“PORN” found in Michael Jackson’s home 4
SPREAD THIS NEWS
We are coming to the end of the list of ‘evidence’ seized at Neverland in 2003 at last. Just one final touch and I’ll be free as a bird…
The list was long and for some reason several books were reviewed by the police twice – for example “Taormina” by Wilhelm Von Gloeden which is found in the last part of the police review again. Well, since they are repeating it let me also add a couple of details to the description given earlier.
“Taormina” is a collection of photographs from a famous photographer (who was born in the 19th century and died in 1931) made in a spot called Taormina somewhere in Sicily. The main fun of the book is that the photographer took pictures of young Sicilian peasants as Roman and Greek gods. None of those photographs depicted the individuals “in sexually explicit activities”, according to the police.
The point I’d like to add here is that now that it is clear that Michael used those photography books for his work it seems very much likely that Taormina (as well as Parrish’s painting of 1922) inspired Michael to include some antique scenes into his “You are not alone” video with Lisa Maria Presley. 
See what Wayne Isham who directed the video (videostatic.com interview) says about it:
“We had planned out all these elements for the video and then Michael had this idea where he wanted to use this Greek, classical-styled, artistic imagery. And, he wanted to appear in it naked with his wife, Lisa Marie Presley. Like they were Greek gods. It had nothing to do with the video we were doing, but I said, “OK, that’s cool. We can shoot it.”
Oh, I can very well understand that – when people are in love they do feel like gods with no one around because true love is something really HEAVENLY.
The next book on the police list is titled, The Golden Age of Neglect, by Ed Templeton. The police officer says about it:
“This book appeared to be signed by Ed Templeton in 2003. The signature was on the inside front cover. This book appeared to be a compilation of photographs which pertained to problem issues with adolescents and teenagers. These issues seemed to focus on antisocial behavior on the part of adolescents including alcohol consumption and sexual behavior. Specifically, the sexual behavior depicted in this book contained photographs which depicted male and female subjects, in various stages of undress, including full nudity…. It should be noted the subjects who appear in the photographs which depicted the sexually explicit poses, appeared to be within the age range of late adolescence to young adults. However, I was unable to accurately determine whether the subjects were under eighteen years. Therefore, I was unable to determine with any accuracy if material within this book could be considered child pornography”.
The Golden age of Neglect
The main thing here is that the book was signed by its author which automatically turns it into a present and closes discussion of this book once and for all. However my curiosity led me to the Amazon.com to see their “product description” for the book. This is what they say:
- “There are teenage smokers and drinkers. There are those whose despondence reads clearly as they confront the camera with vacant eyes. This is a classic example of Ed Templeton’s work which is deeply anchored in street life and street style, music (rock, punk, and rap), and graphic culture (wall paintings, murals, tags, and graffiti). A fixture of the Los Angeles skateboarding scene, Ed Templeton has been producing photographs, documenting a real story of his life, international tours, and encounters in the skateboarding world for over 10 years. This book is the reprint of the original version, which quickly rose to cult status shortly after its first printing in 2003.”
The Age of Neglect
The above makes The Golden age of Neglect our second book about adolescent behavior (the first one was The Fourth Sex, Adolescent extremes discussed in previous parts). Don’t they form a certain pattern when taken together? EXTREME behavior of adolescence and NEGLECT as one of the reasons for it?
Is it a terrible surprise that Michael Jackson was interested in these problems? Absolutely not. Michael was very much concerned about parents’ neglect for their children and the harmful effect it has on the younger generation. He spoke of this problem on numerous occasions, even proclaiming (in his Oxford University speech) that Friday evening should be the time when children must have their parents all to themselves, adding a somewhat sad and funny note that children should NOT be the ones to compete with the evening news for their parents’ attention.
The Age of Neglect
So if these two books are an “evidence” of anything at all, the only thing they speak to is that Michael was very much concerned about the problem of adolescent defiant and often criminal behavior and that he was a top responsible parent himself, as he was getting ready well in advance for the adolescent age his own children would one day naturally reach too.
The last and the worst book in our list is exhibit 596 titled “Man, a Sexual Study of Man” with text material by Larry Stevens. This book was at the very top of the prosecution hit list during the 2005 trial. The police officer described it as ‘a compilation of photographs and writings, which pertained to homosexual activity between men. The photographs depicted naked males engaged in sexually explicit activities including oral copulation and anal sex.’
I honestly tried to find it in the internet but couldn’t – which is probably a sign that the book is indeed breaking all decency rules… The only thing I was able to find is its description on one of the websites: http://music.mylounge.com/showthread.php?p=698090
- Burbank, CA: DSI. MAN from the publishers of DSI A Sexual Study of Man illustrated with photographs and art prints. Text Material by Larry Stevens. Undated. This is an early gay publication that masquerades as a scientific study of the sexuality of man, but is really erotic fiction. More photo and illustration than science by far. A large folio sized book of 300 pages with at lest half being illustrations or pictorial in some manny. Condition is Good, some moisture damage to the front cover and the first 20 pages or so causing a minor warp to the first section. A small 1″ length of the cover is missing right at the bottom of the spine. A fair amount of tanning inside, but otherwise clean and unmarked text. First Edition. Good. Catalogs: Rare, Out-of-Print, Antiquarian, Gay & Lesbian. (Inventory #000942)
So the book is an early, rare and now antiquarian gay publication with photographs, art prints and some text masquerading as a scientific study? Interesting…
- Could this rare copy be a present from somebody? Yes, it could.
- Could Michael buy it as a scientific study of male sexuality as the title and text of the book innocently suggested it? Easily.
- Could he buy it to learn of the roots of male same-sex love to avoid some mistakes in upbringing a boy? He naturally could (I did study similar material for this reason too).
- Could he buy something more contemporary and probably more explicit than this out-dated material if the only thing he wanted was a collection of photographs on homosexual relations? Sure, no problem.
- Could he be guided by curiosity about “what male sex is all about” or “what the gay movement started with” since the book was one of the first gay books and had long been out of print? He could, why not?
Who knows under what circumstances and for what reason this only one book on homosexuality came into Michael’s possession? I sometimes shudder at the thought what people might think of my own preferences in reading if they look into my computer – after all those posts about pedophilia and Tom O’Carroll’s writings which are left as bookmarks there… OMG, I must erase all that to avoid possible questions and all the embarassment…
Our Suzy spoke about Michael’s curiosity in an admirable way:
- 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!
So there was ONE homosexual book and LOTS of ‘sexually explicit’ heterosexual material in Michael’s possession – absolutely legal and commercially produced. We could leave the discussion at that but as the heterosexual materials were so many I would want to ask one more question which is probably none of my business at all (I am just being curious too) – Are all those heterosexual materials a sign that elaborate sex shown there was necessarily something he was very much bent on?
I know, I know – this is a question which is beyond the subject of that police list but the reason why I am asking is because I sincerely think he collected all those materials not so much for practising “those tricks” but for educational purposes mostly – you know, just to be knowledgeable of things and learn the subject in all its perfect entirety.
Why am I making such a bold conclusion on the issue which is none of my business at all? Because I remember Michael speaking to Rabbi Shmuley about his preferences in love and sex in those notable tapes which were never meant for the public eye and which are therefore a great source of genuine and first-hand information about his true inclinations. This is what he said there:
- SB: The women you have dated, the ones who were smart enough not to throw themselves at you, were they the ones that you were more interested in, the ones who weren’t always available and you had to chase them a bit?
- MJ: The ones who were classy and quiet and not into all the sex and all the craziness because I am not into that.
- SB: They are the ones that you are more interested in?
- MJ: Aha. I don’t understand a lot of things that go on in relationships and I don’t know if I ever will. I think that is what has hurt me in my relationships because I don’t understand how people do some of the things they do.
- SB: Mean things?
- MJ: Mean things and vulgar things with their bodies. I don’t understand it and it has hurt my relationships.
- SB: So for you love is something very pure?
- MJ: Very pure. It shocked me some of the things……….
Michael was pure in his very essence and knowing things for him was not equal to practising them. I’ve also learned a lot of filth since the time I started clearing Michael’s name of it, but it does not mean that it has become part of my life. Sorry for this off-topic observation – just wanted to share some of my views with you…
Our story would be incomplete if we didn’t look at the way our list of “evidence” (evidence of what, I wonder?) was discussed at a cross-examination during the 2005 trial.
The witness being cross-examined here is Wade Robson who became friends with Michael Jackson at the age of 5, who often accompanied Michael but was never molested by him and who never took a shower with Michael though that Francia maid claimed otherwise.
Wade Robson’s testimony is an interesting read as it provides some more detail on the books already discussed here and the two fiercely opposite points of view from which these books were regarded by the prosecution and the defense:
Mr. Zonen of the prosecution:
Q. Exhibit 596 [Man: A Sexual study of Man], please. Take a moment and look at that book. Let’s stop there for a moment. That’s the first, in fact, picture in that book; is that correct?
A. I didn’t notice, no. Do you want me to go to the first picture?
Q. You know, no, you can pick any picture, actually. Just go ahead and open the book at random. Right there.
A. Oh, sorry.
Q. Is it a fact, as you look through that book, what is depicted in that book throughout that book are a series of photographs of two men engaged in sex acts with one another?
A. Yes.
Q. And in fact, the sex acts are all acts of either masturbation, oral sex or sodomy; is that right?
A. From what I saw, yes.
Q. And sodomy, as you understand, is an act of anal sex; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you be concerned about a person who possesses that book crawling into bed with a ten-year-old boy?
A. Yes, I guess so.
MR. ZONEN: No further questions.
MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. Mr. Robson, I want to show you Exhibit No. 841. It says, “Boys Will Be Boys.” Do you see this?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, I’d like you to read the inscription on that book, okay? Read it out loud, if you would.
A. Okay. “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. MJ.”
Q. Having read that inscription and having looked at this book, would you have any concern being in bed with Michael Jackson if you knew this book was found in his home?
A. No.
Q. Let me show you Exhibit No. 842. Please read out loud the inscription on that book.
A. Is that, “To Michael”? Yeah. “To Michael, from your fan. Kiss, kiss, kiss, hug, hug, hug. Rhonda. 1983.”
Q. You’ve looked through that book – okay? – and it says, “The Boy; A photographic Essay,” right?
A. I didn’t look through that book.
Q. Okay. Why don’t you look through this book the prosecutor showed you, and please say whether or not you would have a problem being in the same bedroom with Michael Jackson based upon what you see in that book and the inscription.
A. No.
Q. Okay. Now, let me show you — let me show you Exhibit No. 596 that the prosecutor showed you. Just read the cover, if you would.
A. “Man, A Sexual Study of Man. Illustrated With Photographs and Art Prints.”
Q. Okay. Now, you’ve seen those photographs, and you’ve said you were somewhat disturbed by the pictures, right?
A. Well, I wasn’t disturbed by the pictures.
Q. Well, if you — if you read this book, and it appeared to be a book dealing with male sexuality in all different areas, and you knew that this book existed with hundreds of editions of Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse —
MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as leading.
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: — would that bother you?
MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as leading.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Can you repeat it?
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Sure. Let’s assume that you learned that Michael Jackson had ten years’ worth of Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse – okay? – magazines, heterosexual-type magazines, and let’s assume that — have you ever seen Mr. Jackson’s library?
A. Yes.
Q. How many books do you think are in there?
A. Thousands.
Q. And let’s suppose in the middle of all those books you found, “A Sexual Study of Man, Illustrated With Photographs and Art Prints,” okay?
A. Yes.
Q. Putting all this together, would being in bed with Mr. Jackson concern you?
A. No.
MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.
Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Mr. Robson, the three books that are in front of you that you’ve already taken a look at, I’d like to go back over the inscription that — 842 is a book, and you were asked to read that inscription out loud. Take a look at that inscription again, would you, please?
A. Do you want me to read it again?
Q. No, you don’t need to read it again. Go to the last word, which is the name. What is the name on that?
A. Rhonda.
Q. Notice anything unusual about the name?
A. No.
Q. Do you notice it’s written with quotations on both sides of it?
A. Yes.
Q. Doesn’t that usually mean that that’s not the name when somebody writes it in quotation marks?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Have you ever written your name in quotation marks?
A. No.
Q. That’s actually from somebody who’s not named Rhonda, right?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. ZONEN: The three books I’ve given you so far to take a look at, they all feature either boys or adult men, predominantly nude, and the one on adult men is engaged in sex acts; is that correct?
MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. BY MR. ZONEN: The three books I’ve given you so far to take a look at, they all feature either boys or adult men, predominantly nude, and the one on adult men is engaged in sex acts; is that correct?
MR. MESEREAU: I’m going to object; asked and answered. This is cumulative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I’m going to show you three additional books now, if I could. Let’s start with Exhibit 578, if you’ll take a look at that one, please.
MR. MESEREAU: Same objection. Cumulative; it’s not character; it’s beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I’ll start with the first picture. What do you see right there? A. I see in the center of the picture, it’s a drawing. And there’s a naked man with his genitalia exposed, and there’s kangaroos on either side [Camp Cove Sydney men, by an Australian photographer)] .
Q. Okay. Go ahead and proceed. You can keep going. Just keep going through it. You can stop. What you’ve seen so far are all pictures of naked men; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Exhibit No. 590-B, take a look at that, please. Tell us the title.
A. “Before the Hand of Man.”
Q. Go ahead and take a look at the content of that book. That’s enough. Pictures of naked young men; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you consider that to be homoerotic material?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. I look at this more as sort of – it’s about the photography and it’s more of an art book, to me.
Mr. Robson, are you concerned about a man possessing these seven books being in bed with a 12-year-old boy?
A. If it was a man I didn’t know, maybe. But not Michael.
Q. Is that because you view Mr. Jackson as being, for the most part, asexual?
A. No.
Q. Because you believe that he doesn’t really have a sexual interest?
A. I believe that he has a sexual interest in women.
Q. In women?
A. Yes.
Q. These books don’t suggest otherwise?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. All right. Let’s go to some other side of the counter. Exhibit No. 575, have you ever seen this magazine before?
A. No.
Q. Not that specific one. A magazine of that nature?
A. Of that nature, yes.
Q. Okay. And go ahead and turn through it. You can stop there. You don’t need to go too much further.
A. I never thought I’d have a room of people watching me do this.
Q. That’s enough. You would agree that this is a depiction of a man and a woman engaged in virtually every variation that a man and woman can do with one another; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. The collective material that you have just been shown does not cause you a moment of pause when you think about the prospect of this person who possesses all of this crawling into bed with a ten-year-old boy?
A. No.
Q. And you would allow a child to crawl into bed with such a person?
A. If I knew the person, yes.
Q. If you knew them?
A. If I knew the person, yes.
Q: When you were a young child, did Michael Jackson ever show you any sexually explicit material?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever see Michael Jackson show sexually explicit material to any child?
A. No.
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, let me show you again Exhibit No. 841. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Let me show you again Exhibit No. 596. It says, “A Sexual Study of Man.” Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And let me show you again Exhibit No.842, “A boy; A Photographic Essay,” okay? And that’s the one with the inscription, “To Michael, from your loving fan, Rhonda,” okay?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, you see young children with rather innocent photographs of young boys, correct? Innocent photographs of young boys in various situations, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You see a young boy hanging from a tree, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You see a young boy sitting outside a door, right?
A. Yes.
Q. See young boys on a beach, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, let’s go to — quickly, to the material the prosecutor for the government showed you, okay? He showed you some magazines with heterosexual activity, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Have you seen one book that depicts child pornography in that group?
A. No.
MR. ZONEN: I believe there was a Court restriction on the use of that word, Your Honor, one initiated by the defense. Unless that reservation is finished.
MR. MESEREAU: He’s correct. And I made a mistake using the word. I’ll withdraw it, and I apologize… In those books that the prosecutor for the government showed you, you see books about men, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You see one book that says, “A Study of Male Sexuality” and shows some sexual acts between men, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And he [Mr.Zonen] showed you a number of magazines involving sexual activity between men and women, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Has he shown you one book involving children having sex?
A. No.
Q. Has he shown you one book where a man is having sex with a child?
A. No.
Q. The prosecutor tried to suggest that Mr. Jackson is asexual. Do you remember that question?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you believe he’s asexual?
A. No.
Q. Have you seen Mr. Jackson with women in your lifetime?
A. With what kind of woman? A woman that he’s in a relationship with?
Q. That he’s been married to.
A. Yeah, with Lisa Marie.
Q. When you were at Neverland, did you ever see anything that suggested pedophilia?
A. No.
Q. Ever see any magazine or poster that suggested pedophilia?
A. Never.
MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.
MR. ZONEN:
Q. Mr. Robson, when did you first learn that Michael Jackson possessed material of the nature that’s before you right now?
A. Right now I did.
Q. All the years that you have known Michael –
A. Actually, no one’s told me where this came from.
Q. Assuming this comes from Michael Jackson’s residence.
A. Assuming it does, this is the first I know.
Q. All right. And you had never, ever known that Mr. Jackson collected sexually explicit material?
A. No.
Q. This is something new that you’re learning just today; is that right?
A. Yes….
Wade Robson’s surprise is genuine…. You can’t fake it. He never expected Michael Jackson to possess such materials. And all the other witnesses also showed the same kind of surprise. Not that it disturbed them much. They just never saw it before – the court was the first time they ever saw it.
Wait, so for all those twenty years Wade Robson was Michael Jackson’s friend he never saw any of those magazines or books lying around in his home?
And he never saw Michael reading any of them?
And Michael never showed anything of that type to him or other witnesses who displayed the same surprise at the witness stand?
But if none of them ever saw those materials before WHAT “GROOMING” NONSENSE DID THE PROSECUTION TALK ABOUT AT ALL?
Oh la la….
P.S. Here is a link to that police “evidence’ list once again to refresh your memory of its utter ridiculousness (don’t forget to note the odd socks, underwear of different sizes left behind by Michael’s numerous guests and loose pieces of paper in addition to the above list of books): list of items from Neverland or the source it was originally taken from: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/060804sdcontsheet.pdf
And here is the hit list of the choicest “evidence” out of all that trash which finally made it into the court room: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/041905minuteorder.pdf
Update 01.02.2022
Since the sbscpublicaccess source seems to be inoperative now and I’m a repeatedly asked to provide the full list of items “seized” by the police at the Neverland ranch here is the 48-page pdf file available for downloading.
Its date is June 8, 2004. Hope it settles the problem.
Remember that all those scraps were found among the 10,000 books in Michael’s collection and some of those in this list were still kept in boxes. And that none of them are “porn” and some even have to do with fashion or various outfits that gave Michael ideas for his stage costumes.
One day I will probably make a new post about all those “findings”.
Vindicating Michael 
Miha,
“only about 2 or 4 of those items could really be considered child pornography”
No! None of it could be considered child pornography.
The possession of child porn is illegal in and of itself if they had found even just one photo showing children having sex MJ would have been charged and convicted just for that, regardless of everything else.
Pictures of naked people, regardless of age is not porn.
It would be ridiculous to consider such material even sexual let alone porn since the Library of Congress is full of book depicting naked people not to mention the countless bookstores, websites, paintings, statues all over the country.
MJ did not have child porn, period.
LikeLike
So let me get this straight… The police found about 60 items that the prosecution thought they could use as evidence and only about 2 or 4 of those items could really be considered child pornography… That’s it? xD and MJ accuser’s seriously try to use that as some mind blowing evidence that MJ was a pedophile?
Check out this story, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/child-pornography-collection-seized-california-bust-largest-u-s-history-article-1.986276
You’d think with MJ’s wealth he could have easily amassed an amount of child porn that a pedophile could only dream of. He could have easily filled a room in Neverland with child porn or download images on his computers and yet the only things that could vaguely be considered child porn were two art books and two photos? I just don’t understand why people make such a big deal out of those especially since the heterosexual porn strongly outweighed the alleged child/gay porn.
LikeLike
And here is information about Omer Bhatti and his friends being on a secret visit to Neverland right at the time when Michael was away. They were there with Michael’s consent – he was actually paying for their trip (as usual):
As far as I remember some of Michael’s younger relatives were also in Neverland at the same time.
LikeLike
Rebecca, this site http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/category/porn-as-listed-by-the-prosecution/ has much more information about the books “seized” by police during their 2003 raid so I refer you to their analysis.
Probably because the insider who left some messages on the National Enquirer board called Michael not just heterosexual, but “thoroughly” heterosexual?
However since you have stepped on the road of theorizing let me offer my theory too.
Why excluding the possibility that some of those erotic materials were left in Michael’s quarters by the guys who stayed there while he was away? It is well known that by the time of the police raid Michael and his children had been in Las Vegas for no less than three weeks. He was working on “One more chance” video and record there.
And all the time while he was away Omer Bhatti and his two Norwegian friends were staying in Neverland. And it wasn’t just the three of them, but they were having parties there too. So why not assume that some of those things belonged to them or their guests, and not to Michael?
Knowing that Michael’s children followed him everywhere and had easy access to his room I also doubt very much that he would have left the books with naked male bodies lying about there. He was known to be so prudent in raising his children that when he was staying in his friend’s house he personally covered all pictures of nudes hanging on the wall.
I see the fact that Michael was away from Neverland for almost three weeks by the time of the raid as absolutely essential. It is strange that no one is talking about it.
If you gave your flat to your friends for no less than three weeks and the police raids it right during their stay how can you be made responsible for what they left there? And how can the police differentiate between your and their belongings?
LikeLike
The presence of homosexual books among heterosexual ones can have more than one explanation.Sexuality is very vast, not only black or white. I know a lot of homosexual people who don’t only like necessarily homosexual books or porn. Lesbians who like to see two men together and vice-versa. Straight people who like to watch homosexual action too.
In fact Michael not only had this said book but he had also a book of homosexual erotica, showing men in frontal nudes, a photo book depicting nude males, nude photos of a male couple, nude photos pf young man…
According to this document, http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf there are two possible sexual orientations.
Why excluding the possibility of bisexuality, for example?
Nothing against none of you but when I read that a single homosexual book among heterosexual books isn’t so tragic to me is like saying it would be tragic if Michael had a lot of homosexual books…yet they exist. Few but still. I can see a latent homophobia here.
Not saying he had to be homosexual, I wrote already the reason when I began my post.
But I don’t see why it have to be so hard to have an open mind and accept all the possibilities.
LikeLike
Hey Angie I don’t think Helena was being rude. Sometimes it is easy to think that when language is in print because you can’t see the facial expressions or the voice inflections. I think Helena is just trying to say that she does not think anything in particular about finding 1 or even 2 books on homosexuality when there are hundreds of others on heterosexuality. MJ haters are just trying to sully his good name by picking at straws.
Tell your friend to read Tom Messarau’s many many comments on Michael’s case. He knows it best. There is overwhelming evidence of MJ’s innocence and he was being framed by angry scrupulous money hungry vulchers. Aphrodite Jones is another one who is reliable to give accurate information. She has written a book about it. It really is not hard to find the evidence to clear MJ if one wants to. It is just that people are only interested in the dirt because of their own filthy minds.
LikeLike
Well, I’m happy that at least my name is no longer in inverted commas. No, I don’t keep Lesbian books at home (I think they are not sold here), but if I had thousands of books and an open-door policy and crowds of people streaming through my house as if it were a museum, there would be no way to control who leaves what and where. Anyone could leave anything on the shelf and I would never know.
When something in MJ’s home is found as an exception to the rule this is always a reason to have a look at the story behind it. And there must be a story behind it otherwise it wouldn’t be unique. A gift from a “fan” like “Rhonda”, or something planted there on purpose or left by chance by someone like Bob Jones, MJ’s PR man, or by some guests who stayed in MJ’s house when he was not even there – there is a multitude of possibilites here. And a book on a shelf is not a wardrobe which catches the eye if someone brings it in.
If I ever have time I will return to all that “porn” found in MJ’s house. At the moment my computer is so slow that I cannot even follow the AEG trial properly, not to mention the book which is constantly on your mind. Do your own research if you are so bothered about it. I am not.
LikeLike
“I mean ask yourself, would you keep a Lesbian book in your home Helena? As for me, even if it’s only one book, I wouldn’t keep it. If I’m not Lesbian why keep a Lesbian book”
Angie how about Michael had these books because he COULD .Why do you think he owes you or your so called MJ fan/friend or anyone an explanation.
Going by your logic you must be a dog to have books about dogs.
Ask yourself ,why are you so intrigued by a book with graphic pictures of homosexuality. Does it trigger your imagination ? They are legal ,go buy one and find out for yourself.
LikeLike
Hello Helena. Well, I never said it was a tragic, lol. But I do think it’s sort of strange that MJ would have a homosexual book, even if it’s just one book. I mean ask yourself, would you keep a Lesbian book in your home Helena? As for me, even if it’s only one book, I wouldn’t keep it. If I’m not Lesbian why keep a Lesbian book. I know MJ wasn’t homosexual, he was heterosexual, but I find it strange that he had a homosexual book, even if it were only one book.
Again, I know MJ wasn’t homosexual, but why would he keep a homosexual book that contained graphic pictures, etc.?
LikeLike
How could you say I did not come here for answers, I did come here for answers. And why are you butting in on my conversations, I asked you nothing. My questions were for ‘Helena’, not you. Please don’t respond to me if I’m not even speaking with you, especially if you are replying with rude disrespectful comments toward me without cause.
The bad thing about it, you knew that you were rude to me without cause, which is why you said: ” A lot worse than what I said to you has been said to me and about me here and on other sites”. If people did that to you, and obviously you didn’t like it, which is why you said a lot worse was done to you than what you did to me, why take on their ways?
You said: “By the way I don’t pretend to even strive to be like Michael. I am not him and do not want to be anyone other than me. So when it comes to being all about love you are not going to get that from me”.
Well, I never said for you to be like MJ. I just got the impression that MJ fans didn’t attack other MJ fans without a cause. MJ fans usually attack MJ haters, defending MJ. Besides MJ called his fans ‘Soldiers of Love’. And you shouldn’t be rude and mean without a cause anyway, regardless whether you’re a MJ fan or not. You’re suppose to do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. If you want to be rude without a cause, go ahead, have fun. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.
Reply Comments
LikeLike
@ Angie… A lot worse than what I said to you has been said to me and about me here and on other sites. You came here not looking for answers but looking for an opinion like you could not form one of your own. My answer to that is think for yourself. So what Michael’s library had not tens of thousand but hundreds of thousand of books.
By the way I don’t pretend to even strive to be like Michael. I am not him and do not want to be anyone other than me. So when it comes to being all about love you are not going to get that from me.
Michael Jackson was a unique individual and was probably more polite than me but I wager his politeness to someone repeated going to this post and asking these questions would be to ignore you.
LikeLike
Dear Angie, and what did you expect? And why am I supposed to “vindicate” MJ in this respect? Yes, he had one book with pictures of naked males in his 10,000 collection, so what’s so tragic about it? Please explain the tragedy of it, and I will probably understand and try to “vindicate”.
My opinion is that there is nothing tragic about it.
I’m not rude. I simply sometimes throw water balloons from our balcony at some readers who don’t read rules. The last time you engaged me in protracted discussions about erections I asked you to go and read the rules because you were not familiar with them. Now I am making a very restrained use of a note to rule 5. It mentions throwing water balloons as our method.
LikeLike
Dear Fam,
Michael had dozen of books on Chinese culture, their food, art, literature and architecture. What do you think that meant? Do you know which he bought, which ones might have belonged to others and left behind? And does it matters?
And if you do not have an answer it is ok. I do not expect you to have all the answers or come up with maybes when none are necessary.
LikeLike
Well, “Angie”:
Let me try to explain, since you simulate naivity: The reaction is probably the way it is because it’s obvious you are not really interested in an answer to your questions, but you are trying to be provocative. If you are really interested in an answer you can go through the whole blog and look for it. This subject was discussed at length and there is no longer any need to answer questions about the books in MJ’s library.
We have other topics now, and you are trying to distract us!
LikeLike
‘lynande51’, it seems you’re trying to start an argument by being really rude to me so that I could get angry, but it’s not going to happen. You’re suppose to be representing MJ as his fan full of LOVE. MJ was of LOVE, and would never give such rude answers as you. What’s the problem, why are you picking on me? Why are you being so rude to me, what did I ever do to you?
How would you feel if someone said to you: @ lynande51 “I don’t see where she was rude to you. She said it nicer than I am going to. So what if he did if it bothers you then it bothers you”.
Wow you say this to me and treat me like this without cause. I did absolutely nothing to you. You’re suppose to be a MJ fan. Always remember, MJ was of love, and liked nice people.
LikeLike
@ Angie I don’t see where she was rude to you. She said it nicer than I am going to. So what if he did if it bothers you then it bothers you.
LikeLike
Michael having ONE homosexual book in
a library of thousands. ..who should care?
I have books in my house that’s been bought through other people. Surely others do?
And why should we assume Michael read it?
Oh because he was accused of being a homosexual pe-le?
Yet, if we listen to the TRUTH, he had more books and mags of women. ..heterosexual material.
In truth, Michael was a quiet and shy man, focused with his decency and morals/values to God, that’s been forgotten by so much of the world. He was straight, who found it difficult to find the right woman who would truly love him and take him for what he was.
People may not believe all that, but it’s painfully true.
LikeLike
‘Helena’, I asked you if MJ had naked pictures of males, and you answered:
“Dear Angie, the answer is yes. Michael possessed the pictures of naked males in the book a MJ fan is so worried about”.
Well, is that all you’re going to say? Where’s the answer that vindicates MJ? What’s wrong, why are you giving me mean rude sarcastic answers which does not help in my question? What did I do to you for you to answer me this way?
I also asked what did you think about MJ having one homosexual book, and your answer was: “I think about it as much as I would think about having one book in ancient Chinese in my library”.
I wasn’t asking you how much you thought about it, I was asking what is your opinion on MJ having one homosexual book. Why are you giving me sarcastic rude answers? What did I do to you? I thought this was a Vindicating MJ website, with MJ fans of LOVE. Why are you being so rude to me?
LikeLike
Dear Angie, the answer is yes. Michael possessed the pictures of naked males in the book a MJ fan is so worried about.
I think about it as much as I would think about having one book in ancient Chinese in my library.
LikeLike
Nothing.
LikeLike
‘Helena’, a MJ fan also asked me if it were true that MJ had pictures of naked males. Here’s what she said:
“on another site i also read he had pictures of naked male etc… but i guess it’s all lie”.
Helena, is it true that MJ had pictures of naked males?
And what do you think of MJ having in his possession a homosexual book, even if it’s just one book?
LikeLike
‘Helena’ you wrote:
“I’ve thought of one thing, Angie.
Let us imagine that someone has dozens of books, DVs and magazines on homosexual love. And out of all of them there is one book on heterosexual love. What will you think of it?”
Well, Helena, I don’t know what to think, I’m confused, really. What do you think it means?
LikeLike
I’ve thought of one thing, Angie.
Let us imagine that someone has dozens of books, DVDs and magazines on homosexual love. And out of all of them there is one book on heterosexual love. What will you think of it?
LikeLike
Angie, I have no idea. But if you want to really know there are ways to investigate. First you need to find out where the book was found. If it was in one of those innumerable cardboard boxes which were probably never opened it would mean that it could be sent as a gift from some fans and never even seen by MJ. If it was somewhere in more easy access knowing Michael’s inquisitive nature it could be sheer curiosity. However I doubt this variant.
Then there are variants of Michael’s numerous guests bringing there and leaving behind whatever they wanted to. Or someone even leaving things on purpose. We constantly forget that people used to live in Neverland even when Michael was away and there is nothing easier than putting some book on a shelf so that no one even notices it.
In comparison with 10,000 books possessed by MJ one or two books of this nature do not change anything. If all his books were like that it would be telling the whole story, but one 1 book per 10,000 gives too little ground for conclusions.
P.S.
I once wanted to visualize what 10,000 books are like and found some pictures. This is what I wrote in the comments then:
Snatching a couple of books from the ten thousand Michael had and focusing attention on them only is absolutely disproportionate. Talking of them only creates a false impresson of Michael’s library.
Since few of us can imagine what ten thousand of books are like I’ve found several pictures of home libraries. This (by my rough estimation) has some 550- 600 books. So Michael’s library should be approximately 17 pictures like this one:
One more picture shows 13 rows of books in one vertical section. There are probably 45 wooden sections all in all (the metal ones are 17 or 18). If each shelf has 10-12 books, then one section holds 150 books. Multiplied by 45 sections it will make 6750 books. So Michael’s library should have had this quantity plus approximately half of it more:
And out of all that quantity we have to talk again and again about a couple of books? About which we are not even sure that Michael saw them? It is simply preposterous.
LikeLike
‘Helena’, I have a MJ fan asking me questions to why MJ had homosexual books in his possession, but I don’t know how to answer that question because I don’t have the complete answer. This is what her question was to me:
“The last and the worst book in our list is exhibit 596 titled “Man, a Sexual Study of Man” with text material by Larry Stevens. This book was at the very top of the prosecution hit list during the 2005 trial. The police officer described it as ‘a compilation of photographs and writings, which pertained to homosexual activity between men. The photographs depicted naked males engaged in sexually explicit activities including oral copulation and anal sex.”
Helena, can you please answer this question? Thank you so much.
LikeLike
and now….the bitch Robson is claiming shit …. hope he gets what he deserves…pathetic
LikeLike
“Who knows, the book sent by Rhonda (maybe Rodney Allen) was not the only “gift” he got from anonymous Nambla members. There is no reason to think only V.G. got the assignment.”
Kaarin, no doubt that the NAMBLA sent him books, magazines and other memorabilia pretending to be “fans”. The terrible thing is that Michael valued everything sent to him by fans so much that he kept all the gifts! And said about it openly to everyone – so that anyone who sent him things knew that they would kept somewhere in his closets!
In her blog Talitha, the fan mentioned earlier says that Michael read (and kept) everything he received from fans. Her account concerns his rehearsals in 2009 but the same surely goes for Neverland too:
So if the Nambla people wanted Michael to keep something “incriminating” or leave his fingerprints there all they needed to do was sending a gift with some love signs on it. This is exactly what “Rhonda” did for “The Boy: the photographic essay” book:
Those of us who have already pricked our ears for some unusual signs about those “gifts” it is clear that the name in quotes is indeed strange and probably stands for a man, and not a woman, but I doubt very much that Michael could have paid attention to a minor thing like that.
Could “Rhonda” stand for Rodney Allen? It perfectly could – we know the great lengths he went to in order to compromise Michael – he showered Diane Dimond with letters about alleged “molestation victims” of MJ in Canada (written by himself), coached a street boy to tell lies about MJ, made him study the maps of Neverland and Encino to be able to draw those places to police pretending he had been there and showed the boy the photos of some employees so that he could recognize some when he was asked to. Simple sending a book as a gift to Michael in these circumstances would be child play in comparison to all that.
But are the two books found in Michael’s home in 1993 that bad that we need to be worried about? No, they are art books all right and only those who sent them with a view to incriminate Michael knew in what capacity they could be used by real pedophiles – for arousal.
I made a quick check on of both books once again.
1) The book sent by “Rhonda” was “The boy: a photographic essay”
2) The other one, inscribed by Michael was “Boys will be boys”. The inscription was made on the flyleaf and read as follows:
The NY Times article says that the note was signed “MJ” “in what appeared to be Mr. Jackson’s hand”. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/national/30jackson.html?fta=y
Okay. Now here are some questions:
Do you inscribe the books you keep at home? Even if you have such a strange habit, do you put your signature under the inscription? In which case do you? In case you want to give the book back, right? Otherwise what’s the point of signing it for yourself? A signature is usually put as an autograph, correct? So wasn’t it signed because it was to be returned to someone who had suggested it for and autograph, but for some reason didn’t take it back?
Though we have spoken about these books a hundred times it is only now that I notice that both books were compiled by the same authors/editors:
Georges St. Martin and Ronald C. Nelson
Does any of us know anything about these people? No, we don’t. So why do we expect Michael to know anything about them?
Now that we know what to look for let’s try to find who they are. Amazon says that the “Most widely held works by Georges St. Martin” are:
– The boy; a photographic essay by Georges St. Martin ( Book ) 2 editions published between 1964 and 1972 in English and held by 43 libraries worldwide
– Boys will be boys by Georges St. Martin ( Book ) 1 edition published in 1966 in English and held by 13 libraries worldwide
– Twelve : a day in the life of a boy, a photographic essay by Frederick Secord ( Book ) 1 edition published in 1966 in English and held by 11 libraries worldwide
– Boyhood : a quarterly magazine devoted to the world of boyhood ( Serial ) in English and held by 1 library worldwide
After reading about all these “boys” I am beginning to really dislike the author. The same Amazon does not provide anything special about the other guy – nothing of interest to us. However due to the first author the book can very well be listed on some boylovers’ sites…
Now comes another question – even if one of the authors was somewhat fixated on boys, does it have anything to do with Michael Jackson, who knew nothing about him? No, it does not. Same as we didn’t he probably never suspected anything wrong.
The introduction to the book is absolutely innocent (sorry that only part of it fits into the screen):
And most of the pictures are like this:
Question:
How was MJ supposed to know that something was wrong with one of the authors of the book?
LikeLike
Who knows,the book sent by Rhonda ( maybe Rodney Allen) was not the only “gift” he got from anonymous Nambla members.There is no reason to think only V.G. got the assignment.
LikeLike
If a photo of Spence existed like that, Michael would be in prison and Jonathan Spence would’ve been their victim #1. He was one of their 7 original victims, they didn’t need him there to testify, that photo would’ve been enough. The photo would’ve also been enough to have Michael in prison.
But I’m of the belief with my own eyes that that police report was greatly exaggerated.
Well, we know it was. Just look at the books here for what they really were, some of the stuff sounds awful and then you see it’s photos of kids playing dress up, and all these homoerotic books and it turned out to just be one from 1961 that the prosecution admitted they couldn’t tell if he’d opened, and the rest books from photographers that had worked with him, etc, and of course how there was no mention of the inscription in the 2 books of kids either.
LikeLike
Here are the Sheriff’s Property forms and the list of items to be supressed. THe second half of the Proprty form is in the Plaintiffs opposition to the the motion to quash.
Click to access 081904itmssupp.pdf
Click to access 060804sdcontsheet.pdf
Click to access 080904pltoppdftmotaffwarevid.pdf
LikeLike
I might have missed this, but police found a nude picture of Jonathan Spence? And Michael wasn’t somehow not finished on the spot?
But I’m of the belief with my own eyes that that police report was greatly exaggerated.
LikeLike
Sorry, I made a mystake;
LikeLike
” There were also photos found of a private nature of a young woman and the three Jackson children that said how much she loved Prince Paris, Baby and Michael but of course there isn’t a hater out there that pick up on that one is there.3
Where did you find that?
LikeLike
@ Patrick
What naked picture of boys are you talking about?
List them please and the framed photo of a naked boy? Please point that one out as well. When you show me on the list of what was found in 2003 where those photos are I will then discuss them with you. Until then I will only correct you.
There was one framed photo taken into evidence by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department that day. It was a framed photo of Macauley Culkin from the motion picture Home Alone. He is fully clothed and the photo was autgraphed with the inscription ” don’t leave me alone in the house” Applehead. He had on a winter coat, stocking cap, his hand were on his face and his mouth was open just like it was in a scene in the movie. The only thing that was naked were his tonsils.
The next group of photos of young light skinned black males were in fact still photos of his nephews the 3T used as promotional photos for the video and single “Why” which was a duet with their Uncle Michael. “Why” was released as a single but was also on the album by 3T titled Brotherhood. The youngest of the 3T at the time was 18 years of age.
When the story went out in all the tabloids it was that there were photos that were found. Tome Mesereau petitioned the courtto make a statement and it was denied. It seems that even the prosecution knew that there were no naked pictures of young boys found in 2003.
There was a 6 pack of photos found in the employee break room that were in fact of the Arivzo family in a photo booth. There were also photos found of a private nature of a young woman and the three Jackson children that said how much she loved Prince Paris, Baby and Michael but of course there isn’t a hater out there that pick up on that one is there.
I double dog dare you to go say something to TJ Jackson about those photos. Just go ahead, go to the source and see what the source says since he was the oldest of the 3T.
LikeLike
In years gone by, while living in NYC I had a friend and co-worker who was gay. At times we met for dinner.And what did we do? We checked out men and discussed their looks and behaviour.For fun. It was different than what you do with your closest female friends.With females,close friends you talked about men.Yes,their looks,but more so their behaviour in intimate situations.I think females in general are less interested in porno vid.or film, but talk ,talk very much and in great detail and concreately..if men only knew, it may make them quite nervous…This does not mean that the emotinal factor was not important
And don´t worry,what was said among friends remained confidential..
LikeLike
Your observation,VMJ,, regarding the book:The boy;a photographic essay , signed : To Michael from your fan, kiss,kiss ,kiss,hug,hug,hug Rhonda 1983.Connecting the name Rhonda to that of known p-le Rodney Allen was brilliant.What female fan would send a book about boys to Michael?Though this one was not an illegal book.I would think it illegal to send
illegal p-lic material. Also Rhonda is not a common name.Rodney Allen may in those early days having attended some of the gatherings of children ,or being a p-f also a member of NAMBLA.
Some of Michael´s performances were qiute sexy, and he was attractive to females, and no doubt to gay men as well inadvertedly.He did not go to clubs or nightclubs,so this kind of material may have given him inspiration for “sexy” looks and behaviour. No doubt for a single man also not surprising.
LikeLike
The majority of books WERE for art, these books had influence on Michael’s videos, any idiot can see that.
And Patrick, let me ask you this question…If Michael was using porn and alcohol to coax kids into terrible things…why didn’t Jordan Chandler mention any of this at his time at Neverland? Because we know how p-les work, it’s all about some sick routine. Michael had been collecting those things since before 91 and plenty kids were around him then…why no mention of this from any other sources or accusers?
LikeLike
Click to access 011805pltreqaseemd.pdf
This is what they found !
LikeLike
You should be ashamed of yourself . First the legal raid was videotaped to prevent planting of evidence . Second he had numerous naked photos of boys ( no one cares if its art !) he had a naked pic of a boy framed . Lastly , what kind of person leaves around porn and liquor around his bedroom and bathroom ( where mj had boys sleep there ) ?? You are delusional . He fits everything about a oedophile !not guilty does not mean not innocent !
LikeLike
Here is a link to the biography of Wilhem Von Gloeden in Wiki. I did not look further than this to find out more about him. It also projects in this article to what the photos were about and then they go on to say he had many photos of pastural scenes and women as well. Anyone can project anything on to what they see unless the aks the person what they meant.Another case of adapting something to sell one message that may never have been the intent of the person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloeden
LikeLike
The haters are using a link to the NAMBLA reading list in the FAKE vindicate mj site that lists VonGloeden pictures. Obviously the photographer was not a member since he died in 1931 and NAMBLA was not in existance until the early 1980’s. How would Michael begin to know what was on that list or how those people were going to use photographs taken in the late 1800’s for their own sick reasons. Interesting enough none of the other books they claim are listed on it. Who knows when that was added to their twisted list.
What is also interesting when I read the list is that attaching themselves to something that would seem innocuous is what they seem to be best at. They have their own version of a childrens magazine that is called Koinos. It seems that organized pedophiles can do just about anything to further their unholy cause so no wonder they attached themselves to MJ. Then along comes VG with his poison pen and twisted agenda and fantasy.He delivered MJ to his friends in the group that he is so proud to acknowledge in his Authors notes. Yep they do this kind of thing all the time and there is the proof. MJ was just their biggest victim.
LikeLike
I was just watching videos on the raiding on Neverland. I noticed that there are several paintings, drawings and portraits that had distinctive looks that were included in those books.
The book, Room To Play, the artwork in that and the style of the drawings are almost identical to the painting of Michael leading a group of kids across a field.
LikeLike
“I found the book “The Man: a sexual study of …” in a websites, and really believe that this book is not so terrible. I desagree when you say it, probaly, violates the rules of decency. There is nothing wrong in talking about homosexuality.”
danebj, I don’t remember saying that the book “probably violated the rules of decency”, but that’s not the point. The link you sent me does not show what is inside the book and therefore all of us have to talk about it with our eyes closed. If we had some pictures from it this would provide some idea about its content. A detailed comment from someone who has read the book would also be helpful. This is actually what I tried to collect in order to make my analysis.
As to homosexuality the prosecution tried to make something terrible out of that book and use it for their purposes, evidently trying to tie homosexuality to ped-lia, so for all questions on the subject I refer you to them since they are the ones who wanted to fish out something from that book. However Michael wasn’t gay and there is no point to even discuss the matter here.
And please do not use pedophilia together with his name! It is against our rules (I had to edit this word in your comment as I always do when I see this rule broken).
LikeLike
This book was actually given to him as a gift and had an inscription in it from the giver. This was no evidence, like you say, Michael was a beautiful individual and kind and generous. He was not a paed-le but was used by people who tried to take advantage of his kindness.
LikeLike
Helena, I found the book “The Man: a sexual study of …” in a websites, and really believe that this book is not so terrible. I desagree when you say it, probaly, violates the rules of decency. There is nothing wrong in talking about homosexuality. Or about sex. It is a book written to adults and geared mainly for the gay community, but anyone who is curious in this subject may be interested in it. I do not understand why sex homesoxual shocks people so much. And why do they try to prove that Michael was a ped-le using the argument that he was homosexual. Pedophilia is not connected to homosexual or vice versa.
I think Michael may have bought the book out of curiosity. He was a person who read about all. ALL. From sex to ancient religions. He was a studious. There is a book about homosexual sex in his huge library is not a big deal.
Or maybe he has received as a gift. This is very probable. He received thousands of gifts. Who could tell what kind of things people worldwide could send to Michael.
I think it’s like the movie that talks about homosexuality. Just because I saw a movie about gays I’m homosexual? Of course not. Just because I’ve seen pictures of gay in sexual poses I’m homosexual? Obviously not. Does that make me a pedophile? Of course not.
In short, the prosecution did everything to create a non-existent evidence. They never had a case.
This is the link : http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11393631-man
LikeLike
@ Suzy
And it is also hinted at in VG’s book with the story about the “bones” that were found at Neverland. That is where they were going with that one. I remember when all of those cases first came out about SRA. All I remember thinking at the time was ” people need to get a grip”. The stories are just plain ridiculous and you are right it was like living in the dark ages and the Salem Witch trials.
LikeLike
@ Lynette
The Satanic Ritual Abuse panic is fascinating to me, because it’s like a great number of the American people still live in the Middle Ages, in the ages of witch trials where superstition clouds rational judgement. I find it shocking that not only common people and the media got caught up in it but also prosecutors.
And though Michael was never accused of SRA directly, but you can discover elements of it in the accusations against him. Especially in Maureen Orth’s articles.
These Focus On The Family folks just make up stuff routinely! This is the first time I hear someone say that adult porn causes p-lia. It’s so ridiculous that it’s not even worth commenting. If that would be the case then the majority of the world’s male population (and many females too) would be p-les!
LikeLike
Here is a lnk to a video that includes an interview with Ken Lanning. The interview that he is doing is in regard to his work on a case known as The West Mephis Three. watch the video about how when these cases started to surface in the mid eighties through the nineties and see what he says about these occult abuse cases and then you should know one other thing. Mr. Lanning was the one that wrote this “Profile of a Pedophile” that most of the haters like to quote so much.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6251401n
In this video he is talking about how some law enforcement officers used his information. He is clearly saying that was not the intent of his work. The fact is when he was asked to work on and write a profile what he was doing in it he says several times. It could be anyone. There is no clear indicator of who it could be and if the truth were to be told Tom Sneddon would fit that profile as well. He was active in the community, coached Little League and was active in his church. He fit the profile just as well as Michael id you read Ken Lanning’s findings.
Mr. Lanning also in response to a statement by James Dobson of Focus on The Family said this.
LIE: “How do people become pedophiles? Usually, pornography walks you down that path until you get to the place where you’ve seen everything that a man and a woman can do together, and then you make that little jump over to perversions.”
–JAMES DOBSON, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY
FACT: “The FBI has no evidence that pornography causes crimes. Pedophilia has absolutely nothing to do with adult pornography.”
–FBI AGENT KEN LANNING
LikeLike
You guys are right there were more found but there was only one found in his nightstand. So the actual adult magazines range from 1991 to 2003. Michael horded his favorites what else can we say.The “gay’ theme that the prosecution likes to send home was in fact 2 women. In case no one knows this ,it happens to be the number one heterosexual male fantasy, why I don’t know, but it is.Here is a link to all of the adult magazines and DVD’s found at Neverland courtesy of Lacieinegasmiles.
http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/category/2005-court-case/porn/
The only thing that I will add is this. The images that were captured from the one computer were captured or Cached on November 17th,2003 so he didn’t quite have 1800 from the computer images. A lot of people don’t know this but if you read Bob Sanger’s litigation of that evidence you will find out that the adult entertainement websites have it so that if you click on one image about a thousand go with it and are cached on your computer I think it has something to do with tracking cookies but I might be wrong about that ( remember that for future reference and clean your cache monthly). I have a friend whose husband developed a forensic program for computers (yes they can find anything that you have ever clicked on) and he explained it once but I was not paying close enough attention because I really didn’t care.
Here is the Sheriffs department sheets that list all of the adult magazines and periodicals that were found ( there is nothing to hide in these documents because they are all open to the public)
.As for those antique Nudist Magazines considering the age of them I would say that they were more likely an interest in the science and progression of the science of photography. Have you ever seen a photo from 1931 and the way people looked back then? They for some reason always looked so old. I don’t know why that is either but they do. Is all nude art going to come under some peoples scrutiny now because if that is the case I think The Louvre and the Vatican is in trouble.
Click to access 080904pltoppdftmotaffwarevid.pdf
Click to access 060804sdcontsheet.pdf
Oh and one other thing when they were litigating the fingerprint evidence is when you find out that Gavin’s fingerprint was on the one magazine that he couldn’t have seen, Hustler Barely Legal August 2003. And no Michael didn’t have a subscription so he did not get it 4 months early ( I think it was Zonen that tried that excuse on for size).So what exactly did they prove with the fingerprint evidence? The Prosecution proved that Michael looked at adult heterosexual picutres and he did it alone. I think that is the whole idea behind them in the first place isn’t it? Well that isn’t entirely true, couples “read” them together for “inspiration” at times too.
LikeLike
I dont know why they would be looking through mj office bathroom anyway ..the supposed crime took place in his bedroom.
It is all such a load of garbage anyway..Big deal if MJ liked looking a naked women or whatever.
how many people have subscriptions to playboy or hustler ?
you might think he was the only person in the world that has that stuff..
Did they think he could walk into a strip club, instead, and not have it make the national news..??
It was just a ridiculous case that never should have been brought.
Tom Sneddon and Larry Feldman were thick as thieves in my opinion.
Any NORMAL person would have realized Feldman was manipulating the system, nevermind the fact that if MJ actually thought he got away with something in 93 , he would NOT have done the ghosts video and remained living in the vicinity of that particular district atty that had it in for him so bad..
LikeLike
From Mez’s closing argument:
1 Yes, he’s a human being. They find a lot of
2 girlie magazines; “Hustler,” “Playboy,” “Penthouse.”
3 He does read them. Did he want the world to know
4 that? No, that’s his private life. Did he think
5 they were going to bring it all into a courtroom and
6 just flash it for the world? No.
7 They went all around his house trying to
8 find something.
12 Now, ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution
13 has tried to focus your attention on what they now
14 call pornography at Neverland. And they found for
15 the last ten years’ worth of “Hustler,” “Playboy,”
16 “Penthouse,” things of that sort. All legal. All
17 heterosexual.
16 Having all of these heterosexual books and magazines
17 doesn’t add up to pedophilia, okay?
18 What do you typically find? You find
19 illegal child pornography, websites galore,
20 pictures. None of that came in. And, yes, the
21 prosecution suggested they would prove that, and
22 none of it was found at Neverland. No websites of
23 pedophilia. No child sex pictures on websites. No
24 photographs. None of the things you typically
25 associate with a pedophile.
26 And their biggest problem is repeated
27 editions of “Hustler” and “Playboy” and “Penthouse”
28 and “Barely Legal” do not equate with what they’re
1 trying to prove. I’m not saying it’s necessarily
2 commendable that you have all these magazines, but
3 you can get them at any newsstand and there’s been
4 no evidence that anything was illegal.
5 And if Mr. Jackson has been proven to like
6 to read these magazines for years and years and
7 years, how does that equate to their theory that he
8 wanted to sexually touch a male child?
9 It doesn’t. There’s a problem with their
10 case.
LikeLike
@ Lynette
7 magazines were found in his nightstand
12 magazines were found in the box at the base of his bed, plus 23 nudist magazines
The black briefcase contained 19 nude female centerfolds and 18 magazines
Several magazines were found in his bathrooms too (both in the bathroom in his bedroom suite and in the two bathrooms attached to his office). And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this.
(I would have attached the screenshots from the list of the evidence of the house search, but the system wouldn’t let me post the links.)
LikeLike
@ Lynette
7 magazines were found in his nightstand
12 magazines were found in the box at the base of his bed, plus 23 nudist magazines
The black briefcase contained 19 nude female centerfolds and 18 magazines
Several magazines were found in his bathrooms too (both in the bathroom in his bedroom suite and in the two bathrooms attached to his office). And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this.
LikeLike
“He said “nothing was found that he knew of unless it was something someone sent him”. I believe him because he looked genuinly surprised when asked so he did not know about them. ”
I wrote a message in one of those books, may be he forgot he had them but at one point he knew he had them.
“It would have been Adrian McManus that would have opened it but then it could not have been her either because she amazingly did not come in to work that day claiming that she called in sick.”
I believe she said someone called her.
LikeLike
Lynette, oh, bad news about your ankle – I wish you speedy recovery! The only good thing about it is that you won’t have to work for some time and will be with us more often (joke).
To what you have already said let me add this (from MJJTimeline 1993):
So Michael lingered on August 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21? For the example real criminals behave in such situations we have Conrad Murray’s behavior on the day Michael died. Michael’s body was still lying on a bed in his home when Murray’s assistants had already arrived at the storehouse he rented and were clearing away its contents for the police to never find it. Criminals are swift as lightning in covering up the traces of their crimes.
And Michael knew about the criminal investigation against him already on August 17, so if he had thought those books to be incriminating evidence against him he would have burned them in his bath the moment he heard the news. Instead haters suggest that he hid them in his own closet for the police to conveniently find them there? The idea is preposterous to say the very least.
And the inscription was nothing but an autograph. It is proven by the fact that he put MJ under the inscription. If he intended it “for himself” he wouldn’t have signed it. And the text of it echoes the text of the preface to the book:
The authors:
Michael Jackson:
LikeLike
Thank you Helena. My ankle was broken at work but I am home now with a boot on it.Adrian McManus would be the obvious one of course.About how long would it take for someone to put two books in a drawer? About 45 seconds tops. Here is the most ridiculous part of some of their claims. Here it is in a nutshell: Michael was very rich. Michael had several maids. Michael did not clean his own house or his own room or do his own laundry. How come I know that? Because these people worked there. He paid them. They did his laundry, his cleaning, his cooking and his organizing. Michael did not want to clean his house otherwise he wouldn’t have had a maid or housekeepers in the first place. He hired them to do a job and he expected them to do it so he would not clean or store or pack or cook or fold his clothes or hang them up or press them.That was their job. He was rich. He could afford to have others work for him. That is the way his world worked.To think that he was even aware that they were there or he put them there is just silly. Michael was asked about what was found in the 1993 search by Diane Sawyer.He said “nothing was found that he knew of unless it was something someone sent him”. I believe him because he looked genuinly surprised when asked so he did not know about them. I think the video is still on you tube. It is only the haters that think everything Michael said was a lie and I can’t help them with that.
LikeLike
“He was gone for long at a time prior to that search in 1993. He had to get keys from the maids in the house to open any lock. He did not carry the keys to anything in the house. So who put them in there and who opened it up? It would have been Adrian McManus that would have opened it but then it could not have been her either because she amazingly did not come in to work that day claiming that she called in sick.”
Lynette, sorry to hear that you were in hospital. Hope you are better now!
The fact that those books were found in a locked closet is heavily emphasized by haters as if Michael wanted to hide them. But I am pretty sure that it wasn’t him who put them there at all – I remember reading in an article that he was surpised they were found there.
The obvious candidate for slealtily putting the books in a locked cabinet (in the closet!) was Adrian McManus and her sudden absence exactly on the day of the raid only strenthens this suspicion.
There are many signs that someone was working agaisnt Michael in his own home – remember that dirty underwear which was also found in bags among the books. In a well run home, which it was supposed to be, things like that simply cannot happen all by themselves. Or remember the blood spot on one piece of underwear in those bags with some cocaine on top of it. ON the blood spot – but NOT IN the blood, as the analysis showed it, which means that someone rubbed in cocaine into the surface of the blood.
And this absurdity is all the more absurd because MJ never used any cocaine (Franc Cascio was vehement that MJ didn’t – he said, “never, never did he use it”). Demerol yes, but not cocaine. When it comes to Michael Frank Cascio was so outspoken about other things that we can be sure that his words are absolutely true.
I’ve corrected a bit your information about Michael being away from Neverland for long – he was away, but not for long. However the people working against him had all the time they needed to plant anything they wanted and anywhere they wanted too.
The fact that he had just left on a tour is even better in the circumstances. The investigation started on August 17 when he was still in Neverland, as far as I understand, and if he had been “panicky” and supposed there would be a search (and was “afraid” of showing the books) he would have simply thrown them away and not hid them for the police to eventually find them.
No, all this is just a sign of someone doing it on purpose. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Victor Gutierrez had something to do with it.
Here is the account of the Neverland search in 1993 provided by Lisa Campbell:
LikeLike
Now that I am home and able to write again I will add something else to the porn questions. The porn that Michael claimed was his was in the briefcase found in his closet. That is what the Arvizo boys claimed he showed them. In that briefcase were a total of seven magazines.That’s right seven whole magazines with the centerfolds torn out. That would be a total of seven magazines over a life time.
Next the ones that were found in a sealed box at the foot of his bed were those old nudist magazines from the 1930’s that we know Michael didn’t originally purchase because he wasn’t born yet. They were all tested for fingerprints and DNA and Michael’s prints were not found on any of the magazines or the pages inside of them.
2 photography books were found in plastic bags on a shelf in his linen closet.The rest were found in the the storage closet in the video arcade library apartment that Frank claimed as his office when he was there. The books found in the wine cellar were the Arvizo boys school books which were exculpatory because they claimed they weren’t in there alone and they got those school books when Michael was in Florida from the 20th of February until March 2nd for Blanket’s first birthday party at Al Malnik’s.
The other two magazines were found in the bathroom of his office, one each from either side of the vanity.
Big Deal. My guess is he liked whoever those centerfold models were in those seven magazines.As for who else was there at the time we know that Omer and two of his Norwegian friends were there along with Michael’s cousins Levon and Elijah Jackson. They were all around the same age and what the press and police didn’t want anyone to know was that there were several young women there at the same time.Surprisingly they did not speak to the girls or take their DNA for comparison. What is really looks like is that Omer and friends had a party while MJ was in Vegas working. Just like so many young people their age which was 19 to their early twenties they partied. Again, big deal. So they looked at girls and had some alcohol. In Norway they were legally able to drink at the age of 18 so who cares? The cops probably did scare them when they found themselves in the middle of that search that day asking questions about booze and porn when they were in a foreign country. They probably didn’t realize that they were breaking the law at the time. As for his cousins Elijah and Levon they were over 21 and Michael didn’t control everybody when he wasn’t there.The reason that none of the images that were found on the computers were not used is because they were cached on November 17th the night before the raid so Michael didn’t have anything to do with that internet search. Doesn’t anybody remember what it was like to be in their late teens and early twenties anymore?
LikeLike
@ Rodrigo
Yes that is who it could have been. I think everyone forgets that the books that were found were found in 1993 are not a connection to anything at the time. If it had been anything of concern to anyone other than Tom Sneddon the FBI would have prosecuted Michael. The two books in question were in the hands of the police longer than they were in Michael’s possesion.It is only the haters that question the penmanship. It is a moot point because if I remember correctly Rhonda may have been close to illiterate. How many signatures of functionally illiterate people have they seen?
Another important part about those books is that they never proved that they were read by Michael. An inscription on the inside cover that he signed proves he saw the cover of one of the books. He was gone for long at a time prior to that search in 1993. He had to get keys from the maids in the house to open any lock. He did not carry the keys to anything in the house. So who put them in there and who opened it up? Detective Ferrufino wasn’t lying when she testified that it was Blanca Francia, she just didn’t know who it was that opened it or if it was Blanca Francia, that she wasn’t supposed to be there anymore and did not realize the significance of what she was seeing. In other words did Blanca copy the keys and keep them? Did some of the employee’s know in advance that there was going to be a search? If that is possible how was it possible? Because of her association with VG and his association with the Chandler’s? Yes that is how it is possible.
Prosecutor Zonen picked up on the fact that Rosibel Ferrufino said that she thought it was Blanca Francia that opened the bedroom and the file cabinet. Well it was not possible that it was Francia considering she had “quit” (reality was she was fired for stealling) the job in early 1992. It would have been Adrian McManus that would have opened it but then it could not have been her either because she amazingly did not come in to work that day claiming that she called in sick.
People don’t realize the volume of mail that Michael used to receive in 1992-1993. Just because of the sheer volume Neverland had its own zipcode at one time. Who knows when it arrived and if Michael ever even saw the book with the inscription from Rhonda. As for the other book he also signed it like he was autographing it for someone. Michael used to sign anything that a person stuck in front of his face. That is why so many people have things like pillowcases and mirrors and unusual things that he signed and they are now selling. If you want to get some idea of how much mail he used to get watch Larry Nimmer’s video he has a shot of his mailroom and that was during his trial when his popularity was waning. See that and then multiply it ten times to get an idea of what it was like in 1993 prior to Evan Chandler’s extortion.
Here is what the haters seem to forget. This is our blog and we talk about what we want to talk about not what they want to talk about. If they want to show those photos with their ugly narratives let them do it on their own blogs because they are the ones that are fascinated with the topic not us.
LikeLike
I wonder what ******* [vmj:deleted] a.k.a. the homophobic creep ChasUGC thinks of the male themed pornographic material they (the police) found at Michael Jackson’s home. I’m surprised he hasn’t started ranting and raving and calling Michael Jackson, a FAG. The guy is sick. He tries to justify his homophobic language on religion.
Please Caroline. Act now and give ******** [vmj:deleted] the boot before he destroys all the credibility of this free WordPress blog. You have the power just believe in yourself.
LikeLike
What are you talking of? What excuses? Didn’t I make myself clear enough that we are not talking of books as such but of the people who use whatever book you take – be it Alice in Wonderland or Peter Pan – to prove their perverse ideas? What does their madness have to do with innocent books which inspire this madness in them? The books may be perfectly okay while it is the people who interpret them in their perverse way who are not!
The inscriptions Michael made on one book and the fact that some “fan” sent him another book do NOT make him a p.!!! Even if someone with a perverse mind thinks something bad about these books! And even if some authors of some books are accused of certain inclinations (which they probably never had)! All this is the problem of the people who look at these books that way and not the books per se.
The idea to see who sent the book by “Rhonda” to MJ is not a speculation. It can show who was interested in compromising him in case someone wanted to use that book against him. The book by the way is absolutely innocent – and the movie Lord of the flies is perfectly okay too (it is a drama about children surviving in an air crash, left without adults, so it naturally has nothing to do with molestation issues).
It is only the people who stood behind making that film who raise my gravest suspicions. Mind you that the actors who played in the film do not say a single word about anything bad (possibly) happening on the site. But the overall impression of what I read about the way the film was shot was very disturbing. Is it due to my shattered nerves? Or is it because Corey Feldman spoke about those people surrounding him when he was a child? His words constanly ring in my ears now…
BUT MICHAEL HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! So if this is everything you wanted to know about this issue Michael’s supporters can sleep absolutely peacefully now. It is probably only me who cannot. Somehow I feel that my job is not only only to stand up for Michael Jackson, but stand up for the cause he was fighting for too – defending children from that terrible malice.
Of course we can close the subject of the Lord of the flies book, because the book and the film are ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT. But if we are concerned about the plight of some children behind these films I think we should not drop the subject and pursue it, because it is exactly what Michael Jackson would want us to do.
I pray I could make those haters who raised the matter of that couple of books wish they had never done it. Because they themselves opened up the areas which they desperately wanted to conceal from the unsuspecting public. It is them who are the monsters. GOD PLEASE HELP US.
Cast at the airport before boarding on a plane to Puerto Rico
“There were 32 of them, the oldest 15, the youngest 7. Their long, sun-yellowed hair covered their ears and the backs of their necks; their tanned bodies were as thin and hard as the crude wooden spears some of them carried. They squatted in a pack on the rocky, dusty hilltop, the wind plucking at the rags that hung from them–rags that at one time had been white shirts, flannel shorts and school blazers. Their eyes had an extraordinary glitter, almost as bright as the sparks that flew up from the fire where the pig-dog sizzled.”
Director Peter Brook with cast
Peter Brook: A Biography
…There is no hint of neurosis about him. Wholly lacking in the Englishman’s habitual instinct of apologising for his very existence, he took to the theatre with easy and instant mastery. While at Oxford, he directed Doctor Faustus , tracking down the aged Aleister Crowley to advise on the magic, thinking nothing of consorting with “the wickedest man in England”. In the absence of women he plunged with comfortable sensuality into “every homosexual affair I could”, until finally deciding, as he character istically puts it, that female genitals were more congenial to him than male.
…Brook turned 80 last month, almost half a century after he set the agenda for his directorial career by ridiculing “Walter Kerr, and the audience of The Miracle Worker and…most of our politicians grinning from ear to ear and buried up to their necks” like Winnie in Beckett’s Happy Days. Brook has made no secret of his contempt for the audience (or critic) that “glibly asserts that life is good, that there is always hope and that all will be well.” Observing him as the prophetic figure he is today, it’s easy to overlook the fact that he didn’t start life as an iconoclast.
… The journeyman stage of Brook’s career only came to an end in the early 1960s when he joined Peter Hall at the Royal Shakespeare Company. His radical experimentation began in earnest in 1964 with the RSC’s much-discussed Theatre of Cruelty season. A collaboration of Brook and American director Charles Marowitz, the Theatre of Cruelty season was a seminal event for the English-speaking stage. It paved the way for Brook’s production of Peter Weiss’s The Persecution and Assassination of Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade and for much that was considered new and important in Western drama during the decade or so that followed. The notion of the “theater of cruelty” derives from the work of Antonin Artaud, who argued that “[t]he theatre will never find itself again…except by furnishing the spectator with the truthful precipitates of dreams, in which his taste for crime, his erotic obsessions, his savagery, his chimeras, his utopian sense of life and matter, even his cannibalism, pour out on a level not counterfeit and illusory, but interior.”
Lord of the Flies Reunion (1996). Reunion Image Copyright © 1996 Tom Hollyman, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Vieques, Puerto Rico 1996
Notes on the reunion by Tom Gaman, a free lance forester in Inverness, California. He acted as Simon in Peter Brook’s Lord of the Flies (excerpts):
… Early the next morning the film crew went to San Juan to film Peter’s arrival. Peter Brook, now in his 70’s, is short white headed, and cerebral. What makes him special are his accomplishments, and his way of surprising people in his constant and spontaneous search for new ideas. You can feel the energy of his mind. I had anticipated re-meeting Peter for many years. Perhaps this documentary is his way of taking a moment in time to look back and to give us the opportunity to explore as adults what we really had not understood as children.
Peter Brook is a complex man trying to achieve simplicity. I think we helped him do that, and during our August week together he became increasingly comfortable with our renewed friendship. Peter was on Vieques pausing to reflect on his most important film, and it was his way to repay us for the support of his art that we had innocently offered years ago.
Down time on the set (from the book The boy – a photographic essay)
It was an odd feeling to be filming again after all these years, but we must be actors at heart because we knew well how to be patient with a set. We spent much of the first day waiting while the film crew worked on one shot and another–just passing the time in these dazzling places. Sun Bay, the choir boy marching beach, is a prize, more beautiful than I remembered.
Tom Hollyman, one of Lord of the Flies original cameramen, had come from New York to visit with the group and to shoot publicity stills. He arrived carrying a pig’s head on a stick. We stood there, awkwardly posing with enlarged photographs of ourselves as children. After the shoot we left this grinning representative of the world of authority at the beach.
We spent Saturday at the Assembly Beach. What an important place for us: the many assemblies, the huts, the clear water, the choir march, my fainting scene, the first trip with Ralph and Jack to the mountaintop–the essence of our experiences in the summer of 1961. We had spent so many long days as a group shooting these scenes here. Although just boys, the making of Lord of the Flies had been a difficult job, and much of it was done in that palm lined cove. Here it was–the blue warm water, the reef, thousands of colorful fish, white sands, beach grapes and palms, the Caribbean wind and light–the background and form of Lord of the Flies.
Down time on the set (from the book The boy – a photographic essay)
We came together to resolve our relationships and see what would happen during a reunion of 35 years, and to try to evaluate if something important had happened after, as children, we had lived on Peter Brook’s Island. This documentary focuses on an extraordinary experience that happened to regular children, now regular adults, piecing together an unscripted story of their own lives. We were intensely familiar to one another, but years and maturity create barriers. Each of our little group of Englishmen now had the opportunity to actualize an unscripted role, and to present and exhibit it before a camera–within just days. But could we? We were not actors–not even particularly distinguished people. These were our lives and Lord of the Flies was the most public thing we ever did. I felt a frustration with my inability to communicate, yet a need to explore my own personality and to try to relate my life to my role in this film.
I am proud of my role as Simon, and always have been. A third of a century has intervened, but I will never deny that the character is part of me, and that the experience went on to build other parts which you cannot so easily see. Peter Brook managed to see the essential raw material of personality in small boys, and to exaggerate these traits to unfold the story of Lord of the Flies on film in 90 minutes, speaking through our eyes with a script drawn verbatim from Golding’s book.
What a wonderful opportunity it was as a child to live and to help create a classic and timeless film that asks fundamental questions of human nature. I am quite sure I represented to others more than I really am, but I am satisfied with the memory of this part of my life, and have no regrets or disappointments. I’m still here. I’m happy. I’m busy. I’m constantly challenged by a never ending sequence of experiences. I have a wonderful family, a remarkable place to be, and I’m fine.
Henry on the set of Lord of flies (from the book The boy – a photographic essay)
Of course the reality is that we didn’t quite live the story. The drama was not real life. Nobody was killed. Nobody was even in danger. We ate 3 meals a day and wrote letters to our families.
People have long been interested in my involvement in a great production–it has changed my life in an enriching way. Now this year we are back together, looking directly at ourselves as children, examining who were are, learning things we never expected about our own personalities, and enjoying our surviving love for each other as brothers. In many ways it is quite unnerving–addressing as adults difficult matters that we so easily took for granted as children.
Seeing the place again unnerved us, but I think that fate smiled too. Together we had unknowingly climbed a very tall mountain–and accomplished what today seems almost a miracle. Such a film as Lord of the Flies would never be made again, and could never have been made otherwise. There was an unplanned moment of silence as we searched our souls. Peter Brook smiled and you could tell he loved us all.
Down time on the set (from the book The boy – a photographic essay)
James Aubrey echoed my thoughts– “For me something happened, religious, spiritual experience. Peter Brook was the octopus and we were the arms”. I departed San Juan disbelieving of the totality of my own experience, gazing at people with new eyes, and struck with the enormity of the opportunities of life, the beauty of these our experiences in Puerto Rico, with love for my brothers and need for their support. We have learned that human nature does not change. With Peter Brook’s leadership, the spontaneity of ideas, and hard work, we had made these things happen. This event has somehow changed me, and leads through the theatre of my life. This wonder of “Simon” has come to pass through me for a second time. The Time Flies boys looked at their lives, and I think we were satisfied.
Tom Gaman
http://www.lordoftheflies.org/img/lotfboy2.htm
LikeLike
@ lacienegasmiles
“There is nothing wrong with the books, trying to explain them like there’s a need to beyond what was available in court just plays into the hands of the haters. One was sent in by a fan, the other was inscribed with Michael’s own words about his feelings for what was in it, both undermine the idea that Michael kept them for any other reason beyond that.”
I agree with this 1000%! I don’t feel the need to speculate about how Michael got them because that’s just well, speculation and not facts and frankly, seems like we are looking for excuses which Michael does not need at all because he didn’t do anything wrong! We should deal with facts, not speculations like haters do. When I read Michael’s inscription in that book to me that’s enough for an explanation for what he saw in these books. Even if he bought that book himself he didn’t do anything criminal, nor does it in itself imply that he was a p-le.
LikeLike
vindicatemj
Do you think ‘Rhonda’ could have been Rhonda Phillips? One of the groupies Michael consoled and befriended after one of the brothers slept with her?
LikeLike
“I think you’re giving them too much credence in suggesting they were sent by anyone with a sinister motive. The haters are obsessed with these books the same way they feel that everything MJ does is suspect and sinister and disgusting. There is nothing wrong with the books. One was sent in by a fan…”
Lacienega, let me stress it again that there was nothing wrong with those books as otherwise Michael would have been arrested then and there for a mere possession of them. BUT THIS IS NOT THE POINT. I am not ready to discuss it now, but while you think the book was sent by a fan I think that it was absolutely no fan who sent it.
Michael’s supporters in all their innocence cannot even imagine how huge a lobby working against Michael was and still is, and the incredible things they are capable of doing. And I am absolutely not giving these people “too much credence” – quite on the contrary, up till now I have been hugely underestimating these people. It is only now that I am beginning to understand what a Beast we are all facing.
LikeLike
I think you’re giving them too much credence in suggesting they were sent by anyone with a sinister motive. The haters are obsessed with these books the same way they feel that everything MJ does is suspect and sinister and disgusting. These same people believe his legal hetero/naked women/lesbian porn is reflective of him being a pervert too, they even believe his “Barely Legal” porn is sinister and should only be available to minors. They believe everything said by the Arvizo’s. Their minds are distorted and they are incapable of seeing anything other than perverse and disgusting things.
There is nothing wrong with the books, trying to explain them like there’s a need to beyond what was available in court just plays into the hands of the haters. One was sent in by a fan, the other was inscribed with Michael’s own words about his feelings for what was in it, both undermine the idea that Michael kept them for any other reason beyond that. As can be seen with Gary Glitter and the case of real actual pedophiles that these two books that he did not keep in his bedside drawer would not be enough. Gary was found in the late 90s to have thousands of photos of child sexual abuse on his computer. There was none of that in anything MJ had.
LikeLike
“I went on Topix for the first time in ages the other day, and what were they doing? Showing Michael’s defenders those books and giving their dirty explanations. Maybe it would be a good idea to go back to the books, to drill into their heads once and for all.”
There is no need to study the books as we and those in the courtroom in 2005 have examined them inside out, but there is a need to find how some of those books worked their way into Michael’s home. I, for one, am intrigued how a book from a certain “Rhonda” could land in Michael’s library and why this “Rhonda” was in inverted commas, for example.
All this insistence from haters that the books are something meaningful finally brought home to me that they are indeed meaningful – but not in the way haters think. Someone was sending Michael things and surely he had much more “souvenirs” from “fans” than just a couple of those books, only the most outrageous ones he probably threw away in disgust.
But some could easily stay in his library. The problem is that when you don’t know that a book is a token of some “ideas” in certain “circles” you take the book at its face value – just as a photography book (on the joys of boyhood for example). As a result you can easily end up keeping something which in certain “circles” is regarded as something “meaningful”.
In the same way someone can send you tokens of some sinister cult (accompanying with a “LOVE” note) and you will keep them as beautiful ornaments, but one day the police come over and arrest you for belonging to a sect of vampires though you never knew you were one of them.
LikeLike
vindicatemj
I know the books aren’t criminal, they wouldn’t have been published otherwise. But as you say about the haters, they use them a lot against Michael and they cant see any other reason as to why Michael would own them. You give them a good reason like yours, which is
the only logical reason and they’ll reject it. I went on Topix for the first time in ages the other day, and what were they doing? Showing Michael’s defenders those books and giving their dirty explanations.
I came here to sound smart (which failed 😀 ) and get a few pointers on how I could help, I only had good intentions.
Maybe it would be a good idea to go back to the books, to drill into their heads once and for all.
LikeLike
“Before, I really wasn’t trying to justify the books, I was trying to find the reason why an innocent man like Michael might have had them.”
This sounds as if they were something criminal. They were not and the fact that some perverts refer to these photo books does not make them criminal in any way. They use them for their purposes and ordinary customers (or those who were presented with those books) have no idea about it.
In the same way the people who watched the film “The Lord of the Flies”, which laid the basis for one of the books, will never know by whom the film was made and what was taking place on the island where the film was shot – unless they do research and put two and two together.
Rodrigo, it was the fact that you constantly talk about these books which made me wondering. Haters also make it a center point of their fantasies about MJ. And that is why I think we’ll have to return to those books.
LikeLike
Thanks 🙂
I didn’t even know about THEM until last year. Of course when you support Michael, you also get accused of being affiliated with THEM by haters. I had a look on the website which was so kindly presented to me by the haters, and you can imagine how disturbing it was to find out something like that actually existing. People like that can not justify their behaviour, no matter how much they try to sugarcoat it. It’s sick and wrong.
Before, I really wasn’t trying to justify the books, I was trying to find the reason why an innocent man like Michael might have had them. And when you pointed the reasons out, I thought they sounded better than my explanation. So it’s ME who should be sorry for the misunderstanding in the first place 😀
LikeLike
“it was a challenge for me to meet a girl my type, but I did eventually, after some pushing”
Rodrigo, I am really happy to hear that the two of you found each other at last.
As regards that “organization” their two primary goals are (quote) “educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love and building understanding and support for such relationships”(end of quote) – so everything which may even remotedly look like following these two goals triggers off a volcano in me. If the little fuming I afforded myself was mistargeted I am sorry for it.
LikeLike
Thank you for the kind words vindicatemj 🙂
Believe me, if I had no idea my opinions were actually similar to theirs! I don’t condone the behaviour of people like that, it disgusts me. I was just trying to get into the reasoning behind the books, I never imagined I was actually sounding like them!
I could see you were being a bit hostile with me and I was thinking I have said something wrong? I honestly didn’t realise I was making you think that about me! Yikes! lol
But as I said, after reading your way of things, I agree 100%.
Michael always spoke of kids growing up too fast, and I agree with him. I was brought up with manners and respect. I would even hold the door open for other kids at school and they would look at me and think
“Why’s he doing that for?”. I got one or two “thank you’s”, but mostly the puzzled or amused expression on their faces. Another thing I never did at school was swear, and my friends were even baffled by that.
One of them came up to me one day and said –
“I wish their were more kids like you around. You don’t smoke or drink, or swear. You don’t call people behind their backs. It would be a better place if more people like you were in it” 🙂
With my cousins I always tried to set them examples. If they swore, I told them off, lol. I’m pretty imaginative and I love writing. Like what Michael said. If I was at their house late, I would tuck them up and tell them stories, cause I enjoyed being the entertainer 😀
I never had my father growing up and my mum says maybe I try to fill that space with me being like a dad to them myself.
Like Michael said about girls, he only wanted nice and not the other types. I would never go for a party girl. I always went for the nice quiet types, just sitting in the corner reading a book 🙂 I could never relate to girls with an attitude, and I was never interested in them anyway. Cant be bothered with women like that, and I said they take up 90% of my town up. So it was a challenge for me to meet a girl my type, but I did eventually, after some pushing 🙂
Our favourite game is Michael Jackson The Experience 😀
LikeLike
Rodrigo, it is perfectly okay to speak about yourself. In fact it changed my attitude to you as previously some of the things you said looked like those expressed by that very organization. I am sorry if I thought the things you didn’t deserve.
The situation with nice girls is really dramatic. Everyone is telling us that being a nice girl is no longer fashionable. There are books on sale with headlines like “How to become a bitch”. I often watch video clips on TV channels hoping to see MJ and am amazed by the way girls “sing” now. They overexpose themselves to such a degree that even men should start feeling aversion to a female body – no wonder they are no longer interested and look the other way. What next step will they suggest to us? The whole thing is a way to nowhere.
You can do things differently at any moment of your life. We are free to choose our own destiny – because our Father gave all of us freedom of will and choice. The moment you step from your usual ways and make an effort on yourself to rise to some challenge in life you change your destiny and it takes a different route. This I tell you as someone who studied it. Don’t ask me what the subject was or the “righteous” will stone me.
LikeLike
vindicatemj
You are absolutely correct. I said it was just my views, but you’re way of putting things is much clearer and I agree with you 100% 🙂
I can relate to Michael myself. Most of my life, I was kind of a sheltered person. I preferred to stay in the house in my youth and watch TV and play games, still like that now actually lol. There are times I look back and regret so badly that I didn’t go out as much as I should have. I feel at times I wasted my childhood. I’m happy in my ways, but I wish I could go back and do things differently.
I’m childlike myself 🙂 People cannot take me seriously because I’m such a joker. As you said, we are who we are through nature, Michael was like that himself. I can’t take some things seriously, because I’m not a serious person. If someone talks about something serious, I come out with like regarding games! Honest to God, I think I get on better talking to my 4 year old cousin than I do with people my own age. He’s like an old man and so funny lol
Relationships. Haven’t had many, don’t really pursue them and needed pushing to get one in the first place lol.
Like Michael, I’m extremely shy. He had more issues than most, bless him, so no wonder he had trouble.
Michael wanted a nice girl to date, as we know. His brothers treat women like meat, and Michael hated that. Could it be possible that this treatment caused him to feel guilty and dirty if he had sex himself? Thinking he would turn out like his brothers if he followed their ways and instead based his views on dating nice girls? Which are hard to come by sometimes 🙂 Michael didn’t like women who threw themselves at him, the groupies and prostitues that his brothers associated with. Michael was always a decent person anyway, he wanted to avoid turning into men like the brothers and Joseph.
I said to my friend one time
¨I’m not one of those people who just want one night stands¨ My preference on relationships is on finding a girl I can truly connect with, which is also what Michael did.
Also, didn’t Michael say in an interview, that he was afraid of relationships because he saw how bad his brothers were during breakups? One of those taped interviews I think.
Sorry about giving my life story, but I just needed to show how we are through human nature, and that I’m a little like Michael in my ways 🙂
LikeLike
To be more exact, there was one on homosexual activity and all the rest of the magazines were heterosexual.
Let me correct this statement a bit. The books depicting children on the beach (for example) cannot be considered porn at all – child or whatever. When someone is wearing a bathing suit – be it a man, woman or child – it is not porn. I don’t know what it is, probably just a photo? And the word “hardcore” is totally out of place here. You don’t make “hardcore” landscapes.
Rodrigo, you seem to know so much about Michael’s literature. But as far as I remember there was only one book discussed by the prosecution in and out – the one which showed a big “variety of sexual nature between man and woman”. I don’t know why men look at things like that – probably for learning? One of Michael’s friends said he called him for a consultation and said he wanted to “impress” LMP. So could it be some form of education on his part? But again this was one book among a thousand and the rest were magazines like Playboy and Hustler. Playboy I have seen in the hands of my stepfather when he brought it from “corrupt West” when I was a girl and it didn’t look to me like porn, but Hustler I don’t know. Is it that bad that it needs to be discussed in so much detail?
When you are a childlike person you do not have to understand the ins and out of childhood – you simply know it. When you are pure you do not sit and try to understand what purity is like – you are just like that and that’s it. Let us not make it more complicated than it is.
The situation was actually much simpler. A shy boy with all usual complexes of an adolescent, immeasurably aggravated first by his acne, then by lupus, then by the burn, then by the vitiligo. A boy who was subjected to dirt in life at a very early age. The child who never knew any joy except for some pranks he arranged with his brothers during those innumerable tours. Work and only work almost round the clock, as well as huge responsibilities totally unnatural for a small child. Becoming sophisticated in his work and business matters, but totally lacking experience with girls and a little helpless there. After seeing so much dirt in those night clubs longing for good romantic relations, like those in fairy tales and chivalry novels, but not seeing anything of the kind around him. Work again as this was his comfort, shelter and what he was doing best of all…
LikeLike
“none of us need to assume anything, because Michael had a pure mind EVEN when he was out of it. So it proves he never thought about children that away, making those books and the views of the haters regarding the books, completely wrong.”
I am happy that we agree here – I mean on the matter that any speculation over ‘what he thought’ is totally unnecessary. Fortunately, Michael revealed to us his thoughts himself.
But I still need to make a couple of other comments.
LikeLike
vindicatemj
I’m not trying to stir anything. It was just before when I was presented with that ‘evidence’ by the haters, I tried to give my views on the matter. Because all I got from them was –
“Pictures of naked boys, it proves he was a p********”
And we all know the other thing they like to point out –
Some books are recommended by that certain organization.
But as you said, none of us need to assume anything, because Michael had a pure mind EVEN when he was out of it. So it proves he never thought about children that away, making those books and the views of the haters regarding the books, completely wrong.
LikeLike
“The thing he’s tried to do and wanted to, but was having conflicting issues because he had already convinced himself to remain pure and innocent, like a child?”
Rodrigo, I think we shouldn’t interpret the concept of innocence primitively. Michael’s choice to be childlike was a conscious one, but it doesn’t mean he refused himself to be an adult, for example, in relations with women. Purity and innocence mean first and foremost clean thinking. A relationship with a woman may be fully sexual but still very pure and beautiful, if you understand what I mean. And vice versa, there may be no relationship at all, but the mind may be full of perverse fantasies and terrible dirt. In some religions sex is looked upon as a divine act as this is where a new life is being conceived – therefore it should be clean, serious (not with random partners) and free from any perversion. Judging by some of his songs and statements Michael was a gentleman in that respect too.
“Trying to break that issue that was holding him back from having a proper relationship with a woman? The books are all consistent with the issues that Michael had and tried to resolve.”
The issue that was “holding him back from having a proper relationship with a woman” was actually Michael’s skin disease.
We have an article about another black man who turned white. The anguish he was going through turned him into a hermit and left him with no sex life for several years. The disease struck him at the age when he was already having relations with women – but he lost them all. Women and men alike were unwilling even to shake his hand not to mention closer interaction.
Having a disease like that Michael could never be sure of himself. What if she runs away when she sees me? What if she laughs at me? What if I see a look of disgust on her face? What if she is shocked but pretends she doesn’t notice it? Shall I tell her in advance about my disease and we discuss it? I need to tell her that it is not contagious, but what if she doesn’t believe? What if she tells everyone what I look like? What if she goes to the media???
I can imagine that sex was coupled with so many frights for him that he had to go without it at least until he became more or less one color again. By the time he married Lisa Marie Presley he was basically all-white, and a year before that he could at last bring himself to speak about it publicly. But even when he married – as Taraborrelli says – Michael would jump out of bed in the morning saying to LMP “Don’t look, don’t look”, run to the bathroom and come back only after applying make-up. We can imagine how terribly in the way for his relations with women his disease was.
What Arthur Wright so sincerely and masterfully describes applies to Michael Jackson DIRECTLY – we can see Michael behind every word of it and all his “eccentricities” are easily explained by all this pain:
LikeLike
“there were thousands of books at Neverland and they did pick out the ones that they felt held ground to their case against Michael. Pity we didn’t find out what the rest were, that would have also showed other elements of Michael’s character, away from all that oneminded view the prosecution tried to instill in us.”
And someone else does.
The books you refer to are indeed a drop in the sea of books in Michael’s library and if the prosecution did not find “anything else” it means that those several books were the only ones which they could more or less tie to that case.
As regards those few being “purchased” by Michael it is still a big question whether it’s he who purchased them. At least one of them was sent to him by “Rhonda” as a present and there is no sign that he ever read it at all, because there was no talk of any fingerprints found.
You know perfectly well that some of these books are being promoted by a certain organization and possibly, some of them were even made by people who had respective inclinations – only it does not mean that those who come across these books by accident or even bought them voluntarily knew of the frame of mind their authors had.
As far as I know Lewis O’Carroll was also suspected of an unnatural attachment to little girls, however for those who read his “Alice in Wonderland” there is no way to know that he did. Alice in wonderland is in everyone’s library and none of us can say that we share the inclinations attributed (probably without reason) to its author. It is only those who are themselves inclined to certain things interpret such books or photos in them in a very specific way. To the rest of us it would not even occur what is standing behind all that.
If you really want to know Michael Jackson’s frame of mind there is absolutely no need to speculate about it – just read what he was talking of in a half-conscious state when sedated by Murray, and this will settle the matter once and for all.
This is a short note only as I have to run now. But I’ll be back.
LikeLike
Toni
I completely agree with what you said. Those books CAN NOT BE and ARE NOT considered child porn in anyway. The haters may associate it with that for depicting naked children, but that is not the true nature of those books. They are books about the study of childhood, childhood into adulthood, etc. Which is the main issues Michael had. They exist as social and visual studies into the lives and minds of children. Hardly hardcore child porn is it?
Then the books about sexual acts, BOTH HETROSEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL…written and visual contents, depicting the wide variety of sexual natures of both men and women. Hardly the thing you’d expect to see from a guy who was only supposed to be interested in little boys, eh?
They were all social and artistic studies. Studies on how he could relate to people of all ages, through social interaction and through his music. Also obviously using some as inspiration for his portraits. ALL OF IT, could hardly be considered, excuse me for putting it like this, ‘fapping’ material could it?
Even that book on how to draw sexy cartoon women, well even that appeals to me, amongst hundreds of other artists 🙂
All those things reflected on Michael’s character, but the consistent themes, of what I can gather, on just these books is a lost man who wanted to keep hold of his childhood. Wanted to understand the ins and outs of childhood. Wanted to understand adult life. Wanted to find an answer on how he could obtain a meaningful relationship with an adult.
We know Michael had a love for women, with his Playboys, Penthouse magazines, etc. But as he said, he could never ask a girl out, it was them who had to ask him out. So it shows, he had the love AND the curiosity for women, but just didn’t know how he could he go for them and how he could hold down a relationship. He had trouble, because he had a childlike nature and he knew it…So those books tell me he was searching for an answer and a solution on how he could obtain a deep and lasting relationship with a woman, whilst being who he was…a child trapped in a mans body.
But that is my opinion, just giving by what I’ve seen from this. Of course the haters would have me believe a simple one-sided view to all this…but Michael wasn’t simple by any means, so I’m not going for a simple and one-sided view. They don’t see that Michael was an extremely unique person, so they just go for a simple, and completely wrong, answer to everything…
LikeLike
From what I understand, that book is considered art by many and not pornography. Wilhelm was a photographer artist and yes he was gay and the subject of his work was homosexual in nature but that does not make Michael Jackson gay. I’m sorry but anyone using that as ‘proof’ is nothing but a closed minded bigot. That book was given to Michael as a gift and even I would find it difficult to refuse a gesture like that. Like me, Michael was not gay but was open minded enough to understand that there are all types of people in the world.
Michael was straight. He loved women. He married a woman and had normal sexual relationship with her. Anyone who does not believe that just does not know the facts. Lisa-Marie has always maintained that they loved each other and had full sexual relationship during their marriage. Michael is not your typical man so no, he did not live his life according to the dictates of his penis. He was a gentleman and a true romantic. RIP Michael.
LikeLike
A theory of mine is, Michael read these books in order to craft himself, both socially and professionally.
Some books clearly demonstrate how kids grow socially both nowadays and back then. To me, Michael was searching for an answer on how to keep himself and his music relevant. He’s clearly trying to understand the minds of kids and teenagers. Those books have clearly influenced how he wrote his songs and made his videos . From ballads, to hard rock. He always said most of his inspiration for music came from kids. And those books reference the social behaviour of playful children, to hard up teen, which his music aims to please.
The books on sexuality. Well, we all know Michael had great difficulty expressing himself that way. Isn’t possible that Michael purchased these books on how he could express himself that way? Obviously not towards children…But himself, a child trapped inside a mans body, towards adults? Looking for an answer and conclusion that he could still retain his childlike innocence, but have a sexual relationship with an adult…The thing he’s tried to do and wanted to, but was having conflicting issues because he had already convinced himself to remain pure and innocent, like a child?
Trying to break that issue that was holding him back from having a proper relationship with a woman?
The books are all consistent with the issues that Michael had and tried to resolve.
They said he had books depicting homosexual acts?…Well if he did, he also had books depicting heterosexual acts too. That doesn’t tell me they were books for him to look up on and go out act it in anyway. They were also another social study. Michael was a very curious person, who never got the chance to truly explore for himself. He was a man who was curious on the sexual behaviour of men and women, because he was trying to understand the ins and outs of adult life. Michael honestly couldn’t fathom the act of sex, men with women, men with men, and women with women. Those books were years old, so he was probably young when he got them. And if some were new, doesn’t that show he never got the answers to his curiosity, for him to resolve those issues?
But there were thousands of books at Neverland and they did pick out the ones that they felt held ground to their case against Michael. Pity we didn’t find out what the rest were, that would have also showed other elements of Michael’s character, away from all that oneminded view the prosecution tried to instill in us.
Its just my views mind.
LikeLike
We must do the documentary to show what crimes Sneddon committed
in the 05 trial.
LikeLike
http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.com/2011/10/arvizzo-clan-visited-blog.html
LikeLike
lies, lies, lies…
http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.com/2011/08/robert-newt.html
LikeLike
Ed Templeton was in Budapest, Hungary (my country) not long ago. He’s the author of The Golden Age of Neglect – one book that was confiscated at Neverland. He’s a skateboarder AND an artist – famous as both. The book that was found in Michael’s possession was personally autographed by him.
Here is Templeton, he had an exhibition here:
LikeLike
THANKS, vindicatemj , YOUR WORK IS AMAZING.,I APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORTS
LikeLike
aaron carter songs from MJ sony ATV CATALOG:))
http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.com/2011/08/aaron-carter-page.html
LikeLike
http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.com/2011/08/michael-dedicated-single-way-you-make.html
Miky, your blog is awesome!
I’ve added it to our blogroll.
The article about Lisa Marie’s obsession with Michael turns all those stories about their marriage being fake into a complete joke.
Quotes:
” The attraction for Michael makes her crazy. We all said to her that she should forget it, but she cannot. The stress is seen on her face and her addiction for Michael is responsible. This is chronic “, says a friend.”
“I love Michael. It is not just a physical attraction. It’s something deeper. I’ll never let him go. I made that mistake once and it almost killed me. He’s part of me and I’m part of him. We are like two souls intertwined. We are almost one person,” she said to a close friend.”
Here is the full story: http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.com/2011/08/lisa-marie-dependenta-demichael.html
LikeLike
LikeLike
hei, desiree..listen!
http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.com/2011/08/michael-dedicated-single-way-you-make.html
LikeLike
Desiree is an airhead, she/he has now removed some info she had on her/him self.A student or something.thinks she should be in medical or premed,, how does a student have all the time to write such bogus.
LikeLike
“this desiree afirned that,,Speechless” and ,,Stranger in Moscow” are romanthicall ballads about his passion for Anton Schleiter or another boys…”
I am speechless.
LikeLike
this desiree afirned that,,Speechless” and ,,Stranger in Moscow” are romanthicall ballads about his passion for Anton Schleiter or another boys…
….pfuuuuuu
LikeLike
“THIS IS FOR DESIREE. SO..STRANGER IN MOSCOW IS NOT ABOUT LITTLE BOYS…LOOL”
Miky, does Desiree claim that Stranger in Moscow is about little boys too? This person is definitely fixated on certain things.
LikeLike
Brett Barnes about A carter ,,whether he said those things or they were fabricated, they still remain lies.”
Miky, what a precise way of saying it!
Brett Barnes about desiree blog: ,,There are lies being told everywhere, my friend. The more voice you give them, the louder they are heard. My mother always told me that ignoring the bullshit is better than smelling it.”
WOW! Respect to Brett and his mother!
LikeLike
THIS IS FOR DESIREE
SO..STRANGER IN MOSCOW IS NOT ABOUT LITTLE BOYS…LOOL
MJ VISIT IN HAMBURG
http://mjmyinspiration.blogspot.com/2011/08/anton-and-franziska-schleiter.html
LikeLike
b barnes send me this:
about A carter
,,i don’t have an opinion of him. whether he said those things or they were fabricated, they still remain lies”.
about desiree blog
Brett Barnes
,,There are lies being told everywhere, my friend. The more voice you give them, the louder they are heard.
My mother always told me that ignoring the bullshit is better than smelling it.”
28 iulieBrett Barnes
rigt, brett is a very sweet and a real friend for Mike
LikeLike
@suzy,
I know, it’s Brandy, I just wanted to say that someone who has a pervert mind can see lots of bad things in an innocent picture.
LikeLike
Michael says this to Glenda about her:
M: Laughing…Brandi comes to me and she says “There’s another lady on the phone and she’s the sweetest?” Laughing. I think she (I)
G: Laughing. (I) she sounds (I)..I’ve never talked to her before.
M: She’s a cutie pie. She’s Jackie’s little girl. (I) She was in my commercial, that LA Gear commercial.
G: Oh she was?
M: Yeah
G: oh
M: And she was in the video “Time to Remember” ..she was a doll. She was soooo pretty
G: Aahhhh
M: She’s a good actress. Let me see what time it is
So he says she’s a “cutie pie”, “she was a doll” and she’s “soooo pretty”. OMG, that should make us all suspicious! ;))
LikeLike
@ Shelly
That’s Brandi Jackson, Michael’s niece!
LikeLike
That picture can be seen as very disturbing, if you have a pervert mind
http://www.google.fr/imgres?q=brandi+jackson&hl=fr&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=LTlumFUbz6TYHM:&imgrefurl=http://bestofmichaeljackson.jclondon.com/2010/08/11/la-gear-era-michael-jackson-and-his-niece-brandi-jackson-doing-a-spot-of-modelling/&docid=rI3FmT4cjqrYoM&w=480&h=608&ei=ab43TpSwB4Kq8APSubzjAg&zoom=1&iact=rc&page=1&tbnh=123&tbnw=91&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:0&tx=56&ty=34&biw=1280&bih=583
LikeLike
I’ve tried in the past to communicate with her but she does not want me to anymore. She will never change her mind period so why try. You’re right she and her readers see what they want to see and there is no changing their minds.
On a lighter note has anyone ever read the list of artists that are with Sony? Michael’s Estate owns 50% of the publishing rights to some pretty big names both here and abroad. Does anyone remember that horrible video that Eminem did mocking MJ in the Pepsi accident? Well guess who ended up owning his butt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony/ATV_Music_Publishing_artists
I guess it’s true that what goes around comes around.
LikeLike
As for the photos. I don’t get what’s the point. So Michael cannot hug a boy without that being accused of “p*lic”? Or do these people really think Michael would act out his “p*lic desires” in front of cameras? You can take a photo of anybody and interpret it anyway YOU like. That tells more about the viewer’s own mind than about the photo. It reminds me of that photo about Michael and Lily Chandler when they were sitting in a limo and Lily was sitting on Michael’s lap and the papers loved to run that photo in articles about Michael’s alleged p*lia to suggest something sinister. Of course, without adding that it was actually a girl.
LikeLike
I really don’t think we should be communicating with D. It’s so obvious she/he is a pathological personality who is craving for attention. She will try every trick to throw that attention to herself. Once she is extremely rude and arrogant and when that doesn’t work any more she pretends to be nice. But I think anybody who is ever able to write the things she did is is pathological and you cannot deal with pathological personalities.
LikeLike
thank you for those pictures of mj with the safechuck child..i was struck by the comment the man said ..in the comments..the man in the picture
(43 months ago | reply)
He was very nice. We spotted him several times over three days. The first time we didn’t have our camera with us, so we started carrying it around with us. We spotted him at night walking around the dolphin pond, just by himself with this boy, Jimmy Safechuck. We stood by them as they watched the dolphins and then I asked if he would pose for a picture. He said sure, but wanted to move farther away from the hotel so as not to attract attention. So as we walked a bit farther from the buiilding he said “I’d be in trouble if they knew I was out here by myself” which we took to mean some sort of security people he had snuck out on. He posed for several pictures with us, then posed for the picture you see above. They are fans from England and he gave the girl an autograph and told her that he would be in concert there soon and also wrote down some information about who she could contact to get free tickets to come see him. My friend also asked for an autograph but didn’t have any paper, so he handed Michael a dollar bill. Michael said he couldn’t sign money becaue that’s illegal and he could get in trouble, so my friend went off into the hotel and found a piece of hotel stationery, which Michael signed. He was very nice….
MJ was afraid he was going to get in trouble if he autographed money because it is illegal..LOL..this is what i mean about the press and some jealous people trying to portray him as the exact opposite of who he truly was…unbelievable that this garbage was put upon this man..what a nightmare for him..just so awful
LikeLike
Here is a whole set of pictures of him and Jimmy Safechuck in Hawaii. I sure am getting tired of her incorrectly identifying these people. I’m going to add a couple of links to a couple of photos of him with one of the Cascios when they were a baby that show the beginning of his vitiligo too so we can stop talking about him bleaching his skin. I thought that was finished by the autopsy but I guess some people don’t get multifocal bilateral evidence of skin disorder.
LikeLike
I just took the photow on google image and posted the link.
LikeLike
That photo is from either a Pepsi or a LA Gear photo shoot. Who does she say the kid is? Oh I see the trouble is that is not Jimmy Safechuck.Shelly how do you add photos to comments so I can show people what Jimmy safechuck looked like and then I will show everyone a photo of Jonathan Spence so there is no futher confusion. Jonathan Spence went with him when he hurt his wrist during the shootin of Captain EO.
LikeLike
It was used in a NAMBLA Newsletter. It was in black and white in the VG book. My question is and always will be what was this guy doing with a NAMBLA newsletter or publication? You have to be a member in good standing to get those things. They don’t just hand them out on the street corner. VG was a member any idiot that tries to say he was undercover is just that an idiot. Oh that’s right he said it. Who believed him? Not the FBI that’s for sure.
LikeLike
At least, it’s what D claims and it’s possible, they use every pictures they have with children.
LikeLike
….. hold the fort! did you say a nambla magazine @#$%?
LikeLike
…but it doesn’t look P*liac to me?
LikeLike
It’s that picture but here it’s in color
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=jimmy+safechuck+and+michael+jackson&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=583&tbm=isch&tbnid=rPopQlxhyBQQzM:&imgrefurl=http://7-moonwalker-7.skyrock.com/2951764937-Photoshoot-Michael-Jackson-%2526-Jimmy-Safechuck-1988.html&docid=sAiRWVifb1UXmM&w=328&h=491&ei=_io3TvvZN8nLtAbHt_H3Dw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=352&page=1&tbnh=136&tbnw=97&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:0&tx=68&ty=73
LikeLike
Even though, it’s an obvious fake, I don’t think it was photoshopped. It’s supposed to be from an old Nambla magazine. Anyway, there was photo editing in the eighties.
LikeLike
THAT DESIREE IS CRAZY..
Miky, we’ve had numerous occasions to make sure of that.
Desiree seems to be following us very closely and immediately when you said you knew WHY Brett never responded Desiree, she (or he?) entered here under an anonymous name (which was fortunately automatically spammed) with a question why you think so. In fact Brett himself said he didn’t want to answer every ludicrous lie told about him – but if you have added information about it please share.
Incidentally recently we’ve had much correspondence with Desiree who heartily invited me to her (his?) site and was even very polite to me though with my other co-eds she (he) had been extremely rude. In case D. is reading this note let me say the following – I fully appreciate such civility but would prefer if a similar attitude were displayed towards other admins too. If any dialogue ever takes place between us and Michael’s haters a civil way should be the only way to communicate with each other.
The second requirement to Michael’s haters is as follows – if the opponent is an objective researcher he should find himself strong enough to accept the facts contradicting his “theory” if these facts prove themselves truthful. This is what I wrote to D. in this connection:
“Unfortunately you are not an honest researcher I would really want to see as my opponent. I come from a family of scientists and know that such methods are absolutely unacceptable in communicating between researchers adhering to different point of views. No bullying, double-dealing, cheat and deception are accepted. Their field of battle is facts and whenever one researcher presents a fact the other one double checks it and if the fact is found true he accepts it.
Your unwillingness to accept any facts and your stubborn desire to only repeat again and again that Michael was this and that gives me strong reason to believe that you have some other motives for harassing MJ. I wish I knew what they are.”
D. is not right when she (he) says I don’t go to her (his) site. I did follow some link and found myself on that site and the first thing I saw was a fabricated picture of Michael with a boy where Michael is giving him a predator look and the unsuspecting boy is innocently smiling back. The picture is so big a fabrication that even a non-expert will immediately see that firstly, it is collage where two different photographs were sealed into one and secondly, Michael’s eyes were altered by photoshop in order to give them a sinister look. Frankly, using this kind of blatant fabrication is a direct insult to intellectual abilities of the site’s readers – for the sake of Michael being able to hug the boy (in that photo) the boy’s right arm was cut off altogether so the end result is that Michael is embracing an armless boy!
If Desiree had to stoop that low in order to make her (his?) point about Michael and “boys” it means that we have reached a point when even D. has a total lack of material to slander Michael with. She will think of something else of course, but at the moment even her fantasy seems to be letting her down. Or him if D. may be a man which I do not rule out.
I will try to post the picture here if you explain to me how to post pictures in the comments. You understand my unwillingness to write a post about Desiree in order to show that picture (though I do have something else to say about D’s methods).
I’ve found it on the Internet:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/98/bbyww.jpg/sr=1
LikeLike
I KNOW WHY Brett never responded to Desiree’s blog
LikeLike
THAT DESIREE IS CRAZY..I JUST TOLD HER THAT I SPEACK WITH REAL BRETT AND SHE-HE BLOKED ME FROM HER SHI SITE
LikeLike
Some drawings he did
LikeLike
About the books, I believe we shouldn’t forget that
“When Michael found time to relax, he loved to leaf through photographic books. He especially loved books about 1930s Hollywood glamour, richly illustrated children’s books, and coffee-table books on photography. Michael would usually hole up in the rear of the bus, while the others spent their time together in front. I also preferred the quiet at the back, and I would sit down with him while he was engrossed in reading.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2009/10/michael-jackson-excerpt-200910
LikeLike
Lol I found that comment on youtube
”
@biggie
Brett never responded to Desiree’s blog. I wrote that message myself and those dummies really think it’s him..LMAO!..I just created a fake name and pretended to be Brett just to get a reaction and it worked. The real brett barnes visits her blog, but he hasnt responded to it. The username I used is goodgirl1978.
pauline86 il y a 6 jours
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=xzyOPTbYkxI
LikeLike
Poor MJ fans. It seems as if they’re are more concerned with whether someone is conspiring against them over what’s being said. It really makes me want to take their theories about the Michael Jackson conspiracy seriously!
LikeLike
By the way, the fake Brett Barnes account is not available anymore. If I remember well, there was only one pictures of him and the the date of his birthday was wrong.
LikeLike
@hana,
You said you read the story of the fake Barnes account on youtube, I just wanted to know if you can hive us the link where you read that.
He said he doesn’t want to spend his time on someone who is so determined to believe those lies.
LikeLike
@shelly
Which link are you referring to? And also, if you spoke to Brett, how does he feel about D’s pornographic writings about Michael Jackson being his boyfriend? It’s strange because Ron Zonen also said this during his closing argument that him and MJ were sexual lovers.
These people are all mentally ill and I hope they get well soon.
LikeLike
And always appears under the same blog entry.
LikeLike
– If you ask me, a male’s perspective is what’s needed here but I’m sure you intolerent fantatics will be very happy together. – Dropdownmama
– Another alias Stonegrooved? – Rockforeveron
I don’t know whether Stonegrooved is or isn’t Dropdownmama – all I can say is that Dropdownmama is the same person as Wiggi Baldo as their IP addresses are absolutely identical.
LikeLike
Dropdownmama
Another alias Stonegrooved? You sound more diehard than the rest of us.
I don’t remember the last time I kept spamming a site that I disagreed with only to be banned and then to keep coming back under new aliases to say the same things. That’s some dedication.
LikeLike
If you ask me, a male’s perspective is what’s needed here but I’m sure you intolerent fantatics will be very happy together.
LikeLike
“Here’s a suggestion, unblock stonegrooved! He made your site a little interesting for a change!!”
Don’t worry, dear – these stonegrooved people regularly resurface here under different names. If you miss the guy I am sure you can communicate with him at Topix or Des**’s blog. As to this place not being interesting, I suggest you try the above sites or tabloid media instead. Lies are much more entertaining than the truth and this place is no circus to attract people with clowns and conjuring tricks.
LikeLike
“you can buy girlie magazines like Playboy behind the counters at newsstands but you can’t buy hardcore porn. Your just trying to whitewash what MJ did again.”
Wiggy Baldo, for purists like you – there was a motion from the Defense “to preclude reference to the materials as pornographic”. The judge agreed with the defense’s statement that the materials were “ordinary over the counter magazines and books that can be purchased at the local drug or book store or checked out of the local library” and ruled that all those materials be called “adult” materials instead. If you want to dispute the matter with the judge better write to him, and not to this blog.
“The stuff he had at Neverland shouldn’t be around children.”
The stuff he had was not around children. It was safely locked in a brief-case. And even if someone broke the key most of it was Playboy and Hustler magazines. Frankly, when I was at a “family” resort recently all of us (including children) could see all sorts of adult toys in full display in sex shops which – to my great amazement – had their doors open.
I am a puritan like you and think that this stuff shouldn’t be around children. But over there no one seemed to mind! This makes me wonder – do people turn into puritans only when they discuss Michael Jackson?
LikeLike
“You forgot Claire and Veronique.”
Thank you Shells.
LikeLike
Bye bye. Don’t let the door hit ya, where they spilt ya.
LikeLike
Stonegrooved doesn’t mince words! Some of us appreciate that! He calls you crybabies and tools while you call him hater, troll, idiot and nutcase, but thats ok? The way you censor his words makes this a hater site of one sided info!
You suck! I’m out of here!
LikeLike
@teva,
You forgot Claire and Veronique.
LikeLike
“Wiggy” aka Stonegrooved aka Desiree aka Jessica
Who am I missing?
LikeLike
“Wiggy” aka Stonegrooved, the man obsessed with another man’s legal porn
Yes you can buy porn at newstands. But your big concern is something you need to just accept: There is nothing illegal about having porn kept in a briefcase in a room where children frequent. There are no laws against it. Accept it, deal with it, move on.
Your obsession with this says more about you than it does MJ.
LikeLike
I guess we don’t live in the same country.
LikeLike
Shelly, this is the 1st time I comment here and you automatically assume I’m up to something? Geez, you fans are more than a little paranoid, aren’t you? By the way, you can buy girlie magazines like Playboy behind the counters at newsstands but you can’t buy hardcore porn. Your just trying to whitewash what MJ did again. The stuff he had at Neverland shouldn’t be around children.
Vindicatemj, I re-asked stonegrooved’s question and you said, “Frankly, it is boring and it isn’t a conversation – so I simply see no point in talking to them.” Maybe you and the rest of your group are just too narrow minded to answer simple questions.
Here’s a suggestion, unblock stonegrooved! He made your site a little interesting for a change!!
LikeLike
@hana
Do you have a link for that? I know the real Brett Barnes went to D’s blog because I send him a link ti her blog on the 10th of May.
He has no prblems answering questions.
LikeLike
Desiree posted an entry on her blog stating that one of her readers contacted Brett Barnes and he responded to her blog post about him. This is what Brett supposedly said:
“Thanks for the link Joanne but I’m kind of tired of people messaging me about stuff like this. I think I’m going to start blocking messages. I appreciate all the support from MJ fans but It would be nice to move on with my life. Yeah I read that blog and I really don’t care what these people think because I know what’s fact and I know what’s fiction. I’m sure that there’s all kinds of wild stories about me on the internet and I really don’t waste my time with that. My family and I have defended Michael for the longest time and we still consider him to be a part of our family. I have already said what I had to say various times and I will no longer speak on this subject. But nevertheless, thanks for the love. It is greatly appreciated.”
Just to let you guys know, that was not the real Brett Barnes that wrote that “denial”. The person who wrote that “denial” is someone name Pauline who’s been stalking Desiree’s blog for a long time. She constantly switches her username and wrote the fake denial to spark some drama on D’s blog..She wrote in a way that would sound like something Brett or any victim would say and also created a fake facebook profile. I know this because she posted about it on youtube and thought it was hilarious how they think Brett really said that. Yes, the real Brett Barnes has visited D’s blog, but he hasn’t responded to it. And for the record, he still talks about Michael Jackson and has no problem talking about the accusations and answering fans’ questions..So much for “I think I’m going to start blocking messages. I will no longer speak on this subject”…lol
LikeLike
@ Wiggy Baldo
Here is an exact quote from Stonegrooved: “I’ll bet most of you crybabies grew up without daddy around, didn’t you? No male figure to teach you pups what being a real man means.” Do you really think this person is adding anything of any value to the discussion? He’s (she?) a bully. Vindicatemj doesn’t tolerate that kind of behaviour. Nor should you. As for “whitewashing” . If the vindicatemj team leave “stuff hanging” why don’t you ask them to fill in the gaps for you or check out the links to documents and articles so you can do it yourself. With time you learn the difference between a credible source and a sketchy one. (Stonegrooved is definitely not a credible source.)
LikeLike
@ vindicateMJ . Well said.
LikeLike
“Why do you guys ask stonegrooved questions but then block him so he can’t respond? Do you know what that does to your credibility? He might be a hater but he brought up some very interesting points”.
Wiggy Baldo, I personally do allow haters much freedom here for which I am being constantly criticized by my colleagues and readers. Haters are my regular partners as all the material we refute here is taken from them only.
But though I do see some reason in dealing with visiting haters what I don’t like about them is that they don’t listen and you have to waste a lot of valuable time on them.
You talk to them and patiently explain this and that, but they turn a deaf ear on you and keep repeating their mantras. You tell them to go and read some posts because they are asking questions which were answered by us long ago – but no, this they don’t want – all they want is repeat their mantras. When you ask them a question they do not hear it and bring a torrent of mantras on you again.
Frankly, it is boring and it isn’t a conversation – so I simply see no point in talking to them.
LikeLike
@wiggy,
Yes you can by heterosexual porn at any newsstand. Why do I have the feeling that you are not a new poster?
LikeLike
Oh here we go with another one!
LikeLike
Why do you guys ask stonegrooved questions but then block him so he can’t respond? Do you know what that does to your credibility? He might be a hater but he brought up some very interesting points. Why would Michael Jackson sleep on the floor if he had those parents permission? You guys leave a lot of stuff hanging that you seem to assume everyone will take your word for it.
Stonegrooved is a family of haters? Come on. You can buy heterosexual porn at any newsstand? Are you kidding me? Michael Jackson may have been a good person but the way you whitewash everything about him makes him look like a joke.
Delete ReplyReply ForwardSpamMovePrint Actions NextPrevious
LikeLike
I was speaking about the message, like the one where she spoke about “Butt” Barnes.
She answered that she was proud of her work and she thanked me for posting that.
LikeLike
Can you send the IMDB link?
LikeLike
What email?
LikeLike
I just posted D email on Imdb. I don’t know if I was right to do that, but I think she needs to be exposed for what she really is.
LikeLike
It could simply mean Desiree posted under that IP before as Desiree, but she is now using a different username. If I post here as Teva with a particular IP, but I go somewhere else like country or state and post as Teva I will get another IP. If I should later change my username to Veva the IP will be the same.
LikeLike
My point was about Stonegroove. I think Lynande said the one here is from California.
LikeLike
@Shelly
I don’t understand what you mean. If you have 2 users having the same IP then they are using the same computer. Of course they could be other technical possiblilites, but the same computer is the first guess.
LikeLike
Sorry, to ask that again but are you sure it’s the same IP, because I did a quick research there are a Desiree and Jessica in their mid 20 in Las Vegas.
LikeLike
It is also unethical. An ip address is an unique identifier.
LikeLike
@ Shelly
I don’t think it’s legal for blog owners to publish IP addresses of their visitors without their consent.
LikeLike
could you show us the 2 IP the one from Stone and the one from D?
LikeLike
If this is indeed D then he/she is a serious nutcase with a multiple personality disorder as the style of stonegrooved’s writings and D’s differ. Or maybe it’s a team of people from the same household who are doing this?
LikeLike
“Allow me to clarify the identity of Stonegrooved. It is Desiree. The IP address is the same one that she uses from time to time when she is on a break.”
Lynette, how very nice indeed. Our Desiree has finally confessed that she is not a woman!
Please don’t erase the latest beautiful statements from this guy. Let us leave them for history.
LikeLike
“You think I sound like a woman?? HAHAHAHHAHAHA!!”
Of course you are a man, most probably a middle-aged one, white and probably insane.
LikeLike
dupe [doop, dyoop]
1. a person who is easily deceived or fooled; gull.
2. to make a dupe of; deceive; delude; trick.
3. a person who unwittingly serves as the tool of another person or power.
4. MJ fans.
@Stonegrooved, my congratulations to you. I am erasing you forever for repeatedly insulting people who tried to be patient with you and talk to you as if you were worthy of it. You have proved it yourself that you are not.
LikeLike
I’ll bet most of you crybabies grew up without daddy around, didn’t you? No male figure to teach you pups what being a real man means. Your idea of a great male role model is a wimp who blames others for his undisciplined lifestyle? Real men accept responsibility for their actions and if they get caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, they don’t make videos crying about how some people can be such meanies!
Let me fill you crybabies in on a side of life you probably aren’t familiar with. Namely, what it means to be a real man. Have you ever talked to someone that was heading down some wrong paths in his life before he joined the military? He’ll tell you how tough it was at first. Following orders, sticking to a strict regimented schedule and finding out that there’s more to life than his own little world. But as he got older, he realized it was the most important lesson he ever learned.
If MJ’s father tried to teach him that lesson, it sure didn’t take hold. Why else would he broadcast how hard his childhood was because he had zits? He wanted you soft-hearted/headed saps to feel sorry for him. This way, you’ll be so wrapped in blubbering for this poor little rich boy, hopefully you won’t notice that he was getting away with things we wouldn’t allow ANY other person in the world to get away with!
LikeLike
You think I sound like a woman?? HAHAHAHHAHAHA!!
LikeLike
dupe [doop, dyoop]
1. a person who is easily deceived or fooled; gull.
2. to make a dupe of; deceive; delude; trick.
3. a person who unwittingly serves as the tool of another person or power.
4. MJ fans.
LikeLike
Just ignore this maniac please! She is the one deluded and is trying to pass herself off as the sane one. She obviously has nothing else to do with her life and we are feeding her attention seeking behaviour with our replies. I for one am going to ignore Stonegrooved from now on. Those who refuse to look at the facts have their own agenda – they want to believe the filth maybe because it reflects their inner souls. Long live MJ fans and long live the King of Pop. The haters will never be able to erase his legacy of love. The whole world remembers him and long after the haters will be rotting in their graves, his music will play on and his name will always be remembered when theirs are forgotten. AMEN!
LikeLike
Allow me to clarify the identity of Stonegrooved. It is Desiree. The IP address is the same one that she uses from time to time when she is on a break. The person that is the original Stonegrooved is not from California and that is where the Ip address associated to this version of Stonegrooved orginates. The real Stonegrooved would not have that IP address as his IP address and phone number listed on his original You tube site was just 14 miles from my home. Just block this nuisance named Desiree. She must not be getting the attention on her site that she craves just like any other Borderline Personality.
LikeLike
“And what “facts” would that be??”
Stonegrooved, if you stop being so over-emotional and take the trouble to read a couple of posts here you will see those facts. At the moment you are in such a state that even if we shove the facts into your face you won’t be able to see anything except your own rage and bias.
LikeLike
John Lennon was a woman beater. A serious one. But i guess you don’t mind that. Like you don’t give a damn about those kids being molested or abused. You are a hypocritical fool. Get out of here idiot.
LikeLike
Julie you are so right. Stonegrooved will just ignore the facts even though we have answered all his questions he still rants on about the same things. I think the truth is he does not have a life and so fills his time keeping us busy with his garbage. He complains about his posts being deleted yet I see his ridiculous posts all over the place. It is people like him that destroyed Michael Jackson and he does not deserve any attention.
LikeLike
Censorship – I am well aware of this word and the phenomenon itself. Frankly I never thought I would find so much of it each time I tried to leave a pro-Jackson comment on various haters’ articles. Some of my comments have been awaiting moderation for months now. This must be what you, Stonegrooved, call democracy and are very much proud of…
LikeLike
stonegrooved — you don’t seem to be able to grasp that your commentary is not wanted on this site. You need to move on. I don’t know why you continue to want to be on a site where you are not wanted and your views have been obliterated many times on the posts presented by people who have truly researched these matters. Quit whining and move on!
LikeLike
“Lookie there!! I’ve been deleted! These people don’t want you to read my posts! They think you need to be told what to think!!
The people at “Vindicate Michael Jackson” are cowards!!”
Stonegrooved, I am glad that my co-eds erased you comments – your emotions make you deaf and blind to the facts of Michael’s innocence to such a degree that you are simply incapable of listening to reason. Whatever you think of Michael’s ways – which are indeed unusual due to his unusual life experience, fame and attraction to people – your personal views on his lifestyle shouldn’t be reason enough for you to disregard facts.
And the facts point to his innocence – whichever way you look at it. This is exactly which makes you so angry. Despite Michael’s unusual life-style no proof of anything bad was ever, ever, ever found about him – either by the police, the DCFS, or the FBI. So in your resentment of this fact you start stretching the truth to fit your point of view.
This is no good. If you want to be fair you will have to accept that nothing incriminating was ever found against Jackson. And quoting the prosecution papers will not help – if life in your country was based only on what prosecutors say your prisons would be full of thousands of innocent and wrongly accused citizens. You don’t want it to happen, do you?
Your next point is that all people should adhere to the same principles of behavior. You are probably right, but then you will also have to agree that formal observation of these rules does not stop real predators from abusing children. Moreover, most of them do keep up appearances and take special effort to outwardly follow the rules of social conduct. And when their crimes are uncovered their neighbors are the first to be shocked to find out who these people are.
So another thing you will have to admit is that formal observation of social rules does not prevent real child-abusers from committing their crimes. And that there is absolutely no equation mark between keeping up appearances and really moral behavior. It would even be better if these predators showed some signs of misbehavior because this way they would at least attract attention to themselves – only they definitely won’t.
Does it mean that all people should behave like Jackson? No, I don’t think so. It would be a highly artificial thing to do. Michael behaved that way because he found himself in very special circumstances. For us it is simply not necessary because none of us have had life experience like his. His life was unique – he was forced to work at the age of five, lived his life in much misery and sadness since a very early age, suffered from his father’s brutality and saw no love from anyone around (even his mother was away as they were constantly on tour), was ill with lupus and vitiligo both of which make life terrible – but he also had a great talent and reached much fame and success, and this made his life even more unbearable than before. He couldn’t show his face anywhere without being mobbed and had to seek seclusion. He couldn’t find real friends as all of them wanted money from him. He couldn’t find real love as he never knew what women wanted of him – love, money or fame.
In short he had an exceptional life which he lived in exceptional conditions – a life to which standard rules simply do not apply. And this is all we need to understand now – he was unique, and uniqueness is not a crime.
Michael was innocent though he was different from you, me and many of us. We don’t have his talent, have not worked that hard, and were not harassed that much by the media or anyone. Our life simply cannot be compared to his and that is all there is to it.
P.S. You have mentioned Jordan Chandler who “spoke under oath”. The boy never testified and never gave a deposition. A deposition is made in the presence of lawyers from both sides who ask questions. But Jordan was afraid of cross–examination and the only document he left us is a “statement” made in his attorney’s office which does say that he is supposed to say the truth there, only it is not verified by anyone as it is not even signed by a lawyer.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for providing that link to your site Stone Grooved. Now we can add it to our “flag list”:)
LikeLike
Stonegrooved on YT
Posted on March 23, 2011 by MJJJusticeProject
More than likely if you are a Michael Jackson supporter you have run across the major MJ hater named stonegrooved at least once on YouTube. We thought it might be beneficial for the public to see an example of how this ‘stonegrooved’ person writes on the YouTube comments pages. He can be found on various Michael Jackson videos and he basically states unsupported opinions and beliefs in an effort to stir up the MJ fans that go there to enjoy Michael’s music. His intention is clear and is to upset as many MJ fan’s as he possible can on any given day. First, please make note of how stonegrooved rarely stays on topic and his answers sometime do not relate to anything that was said to him. Secondly, he immediately switches gears when a MJ fact blows his opinion out of the water. Third, how personal he takes these exchanges as at one point he exclaims ‘no matter what the cost, to me!!” and yet he is the one who calls names and curses the MJ supporters. This is purely for educational purposes so that if you come in contact with this person you will be forewarned as to what to expect. We are not sure if he is as delusional as he seems or he is just cleverly yanking the emotional chains of MJ to get his jollies. He has been at this for two years maybe longer, so he can’t have much else in his life that brings him any satisfaction.
LikeLike
Guys why are you keep feeding the troll? Only the fact that this guy wishes that children were molested or hurt by MJ, so he or she can hate him, indicates that this dude is a sick person and he or she needs a professional help. He -she preaches for the safety of the children when on the other side he-she wishes that childs were hurt. Now what it tell you this? Don’t talk to him, don’t answer to him, live him-her in his pathetic little life. This person needs help but i doubt he-she has anyone in his life to give her that help.
LikeLike
Let me ask you a question: WHY ARE YOU ASKING ME QUESTIONS WHEN YOU’RE ONLY GOING TO DELETE WHATEVER I SAY??????
Are you going to let me answer them and leave them up here????
LikeLike
It’s obvious that stonegrooved is not only a troll but also a spammer who should be dealt with accordingly. He has all these pre-prepared posts, copying and pasting them everywhere and he is obviously not interested in a discussion, let alone the truth, just spamming and trolling. No matter what you say to him, he will just keep repeating his garbage over and over again without listening to anyone else.
Folks, do not feed the troll!
LikeLike
How old exactly are you that you have now resorted to name calling? Well anyway, stonegrooved let me put it in words that should be clear enough for you to understand. It does not matter what you are trying to prove — it has already been proved that what you are saying is a lie. You can continue to do a post mortem on the trial and the settlement, etc. all you want, but at the end of the day it proves nothing. Michael Jackson was found not guilty of the Arvizo matter and you can say what you want and pull up whatever Sneddon document you want to — Sneddon was unable to indict Jackson in 1993 because there was no evidence to do so. This is getting so ridiculous but I’ll let you answer two questions: 1) why would Evan Chandler not even consider going to the police if he thought his son was molested, but rather opted to extort money from Michael Jackson and when Jackson refused — he went public; and 2) why are you investing so much of your time to try to convict Michael Jackson?
LikeLike
@Suzy
Yes, I agree, churches shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. My Italian family has been letting my cousins drink wine with dinner since the age of about 5 (maybe younger, I’ve never paid it much attention). Clearly something needs to be done.
Yes, Gavin testified. He also gave police interviews before this. Why was it that his story changed so drastically from one to the other? To the police = My grandmother taught me to masturbate or I’d rape women. To the court = Michael Jackson taught me to masturbate or I’d rape women. Wait, when I said my grandmother taught me – coincidentally at the same period they both taught me the same thing. Police = I know more about the birds and the bees than Michael Jackson does. Court = Michael taught me everything about sex.
Yes, he was a great witness for the defence.
LikeLike
“stonegrooved, we want your entries deleted because they are ridiculous.”
Is that so? I have provided PROOF that porn was found at Neverland yet these clowns try to convince you that NOTHING was found there and I’M RIDICULOUS??
You, my friend, ARE A TOOL, FOOL!!!
LikeLike
stonegrooved, we want your entries deleted because they are ridiculous. So, I for one am glad that this site deletes you and your kind.
LikeLike
@shelly — I totally agree. I do not and will not understand why people don’t realize who they are talking to. I watched Sean Combs tell Martin Bashir at the beginning of their interview that he respected Bashir as a journalist. I thought, “WHAT?” Was he insane? Of course after the interview he was singing a different tune about Bashir even though that interview was absolutely nothing compared to what Bashir did to Michael. Now, Carter with Barak. She is nothing but a tabloid journalist and it appears uses Bashir’s same techniques of pretending to be a friend when she’s nothing more than a snake in the grass; however, one would surely think that Carter would have heard something about her.
This was Barak’s tweet from May 29:
“So glad, my friend Aaron Carter is joining me, for a charity gala in Marbella. What a perfect place, to kick off his upcoming record?!”
LikeLike
Lookie there!! I’ve been deleted! These people don’t want you to read my posts! They think you need to be told what to think!!
You’re right, JC didn’t testify. GAVIN ARVIZO DID THOUGH!
The people at “Vindicate Michael Jackson” are cowards!!
LikeLike
@ rockforeveron
I also think churches should be shut down in the US for exposing children to wine during the Eucharist 😉
LikeLike
I guess he/she got tired of vomiting out the same rants on youtube so he/she came on this site.
LikeLike
His obsession with pornography in an adult’s bedroom makes me wonder what he has got going on in his own bedroom. Never seen anyone so obsessed by it.
I had no idea laws in California were so strict.
Do you guys think Hugh Hefner should be arrested? Tatum O’Neal visited the Playboy mansion when she was aged 13, I’m sure she saw a naked breast or two. Can anything be done about it? Won’t anyone think about the children?
LikeLike
stonegrooved, have you been sniffing glue or something? You’re ranting!
LikeLike
Nevermind the fact that when JC testified MJ molested him, HE WAS UNDER OATH!!
Stop displaying your ignorance.
JC never testified and was never under oath.
Can his IP be blocked?
LikeLike
yes, stonegrooved it’a crime and so is perjury which many of Sneddon’s witnesses committed and they were not charged with that either.
Michael Jackson would have been the one to bring charges against Sneddon and he didn’t. Now you can spin it however your hateful mind wants to as to why Jackson didn’t commence anything, but I can only imagine he just wanted to be done with the entire matter.
LikeLike
Don’t waste your time on this fool – i’m only going to say this once.
Jordan Chandler privately says that Michael never touched him. To those who do not know him as “the 1993 kid” when the subject of Michael Jackson comes up – he defends him and says he believes him to be innocent of the allegations.
He’s still a fan – still listens to his music.
So if Jordan Chandler says Michael is innocent – then that’s good enough for me!
So when you take him out of the equation – you only have one accuser – Michael lived for 50 years – you do the math.
LikeLike
You can knock off the Aphrodite Jones nonsense. I wasn’t referring to her when I said Sneddon falsified evidence. Others who were in attendance during the trial have said the same thing. The entire trial was a joke!
LikeLike
Whatever stonegrooved. You’ve said what you came to say and you are allowed to think what you choose to think — but I do not agree with you and feel that Michael Jackson was a target. So, please just go back with the other haters and you guys can talk amongst yourselves.
LikeLike
ok stonegrooved a/k/a Desiree — your “proof” is a document filed by Tom Sneddon — the same man that falsified evidence to try to convict Michael Jackson, the same man that was a part of 2 grand juries in 1993 and no charges were ever filed. As for the rest of it, uou are just making things up. Once again, you haters make no sense. Why don’t you just admit that you are equating Michael’s sleeping in the same vicinity and/or bed as a younger person to him being something that he was not?
Have you interviewed everyone’s parents to see if they were asked? Have you personally spoken to anyone involved? Do yourself a favor and seek help for your hatred.
LikeLike
@stonegrooved
You and I had this discussion over a year ago and I provided answers to a list of questions you sent me. It amuses me that you still go from youtube page to page and blog to blog re-stating all the things that I have discredited over and over again. Grow up.
For the record: Read the court transcripts, the book was a scientific study on male sexuality in general – not just homosexuals.
LikeLike
stonegrooved, this is a site dedicated to vindicating Michael Jackson. We that come on this site believe in Michael Jackson’s innocence. You need to head back on over to Topix or wherever you came from and post your garbage over there. Here’s a question, if you think Michael Jackson is such a horrific human being, why are you wasting your time pouncing on every single site (i.e., every single youtube has your crap all over it) to continue to try to twist facts to suit your own thoughts? If I thought what was being said were in the least bit true, I wouldn’t give a second thought about posting on any site about him. You haters really don’t make much sense.
LikeLike
stonegrooved I am not stupid enough to assume that accusations equal guilt. I have read and studied both points of view and have seen absolutely no evidence to prove those accusations yet there is ample evidence to prove the opposite. You make too many assumptions my friend, there are other reasons why Jordy Chandler’s case was settled out of court and it had nothing to do with guilt or innocence – it was all to do with MJ’s insurance company and the legal system. There is a book written by Geraldine Hughes, the legal assistant to the Chandler lawyers and she saw what was happening behind the scenes and was so appalled by it she wrote a book. If YOU are not afraid of truth then you should at least investigate both sides of the argument. Maybe your comments are being deleted because it is apparent that you have no interest in knowing what REALY happened and am just interested in continuing to sully a good man’s name just because you believe the media. Funny.
LikeLike
I have learned so much about Michael Jackson after he died and am only beginning to appreciate what a truly great individual he was. Thank you so much for shedding light on the truth and I promise I will spread the news that he was innocent – wherever, whenever and to whomever tries to sully his good name. Thank you so much and God bless you.
LikeLike
“Let me translate how deep Michael’s photography discussion was: imagine if someone says in the middle of a general conversation – pataflaflas swiss 6 accented parafliddle lesson 25 around the set groove…”
Suzy, this is amazing! The education Michael received was a joke (it sometimes tells in his spelling mistakes) but he was fully a self-educated man with a great number of interests and in each he tried to achieve excellence. Someone like Leonardo da Vinci.
LikeLike
It’s just slightly related to this topic, nevertheless I thought it might be worth posting it.
“About an hour later we picked up the professional photographer who was coming with us to radio. The photographer gets in the front seat of the limo says hello and then starts to assemble his camera. Once his camera is assembled he points it at me and Michael in the back seat of the limo. I instruct him not to shoot us so Michael can relax. Looking back, that would be a cool photo to have now but I was looking out for Michael’s well-being. Michael sees the camera and starts this deep photography discussion. I was in the discussion for about a minute then it got so deep that I just dropped out and that’s when the photographer looked at me and I looked at him with the looks saying check this out – Michael Jackson is knee deep in photography discourse. I asked Michael if he was a photographer and he said “No, I just like photography!!!”.
My guess is that wherever Michael was living at any given time he was privately photographing nature and things in his house because one couldn’t know what he knew from just listening to photographers. But some people just know things, and this is MJ we are talking about – so who knows!!!
So Michael continues engaging in this very deep photography conversation with the photographer where he mentions something that the photographer said he needed to look into further. This went on for about 5 minutes, and the only thing that stopped that topic was that the photographer said something that Michael didn’t know and Michael got quiet.
Let me translate how deep Michael’s photography discussion was: imagine if someone says in the middle of a general conversation – pataflaflas swiss 6 accented parafliddle lesson 25 around the set groove. You would not only have to be a drummer but a drummer with not just a knowledge of rudiments but an advanced knowledge of rudiments that one can apply and play around the drumset and make them groove to know what that person was talking about.”
Source: http://www.vater.com/vaternews/post/Vater-Artist-Ray-Newton-and-%22Off-The-Wall%22.aspx
LikeLike
I like this article but it was my understanding- I have to find it again but the book: Scientific Study of Men – it was a book about male sexuality in all different areas- like Tom Mesereau mentioned. It covers all male sexuality- heterosexual, straight, bisexual etc, it was one of the first books to depict homosexuality inside. In actuality, It is not a “gay” book- but about sexuality in general.
LikeLike
@ maral
Read this post for more info on Kapon, Bartucci, and the other “phantom victims”:
LikeLike
i have never heard of , Daniel Kapon, Joseph Bartucci. who are they and what did they claim?
LikeLike
It was alleged by the DA that the porn magazines were meant to be used as a grooming tool. By showing adolescents boys photos of naked, particularly naked females it was meant to arouse their interest in intimate acts with a female and then at some point there was to be a shift to thinking of intimate acts with a male. Wouldn’t the next step have been images of males depicting intimate setting. The books were used by the DA to imply male intimacy. Which of the ten books did Michael show either boy? We are aware none of the other boys made statements on or testified to having known of the porn nor the ten books submitted as evidence.
LikeLike
Does anyone know where the photo of Michael dressed in purple came from, the one that was supposedly meant to be for the album cover for the 7 album?
LikeLike
Yes, he photographed Michael in October 2007 for L’Uomo Vogue. It’s on his website (go to “Editorial” then to “2007”).
He photographed a lot of artists: Chris Isaak, Justin Timberlake, Mischa Barton, Zac Efron, Natalie Portman etc. etc.
You can see pictures of the shoot Weber did of Michael in 2007 here: http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00011536.html
LikeLike
@ Lynette
Thank you for this information. I suspected it was a gift from the author because I knew that Bruce Weber is also a friend of Elizabeth Taylor. Then Rockonforever pointed out he also photographed Michael back in the 70s. (Didn’t he then also photograph him in the 2000s? Around 2006-2007? I’m not sure though.) Anyway, I knew they knew each other, so I didn’t think it was odd from MJ to have that book.
BTW, Weber is a great photograph, here is his website: http://www.bruceweber.com/
LikeLike
@rockon, One of the other books they seized had to be suppressed and returned to Michael. The Chop Suey Club was actually sent to Michael by the author unsolicited because he was a Jackson family friend that had taken phots of the Jackson Five. He sent it to him after the Arvizo’s left Neverland.
LikeLike
@ Suzy,
“First off, what’s this obsession with Macaulay Culkin?”
Because he would not do as told and lie on Michael so he in particular is given the special emphasis on their friendship. (I will make you a victim because I said you were) (I will attempt to cripple your career and ruin your social standing because you would not join us)
This really ties into what Helena has discussed as “ideological harassment'” in her “DIRTY LINEN in Michael’s home and common UNDERSTANDING of the need to find it there”
Besides there is a special need to make Mac one of the so called victims.
LikeLike
I think you should also add this note about the Taormina book:
21 Q. All right. I’m going to ask you to take a
22 look at 599, and see if we can….
23 May I approach, Your Honor?
24 THE COURT: Yes.
25 Q. BY MR. SANGER: I’m going to show you 599.
26 That appears to be a book of photographs that were
27 taken some time ago; is that correct?
28 A. May I look through it? 6982
1 Q. Yes, please.
2 They appear to be old photographs?
3 A. They look like they could be old
4 photographs. They have the sepia tone into them.
5 Q. All right. And you said that as far as you
6 know, there’s nothing illegal about an adult
7 possessing that book in the United States, or in
8 California, let’s say?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. The United States in general, okay.
11 Were you aware that that particular author,
12 that photographer, was prosecuted and acquitted
13 during the Nazi regime prior to World War II for
14 those very photographs?
LikeLike
@ Dialdancer
There’s nothing wrong with it if Michael was interested in porn for the same reason as other people – namely for his sexual pleasure. He was a single guy and having adult porn is not illegal. The point is he did not show it to children, in fact when children around him found a porn channel on TV he “cringed” and told them to stop watching it. Like David said, apart from Arvizo, nobody ever claimed that he showed them porn – not even Chandler or Francia. So there goes the “he only had heterosexual porn to show it to kids” theory. It just doesn’t make any sense.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure Mark and Sean were under age at the time so it speaks volumes about the way MJ would really react about children viewing porn – a completely different story from how Gavin made it seem that MJ viewed it.
Mike was a packrat and he’d been picking up Playboys since he was a kid. There’s an interview where you can see him with his brothers when he’s 12 years old in 1972 and he picks up a Playboy magazine “this is a big butt” and a Playboy star talks about how he once spoke to her on the phone about how the media would treat her and then he asked her to sign his Playboy back in 1987.
LikeLike
Perhaps he felt uncomfortable watching with the boys?
I’ve seen numerous questions about the number of magazines found. Do I have an answer..no, but I have a theory. Michael was by nature a collector. (ie., pack rat)
I too am one. I collect books primarily, but used to do stamps, unusual kitchen utensils, watches, certain computer games and many more things. Michael’s living quarters reflected this. Many items purchased and given which he could not get rid of whether he liked it still needed it or not. The magazine spanned years, some were consider collector’s items themselves. When I first saw the picture of the bathroom with the books on the stand and all around his bed I thought this is me. I too have thousands of books mostly paperbacks, some written and visual works dealing with adult sexuality so I am sure if the Cops cherry picked my library they could come up the several which might say my taste in reading material mirrors Michael. And so??? Should there come a time when it is illegal to poke fun at the Govt than I am sure to go to jail.
LikeLike
@ Dialdancer & Helena
Here is an article from 2008 regarding whether MJ used porn to “groom” boys: http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/261375/mark-ronson-i-made-michael-jackson-watch-porn/1/
“Mark Ronson hang out with Michael and Sean Lennon as a kid. One day the boys found a porn channel on TV. Here is Ronson’s account:
‘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.’”
So instead of grooming anybody with porn, he wanted the boys to stop watching it!
LikeLike
“neither Jordie Chandler, Jason Francia, Daniel Kapon, Joseph Bartucci, nor any other “phantom victim” ever claimed to have been shown porn!”
Dialdancer, and do you remember the great amazement with which the older guys Brett Barnes, Macauley Culkin and Wade Robson were looking through those porn magazines at the 2005 trial? They said it flatly they had never seen anything like than in Michael’s home. They regarded it as natural for a grown up man but they had never seen them – that’s the point!
LikeLike
lcpledwards Says:
“And the prosecution had the nerve to say that MJ bought all of that porn to “groom” his victims, yet neither Jordie Chandler, Jason Francia, Daniel Kapon, Joseph Bartucci, nor any other “phantom victim” ever claimed to have been shown porn!!”
Thank you. I missed this. This is a logical answer based on deductions from what has or has not been previously said or used against Micheal. It is like the soiled undies business and Kapon’s allegations of sexual assault. Does not fit. All those who made claims to molestation and none were able to identify Michael’s genitalia.
LikeLike
THERE WAS NO LAW SAYING YOU CAN HAVE PORN IN YOUR HOUSE. IT GOES TO PROVE MICHAEL IS A AWESOME GUY,WHO DIDNT REALLY TRUST MANY PEOPLE AND WHO COULD BLAME MICHAEL. THOSE KIDS HAD FROUND THE BOOKS AND MADE UP STROY TO MAKE MICHAEL LOOK BAD, AND ALL THE KIDS AND FAMILYS WANT WAS MONEY, SO IN MY MIND THOSE FAMILYS AND THE MEDIA ARE THE MONSTER NOT MICHAEL.MICHAEL WAS INNOCENT AND THEY KNOW IT.
LikeLike
Retro said: “The fact that they found all that, just made me believe Michael was the person I thought he was. Cool. Inquisitive. Intellectual. Artistic.“
Absolutely!
LikeLike
There’s nothing wrong with books depicting nudity, or homosexuality or anything.
I look at that stuff all the time.
Take a Gender class or art class at university, and see what kind of stuff people look at or study.
The human body, human social relations, love – it’s fascinating, it’s art, it’s nature, it’s human.
And as for the ‘Barely Legal’ mags – well hello, name one guy that doesn’t process that stuff.
The fact that they found all that, just made me believe Michael was the person I thought he was. Cool. Inquisitive. Intellectual. Artistic.
LikeLike
Hey, I saw this article recently, and I thought it was a testament to how protective of a father MJ was!
While staying in Vegas, he used a recording studio that was located inside of a luxury hotel. He wanted to temporarily stay at the hotel while recording the song, and the most private and secure location at the hotel was the Hugh Hefner suite. Hefner is the founder of Playboy Magazine. Look at how MJ protected his kids from seeing inappropriate images:
As he recorded at the Palms, Jackson also sought to stay at the hotel with his young children, Prince, Paris and Prince Michael II (aka Blanket).
Naturally, Jackson wanted complete privacy for his family. His known residence was a rented 10-acre mansion on Monte Cristo Way in northwest Las Vegas (at the time, Jackson also was considering a “Neverland”-style development in Henderson).
The finest, and most secure, accommodations Maloof could offer on his property were the Hugh Hefner Suite in the Fantasy Tower. The villa was beautiful, spacious and safe. No one would think Jackson and his kids would be hanging out up there.
But there was one problem. Call it “artistic differences.”
“I came in there one day, and Michael had covered up all the nude pictures,” Maloof recalled Friday morning. “This was because of the kids. He didn’t want them looking at those pictures.”
The fact that MJ didn’t just go to another room shows how secure and private that room really was, and the fact that he himself covered up the nude pictures shows the preventive measures he was willing to take to shield his kids!
It’s also interesting to know that despite all of the legal, adult, heterosexual porn found at Neverland, none of his kids or guests ever stumbled unto it (except of course the Arvizos, but that’s because they had already begun trashing Neverland by the time they found it). Wade Robson testified that he never even knew that MJ had porn, despite all of the years he spent the night in MJ’s personal living quarters!
And the prosecution had the nerve to say that MJ bought all of that porn to “groom” his victims, yet neither Jordie Chandler, Jason Francia, Daniel Kapon, Joseph Bartucci, nor any other “phantom victim” ever claimed to have been shown porn!!
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/kats-report/2010/nov/12/michael-jacksons-artistic-differences-while-record/
LikeLike
@Dialdancer He had dozens of photos of Beyonce? LOL
LikeLike
wow!!
LikeLike
Suzy said;
“First off, what’s this obsession with Macaulay Culkin?
They talk about Michael’s porn and nude pictures they found about Marylin Monroe and Bo Derek – and in the middle of all this they throw in Macaulay’” “they throw in Macaulay’s name and mention they also found a portrait of him.”
There is a reason for continuously throwing Mac’s name in the pot. He like Wad and Brett are punished for not falling in line with the plan. The District Attorney’s along with the very willing assistance of the Media label them victims. “The victims who would not testify”. Punishment by labeling them as men who aided and abetted their molester.
Michael Jackson’s photo album was even larger than his library. There was a time when people shoved each other out the way to take photos with him, some he did not know, socialize or do business with. Some went on to claim friendship or intimate relations of all kinds later on. There is a photo of him and Bob Hope hugging, him sitting on a porch step leaning against Katherine Hepburn’s legs and photos sent to him by thousands of celebrities and non-celebrities. Shall we talk about the dozens of Beyonce’ No mention of those.
So what he had, read and/or studied adult porn and erotica, straight or gay? So what? So did I during a period of inquiry. A wish to know, not necessarily indulge in any, but curiosity. It was adult, not child. Porn is not an indicator of being a child molester. This constant harrying of it and the need to apply filth to someone who reads it is a sign of more serious psychological concerns. The other dozens of books lying about? They are not mentioned.
I spent some time in Great Britain and found most of the people to be likable, fun loving and level headed. I have, however noticed that many of the people who come to the Forums claiming to hail from there with their Tabloid education are displaying a gut need to keep the mendacious title of molester firmly affixed to Michael. I sense in their writings an unwholesomeness which seems more like self-projection rather than looking for an honest discussion.
LikeLike
I just found this article on Michael’s porn during the trial. No new info in it, just to show how sick or/and desperate the prosecution and the media were!
http://uk.eonline.com/uberblog/b49506_jackson_playboy_man.html
First off, what’s this obsession with Macaulay Culkin?
They talk about Michael’s porn and nude pictures they found about Marylin Monroe and Bo Derek – and in the middle of all this they throw in Macaulay’s name and mention they also found a portrait of him. A perfectly normal, legal face portrait – as we all know. So you can just see how the prosecution were trying to prejudice the jury by mixing all these different type of pictures together – suggesting they served the same purpose or what?
And I have always wondered what was the point of the prosecution when they wasted long, long days with showing Michael’s porn (heterosexual, adult magazines and websites!) on court? I never got what was the point of that. Was Michael on trial for owning pornography? But luckily I have an answer now from prosecutor Auchincloss in this article:
“The larger point, Auchincloss said, was to prove that Jackson knows how to use a computer and download porn.”
Ah, so that was the point? Good to know finally!
So what if he could use a computer and download porn? Is that a crime?
I can’t believe how laughable and desperate this prosecution was!
LikeLike
The Thing doesn’t understand American law regarding child pornography because he is from the UK. Are you a friend of Thomas O’Carrol? Here is a site that may help you to understand it.
http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504
LikeLike
@ The Thing
My father is a fotographer.This book, among others, is in his library.Based on your logic my father must be a child molestor.Wow.
LikeLike
The Thing, as you’ve already been told the book “Boys will be boys” (no matter whether good or bad) was a present from someone by the name of ‘Rhonda’. The flyleaf carried a drawing of a heart and the respective inscription.
Yes, people sometimes make presents. And other people – to whom these presents are made – have no power of control over their ideas, imagination or behavior.
LikeLike
This what an attorney said about those books in 2005
MICKEY SHERMAN: No I don’t think its a big deal. Shame on Tom Sneddon for sliming Michael Jackson in the remaining moments of his case because this has nothing, as you say, nothing to do with moving the ball forward as to whether or not Michael Jackson molested this particular [accuser]. 1993, 12 years ago there was some art books in his home. What does that have to do with whether or not he committed this crime?
By the way those books were found in 1993, and it’s the same for Man a sexual study. They found nothing else like that, which kills the idea he used them for sexual purpose.
LikeLike
The book “The Boy: A Photographic Essay was on the Library of Congress.
http://site2.mjeol.com/highlight-history/highlight-history-art-books-turned-into-child-porn-by-desperate-prosecution.html
LikeLike
@The thing
Rather than let the horror stories for those who create them. Understand one thing: you are here reviewing the case because they let Michael Jackson came out (since I had nothing to hide), if Michael Jackson actually had repeatedly abused this child would have paid if only Evan Chandler happily proposed this plan: Give me 20 million dollars and the complaints were not made public.
(Strange behavior of a parent and strange behavior of a pedophile that gives its perversions come to light)
About what you said suzy and david I have no more than clarify.
Here is scan the “terrorific book” can come and see it if you wish.
http://lordoftheflies.org/img/lotfboy1.htm
LikeLike
@ The Thing
OK, if you’re competent enough to visit this site and insinuate that MJ is guilty by saying that he had this and had that in his bedroom, then you’re also competent enough to read the various posts that we have on numerous subjects concerning the allegations. Personally, I am not going to engage you in a debate here in the comments section until you give us CONCRETE, TANGIBLE EVIDENCE that MJ is guilty of abusing any child, whether its Jordie Chandler, Jason Francia, Gavin Arvizo, or any “phantom victim” that you can name.
I’ll give you a few posts to read to help get you started:
1. As far as the bedroom alarms, they were a security feature that helped VINDICATE HIM IN 2005! Please read this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/fact-checking-the-documentary-michael-jackson-what-really-happened-by-jacques-peretti/
2. The secret chamber wasn’t even built by MJ! It was installed by the PREVIOUS OWNER! And MJ used it to hide valuables!
3. If you truly believe that MJ abused Jordie while they were in Monaco, then please explain why on earth did his description NOT match, despite the fact that he claimed to have seen MJ’s penis both erect and non-erect on multiple occasions? Why didn’t Evan Chandler just go straight to the cops? Why did Larry Feldman try to have the photos barred from the civil trial?
https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/judith-regans-podcast-confirmed/
Also, have you read the book “All That Glitters” by Ray Chandler? If not, then how can you say you believe the Chandler’s story when you don’t even know what their story is? If you believe that MJ was guilty in 1993, then you MUST believe everything in the book WORD FOR WORD!
Please don’t write any more comments IMPLYING that MJ was guilty, OK? Write back when you can give us names, dates, places, timelines, testimonies, and evidence to PROVE that MJ was guilty, thus refuting all of those posts that I just included.
Put up or shut up.
LikeLike
I see we are dealing with yet another tabloid junkie brainwashed by the media with half-truths and lies…..
LikeLike
@lcpledwards he never had an open door policy the only way you could access his bedroom was by typing in a code into a keypad. Plus, he always had his motion sensor alarm on. When he was alone with young boys in his bedroom, which would alert him if anybody was approaching his chambers. He also had a secret room in his bedroom which you enter through a secret passage in his wardrobe.
http://theunibrain.blogspot.com/2009/07/see-michael-jacksons-secret-room.html
And what about when he took boys to hotels and apartments in and outside of the United States. Did he have an open door policy there as well. What about the trip to Monaco with Jordy how come he stuck 2 life-size mannequins outside the door which he claimed were to stop evil spirits from entering. But anybody with a brain knows it was to stop his manager and security team entering his apartment while he spent all day and all night alone with Jordy.
LikeLike
@ “The Thing”
That book, as well as the book “The Boy: A Photographic Essay” (which was given to him by a fan in 1983), were both found by police in 1993. If MJ truly had sexual desires for young boys, he would have continued to collect (and accept from fans) books of that nature. But when Neverland was raided in 2003, there were not any similar books that were found. However, they found LEGAL, HETEROSEXUAL porn dating back to 1991! That is indicative of MJ’s sexual desires.
MJ bought the book “Boys Will Be Boys”, and in it he made the following inscription “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I have never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.” That quote is indicative of his interpretation of the book; just photos of boys having fun and enjoying childhood, and THAT’S IT.
Those 2 books were found among THOUSANDS of books at Neverland, and had NO PROBATIVE VALUE WHATSOEVER! The prosecution used them to prejudice the jury into thinking MJ was gay, thereby making it more plausible that he could have abused Gavin and Jason. Obviously their plan failed miserably!
Using your logic, if MJ had a statue of Michaelangelo’s “David”, you would say that is a sign of homosexuality, right? If Janet Jackson had a painting of a nude woman, you would say that she’s a lesbian, right?
Also, he never “locked himself away” with kids in his bedroom. He had an open door policy where entire families came and went through his bedroom! Listen to Mesereau debunk that myth in this interview with Jay Leno: http://www.mj-777.com/LenoMesereauInterview.mp4
LikeLike
And to correct you: this is not just one of MANY books with pictures of naked boys they found at MJ’s home. Actually there were only two among those close to ten thousand books that he altogether had: this and the other ” “The Boy: A Photographic Essay”, which is a picture book about the shooting of the 1963 movie Lord of the Flies – and it also has naked boys in it.
It had the following inscription in it by MJ’s hand:
“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.- MJ”
Seems like Michael didn’t have a similarly dirty fantasy as some of his detractors when looking at those pics…..
LikeLike
@ The Thing
Please read the article dealing with that book: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/porn-found-inat-michael-jacksons-home/
“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.”
Fact is, no child porn was ever found in Michael’s possession. Having child porn is a federal crime in itself. If MJ had child porn he would have been charged with that. He was not. They haven’t found child porn on his 16 computers, they haven’t found traces to p. websites either. How likely is it for a p.? Not at all.
LikeLike
Boys will be boys was just one of many books, which showed pictures of fully nude boys, which the police found in Jacko’s home .The book is often found in the homes of pedophile’s and child molesters. So Michael Jackson, a man who locked himself away, in his bedroom with 11,12,13-year-old unrelated boys also had books, which featured fully nude boys of the same age.
Creepy.
LikeLike
Thank you very much my friend, you are very kind in sharing this useful information with? others…. he details were such a blessing, thanks.
LikeLike
I have just always believed that he is innocent but was just a really nice person to kids and that people wanted to take his money somehow someway and it is sad that it came down to what it did to get cash…
LikeLike
good post..great share, great article..love to read it
LikeLike
no matter what rumors about MJ, I just can’t stop loving MJ. he’s my dream of sex, lol. I love his music. I love his behaviour. I love his body. I love the way he is. keep Michaeling :-*
LikeLike
the detectives admitted that there were more than 50 boxes in the library and that beside the books seized from MJ’s bedroom all the other books were found in cardboard boxes laying everywhere in the library, they could not tell whether they were opened before, or whether MJ touched any of them and guess what, the detectives and the prosecutors did not even bother to test ANY of these books for fingerprints. So the majority of these ‘very damaging’ books actually found in cardboard boxes that were presents shipped from abroad and must probably were never ever looked at. Even the prosecutors believed that, evidence they did not test them for fingerprints
LikeLike
great writing. BUT i don’t like it when they say he collected all that heterosexual porn for educational purposes. Give me a break.
MJ was a men with needs like the rest of the humans. Let him enjoy his sexuality.
LikeLike
@ carm
“He also made up a story about a tape in his possession of MJ having sex with a child and that the mother knew about it. Well, the mother denied the whole thing when questioned by authorities.”
Wasn’t the mother Margaret Moldano, Jermaine Jackson’s ex-wife? I used to read her book “Jackson Family Values” and I remember her mentioning that she was shocked to see the claims on TV that Michael molested one of her sons. And she said it was a lie (of course). BTW, in her book the only Jacksons she talks favourably of are Michael and Marlon. She loved Michael very much and had only nice thing to say about him.
LikeLike
I saw a movie once (was it Silence of the Lambs or one of the sequels?), where the detective said the library flags certain books and the FBI keeps tabs on what that person checks out of the library. Well if that’s the case, then with the stuff I’ve checked out all these years and the stuff I’ve read on the internet, I’m getting arrested any moment. Out of 10,000 books (that’s the estimate I’ve heard) and that’s all they could come up with?
It points to a man with an extensive curiosity (as I have, hence my tendency to occasionally read vile things – none of which I have any interest in doing or seen being done, I want to know why people do them – the psychology behind it) and an intense interest. He’s also a self-taught man (my preference for learning).
You are right, as a fan at first you are a afraid to look. But the more you look the more you begin to understand and see that there is not one iota of proof that Michael ever molested any children. You also start to even “get it”. I found myself looking at children quite differently. Fortunately I”m female so I can actually stare at a kid. And just starting seeing what Michael says he saw in the faces of children, but then I always had.
I don’t particularly like to be around kids when they are with their parents (they are whiny – really, parents, your kids are *much* nicer when you are not around). I’ve wandered off from the adults and been found behind closed doors sitting on the floor reading a book, telling a silly story, playing a game, or generally enjoying the kids after becoming quite bored with the phony chit-chat of adults.
So you see I would contrive to be alone with your children (so they can be their enjoyable selves). The big difference? I’m female and can get away with it. I’ll even tell you, “I like boys”. Sounds creepy doesn’t it? I just do. They are more fun. They like to play more fun games (dolls yeech). They like to explore. Play in the dirt. Girls tattle. Form little cliques. Pick on each other. Too much drama. Don’t send a 10 year boy to my more door selling an overpriced magazine subscription. I”m buying it. Movies? I’ll tell you I have the taste of a 13 year old boy. Monsters. Explosions. Car chases. Love scenes? (yeech). But Michael is a guy and if he felt like a big kid or the equivalent of a tomboy (to my tomboy), he couldn’t do what I could do and get away with it. Neither of us with any intent of harming a children, but truly enjoying their company (and in my case reliving my tomboy days of following my brother around – exploring, digging in dirt, and climbing trees and fences).
And I don’t believe he had any more interest in children sexually than I do. I feel quite protective and motherly toward all children, but especially boys. They seem so vulnerable without the proper male role models they need so badly. In other words, while in our society such behavior is taboo for a male, I can quite believe Michael’s feelings for children. Even his father is on an old tape when Michael is quite young and holding a baby and his dad says, “Oh Michael, he loves babies. He’s always holding a baby.” So this was not some BS he came up with to make himself into an adult Peter Pan. He’s apparently always liked children (and being one – “I didn’t want to get on the plane, I only wanted to play”; eating candy, and having a good time). Reporters have said (unlike some very adult-like child actors in interviews), this phenom they had come to interview, seemed very uninterested in being interviewed, he only want to leave and go into the next room and play.
LikeLike
Hey guys, for more info on the 2005 witch-hunt, here are two excellent articles written by Julie Hilden, a real legal analyst.
“Why The MJ Case Is Falling Apart”, where she picks apart Sneddon’s opening statement and his case in general.
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/hilden/20050315.html
“Evidence of Prosecution Bias in the Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson Cases”. I think the title is self explanatory!
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/hilden/20040102.html
Both of these articles are detailed and well written, and are a great resource for anyone doing research on the trial (which is probably why you’re on this site! LOL!)
LikeLike
@ carm I just wanted to ask about that documentary. Why his family hasn’t taken legal actions about that documentary ??? I can not explain the lack of interest by his family when it comes to things like this. They have the right to sue haven’t they or they simply don’t care ??
LikeLike
I completely agree with you Helena that MJ fans have nothing to fear in doing the research, as long as they stay focused on the fact that he was never found guilty of anything. At first they will see and here all kinds of garbage and they won’t know who and what to believe. Believe me, I know. I have done an extraordinary amount of research (I won’t tell my family, they would think I was nuts) so I had to go through the ambivalent stage, wondering if he could possibly be guilty. With experience I discovered there is a pattern–those who are convinced of his guilt use sources which have been discredited, most of them during the trial. An example is Bob Jones who knew Jackson well and wrote a slanderous book about him. However while under oath he admitted he was in financial difficulty and that he needed to sensationalize his book in order to sell it. Then there are the vultures who wanted to advance their careers such as Diane Dimond and Martin Bashir. There are many others. What about that horrible documentary still making the rounds and seen by millions–Jacques Peretti’s “Michael Jackson–what happened next. (Now that would be a good project for you, Helena–please go after that moron) When people see that piece of propaganda they end up convinced he was a pedophile (two of my siblings saw it). Peretti interviews the “investigative reporter” Victor Guittierez. Of course he doesn’t mention that this loser wrote a book called “Michael Jackson was my lover–The Secret diary of Jordon Chandler” (I didn’t make this up!) which was subsequently banned in the U.S. for its explicit content. He also made up a story about a tape in his possession of MJ having sex with a child and that the mother knew about it. Well, the mother denied the whole thing when questioned by authorities. He doesn’t mention that MJ sued Guittierez and Hard Copy (Diane Dimond’s tabloid) for defammation of character and won. Guittierez couldn’t pay MJ the 2.7 million so he fled the country. Of course none these “credentials” are mentioned in the doc. Diane Dimond is also interviewed extensively. Meanwhile the “documentary” has been picked up by respecatable broadcasters who love the controversial slant but don’t know better.
On the other hand people who actually knew MJ and aren’t selling sensationalist articles, books and documentaries paint a very different portrait of what he was like as a person.
So trust us, you will never, ever, ever find anything which ties MJ to molesting kids. (not even in the Chandler case, if you really dig hard.) There isn’t a speck of evidence that he was even remotely sexually interested in young boys. He wasn’t perfect, made mistakes,used bad judgement from time to time and had anxiety problems but that only makes him human, like the rest of us.
LikeLike
Give me a break. I am a girl and i have seen and read lots of things from gay man,woman porn etc. It’s within the human nature to be intrested in this things. If that is illegal or bizarre then 99,9 % of the planet should be locked in. They just try to present as sinister everything that surround MJ. I bet that all those people who think that MJ is a “freak” are those who in reallity are freak and bizarre ( the ones that realy should be locked in some kind of jail ). At least MJ didn’t try to hide his eccentricities. What you see is what you get.
LikeLike
BRRRAVOOOO Helena! I love your Oh-la-las 🙂
LikeLike
Guys, thanks a lot for your encouraging words – it was quite a job but I do hope it was not in vain.
Please feel free to use the information wherever you think it necessary to make it known to Michael’s fans and the general public. We should help people to overcome the initial shock they naturally experience when they read the police report only.
Shock is the reaction Michael’s haters count upon – ordinary folks are disgusted by the mere enumeration of all those sinister titles and see no need to look further, while Michael’s fans are equally disgusted and don’t touch it either as they don’t want to see Michael’s name smeared by all that dirt.
Hence this gap which has not been filled up till now and this long period of mutual misunderstanding which was exactly the purpose of Michael’s professional haters.
As it is highly unlikely that the general public will ever do anything to fill the gap with true information there is no other choice but us doing all this grime-cleaning work ourselves.
Michael’s fans have nothing to fear – Michael was innocent as a baby – so just don’t be afraid to REALLY LOOK. It does not require any investigative talent either – just perseverance, serious study and the desire to get to the bottom of it.Forget the fear – if you have any – remember the axiom of Michael’s innocence and it will help you out even in the most desperate situations.
Somewhere there in the dark (or rather the light) there is an answer to ALL our questions…
P.S. As to the documents I’ll be getting down to them immediately and hope to post some still today.
LikeLike
BTW, that “Golden Age of Neglect” book looks really interesting. I can see why Michael was interested in that. To suggest it was something of sexual nature or that somebody would use it for sexual pleasure or “grooming” is really, really SICK! I have to say those policemen who did this list look to be be sick ones here, not Michael!
LikeLike
Helena,
I too applause you for going through this list. No matter how boring it was, like Raven said it was important to address this “evidence” because that PDF something haters often hold against Michael – just going by the police’s description, without looking in those books themselves! Like Raven said, when you look into them they will be stripped all of their sinister sounding mystery!
That questioning of poor Wade Robson is hilarious!
Zonen keeps on harping on that one and only gay picture book that they found among thousands and thousands of books – can we all say: DESPERATE?
And Rhonda is not Rhonda in their opinion because she wrote her name in quotation marks? And what does that have to do with anything if the person who sent it to Michael was really called Rhonda or not? OMG! This is so, so desperate! LOL.
Funny thing is, I think if they had found this porn (the real porn he had) in any other Hollywood star’s possession, they would call him the most heterosexual guy in Hollywood (there are so many closet or not so closet gay people there). Noone else’s sexuality has been examined and exposed as much as Michael Jackson’s. And people still have a hard time accepting the fact he was heterosexual. We really have a hard time getting rid of our preconceptions of what a macho man should look like, don’ we?
LikeLike
Absolutly great job!!! I can’t wait to see the documents you found.
LikeLike
Hi Helena,
Your efforts should be applauded. The weird thing is you are not an investigative journalist, or a lawyer, and you did this much research.
LikeLike
Excellent post, Helena! That last statement is the nail in the coffin that will close out this series once and for all! The fact that nobody knew MJ had those books proves that he did NOT use them to “groom” anyone!
Another good point that I want to make is the fact that MJ had been collecting porn since 1991, yet neither Jordie Chandler nor Jason Francia claimed that MJ groomed them with porn. It was only Gavin, and only because he and his brother stumbled unto it while they were at Neverland, and of course they added that to all of the other lies that they’ve told.
On a more positive note, singer Sheryl Crow (who was MJ’s backup singer during the BAD tour) recently released a new album, and she covered “I Want You Back”. Here she is singing it live. MJ would be proud!
LikeLike
Helena, thank you for all this hard work you’ve done in breaking down this complete list of books. I know it had to have been a momentous task, and not one I envy (lol!). But I think this is going to serve a valuable function, and here is why: Haters and doubters have been using these titles for over five years as “evidence.” Cloaked behind the mystery and vague descriptions given in the police reports, they have, time and again, referred back to these “mystery” erotic and art books depicting either children or homosexuality. Here’s the good thing about finally having all of the titles fully accounted for and stripped of their “mystery”: It lays it all out in the open and effectively removes the satisfaction of the haters in being able to hold these dubious mysterious “titles” over the heads of fans and defenders. With all of the information on these books laid out there, it levels the playing field considerably.
LikeLike
fuck of all who make non sense about him, i also read men things, that doesn’t mean i am a gay
LikeLike