a Michael Jackson , admirer, supporter and most of all lover- we are a army of many and we’re unbreakable only because we STAND ON THE TRUTH AS OUR FOUNDATION! We are united in defending Michael and all he stands for and all he is. If you dis-like Michael Jackson for the love of God don’t be a coward, just come out and say so “I don’t like Michael Jackson” but for petes sake don’t go making up crap and runnin at the mouth about him especially if you haven’t searched out the truth first. Not every one is going to like everybody the same but defamation of character whether alive or passed on should be against the law…. My suggestion to all “from –aonther-plantet- haters” – – check reputable Michael Jackson fan sites first before making accusations (this one, mjtruthnow.com and http://www.mj-777.com only to name a few out of thousands) – MJJ~forever

    Like

  173. Paulie permalink
    July 17, 2010 6:15 am

    @Desiree…prove a negative…prove you didn’t do something…anything…um, you are racist…prove you are not…um, you hate Michael because he’s black….I just made an accusation…now prove you are not…our justice system says the burden of proof is on the accuser…(I’m feeling lazy and don’t feel like doing the research) but I believe another country (England?) is?was the reverse, guilty until proven innocent…prove you didn’t do something…in the USA, the burden of proving you did something falls on the prosecution…I don’t know what country you are from…but tomorrow I can file a lawsuit against my neighbor for…oh hell whatever a nasty mind can think of…he would be summoned to court…and while our system says he is innocent until proven guilty…in reality everyone would think he is guilty of whatever I feel like making up…heck..his lawyer might even tell him it isn’t even worth it and offer me a settlement….anyway boo-boo…while I’m new here…for some reason everyone thinks that Michael Jackson supporters are bozos of some sort…no, we are quite diverse…we range in age from 3 (yes 3 year olds know who Michael is) to well damn near dead, to high school drop outs to those with advanced degrees…from all walks of life. We are not some random, uneducated individuals who are blindly following Micheal. If you are from this country, you are quite familiar with how, well, we can vilify someone…okay I’m getting bored…I’ll get back to this…Desiree, you are boring…anyway right now its really late and I’m bored…Desiree…you stated he’s a rotting corpse…he is (his body), so move on…buh-bye (in American that means eff off)…

    Like

  174. Paulie permalink
    July 17, 2010 5:56 am

    @Desireee we are all liars…please be specific when you say Michael was a liar….first he owed no one anything except a good performance for our dollar..other than that he owed us nothing so if he “lied” about everything from his date of birth to what he liked to consume for breakfast means absolutely nothing…what’s you point? I’ve been around for a long time sweetie pie and you sound young and inexperienced and like you don’t know squat about people and human nature…nothing makes you anything unless you actually are doing that thing…bring it on…bring facts…not your or media-inspired conjecture…

    Like

  175. lynande51 permalink
    July 16, 2010 4:41 pm

    I’m having some difficulty with that. I don’t think it is psychiatruc, I think I may be psychological, one of the personality disorders, possibly a borderline but more likely a sociopathic personality. It’s hard to say for sure withhout knowing her history.

    Like

  176. Jacqueline M. permalink
    July 16, 2010 4:00 pm

    Hi, friends. Let me ask you a thing. What kind of mental problem does Desiree have?

    Like

  177. Paulie permalink
    July 16, 2010 3:01 am

    Well I’m seeing a really clear pattern here of Michael’s interests…*people*…OMG~. Yes Michael is interested in people – their growth, their feelings, their appearance, how others perceive them, how they perceive themselves. The man said himself that people were never natural around him (probably the only person that did act natural around him was LMP), that he didn’t understand relationships. Someone as curious as Michael, who also had a great many books on the arts would naturally gravitate toward these books – every single one of them available for sale – legally – to adults or – legally – to the general public.

    Just knowing the things I read because I am very curious about a lot of topics (serial killing, murderers, various forms of sexuality, rare diseases, unusual medical conditions, unusual beliefs – none of which I’m interested in participating in in any form – I just have to *know* about things), I know that I cannot judge him as other than an intelligent and (in my opinion), therefore, a curious person interested in anything about the world around him and what makes people tick – I know I am.

    Oh why oh why oh why are people so unintelligent and uniformed? I feel like I’m living back in the dark ages. I guess all those Amazon reviewers are perverts too.

    Like

  178. lynande51 permalink
    July 15, 2010 11:12 pm

    That is because the case was settled before anyone had to give a deposition,not Jordan, not Evan, not June, not Dave, not Lily, not Nathalie, not Nikki, not a single chauffer, cook, major domo, maid or last but not least Michael.

    Like

  179. July 15, 2010 9:39 pm

    Lynande: “First they admit knowing that the markings make no difference then his sworn declaration is (changed?)”

    I am delaying writing a post about Jordan’s declaration because there are numerous questions there.

    1) The declaration Lynande refers to was brand new (so was not changed) and was NOT an affidavit.

    2) There is some vague indication to an affidavit given to Deborah Linden but no matter how I tried to find it I couldn’t. This “affidavit” seems to be the reason why the court allowed Michael’s strip search – but there is absolutely no trace of it (at least for me). Is there a way to get it somewhere?

    3) The matter is further complicated by the fact that I remember clearly that someone on Michael’s side (Johnny Cohran?) said that Jordan Chandler hand’t sworn to anything at all (now I can’t find this information either).

    4) This is confirmed by Ray Chandler in his interview with Larry King. He says (not that I believe him) that the Chandlers were not asked to testify up to the end of 1993 (and this is why they decided to settle – they were too tired to wait). It sounds unbelievable…

    It is quite a paradox – on the one hand we have lots of books (Ray Chandler’s, Gutierrez’, DD’s, Anderson’s) in the Chandlers’ case and on the other hand we don’t have basic documents – like an affidavit, for example.

    The whole thing is beginning to look like an old national legend with only a rumor as the basis for it…

    If anyone can help with the necessary documents please do.

    Good night, dear everybody, it is about 2 a.m. here – need some sleep.

    P.S. For Linden’s affidavit see here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

    Like

  180. David permalink
    July 15, 2010 9:25 pm

    Helena, I think this project will require some collaboration!

    I’m not a lawyer or legal expert, but you made some great points. I think we should contact Lisa, the lawyer who co-wrote that excellent article “M.O.N.E.Y.” for Reflections on the Dance. I don’t know her last name or contact info, so the best way to get it is to ask Deborah Campise Kunesh, the founder of that site.

    Here is her website: http://www.deborahkunesh.com/
    Here is her facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=776781309&ref=ts

    She has replied to me on facebook, so that may be the best way to reach her, if you have a facebook account. Just introduce yourself as the owner of this site, which I’m sure she reads daily anyway, and let her know of your intentions to discredit that declaration, but that you need the help of a legal expert to do it. I’m sure she’ll gladly have Lisa contact you, and she would eagerly help you.

    Like

  181. lynande51 permalink
    July 15, 2010 9:04 pm

    It’s like a game of pin the tail on the donkey. In this case the Donkey was a Jackass named Evan Chandler.

    Like

  182. lynande51 permalink
    July 15, 2010 9:02 pm

    No it is not ok. If the settlement or the original complaint said” plaintiffs shall heretofore be known as”,it would be ok maybe. It isnt just the language that is suspect it is exactly what I said: Are they taking back part of their allegations so that he may not have needed to give an accurate description, because that is what it looks like to me. First they admit knowing that the markings make no difference then his sworn declaration is (changed?)so that he would not have to have seen Michaels man parts?However he does say that he saw Michael naked in all of them. The last time I checked naked meant he had no clothes on so he could have gotten the description from that one fleeting glance as they were climbing into the tub. It must have been an up close and personal glance since he could see that dark/light spot on the underside of his scrotum or was it on the top under his frenulum? I can’t remember where the floating spot is supposed to go and which color I’m supposed to pick?

    Like

  183. July 15, 2010 8:27 pm

    “We need to do a post exposing Jordie’s declaration for the fraud that it is!”

    David, I’ve been thinking about it for a couple of months now. I am puzzled about a few things. And the first is HOW both Jordan’s declaration and the 1993 lawsuit can give only abbreviated names for the ‘plaintiffs’. The defendant’s name is always full – Michael Jackson and the plaintiff is E. or J. or J. Chandler?

    I looked up the American legal forms site and it says that even in filing an initial claim you must provide these pieces of information:
    • Your name (the plaintiff), address, and telephone number
    • Name of the person or business you are suing (the defendant) and his address and telephone number if you can provide it.

    WARNING The name of the person or business you are suing must be the exact, correct legal name. If you make a mistake and list the wrong name you may not get your money. You may not use abbreviations, initials or nicknames: Richard Jones cannot be sued as R. Jones or Dick Jones. The same is true of business names.

    Does this rule concern only the defendant?
    Doesn’t the same apply to the plaintiff?
    If yes, why is the declaration made in the name of J.Chandler?
    How can the plaintiff be J. Chandler and his Guardians Ad Litem E.Chandler and J.Chandler while the opposite side is always given the full name – Michael Jackson?
    It is OK from the legal point of view?

    It may be a minor point but I just can’t understand it. If it is OK, we’ll forget about the whole thing and do something different. But can anyone explain?

    Like

  184. David permalink
    July 15, 2010 7:40 pm

    Helena,

    we need to do a post exposing Jordie’s declaration for the fraud that it is! You made some valid points in your comment about the inconsistencies in the declaration, mainly the fact that it’s dated AFTER the strip search, and omits Jordie’s “sex acts” on MJ, which would imply that he didn’t see MJ’s penis, when he said he did.

    We need to compare it to Jordie’s interview with Dr. Gardner in Oct. 1993, and with the civil lawsuit documents that were filed in Sept. 1993. There are many inconsistencies between the three of them!

    Here is the Sept. 1993 lawsuit, in case you don’t have it already:
    http://www.mjfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/content/jordan_chandler.pdf

    Put that on your “To Do” list!!

    Like

  185. lynande51 permalink
    July 15, 2010 3:15 pm

    That’s it exactly. The initial disgust make people shy away from actually examining it for discrepencies.It is the shock value. They wanted to shock people with the overall content and it works for most of us. I also have a copy of the original suit. On their version of the Declaration the typewriter must have been poor and I believe it was done on a typewriter not a wordprocessor that would have commonly been used back in 1992. On a couple of pages in the Delcaration the lawfirm header that is in the right side margin is smeared and off center.It looks like a page may have been taken from a letter or document whited out and copied to get the typed lawfrim header and then typed on to make it appear as if this were a part of the original lawsuit document. I have a copy of the actual suit so I will send it to you ok. The best wasy to do it is to print it out like it would have been and compare.

    Like

  186. July 15, 2010 1:26 pm

    Lynande: “I just noticed something funny. I know some of you may have noticed it before but The Smoking Gun website has Jordans Sworn Declaration on it. This Sworn Declaration was part if the civil suit not a statement to the police. It was signed on Dec. 28th 1993, eight days after the photos. The civil suit was filed on Sept. 14th,1993.Why wasn’t this in the original filing?And why was it added after the photos? Why doesn’t it have him touching Michael?It only has Michael touching him. That is what doesn’t ring true to me”.

    Lynande, I am happy we are thinking along the same lines. Thanks for another great argument pointing to the fact that the document is a FAKE. I’m slowly collecting information on that and would want to make a post about it. May I suggest a couple of ideas to you too? First of all a declaration it is but is it really sworn?

    Look up in some legal encyclopedia for what a declaration is and how it should be really made for it to be valid and you will see (I am speaking from memory, so this should be checked up) that:

    1) a declaration is NOT an affidavit – its legal value is much lower. The person who makes a declaration cannot be considered responsible for perjury if he lies.

    2) it should state CLEARLY the name, address, who is present, etc. for the document to be valid. For the correct way to do it see Tom Sneddon’s declaration in my “All you wanted to know – blemish” post.

    3) compare the so-called Jordan’s declaration with the one by Tom Sneddon and see the DIFFERENCE. Jordan’s declaration does not even carry his FULL NAME, not to mention those who should be present (of course they will say that they did not attach the first pages carrying that information!)

    4) as far as I understand the declaration can be made by ANYONE – a child, third party, etc. – just anyone who is capable of talking, even if it is a five-year old. So if a 13-year old teenager can make a declaration he should be the one who signs it. And whose SIGNATURE does that document bear?

    5) and now on top of it all you notice that “J”. Chandler does not even mention he has ever ‘masturbated’ MJ! Is it supposed to send a message to us that HE HAS NEVER SEEN HIS PRIVATE PARTS? And this in spite of the fact that he said he did IN THAT PSYCHIATRIC INTERVIEW IN OCTOBER 1993? (two months before Michael’s strip search and making this declaration)

    When you start looking into their documents it is really a hair-raising experience – NOTHING ADDS UP and their lies are just lying around for EVERYONE TO SEE. The only thing you need to do is overcome your initial disgust at looking into matters like that, but if you manage to do that you are guaranteed the thrill of HUGE discoveries.

    Like

  187. Suzy permalink
    July 15, 2010 6:16 am

    @ Jacqueline

    Steven Hoefflin, Michael’s one time plastic surgeon said they often attended they Playboy Mansion together. He laughs off the idea that Michael was gay.

    Like

  188. lynande51 permalink
    July 15, 2010 1:22 am

    I just noticed something funny. I know some of you may have noticed it before but The Smoking Gun website has Jordans Sworn Declaration on it. This Sworn Declaration was part if the civil suit not a statement to the police. It was signed on Dec. 28th 1993, eight days after the photos. The civil suit was filed on Sept. 14th,1993.Why wasn’t this in the original filing?And why was it added after the photos? Why doesn’t it have him touching Michael?It only has Michael touching him. That is what doesn’t ring true to me.

    Like

  189. lynande51 permalink
    July 15, 2010 12:12 am

    I would feel more sorry for Dez but she is actually making sense to some other young innocents out there.Thats how that kind of thing starts. The thing I find most interesting is she is the most angry about my math/chemistry remark. HMMMMM?

    Like

  190. lynande51 permalink
    July 15, 2010 12:07 am

    Yeah that’s the part, little tails and little legs and stuff. UMMMM Michael, the tails are part of a costume the legs are part of the girl. See he was a naughty boy looking at “tails and legs and stuff.” As for Dez I really hurt her feelings she got mad and swore at me on her blog. I’m brokenhearted. I feel like I beat up a 10 year old.Well maybe not.
    @ Visitor Yes you are right I know I listened to the tapes again it wasn’t her.I hadn’t heard them since last summer. But it is definitely him.And my post about DD is under the Welcome to the Main Haters thread.

    Like

  191. Jacqueline M. permalink
    July 14, 2010 7:56 pm

    Lynande51, when you talk about Michael’s Private Home Movies, are you refering to that part when Michael said ”we used to end up our tours in Playboy Hotel and there are bunnies just walking around and serving you, they have their little tails and stuff…” God, that Michael… I bet Desiree thinks he was forced to go there.

    Like

  192. visitor permalink
    July 14, 2010 7:14 pm

    @lynande51 It’s not Lisa on the tapes, it’s the guy’s wife. They were friends for many years and he met her from Janet. In which thread is your post?

    Like

  193. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 6:41 pm

    You should read my newest post in the other thread. It has some interesting research on the origin of Diane Dimond. I also have a theory abouthe “leak” of the 1993 DCFS report. As a working nurse I have had many occasions of having to report suspected chid abuse of all types. I have a working knowledge of how the system was back then and what might have occured. I always wodered why the Chandler’s never sought retibution for the leak. It was after all an official “protected” report.

    Like

  194. Suzy permalink
    July 14, 2010 6:21 pm

    No, I don’t think it’s Lisa. The woman is called Glenda and she has a husband named Sam. There are parts of the tape where he is talking to Michael. There are also a part where Michael is talking to Glenda’s kid and there is a part where Glenda is talking to Brandi, Michael’s niece, who is with Michael and picks up the phone before handing it over to Michael.

    There is nothing damning or damaging on these tapes to Michael, in fact he is very much normal and funny and cool – no wonder the media weren’t interested.

    In 2005 some of the media tried to sensationalize the tapes claiming things those are not true: for example that Michael is talking to a little boy about his sex life on them. That is an outright lie! He does talk about his love life and sex to Glenda (lo and behold, he had female love interests), but NEVER to children! When he talks to Glenda’s kid they are talking about things like music, games, animals and such things.

    Like

  195. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 5:54 pm

    I listened again and probably not.

    Like

  196. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 5:31 pm

    Has anyone ever listened closely to the Glenda tapes? Does anyone else think it might have been Lisa?

    Like

  197. visitor permalink
    July 14, 2010 4:52 pm

    The Glenda tapes are real and it is Michael Jackson talking. It’s old news. That guy trapped his own phone because he thought that his wife was having an affair with Michael. He released them with the intention to help Michael during the trial. They went public by a guy that was selling them in his website back in 2005. Now he is dead but the site was still on in winter. He went outside the court and was giving them to reporters. Of course they twisted everything in the articles they wrote proving again how stupid they are. Some stupid “journalists” were after black reporters giving them the tapes to hear “what MJ said about his hair”. They couldn’t deal with a normal Michael talking about women ONLY. The defense was aware of the tapes but there was not any point in using them plus it’s a product of illegal activity.

    Like

  198. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 3:47 pm

    I do think though that some of his art books he did use to get visual ideas for his short films. especially the one with the angles in it, it actually makes sense when you think of the You Are Not Alone short film.

    Like

  199. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 3:44 pm

    Have any of you watched the Vdeos on you tube of Michael Jackson’s Private home movies? You should watch his introduction to the part on Michael on vacation.

    Like

  200. Suzy permalink
    July 14, 2010 3:20 pm

    A good point Jacqueline (and BTW I believe the Glenda tapes to be true as well). I have also seen an auction once from Michael’s books and he was definitely interested in a lot of things. One book was about lynching, for example – with very graphic pictures. Someone who wants to read too much into it might say “oh he must have had some repressed brutality issues if he wanted to look at pictures like that”. To me it just means he was curious and interested in everything.

    Like

  201. Jacqueline M. permalink
    July 14, 2010 2:43 pm

    Hi… Just a little comment: Another day I was reading those transcriptions from some conversations Michael had with his friend Glenda. Some people say it’s not Michael, but I believe it is really him. In some part of the conversation Glenda said to Michael that she was reading a certain book about a woman that was a lesbian, but she was married. This woman kidnapped girls, had sex with them and ask her own husband to have too. And after that, she murdered the girls. Then, Michael said “really! Is it a real story? ” Glensa said it was and so Michael asked her “Can I read, too? It seems a good book”. Considering this, if the book was found there in 2003 we could certainly presume that he was thinking about kidnaping girls, having sex with them and kill them in a brutal way. I don’t think so. People read things for several reasons.

    Like

  202. July 14, 2010 9:41 am

    Suzy, thanks for mentioning the second part of the ‘evidence’ – I didn’t go as far as that (wasn’t thorough enough to struggle through all those socks mismatching in size). Will surely look into that too and will update the post.

    Guys, please forgive me for not taking part in the general discussion (the only reason is terrible lack of time). I am trying to read everything posted by you – there is so much valuable information and the comments are remarkable!
    Thank you so much! Please keep searching for the truth…

    Like

  203. Suzy permalink
    July 14, 2010 6:10 am

    Yeah, when you actually look up all these books and pictures and see what they are about, they look a lot harmless than how the police describes them in their document. Remember how they also described the 3T pics as if they were gay erotica?

    @ David

    I assume Desiree’s answer will be to harp on the one explictly homosexual book that was found, named “Sexual Study of Man”. “Ray Chandler” too emphasizes that the most on his website (and the Macaulay Culkin portray, LOL).
    As if Michael had been on trial to determine his sexual orientation….

    Desiree asked one day here: what straight man would have a book like that? Well, a curious one. As far as I understood from the police document it is a study book on homosexuality, with photos and also with text.

    So he had tons of heterosexual porn dated from 1991 to 2003, the date of the house search, tons of heterosexual material on the hard drives of his computers, traces to straight pornographic websites only, but the odd art and study book should reveal the real truth about his sexual orientation? Is that what the haters say? Then I wonder if they would say the same, had it been the other way around: if they had found gay porn magazines instead of heterosexual ones, traces to gay websites instead of heterosexual websites – and the odd art book about naked women and one study book about the heterosexual act. I’m sure they would scream “gay” then, and in that case they would be right. However it was the other way around…..

    But then again, let me remind you: Michael was not on trial to determine his sexual orientation. Fact is he had nothing illegal in his possession!

    Like

  204. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 5:43 am

    Oh by the way your reading posts from the only unfortunate American to have served on 6, yes, that’s right 6 Juries! Why me?

    Like

  205. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 3:51 am

    Let’s not forget the their side -Michael’s side factor. These were examined by a Santa Barbara Sheriffs Detective as evidence that was found in a suspected child m*******n charge. He was supposed to find a connection that was his job. These examples were the best they could come up with so he had to call them something. You know a lot of people forget that innocent until proven guilty in a court of law means that the BURDEN of PROOF is on the PROSECUTION not the Defence. They must prove the accused party’s guilt the defence defends his innocence. People forgot all about that in Michaels case because most people got their information from the tabloid journalist Diane Dimond, even the reputable ones got their nformation from her. The best and most accurate account of the 2005 trial is Roger Friedman’s or Geraldo Rivera’s.

    Like

  206. visitor permalink
    July 14, 2010 3:02 am

    Very thourough job. Don’t forget the heterosexual sites (only) on his computes with the 1700 naked women saved pics as well as the 2 pages with the instructions on how to find the female G spot. Well, we all know he was a perfectionist:) The adult magazines had heterosexual material only and there is nothing someone can do about that. Don’t forget also Michael’s (only Michael’s) fingerprints and DNA on the magazines that were tested. The man has been clear about his heterosexuality all his life but yet many people as I have said again, never followed Michael over the years. He has been a magnet for women like no other artist has ever been and people with selective memory forgot that he was a sex symbol in the 80’s.

    It’s fun to see how people humiliate themselves referring to legal art books showing how low and uneducated they are like Sneddon was humiliated in that courtroom for the same reason (among other things). The very same books that are listed in California’s libraries. How pathetic and how desperate. Haters are not smart so they don’t know that it’s a federal crime to posess child pornography. They didn’t notice that he was never charged of it because there was not such kind of thing found period. They also seem to forget that little humilating moment where Sneddon had to officially confirm it before the gag order and Mesereau announced it as well. Unfortunately there is not a way to turn a stupid person smart so they will have to live in their misery.

    Like

  207. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 1:39 am

    I wouldn’t wait for Desiree she doesn’t actually read our stuff you know. She just looks at the titles and makes comments. She doesn’t like to read.

    Like

  208. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2010 1:34 am

    I agree David but let’s try a little tongue in cheek humor here: When you think of 10,000 plus books in Michael Jacksons library I guess it would take 70 Sheriffs Deputies to find all this damning evidence. How funny! Do you suppose they went only for the ones with pictures? Or the fact that they had to save up their evidence for 12 years before they got enough.LOL! What a prime example of Sneddons uber stupidity. And let’s not forget our wonderful “researcher” and “journalist” Diane Dimond. All of this ranks right up there with finding blank Neverland Stationary in his briefcase or the photos of his nephews and two of the boys from his long music video Ghosts. That is who Greg and Kendall Cunningham were. And imagine finding a photo of a long time friend and godfather to his 2 oldest children shocking, shocking I tell you!I also didn’t find those “love Letters” listed did you?What was there though, those doggone greeting cards from those pesky Arvizo kids calling him “Daddy Michael.” And I remember reading how proud they were of finding the DVD ” Michael Jackson’s Private Home Movies”, or your find David, that racy and provocative video at Havenhurst ” Chicks”. Can we all say what a bunch of putzes?

    Like

  209. David permalink
    July 14, 2010 12:23 am

    Great post! I’d love to see Desiree’s answer to this on her blog! (Hint, hint!)

    Like

  210. July 14, 2010 12:14 am

    How many books were in Michael Jackson’s library? I heard 10,000, but I am not sure. This is a small section out of thousands. If Michael Jackson was not seen as a pedophile, and these books were found in a library of 10,000 at another person’s home people would not be jumping out of their skin. Also the overwhelming majority do not include children. If I am not not mistaken Michael did not buy all himself. In a Charles Thomson interview Jennefer Batten said some one gave Michael an art book that contained pictures of Men & Women wearing what looked like SMS. She said Michael was showing the book to everyone on the tour and he went as far as having her and the other guitarist dress like that for the TOUR. Hello for the HIStory T.O.U.R for the world to see.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Radar Onlines verborgene Schande aufdecken: Die Wahrheit darüber, was Michael Jackson in seinem Schlafzimmer hatte (und nicht hatte) – Teil 1 | all4michael
  2. Exposing Radar Online’s Secret Shame: The Truth About What Michael Jackson Had (And Didn’t Have) In His Bedroom-Pt 1 | Allforloveblog
  3. Fact Checking the “Michael Jackson Facts Info” HATER’S website, Part 3 « Vindicating Michael
  4. Is this true? - The Michael Joseph Jackson Board
  5. Michael Jackson Is Innocent « La Cienega Just Smiles

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,469 other followers

%d bloggers like this: