Skip to content

Fact Checking the Documentary “Michael Jackson: What Really Happened” by Jacques Peretti

September 7, 2010

Thanks to our special correspondent Dialdancer, I was alerted to the re-broadcast of the shameful documentary “Michael Jackson: What Really Happened”, which was produced by a self-proclaimed “lifelong Jackson fan” Jacques Peretti.  I’ve seen bits and pieces of it before, but never in its entirety, until now!  A few months ago someone finally uploaded it to youtube, and after watching it I can honestly conclude that this is the third worst MJ documentary ever made, behind Martin Bashir’s “Living With Michael Jackson” and his lesser known “Michael Jackson’s Secret World” of course!  As if I had to tell you that!

I was so disgusted by it that I decided to put my other projects on hold and write a report debunking the numerous misrepresentations, rumors and opinions that were presented as “facts” by Peretti.

Here are my critiques of the program:

Part 1:

#1: @ 1:07 Peretti states that what he heard from Diane Dimond, Victor Guitterez, J. Randy Taraborreli, and Bob Jones “changed his view on Jackson forever”. Well Peretti, if you’re that gullible to take them at face value, and you choose to not be a fan anymore, then good riddance!   Maybe if you had included Tom Mesereau for more than the two minutes that he was allotted, then maybe your view of MJ would have been more balanced!

#2: @ 3:37 Peretti states that MJ was booed off the stage at the 2006 World Music Awards “before he could sing a note”. Pulleaazzzeee!!  Watch the performance of “We Are The World” below and you’ll see that at NO POINT WHATSOEVER was he ever booed!  He was treated like royalty!  In fact, you see a few fans actually crying upon seeing him!

#3: @ 4:40 Peretti refers to Bob Jones as MJ’s manager, when in fact he was MJ’s publicist! There is a difference between a manager and a publicist, and once Jones started to describe what his job duties entailed, that should have been obvious to Peretti.  According to Jones, he was responsible for “dealing with the tabloids, the fan magazines, and the fanatics” (which he used as a derogatory slur towards the fans). He then goes on to lie and say that he invented the title “King of Pop, Rock, & Soul”, when in fact it was Elizabeth Taylor who coined the phrase in 1989 when she and Eddie Murphy presented him with the Heritage & Sammy Davis Jr. Awards!!

Here is Taylor herself confirming that she came up with the title!!

Here is MJ also confirming that Liz taylor said it first (@ 4:30), and then the fans started to label him “King of Pop” for short:

Part 2:

@ 1:30 Taraborrelli states that MJ transformed himself into a monster in “Thriller’ because he really felt like a monster inside, and that he was sexually confused.  Well gee Randy, if you felt he was a monster, then why did you write that 900+ page book about him, and profit off of that “monster”? And if he was so sexually confused, then how do you explain the vast amounts of heterosexual pornography that he collected from 1991 through 2003? Peretti goes on to state that the video for “Thriller” was a “cry for help”. No it wasn’t!  It was a cry to the fans to go out and buy the damn record! And obviously the fans heeded MJ’s cry, as Thriller became the biggest selling album of all time!

@ 2:35 Peretti said MJ invented the award given by Reagan in 1987? First of all, it was on May 14th, 1984 when MJ was given the Presidential Humanitarian Award by President Reagan in recognition of MJ’s contribution of the song “Beat It” to the government’s campaign against drunk driving among teens.  Secondly, MJ certainly did NOT “invent” the award! It was President Reagan’s idea to give it to MJ!

@ 5:35 Diane Dimond insists that MJ was only interested in boys. Well, here are a few stories to debunk that trash:

Here are the stories about Nisha Kataria, a female protégé of MJ who was supposed to perform with him during his “This Is It’ concerts, and Lottie Rose, one of MJ’s hairstylists.  Nisha and her family moved into Neverland in 2003, shortly before the allegations, and Lottie allowed her daughter to sleep in MJ’s room on numerous occasions when they visited throughout the years.

In this article, there is a video of a young girl and her family on the Oprah, just prior to her interview with MJ.  She describes how nice MJ is to her, and Oprah interviews her parents as well. (The girl and her family can be seen in part 5):


Finally, here is an excerpt from Ian Halperin’s “Unmasked”, where he interviews Allison Smith about her time at Neverland.  From page 78:

During the course of my investigation, I found four of these girls.  One of them, Allison V. Smith, is now a world-renowned photographer who has shot photos for The New York Times, Esquire, and The New Yorker, among others.  She is also an heiress to the Neiman Marcus luxury department store fortune as the granddaughter of the late retail legend, Stanley Marcus.

“During the trial, they kept talking about all the boys who slept in his bed.  Well, I’m a girl and I slept in his bed when I was a kid.  The prosecutor must know that there were girls around, but he never mentioned it”, she says, adding that her friendship with Jackson was “a lot of fun” but that she doesn’t like talking about it publicly.

“I was tempted to offer myself up as a defense witness,” she recalls, “but I didn’t relish the media circus.”

Part 3:

@ At the beginning, Dimond describes how Evan Chandler walked in on MJ and Jordie spooning in bed. She also says that Jordie bathed with MJ (which is what he also claimed in his interview with Dr. Gardner). Peretti conveniently leaves out exactly how Evan literally “extracted” the confession out of Jordie! And the icing on the cake is when he says that Jordie’s  description matched!

Well, anyone who knows me by now knows how I like to “cross-examine” Ray & Evan Chandler’s “All That Glitters” because they were never cross examined in a court of law, so here is Evan’s version of how he became suspicious of MJ, from pages 46-49:

I’ll be there in a minute”. Evan said, and as Jordie turned to leave, added, “Hey Jordie, are you and Michael doin’ it?”

That’s disgusting!” Jordie reacted.  “I’m not into that!”

“Just kidding.”

Evan explained it this way.  “It was crude, but I was so anxious, I decided on the spur of the moment to say it because I figured it would elicit an unplanned response.”  Jordie’s repulsion brought Evan great relief.  So much so, that he felt quite chipper as he walked down the hall to check on Michael.

The singer was walking in circles, holding his head.  “I didn’t sleep all night,” he complained. “I’ve got a bad headache. I get them all the time.”

“Do you know what causes them?”  Evan asked.

“Yeah, I’ve had them ever since my hair caught fire.  They said it’s from the surgery.”

Evan offered the standard remedies, aspirin and Tylenol, but Michael insisted they had no effect on him and that his doctor usually gave him a shot of something, he didn’t know what. When Evan suggested that the call his doctor, Michael refused.  He didn’t want to bother the man on a holiday weekend.  Instead, he asked Evan if he could give him something stronger.

Evan rattled off a list of drugs to see if he could find out what Michael’s doctor used.  When he mentioned Demerol, Michael said that sounded familiar.  Evan did not use Demerol in his practice, so he called Mark Torbiner for advice.  The anesthesiologist suggested an injection of Toradol, a non-narcotic equivalent to Demerol, and offered to pick some up at Evan’s office and bring it to his house.

Evan injected 30mg, half the maximum dose, into Michael’s gluteus. But one hour later the star claimed he was still in a lot of pain, so Evan administered the remaining half and instructed him to lie down and try to relax.

“Keep an eye on him,” Evan told Jordie.  “It’ll take a few minutes to kick in.  I’ll be right back.”

“When I went back to check on him, maybe ten minutes later,” Evan recalled, “He was acting weird, babbling incoherently and slurring is speech.  Toradol is pretty safe drug, and I thought that either he was having a rare reaction or had taken another drug and was having a combination reaction.”

Other than the drunk-like symptoms, Michael’s pulse and respirations were normal and he appeared to be in no real danger.  So Evan took no further action.

But Jordie was scared.  He had seen his friend “acting strange” before, but never like this.

“Don’t worry,” Evan assured his son, “Right now Michael’s the happiest person in the world.  All we need to do is keep him awake and talking until the drug wears off.”

Four hours and a serious case of cottonmouth later, Michael began to sober up.  While Jordie was downstairs fetching water, Evan decided to take advantage of Michael’s still uninhibited but somewhat coherent condition.  “Hey, Mike, I was just wondering….I mean, I don’t care either way, but I know some of your closest people are gay, and I was wondering if you’re gay too?”

“You’d be surprised about a lot of people in this town,” Michael mumbled, as he rattled off the names of a few prominent Hollywood players who were still in the closet.

Evan tried to get back on track before Jordie returned.  He stroked Michael’s hair and reassured him,  “I don’t care if you’re gay, Mike.  I just want you to know you can tell me if you are.”

“Uh-uh”, Michael slurred.  “Not me.”

Given Michael’s willingness to talk openly about everyone else’s sexuality, his consistent denial about being gay reinforced Evan’s belief that the singer was asexual.

Michael remained in bed all day, with Jordie sitting by his side on the edge of the single bed.  Cody joined them about ten, and by ten-thirty the three boys were fast asleep.

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

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

Evan dozed off at dawn, but he and Monique were awakened shortly thereafter by Cody crawling into their bed.  “What’s the matter, Honey?” Monique asked.

“Is it OKAY for two men to get married?” the boy asked.  Evan and Monique were stunned.  They asked why he wanted to know, but the child was in no mood to reveal his thoughts, only to cuddle up and cling to his mother.

In the weeks that followed, Evan and Monique tried again to find out what Cody had seen or heard.  But the boy remained secretive and depressed.  Three months later, during dinner one night, Cody turned to his parents and announced, “Michael Jackson is bad.  He did bad things to Jordie.”  After that release the little boy began to perk up.

A picture is worth a thousand words.  And the sight of his son in bed with Michael finally made it clear to Evan that he must end their relationship. Even if there is no sex, Jordie’s personality had been seriously altered.  As he morphed day by day into a pint-sized clone of Michael, he withdrew further and further from his family and friends.

Evan’s initial reaction was to separate them then and there, but he and Monique talked it over and agreed that a sudden split could be traumatic and might cause Jordie to bond even deeper with…..his lover?

On a more practical level, June had legal custody of Jordie and controlled his daily routine.  They would need to coordinate with her for a separation to have any effect.

Monique insisted, however, and Evan agreed, that Michael must be told that day that he could not move in with them.  Not wanting to arouse the star’s suspicion, lest he assert even more control over Jordie, Evan lied.

“You know, Mike, I checked with the building department and they said we’re not zoned for an addition. I guess we’ll just have to forget”

Then we’ll build a new house,” the superstar vowed, as if it were already a done deal.  “Just don’t tell anyone I paid for it, okay? It’ll create problems.”

Notice how Evan claims that he offered MJ Tylenol and other over the counter remedies, but MJ refused them because he wanted something stronger.  I think its total BS!!!  What doctor would offer Demerol, or anything similar to that, just for a headache??!!!  My gosh, Evan gave MJ 60mg of Toradol!!!  I think it’s more plausible that he gave MJ sodium amytal, since he asked him specifically if he was gay. Our co-admin Lynette, who works as a nurse full time, gave us this great description of Toradol:

First Toradol is a potent Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug ( think Aleve) and does not have the sort of effect that they are describing. They said he started acting really weird and was slurring his words and stuff. Also when he came out of it he was ok but had a serious case of cotton mouth. Well not from Toradol he didn’t. You guys I use this every day, we don’t even tell people they can’t drive home. Second when he is describing it in ATG he says how he decided that he would take advantage of the situation and ask him if he was gay because he was so concerned that he was gay. Michael denied being gay but given Mark Torbiner’s penchant for using sodium amytal my guess is that is what they gave Michael and he was questioning him trying to find information he could use to blackmail him. When he didn’t give him the information he wanted he went in another direction. I mean if you step back and think about that why would you even get this man that was at your house for the first time a drug for his headache beyond tylenol? It was right after that that Michael stopped talking to Evan he talks about how he didn’t talk to him anymore on that tape. I mean their story is so screwed up about the use of the Toradol and the sodium amytal from my standpoint that alone discredits their entire story. You know don’t you that if one part of their story is a lie so is the rest of it. It is way too farfetched that’s it. I mean come on “my son needed a baby tooth out and requested anesthesia”. I say “give me a break.” That’s a perfect example, I had a 10 year old with a broken radius today and he took the needle full of lidocaine and setting it without so much as a flinch. Kids are alot more scared to be put to sleep than they are 20 second of having their tooth pulled.

Also, did you notice how Evan said that it wasn’t until the third time that he checked on MJ that he caught them spooning?  That means the previous two times, Jordie was not in the bed with MJ, but according to Evan, Jordie must have gotten in bed.  That would mean that MJ must have awoken after Evan’s second checkup, and then woke Jordie up and asked him to sleep with him.  Does this even make sense? Of course not!

Regarding Peretti’s claim that Jordie’s description “matched”, here a few descriptive articles that show otherwise:

(The following article describes how Chandler’s attorney Larry Feldman wanted the photo’s of MJ’s penis excluded from the civil case.  Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because they didn’t match?)

@ 6:45 Peretti falsely states that Evan “asked” Jordie is there was a sexual element, and Jordie says “yes” (and of course he doesn’t elaborate further about the specific details of Jordie’s “confession”).  He also does not specify exactly how the scandal went public.  So let’s go to Evan Chandler to get his side of the story.

Here is how Evan got Jordie to confess.  From Dimond’s “Be Careful Who You Love”, page 60:

When Jordie came out of the sedation I asked him to tell me about Michael and him.  I (falsely told) him that I had bugged his bedroom and I knew everything anyway and that I just wanted to hear it from him.  I told him not to be embarrassed….”I know about the kissing and the jerking off and the blow jobs.”  This isn’t about me finding anything out.  It’s about lying – If you lie then I’m going to take him (Jackson) down.

According the Evan’s diary, Jordie contemplated how to answer the question for about an hour, and then Evan tried again:

“I’m going to make it very easy for you.  I’m going to ask you one question.  All you have to do is say yes or no”.

Jordie spoke his first words, “Promise?”

I said, “Jordie, did I ever lie to you in your whole life?”

He said, “No.”

I said, “Well, I never will.”

He said, “You won’t hurt Michael, right?”

I said, “I promise.”

He said, “I don’t want anyone else ever to know.  Promise me you won’t ever tell anyone.”

I promise,” I said.

So he said, “What’s the question?”

I asked, “Did Michael Jackson ever touch your penis?”

Unbelievably, he still hesitated.  The longest couple of seconds of my life went be and then finally he answered in an almost inaudible whisper, “Yes.”

From “All That Glitters”, pages 119-121, here is how the scandal became public after Evan found out that June and her lawyer Michael Freeman filed the court order to get custody of Jordie on August 17th, 1993:

In a phone conversation the night before Freeman’s request was to be heard in court, Barry counseled Evan that unless he was willing to walk into the courtroom and accuse Michael of molesting Jordie, he didn’t have a prayer of winning; June had legal custody and that was all she needed to get Jordie back.

“How long will I have?” Evan asked.

“One, maybe two days.”

“What if I refuse to give him back?”

“If you don’t give him back the sheriff will come take him.  And he may arrest you, too.”

Accusing Michael of molestation was a can of worms Evan did not want to open.  He doubted anyone would take Jordie’s word over Michael’s, especially If June took Michael’s side. And she’d have to; otherwise she’d be implicating herself.  But it was Jordie’s fears over the prospect of going to court that weighted heaviest on Evan’s mind.

At the same time, Evan knew that as soon as June had Jordie back in her clutches she’d be on a plane to join Michael, who was already out of the country.  Evan believed with absolute certainty that if Jordie went on tour with Michael he’d suffer severe psychological damage.

“I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t,” Evan lamented to Barry.  “What if I take him out of California and hide for a while?  Maybe that’ll buy you some time to come up with the necessary appeals.”

“Appeals!” the attorney exclaimed.  “Are you nuts!  You’ll be a fugitive in the eyes of the law.  You’ll end up in jail and guarantee June permanent custody.  You can forget about any appeals.”

Confused and saddened, Evan thanked Barry for all his help and hung up.

“What’s the matter, Pops?” Jordie asked.  He’d been standing next to his father while he talked to Barry.

“They’re going to make you go back tomorrow, Jordie. Barry says we have no choice.”

Uh-uh! No way!  I’ll run away first.”

Buoyed by his son’s feistiness, Evan made him a promise.  “If that’s the way you feel, then I’m with you.  But we’ve got one move left.  If it doesn’t work, then we’ll go.”

For the past six weeks the two sides had gone back and forth, each trying to outmaneuver the other in what Evan called “the chess game from hell.” Now he found himself checkmated.  “They left me no choice.  The only move I had left was to kick over the table before they took the king.”

Evan dialed the number.  “Do you remember me?” he asked.  “I’m the one who came to your office and told you about my son.”

“Yes,” Dr. Abrams replied.  “I remember very well.:

It was the one thing Evan had tried so desperately to avoid.  Once he supplied the names, the psychiatrist would have no choice but to file a report with the authorities, who would then assume full control.

“The thought of placing Jordie in the hands of a government agency was frightening,” Evan commented.  “Almost as frightening as returning him to June and Michael.”

Evan took a few seconds to think before embarking into the unknown; then he took a deep breath.  “My name is Evan Chandler.  My son’s name is Jordie Chandler.  The adult male is Michael Jackson.  Can you help me? Please!”

Other than the knowledge that Michael had touched Jordie’s penis, Evan had never asked his son about the sex. But Dr. Abrams would, and Evan hoped he would be convinced of the truth and be willing to appear at the court hearing the following morning as an expert witness. “I’m sorry,” Dr. Abrams said.  “I can’t see him today.  But don’t worry; bring him in first thing in the morning.”

Evan and Jordie arrived at the psychiatrists’ office at nine the next morning.  Dr. Abrams began by advising Jordie that their discussion could become embarrassing and that it was his choice as to whether he wanted his father to remain in the room.  Evan shuffled out and took a seat in the waiting room.

An hour later, anxious and bored, Evan idled his way down to the coffee shop in the lobby, ate breakfast and went back upstairs to wait.  Another hour and another trip to the coffee shop.  Eleven o’clock.  Walking the halls.  Back downstairs.  Around the block.  Back to the waiting room.  “What the hell are they doing in there?”  Evan wondered.  “I could have told my whole life story now.”

Ten minutes after noon, Jordie finally emerged.  “Hey, dad, can we get something to eat?”  His favorite question.

Evan was startled.  He expected Jordie to come out heavy-hearted, but the boy seemed exuberated, almost whimsical.  “Are you okay?” Evan asked, wrapping his arms around the boy.

“Yeah, pops.  Let’s go, I’m starved.”

“He was a different boy,” Evan recalled, “and I knew immediately that no matter how long a road might lie ahead, he was going to be okay.”  Holding back the tears, Evan thanks Dr. Abrams profusely.

So what do we do now?” he asked.

“You’ll have to wait,” the doctor replied.  “Under the law, I can’t tell you anymore.”

“Can you at least tell me if you believe him?”

“Oh yes.  There’s no doubt.”

Father and son went to eat, but never talked about the interview.  Except once.  “You know, Dad,” Jordie said, briefly lifting his mug from a plate of French fries, “I’m really glad I talked to Dr. Abrams.”

And so was Evan.  Because two hours earlier, while Jordie was still relating his lurid tale to the good doctor, the court ordered the boy returned to June within forty-eight hours. Barry ‘s associate, who attended the hearing, assured the judge her client would comply.

@ 8:05 Peretti and Jones begin to insinuate that MJ’s bedroom alarms were installed as a means of helping him know when an adult was approaching the bedroom so that he’d know when to stop molesting kids.  MJ haters have always used that as a sign of obvious guilt.  Well, sorry to disappoint you MJ haters, but those alarms helped exonerate him!

Star Arvizo claimed that he witnessed MJ molest Gavin on several occasions by walking in on the act, but wouldn’t MJ have known that Star was approaching when he heard the alarms? Sneddon argued that the volume of the alarm was turned down during that period of time, and thus MJ wasn’t able to hear it.  But defense witness Larry Nimmer (a professional videographer who was hired to film Neverland after Judge Melville refused to allow jurors to tour the property) totally debunked that theory by performing a test where he placed his camera in MJ’s upper chamber (where the molestation allegedly happened), and he had a maid activate the alarm by entering MJ’s living quarters, and by doing this he demonstrated how loud and audible the alarm was, thus destroying Sneddon’s claim. Nimmer included this test in his documentary “The Untold Story of Neverland”, which is available on the DVD that I purchased, but is mysteriously missing from the shortened version that is available on youtube (otherwise, I would have surely included it here! If anyone finds it, please let us know!)

Both Nimmer and Maria Gomez (the maid) explained their test on the witness stand, and for more details please read the following article:

Another person who defended the bedroom alarms was, ironically, Adrian McManus, one of the “Neverland 5” who lost a multi-million dollar lawsuit against MJ and to this day owes him $1.4 million dollars.  She was fired from Neverland for theft prior to the allegations, and then sold lies to the tabloids about witnessing MJ molest young boys, including Macaulay Culkin.  Former employee Francine Contreras testified against McManus’ character by describing the display at McManus’ home of pilfered items from Neverland, including toys that were meant to be given to needy children. (Have you no shame, Adrian? How low can you go?)

During her cross examination, she was presented with a transcript of her 1994 deposition, where she defended the bedroom alarms by stating the following:  “When you’re a celebrity, you lead a difficult life.  People kill celebrities.  That little sensor benefits him for his life.” That quote and others made by McManus can be seen @ 4:36 in the following video which is part of the series “What did happen to Michael Jackson” by a diehard MJ fan with the youtube username “LunaJo67”, which I highly recommend everyone watch.

@ 9:17 Bob Jones suggests that MJ’s settlement was a sign of guilt that confirmed that everything Jordie alleged was true.  This is so absurd that I won’t even address it here. Instead, I’ll address it here in part 1 of my article on MJ’s settlements.  I will be posting another article in a few days that will thoroughly address the settlement once and for all!

Part 4:

@ .15, Taraborelli shows his true colors by suggesting that the settlement gave MJ a sense that he could “get out of anything”, and that it “emboldened” him.  Well, if MJ felt “emboldened”, and that he could “get away with anything”, then why weren’t there any additional victims that testified against him in 2005, huh Randy? Wait a minute, let me guess………’s because MJ paid them off, right?

@ 1:58 Peretti unleashed the ultimate ad hominem attack on MJ by showing a clip of Latoya Jackson’s 1993 press conference declaring MJ’s guilt, but of course he didn’t mention the fact that Latoya recanted her statements years later when she divorced her abusive ex-husband Jack Gordon, who she claimed forced her to say those statements in order to cash in with the tabloids. This is totally consistent with Jack’s character, as he also tried to extort millions from the Jackson family in exchange for Latoya’s agreement not to publish her “tell all” book claiming abuse and dysfunction in the family.  The fact that the book was released in 1991 should tell you that the family didn’t give in to his extortion claims!

Here is a report on the press conference:

Here is the press conference in it’s entirety (or most of it anyway):

Here, beginning at 1:50, Latoya recants and explains why she did it in the first place.  Whether or not you believe her reasons for doing it, she recanted and the family forgave her, so that’s all that matters.

Here is another video  of Latoya recanting her statements in 2004:

@ 2:10 Peretti claimed that “after the Chandler payoff, MJ’s sense of power went beyond anything that he had ever did before”.  He then uses the “Stalin-ist statues” of MJ as “proof” that MJ had lost his marbles!  But those statues had nothing whatsoever to do with an inflated ego!  They were part of a multi-million dollar promotional campaign for the “HIStory” album! I’m surprised that Peretti didn’t also claim that this video trailer was also a sign of his out of control ego!!

@ 4:26 Peretti claimed that he had never even heard of the 2001 concert, which MJ agreed to do because he was at an all-time low. Well, if he was at an “all-time low”, then why did he sell out Madison Square Garden twice? He could have sold out a thousand shows at MSG! “All-time low” my ass!! He did the concerts to help support his upcoming album “Invincible”!!

@ 7:16 Peretti calls Tom Mesereau “the sharpest defense lawyer that money could buy”, implying that he only works with rich celebrities.  Oh really? Well, why don’t you ask some of the poor & underprivileged clients who have benefited from his 25 years of pro bono work, such as Terry Bonner  ( ) or Wesley Quik ( )? What about the thousands of poor blacks that he has helped through his free legal clinics in South Central Los Angeles? ( )

Another example of Mesereau’s commitment to community service (and to MJ’s innocence) can be found in this article, where he states how he cancelled his membership and free legal clinic at one church and reinstated it at another church when the first church refused to allow their child members to visit Neverland before the trial started.

If you want to hear Mesereau wax poetic about his pro bono work (as well as the corruption of the legal system by crooked, overzealous prosecutors), you can listen to the ENTIRE 2005 Harvard Law Seminar by opening the following link and downloading it using RealPlayer:

@ 9:06. Taraborrelli suggested that Sneddon could have won due to “strong evidence”, but the strong evidence was overshadowed by weak evidence.   For him to claim that Sneddon “could have won” (thus implying that MJ “could have been guilty”) is inexcusable.  He should have been more specific (such as naming Sneddon’s “strong evidence”), instead of being so vague. However, although Taraborrelli didn’t use the best choice of words in that interview, he has been a staunch supporter of MJ’s innocence for many years, even if the fans don’t always agree with his other comments. If Taraborrelli had said the following, it would have made him sound less ambiguous as to whether or not he felt MJ was truly guilty in that particular interview.

“Sneddon literally threw everything he had at MJ, including the kitchen sink, and if some of the jurors (like Ray Hultman or Eleanor Cook) had let their prejudices override their judgement, then MJ would have been convicted.”

Part 5:

@ 2:52 Bob Jones complains about not getting any severance upon his termination, and suing for his vacation pay, which influenced him to write his tell all book “The Man Behind the Mask”. Let’s look at Bob Jones’ background:

Bob Jones was one of many disgruntled ex-employees called by Sneddon to testify against MJ in 2005, and his testimony was absolutely pathetic, along with everyone else who testified against MJ.  He was fired because he first thought of writing his book in January 2004 because he was “broke, and needed to make some money” (according to the testimony of Stacey Brown, his co-author), and when MJ found out he was obviously furious! (He and Brown actually began to write it after he was terminated, but the point is that his desire to write it began while he was still employed by MJ. And by the way, as a longtime employee and family friend, he never had to sign a confidentiality agreement.) Jones testified for prosecutors as they presented testimony about Jackson’s alleged pattern of seduction and inappropriate behavior with boys under California Evidence Code §1108.

However, Jones was not the prosecution’s strongest witness, as he initially said he “did not remember” seeing MJ lick a boy’s head during a flight from Paris to Los Angeles in the early 1990s. Jones only conceded that the incident must have happened after prosecutors showed him an e-mail he wrote to a co-writer. Here is a brief excerpt of his cross-examination:

5541 23 Q. Well, in response to the prosecutor’s
24 questions, you said you had reservations about that
25 statement —
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. — correct?
28 And what are your reservations about that

5542 1 statement?
2 A. That I just don’t recall exactly seeing
3 that. I truly don’t.

4 Q. And would you agree when you’re working with
5 a co-writer and a publisher to prepare a book about
6 Michael Jackson, there’s pressure to make things
7 sensational when you can, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And your publisher and others want a book
10 that can sell, correct?
11 A. My co-writer. The publisher wasn’t involved
12 in that particular end of it.
13 Q. Okay. And certainly, having worked with
14 Michael all those years, you’ve seen numerous
15 attempts by numerous people to sensationalize
16 aspects of Michael’s life, right?
17 A. Correct.

For more info on Jones and his testimony, please read the articles below:

And the final nail in Jones’ coffin that will utterly destroy his credibility is the fact that he wrote the forward for Lisa D. Campbell’s 1994 book “The King Of Pop’s Darkest Hour”, which completely exonerated him!  Here’s his forward, from page 9:’s+darkest+hour&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=KT-GTKLxGIK8lQeJvOyWDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Michael Jackson first became aware of Lisa Campbell’s work with the publication of Michael Jackson: The King of Pop, in 1993, when he received a copy of the book at my office. He is impressed with her work and greatly appreciates the painstaking measures taken for accuracy. We are equally pleased to now have the opportunity to contribute this Foreword for this new volume.

Lisa has presented here a fair overview of the events that took place when Michael became the victim of false and cruel allegations, and the irresponsible persecution he suffered at the hands of the media. We have long been the victims of rumors and lies through the media but nothing could have prepared us for that to which he was recently subjected.

Michael experienced pain and humiliation to a depth he never realized existed. The tremendous distress he suffered during this period had profound effects on him both emotionally and physically. He has now overcome those difficulties with knowledge of his complete innocence and his deep faith in God.
Michael has come through the experience a stronger person due largely to his faith and the incredible amount of support received from his friends and fans throughout the world. The underlying love and support he received from the fans and their refusal to believe the worst truly touched his heart.

His goal is to spread pure and simple love around the world. Children are his greatest source of joy. That is a part of him which will never change.

Michael knows that his fans suffered with him and shared his pain. He is deeply grateful for all of the love he has received.

He loves you all.

Bob Jones,
Vice President
Michael J. Jackson Productions

So when he’s employed with a cushy, high paying job, MJ is innocent.  But as soon as he’s let go, all of a sudden MJ is guilty?  I hope that blood money was worth it, Bob Jones!!

Well, that’s my 2 cents on this worthless documentary! But I’ll top it off with an interesting revelation about World of Wonder Productions, the company that produced this piece of garbage.  Did you guys ever wonder how the hell Peretti was able to get an interview with Victor Guiterrez? I sure did! Let’s look at a comment by our co-admin Lynette regarding the connection between Peretti, Gutierrez, and World of Wonder Productions:

“Oh yeah I did a little research myself and lo and behold it was produced by World Of Wonder Productions. The same company that Victor Gutierrez wanted to make a movie special about his book MJWML. World of wonder Productions is a subsidiary of The Guardian UK. No surprises there. I found out a lot about the underworld of the tabloid press by reading the book Tabloid Baby by Burt Kearns. If you want to refute them you have to know how they work. I know I said this before but in California in 1993 a freelance journalist was a papparazzi plain and simple. You know don’t you that they got a lot of their information from Norma Salinas, the Chandler’s maid. She was also an immigrant from El Salvador. Sounds like someone else we know doesn’t it? Like Blanca Francia. I think the connection between these people is uncanny and too coincidental to be a coincidence don’t you?”

Boy! Birds of a feather really do stick together, don’t they!  For that company to even consider filming a movie about Gutierrez’s book “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” truly shows what low standards they have.  I’m sure that they pressured Peretti to make his documentary as biased against MJ as possible, or else they wouldn’t finance and air it.  How else do you explain Mesereau only getting about 2 minutes worth of airtime? Or Peretti not giving you the complete background of Gutierrez or Dimond? How much did they pay Taraborrelli to contradict himself and say that Sneddon “could have won” his case? Maybe Peretti really wanted to do a decent documentary but caved in to the pressure to sensationalize it.

Well, for those of you who are interested in seeing more of Peretti’s work (which I’m sure most of you aren’t!), here is his fairly decent documentary about MJ’s last days called “Michael Jackson’s Last Days:  What Really Happened?”

Part 1

Part 2

part 3

Part  4

Part 5

The rebuttals  I made against this documentary should be used as examples of why MJ fans need to know all of the facts of the allegations backwards and forwards so that we can challenge these sleazy journalists who try to disguise tabloid trash as objective journalism, whether it’s an individual like Jacques Peretti, or a corporation like NBC!!

9-26-2010 UPDATE!!!

I have found a positive documentary about MJ that was filmed last year!  It’s called “Moonwalking – The True Story of Michael Jackson”, and it’s amazing!  This isn’t just another “he came, he saw, he conquered” retrospective, but it’s something that attempts to (and succeeds at!) “humanizing” MJ by making viewers feel empathy and compassion for him.

There are a group of writers and psychologists who explain MJ’s desire to be philanthropic, his dedication to improving the lives of underprivileged children, his mental scarring due to the abuse he suffered at the hands of his father (e.g. getting plastic surgery to look less like his father), his shyness due to always being in the public spotlight, his forgiving personality (e.g. he forgive both his father & Latoya), and  his respect and admiration for the women in his life (such as his mother, Elizabeth Taylor, and Princess Diana).  They don’t try to condescendingly psychoanalyze every decision he ever made in his life, and there is a respectful tone to their diagnosis of him.  (Unlike so-called psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman, who helped phantom victim Daniel Kapon “remember” that he was abused by MJ, and tried to get MJ’s kids taken away after the baby dangling incident.) I truly wish that more documentaries like this could be made, and I’m going to try to get every MJ blog to post these links, because the fans need to see this!

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4: There is a quote in this clip that jumped out at me, and I want to address it here.  Don’t worry, its not negative! In fact, it’s very positive, but nevertheless it has to be addressed.  At 5:20 the psychologist makes the following quote: “I think the press and the media probably has a lot to answer for. He was tried under a court of law and found not guilty, and so for me that means that he was not guilty.”

That is the WORST possible thing that you can say in defense of MJ!  The courts are NOT perfect, and as we all know, guilty people get acquitted all the time, and innocent people get convicted all the time! If you say this to an MJ hater, then they’ll say (and we’ve ALL heard this a gazillion times already) “Well, OJ Simpson was also acquitted too, and we all know he was guilty!” This is why you have to learn the facts of the allegations so that you can properly refute the lies that MJ haters are certain to use against him (for example “He paid off the Chandlers in 1993!” My recent article on the settlements clearly debunks that! Here is part 1.  Here is part 2.) Thankfully, there are dozens of websites (like this one!), books, and documentaries dedicated to exonerating MJ of those charges!

Part 5:

Part 6:

169 Comments leave one →
  1. Suzy permalink
    September 7, 2010 6:34 pm

    I have never seen this “documentary” and I don’t intend to watch it. Seems like the same old BS with the same old liars.

    The part about “Thriller” made me laugh though. I like it how all these TV psychologists or armchair psychologists make a fool of themselves! LOL.

    I have one better though: it was on a program that was aired on a German channel and such a TV psychologist claimed the video and song “The way you make me feel” is actually about rape! So now you’ve heard it. Michael is now a rapist as well!

    I have to say Taraborelli is a two-faced opportunist! Since MJ’s death he is acting like a friend of Michael and his fans, like someone who always knew he was innocent and someone who saw through Evan Chandler (remember his description of Evan when he died), but in the years before MJ’s death he appeared in such documentaries, making such ambiguous comments implying that MJ was guilty. All the while knowing what he knew about Evan’s character, but not telling it the World until both Michael and Evan were dead….


  2. Susanne permalink
    September 7, 2010 7:38 pm

    Helena, I am especially thankful for this post! You know why?
    This documentary was aired on the German TV channel ARTE directly after Michaels death last year. I was shocked about it. I knew it consisted of lies and I was angry. There also was a lot of protest from MJ fans. I was wondering who made this film. However, at that time I and probably many other fans didn’t have enough information about the producer and the participants in that film. At that time I even didn’t know who Bob Jones was. And unfortunately I hadn’t heard from Charles Thomson back in August last year.
    Thank you that you have put all this together now. It gives me the opportunity to react to this airing. It’s more than a year since they aired it, but I still will let them know what BS they put on their program by providing your link.
    OMG, I am so grateful that I have learned so much during that year from you and some other bloggers. Your work is so much appreciated!


  3. September 7, 2010 9:08 pm

    “Helena, I am especially thankful for this post!”

    Susanne, dear, sorry, but IT ISN’T ME WHO WROTE IT!
    I haven’t read or seen it yet as I am catching up with a lot of things including the mail and will probably save it until tomorrow as it is too late here.

    I am happy that the team is working so well! Thank you guys!!!!!!!!!!


  4. September 8, 2010 1:30 am

    OMG !!! You guys can’t imagine how much I’d like to have read this article just one week ago ! I just made a compliment to Taraborrelli’s site, thanking him for the support he has given to Michael, after his passing. I hate myself now ! Since his book was published in the 90’s, I never read it because I was so tired of reading BS about MJ and being sleepless in anger after reading. So I took the resolution of not reading anything. But after MJ’s death, I was wishing so much to know about his last years and I bought the second version, the one that has ” The Whole Story ” in the title. Although I disagree in some points with him, I let it as being his own opinion. Who wants to slap my face ? But you know what ? On the last part of the book he shows himself so emotional about Michael’ death ! I was really moved … I really believe he was MJ’s fan !


  5. Paulie permalink
    September 8, 2010 1:57 am

    I saw this “documentary” – a piece of garbage from beginning to end.

    Anyone ever notice how animated and juicy mouth Diane Dimond becomes when talking about Michael? She reminds me of an aunt of mine who used to gossip all the time. She really enjoyed it and I used to watch her mesmerized by her animation and the way her mouth moved. (We kinds use to say, telephone, telegraph, tell [our aunt] and my mother would say, my sister would go to hell in drawers soaked in gasoline for juicy gossip – ah, but we love her).

    Anyway, Diane gets very authoritative and states everything she says as fact, although her sources are chambermaids, security guards and limo drivers. Not to disparage those jobs, but they don’t pay much. Offer someone with lousy pay some money to tell a story on the biggest pop star ever and any “journalist” worth their salt should know they are not going to get the truth. But the point is these so-called journalists were NOT looking for truth.

    Also note that Bob Jones will hint at something provocative and then take it back – even in this sleaze fest. It’s obvious that he never saw anything and had no problems with Michael until he got fired without a pension plan.


  6. September 8, 2010 3:09 am

    Great work, David. Peretti’s documentary was a shit heap.

    When covering a subject of this magnitude – allegations of sexual misconduct – it is absolutely vital to give your subject the right to reply. MJ had no right to reply. He was bounc by a court-imposed gag order, forbidden from ever discussing the 1993 case. Peretti knew this walking into the story.

    Peretti abused the fact that he could legally say whatever he liked about Michael Jackson and face no comeback on account of the gag order. Knowing that Jackson was legally forbidden from defending himself, Peretti seemed to be on a mission to tell as many lies as humanly possible in an hour long documentary. They ranged from fairly unimportant lies, such as the robot story in the Nevada desert, which Bain had already emphatically denied, to massive lies like claiming Jordy accurately described MJ’s genitals.

    In this accompanying Guardian article, he pretty much overtly accuses parents of pimping their kids out to MJ for sex in exchange for fame:

    As for Mesereau’s ring, which Peretti seems so alarmed by; Mesereau told me in an email that it was his Harvard graduation ring.


  7. September 8, 2010 3:15 am

    When I refer to a court imposed gag order, I mean the one written into the 1993 settlement. That settlement agreement forbade Michael Jackson from making any public comment whatsoever about the allegations. This gave schmucks like Peretti carte blanche make total hatchet jobs like this documentary without any fear of recourse from Jackson.


  8. September 8, 2010 3:27 am


    I know this was not a point of the post, but it kinda took me by surprise. You reported that Ray Chandler said Evan gave Michael an injection in his backside. Doesn’t that mean Evan knew what Michael Jackson’s behind looked like? Weird.


  9. lcpledwards permalink
    September 8, 2010 4:09 am

    @ Teva
    That’s a good point! If Evan really did inject MJ with Toradol (or anything else), then he would have seen MJ’s backside. But notice how I said “if”, and that’s because it’s hard to tell what’s fact and what’s fiction in “ATG”, especially when we know that Evan was the ghostwriter, and he already had the incredible talent for writing a believable story from with “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” on his resume.

    The reason I said I like to “cross-examine” this book is because I want to use that book to show how many holes and contradictions there are in the Chandler’s story! The general public has been misled into believing that the Chandler’s wanted justice against MJ from the very beginning, but MJ made them an offer they couldn’t refuse when he realized that Jordie’s description matched (according to the media). But this book annihilates that theory because they tell you in black and white that they had NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of pursuing justice in criminal court! I’ll be more specific about this when I post my next article sometime next week.

    The media gave Ray Chandler a free pass when he was promoting the book everywhere before the trial. Nobody asked him the tough questions, and I think it’s because they obviously didn’t read the damn book prior to interviewing him (or perhaps the were forbidden from asking tough questions, which is certainly plausible!) For example, Ray said that Evan had nothing to do with the book……………………..well then, how the hell was Ray able to include all of the conversations between Evan, June Chandler, Larry Feldman, Robert Shapiro, & Dave Schwartz? Nobody asked him that one simple question! (By the way, Judith Regan already confirmed that Evan was the ghostwriter when she discussed on her radio show last summer how Ray tried to get a book deal from her.)

    But you know what Teva? Now that I think about it, I really don’t think he drugged MJ at all, because if he did, he would have looked at MJ’s penis to get an accurate description of what it looked like (unless he didn’t think about doing this at the time when this drugging allegedly happened).

    Now that both MJ and Evan are dead, and Jordie will probably never confess, then I guess we’ll never know what happened in that household………………………..


  10. Suzy permalink
    September 8, 2010 4:22 am


    I have been thinking about it since I have heard that Toradol story, that this definitely would have been a golden opportunity for Evan to check out Michael’s genitals while he was “out”, and I was wondering if he did…. But if he did then how come he couldn’t accurately describe it?

    Can it be that he indeed checked it out, but later made the mistake of only focusing on the fact he had splotches but didn’t discuss the color of those splotches and the issue of circumstition with Jordy?


  11. lcpledwards permalink
    September 8, 2010 4:42 am

    @ Suzy
    I don’t think Evan looked at MJ’s genitals, because if he had then he would have given Jordie an accurate description. Remember, Jordie said that MJ’s genitals were dark with light splotches, when in reality his genitals were light with dark splotches (which Sneddon confirmed in 2005).

    Evan also would have told Jordie that MJ was NOT circumcised. So based on Jordie’s erroneous description, I think it’s safe to assume that Evan didn’t see MJ’s genitals while he was sedated with Toradol (and that’s if he was ever sedated at all! That story could very well be a lie!)


  12. Suzy permalink
    September 8, 2010 5:46 am

    @ David

    My point was that what if he did look at it and told Jordan some details (like he had splotches), but made the mistake of not going in further details? So when the authorities asked unexpected questions, like if he was circumcised, Jordan had to guess, because his father didn’t tell him that. And then (thank God) he guessed it wrongly.

    Of course, it’s just thinking out loud. Like you said the whole sedation story might be 100% fiction.


  13. Eloise permalink
    September 8, 2010 6:36 am

    So Evan Chandler came to the conclusion that Michael was asexual … I wonder how someone can be asexual at the same time, a sexual pervert gay tendencies … LOL! XD

    I do not understand how people can believe this surreal story. It’s crazy.


  14. Susanne permalink
    September 8, 2010 8:17 am

    Sorry, David, that I failed to see that this is your post! It’s great again!


  15. cyn permalink
    September 8, 2010 8:18 am

    I wanted to point out that the 8th video that you posted is NOT from the Jack Peretti film. It is actual from a really great series done by a fan named Lunajo. She’s made over sixty installments and she has some of the rarest video from the trial that I’ve ever seem. She does it all to vindicate Michael and prove his innocence. I just don;t want to see her get her work thrown in with that fraud Peretti.


    Also, Michael Jackson:What Really Happened is the second documentary from this man. He did one prior to MJ’s death that is even worse and portrays MJ as guilty. I can’t tell which film you’ve posted clips from, could it be from both?


  16. lcpledwards permalink
    September 8, 2010 10:02 am

    @ Cyn
    You’re absolutely right! The series “What Did Happen to Michael Jackson?” is currently being produced by LunaJo67, and I will edit the post to make sure that she gets credit for it. I definitely don’t want ANYONE thinking that Peretti is responsible for it!

    Let me reiterate to everyone that you should try to watch a few videos in that series each day until you catch up with it. It’s currently at #66! Raven Woods (the owner of the “All For Love” blog) is currently trying to track her down for an interview in order to thank her and give her videos more notoriety!

    And yes, both of Peretti’s MJ doc’s are posted. The first one, “What Really Happened?” is the one that was produced in 2007 that painted him as guilty, which I just thoroughly refuted. The second one “MJ’s Last Days: What Really Happened?” was filmed shortly after his death.


  17. September 8, 2010 12:29 pm

    David, the post is superb! I haven’t been able to view the tapes yet (for technical reasons) but the text and your arguments are really impressive. Thank you so much for the excellent work you are doing!


  18. Eloise permalink
    September 8, 2010 2:20 pm

    I’m from Spain and this documentary came to my country as a special a few months after his death in biography channel. I thought it was positive because I did not expect trash at that time … This documentary left me angry for many days, how can tell lies so big so strongly? Without words, creepy. So this is the tribute that was done to Michael here in Spain, this garbage documentary and Living. The two most lascivious documentary history.

    David, great work you’ve done, I’m very grateful. No doubt this film needed a good rebuttal.


  19. lynande51 permalink
    September 8, 2010 5:52 pm

    This might be a look at the true J.Rady Taraborrelli. He says he wants to do something else, He’s tired of it and doesn’t want to be known as a Michael Jackson expert. However in the very next second he is promoting his first edition of the Magic and The Madness and went on to to make how many more editions of that very same book? He was too lazy to just get ou tthere and write another one he just added a couple of chapters and that was good enoughfor him. He just contradicts himself throughout this entire article. I wouldn’t take his word for anything and I never did. He knew nothing about MJ and only got his information from the same sources as the other tabloids.

    Date: April 7, 1994 Publication: Albany Times Union (Albany, NY)
    Byline: LORI MOODY – Los Angeles Daily News
    J. Randy Taraborrelli wants off the Jackson family beat.
    He said it’s not easy being a media authority on pop star Michael Jackson and clan, or even writing best-celebrity biographies.
    “I’m so sick of promoting the Jacksons,” said Taraborrelli, 38, in an interview at his home not far from Universal Studios and Warner Bros.
    “I have been on the Michael Jackson sex abuse tour for the last eight months and it’s just draining.”
    But not enough to beg off. Right now Taraborrelli is pitching “Out of the Madness: The Strictly Unauthorized Biography of Janet Jackson” (HarperPaperbacks; $4.99).

    The original draft for the book about Michael Jackson’s youngest sister was penned by Taraborrelli’s friend and agent, Bart Andrews, author of books on television trivia and on the ’50s beloved “I Love Lucy.”
    But Andrews had a stroke in October and was unable to complete the book. Taraborrelli, author of 1991’s “Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness,” provided information from his interviews and sources to finish the book, edited it, and now is handling the publicity.
    So why didn’t he just write the book in the first place?
    “I didn’t want to have to do any interviews about Janet Jackson,” Taraborrelli said. “I didn’t want to write about her. I’ve had it with this. I didn’t want to perpetuate my career as being as a Jackson expert. I wanted to do something else. That’s why it’s so ironic I’m sitting with you right now.”
    Then there is the updated Michael Jackson biography that he hopes to publish in June.
    “That’s my subject and I have a responsibility to that book, but you’re not going to see me writing about LaToya next,” he said.
    The Philadelphia-born Taraborrelli indulge an early taste for celebrities when he started a Diana Ross fan club as a 14-year-old. The association led to his first encounter with the promising Jackson singers at a show in Philadelphia.
    As a teenager, Taraborrelli was a free-lancer for a New York entertainment publication.
    He moved to Los Angeles when he was 19. He became editor-in-chief and publisher of Soul magazine, an entertainment-industry publication, then went on to write books, including biographies of Ross, Jacqueline Onassis and Carol Burnett.
    But Taraborrelli’s association with the Jackson family is what he’s best known for now, particularly in the wake of child molestation allegations that have dogged Michael Jackson since August.
    He said he was prompted to speak out in defense of the pop star because of what he perceived as unbalanced reporting and few public remarks on Jackson’s behalf.
    “That’s why I decided to come forward as a Jackson expert — as somebody who has known him since he was 12, as someone who has interviewed him many times and written about him and has interviewed 500 people, at least, who know him a lot better than I know him — (to) just come out and say this doesn’t seem right,” Taraborrelli said.
    “This seems like there might be something else going on here. I think that we need to stop and take a look at some of the other possibilities.”
    He said he does not know whether the allegations against the singer are true, and that his research over the years has not shown anything to convince him.
    “As a result of the fact that I’ve been on practically every talk show and news show you can imagine, and in print everywhere, trying to keep open the possibility that maybe this man is innocent, we’re finding in my promotion of the Janet book that my own credibility has taken a hit,” he said.
    “There have been a lot of publications who haven’t wanted to talk to me because they think now that I am not objective where the Jacksons are concerned.”
    But he said he has never seen himself as a “Jackson apologist.”
    “I feel very good about the fact when all is said and done, I will be one of the ones who treated him fairly and that’s not been easy,” Taraborrelli said. “I’ve had shouting matches on the Larry King show with (Michael Jackson’s) mother. I’ve had encounters. It’s not like the Jacksons and I are in alignment here. They still hate me.”
    He said he perceives his books as historical documentation, not puff pieces.
    “When I wrote about Michael Jackson, I didn’t just write about his plastic surgery,” Taraborrelli said. “I wrote about the detail and depth he gave to his business dealings… and how Michael got the Beatles catalog and the thought that went into the Michael Jackson business. That’s what I really concentrated on in the book.
    “By the time the book went through the public relations mill, it’s just another sleazy biography.”
    He said criticism and competition from tabloid television programs increasingly reliant on sensationalistic reporting and “trash for cash” has led him to disenchantment with celebrity biography. He has formed a book packaging company called Rose Books, named for his mother, and the book on Janet Jackson is the first published in association with the company.
    The company has plans to handle unauthorized biographies of Tom Cruise and Whitney Houston by other writers.
    “The packaging company is my way out of biography in a sense,” Taraborrelli said. “Celebrity journalism today is such a emotionally draining experience for anybody with a conscience. It’s getting harder and harder to be able to be fair and entertaining.
    “The tabloid shows are making it impossible. They’re raising the stakes to the point you really have to be sensational in order to get attention. It’s not the way that I’ve written my books in the past and I’m not going to start now.”
    Don’t count on a Taraborrelli tome about Roseanne Arnold or Madonna. He started books on both but decided there already was enough material already published on them.
    “I will never take on another subject that I don’t have personal affection for from the start,” Taraborrelli said. “That was the biggest lesson of my career.”
    Now he wants to write about people who have more experiences, have come through more challenges and are more philosophical than his previous subjects.
    He has set his sights on Frank Sinatra.
    “I always end up with the subjects who are at their peak of egocentricity, when they’re at their peak of being out of control,” Taraborrelli said.
    “I end up with Diana Ross, Michael Jackson, Roseanne Arnold, and I want to write about somebody who has been there, done that, gotten through it and can reflect on it as being that time of my life when I went nuts, as opposed to ending my book with that time in their lives when they were nuts.”

    COPYRIGHT 2009 Albany Times Union


  20. September 8, 2010 6:08 pm

    David, it is only now that I’m starting to watch the videos – and even the first episodes show that this is going to be painful. So much time given to that auction as if it was something really meaningful! This guy says MJ was broke feigning some kind of sympathy for him, but why doesn’t he say who harassed and persecuted Michael with all those incessant suits and finally broke his career? People like this Peretti…

    I’ve heard about this film and couldn’t find it in the internet before – it has reappeared only recently due to the effort of some “well-wishers”. I wanted to see it but never knew it would be that painful.


  21. September 8, 2010 7:36 pm

    Guys, I’ve finally seen this “documentary” and must say that this filth surpassed all my expectations. This is not the right moment for me to write anything as I am practically fuming with disgust and indignation at human vileness.

    OF COURSE I have a lot to say about the film (in addition to what David said) but will need some time to put everything together. The only thing I can say at the moment is finishing up that dialogue between Peretti and D.Dimond:

    DD: “I wasn’t obsessed with Michael Jackson. I was pursuing an unfinished business.”
    Peretti: “Now the unfinished business is about to reach its conclusion”

    FAR FROM IT, DD and Peretti.




  22. Suzy permalink
    September 8, 2010 9:04 pm

    @ Lynette

    That’s an interesting article on Taraborelli. I’ve always had the feeling he is trying to be a good guy with both sides, so to say – with the fans, as well as his media buddies. But at the end of the day he chose his media buddies IMO.

    From what he says here, to me it seems the same old story that we hear about the media all the time: you can only get them publish things on MJ if it contains at least some dirt. Funny how Taraborelli says he wasn’t willing to do that – oh yeah, he was! His books are full of tabloid stories! So it’s not like he wasn’t doing what publishers expected from him. But he was half-hearted.

    I think he didn’t believe MJ was guilty but didn’t dare to outright say it in a fear of losing the media buddies’s support. He already was labelled as too pro-MJ and a MJ apologist, although all he did was saying he MIGHT be innocent, but at the same time he also made insinuations that he might be guilty and held back informations, such as his first-hand information on Evan Chandler character that would have put things into a perspective for his readers. To me it seems he was trying to balance between the two sides. But it doesn’t work. At the end of the day, if you look at all the facts and you are honest about them and you can think logically, I think you will have to arrive to the conclusion that MJ was innocent. And if you are a book author – who claims to be MJ’s “friend” on top of that – and you have arrived to that conclusion but you rather choose to hold back information about that and try to further balance between the two sides, just to fit in with the rest of the media, then you are hardly better than the detractors….


  23. cyn permalink
    September 9, 2010 4:25 am

    Thanks. I completely agree, everyone should try and watch LunaJo’s series. She’s done an amazing job compiling evidence of Michael’s innocence. I’ve watche3d all 66 installments and she never fails to add some information that I had never heard before. I would love to see all of her research. I hope AllforLove is able to get an interview, that would be amazing.


  24. cyn permalink
    September 9, 2010 4:40 am

    I’m a little confused, you are talking about Peretti’s 2005 documentary aren’t you? He also made one in 2009, after Michael’s death called Michael Jackson’s Last Days-

    It’s not quite as slanderous as What Really Happened?, but he still try to put that ridiculous “life-long” spin on the story.

    Also, I found this article from 2005 about Peretti and his hatchet job, What Really Happened? It’s an interesting piece of fiction-


  25. cyn permalink
    September 9, 2010 4:47 am

    Please disregard my previous post, I didn’t read Thomson’s post Sorry.


  26. lcpledwards permalink
    September 9, 2010 5:31 am

    @ Cyn
    That’s OK! With so many comments, it’s understandable if you didn’t see Charles’ link.

    The documentary that I just rebutted, “Michael Jackson: What Really Happened” debuted in 2007, and Peretti’s follow up “Michael Jackson’s Last Days: What Really Happened” aired a few months after MJ’s death.


  27. Dialdancer permalink
    September 9, 2010 6:12 am

    I just popped in to catch up on the latest information. I had not meant to comment. Until I saw the name Taraborrelli.

    Anyone who knows me personally or from MJ Forums know I have nothing good to say about Randy. He is not a two-faced opportunist, he just an opportunist. For so long many fans believed his “friends of 10, 20 and 30 years garbage”. Randy is in a sense like Bashir. Request to do a piece on Michael, stabbed him in back because soiling someone’s name and betraying them always pays better and who would know more about that than Randy. He has 10 books on Michael. No other biographer has as many on one subject. He has versions of this book that most US fans no nothing about. They were written for the European audience kind of like that second program Bashir did on Michael, but could not be shown in the USA.

    A great deal of the lingering Fan gossip, misunderstanding and false facts came from his books on Michael.

    Have you ever wondered how it was he was able to write such a moving account of the Body Search? Did it not read as if he were there? Where could he have gotten that information? I suspect the answer is simple, one of his unnamed sources was Diane Dimond. Now that Michael is gone and American readership is on the decline, and the Fans are the buyers Randy is trying to redeem himself in our eyes. The books are kinder to Michael and suddenly he just realized Michael innocence. Randy did not then nor now give a rats butt about Michael, the truth of the allegations or anything else….except Randy. He is not a foul as his friend Ms. Dimond, but that is only because the scope of his readership wasn’t as broad or as far reaching.

    His telling of Michael Jackson, where he sinned and where he did not is too little too late. Non-fans aren’t reading his book as they were in 2003, 2004 and 2006 when telling the truth mattered, while Michael was alive and hurting badly. When he need many to see him as a man with too big of a heart, too easily duped over children and a man who did not always use the best judgment in selecting his allies. To tell such a story would have required facts and not self-serving or malicious gossip.

    Here is a question for you. How many of you believe the majority of the Media types and Journalists actually requested the release of Michael’s FBI File because they wanted to vindicate him, finally tell the truth? They expected at least 2 or 3 juicy stories so they could give him a really big send off and prove to us they aren’t a pack of greedy gutter lickers?

    The DisGraces were sorely disappointed. Where was all the trolling for Gay guys, female hookers and seduction in McDonalds as told by Halperin? Where were all the blood rituals as described by Orth? Where were the dozens of the alleged victims as told by Dimond? The most significant aspect of the file was the same cast of characters with the same old stories kept trying to reach in MJ’s pocket. The Media knew the story was unprintable by their standards. I mean can a raving “P” go 10 years in between and then another 5 without the Agents monitoring him reporting something conclusive? What do we do now? We allow old and slanderous stories by Bashir and collaborative efforts of vermin like Peretti and company to be periodically released so we can save face.

    Why continue to write about Michael Jackson, because of a Justice system which annihilated his civil liberties and made him a target for exploitation. One of the most exploited names in our history.


  28. Suzy permalink
    September 9, 2010 7:39 am

    Very well said, Dialdancer! I agree with everything you have written.

    The most important task of this Vindicate MJ project is, of course, to vindicate him and to show people that he was innocent. But there’s another aspect in it to me as well and that is to expose the media and how they operate, because, as far as I see it, things (such as deception, deliberate lying and misinformation) have long gone out of control in the name of “freedom of speech”. There is something wrong with the fact that journalists can say anything they like, no matter what a big lie that is and then hide behind the “shield law”, “freedom of speech” and other laws and principles like that. And meanwhile they can torture and kill people with their pens.

    And it’s unfair to us, the consumers of the media as well, because we are the decieved ones. It’s like in the movie “Matrix”, only our “virtual reality” is not provided by computers but by the lying media. In the case of Michael they created a whole alternative reality about him – something that has nothing to do with the true reality.


  29. lcpledwards permalink
    September 9, 2010 9:27 am

    @ Dialdancer
    Thanks for your insight into Terrible-elli! In case you haven’t seen it yet, I posted the entire episode of Geraldo Rivera that discussed MJ’s interview with Oprah. Tarraborrelli was on there, and he was pretty 2 faced towards MJ, as usual, although he wasn’t as bad as some of the other guests. You can see the videos in my comment in the link below on Sept. 3rd @ 11:33am


  30. lynande51 permalink
    September 9, 2010 4:10 pm

    @ Dialdancer You and I seem to be kindred spirits. I have so many good articles with facts that contradict everything these people said about 1993. I watched the documentary and the thing that stuck me like it did Helena was DD when she said ” I had unfinished business”. At first I got angry but I forced my self to watch it until I was immune to it. If you watch her very closely that womans face says hatred all over it. Look ar her eyes and the muscles around her lips. She can’t really disguise her anger and hatred if you look closely. The truly disgusting part is she was lead on and continues to this day to be lead on by Victor G.What would make her feel that kind of hate toward a person she had never met? It was not concern for Jordan I can tell you that. I’m going to post a couple of article that show just how concerned she was.
    If you are from the US you might know of a little girl by the name of Polly Klaas that was taken from her bedroom at night and raped and murdered. Do you have any idea why that news didn’t get circulated as it should have been. Because the news was covering the Chandlers BS charges against Michael. These people don’t know their backsides from a hole in the ground.


  31. Dialdancer permalink
    September 9, 2010 10:07 pm

    We do not have to be concerned with whether Peretti is a Fan gone to the dark side. He was never a Fan. He was as much a MJ Fan as Dimond was an objective reporter during her attempt to create the 1995 allegation in Canada. Due to the onset of a cold, Nightquill and a delicate tummy I have not watched the program in its entirety, but I’ve watched enough to have it reconfirm my belief about certain members of the Media.

    I believe Dimond’s feelings about Michael stem from the fact that once the 2003-2005 party was over and she was no longer needed by Sneddon or the Networks she realized her Diva days were over. There were no more huggy/kissy photos with the Sheriff in front of the courthouse, no more bowing to her for scraps of her big exclusives by other Journalist who were jealous of her ratings and access to the DA. She blames Michael for her decline in popularity. Regardless to what the book cover says it did not do as well as expected. She only gets heard these days on national television when (1) it is some HLN defamation of Michael or (2) something similar on “The View”, but only on the day Whoopie is not……. on……lol….lol

    I do not know if Dimond lurks on the MJ Vindication Forums as do her associates, but should she be reading this I have a message for her. You are not #1, but you are #2 on my to-do list. If I ever find that piece of evidence which shows your collusion in bringing about unlawful criminal charges and a trial of anyone that does not have a statue of limitation you will need to relocate to a place without extradition laws. And maybe take an old friend or two with you.


  32. Dialdancer permalink
    September 9, 2010 10:22 pm

    @ Paulie says;

    “Anyway, Diane gets very authoritative and states everything she says as fact”

    Here is one of her more famous of “facts”

    Do you remember her interview on LKL where she talks about the Michael to Gavin love letters”? Well here is a little known and never spoken of interview about those “love letters” which happened on the same day.

    heh…heh I photocopied the entire page, just in case.


  33. September 10, 2010 5:20 pm

    I don’t think it’s fair to attack Taraborrelli for saying Sneddon could have won. He’s not wrong.

    Sneddon’s case was bullshit, but go back to the 1980s and 1990s and look at some of the ludicrous child abuse allegations people were jailed over. Teachers were imprisoned on the word of children who sat in open court and testified that they’d been stabbed by robots, or molested by elephants.

    Dorothy Rabinowitz’s book ‘No Crueller Tyranny’ will blow your socks off. It’s all about people who have been imprisoned for clearly false child abuse allegations – many of them ten times more outlandish than anything alleged of Michael Jackson.

    In the case of Dale Akiki – who was acquitted, but still charged and forced to stand trial – children told police that he’d slaughtered a giraffe in front of them at nursery and forced them to drink animal blood in ritualistic ceremonies. He was *arrested*, *charged* and *tried* on the basis of those allegations, even though they were patently absurd. And there was a very real danger that a reactionary jury might jail him, given some of the other loony allegations that teachers and nursery workers had been jailed over.

    If Sneddon had ended up with a more conservative, reactionary, racist or just plain stupid jury sitting in the courtroom, MJ could have gone to prison. The media had assassinated his character to the point that between 50% and 75% of the US public, when polled, thought MJ was guilty before his trial had even begun. Those were not good odds for MJ to walk into the courtroom with.

    By saying Sneddon could have won, Taraborrelli is not saying MJ might have been guilty. Lots of prosecutors successfully imprison innocent people. Some of them are sent to death row and executed.


  34. September 10, 2010 5:55 pm

    Moreover, Taraborrelli believes in MJ’s innocence and has been on record as believing in MJ’s innocence since around 1995, when he was interviewed about the forthcoming HIStory album for a UK music mag. I can’t remember which one it was, but he said, without mincing his words, that he believed MJ was innocent.

    In his latest update of Magic and the Madness, he quotes me extensively on the FBI files, and my work on the FBI files was 100% pro-MJ and in support of his innocence.

    Having spent time with Randy Taraborrelli, and had a lengthy discussion about the trial in Los Angeles a few months ago, I am in no doubt whatsoever that he believes in MJ’s innocence.

    We need to remember that things weren’t always as clear cut as they are now. Documents have leaked, books have come out, testimony was given at MJ’s 2005 trial, files have been released, transcripts have been published – we are constantly learning new information about those allegations. It’s a lot more apparent right now that MJ was innocent than it was in the middle of the case, or even in the immediate aftermath.


  35. lynande51 permalink
    September 10, 2010 6:57 pm

    I couldn’t agree with you more Charles. As I was researching the LA Times archives for articles about the 1993 case I was astounded by the shear number of molestation cases that were being reported at the time. It seems to have been the trendy allegation of the early 90’s. there are many articles that talk about the fallout of these allegationsand their effect on many professions from teachers to doctors and nurses to police. They were even having to investigate some of their own. I don’t blame the police at all for taking Michael’s case very seriously,they knew it was death sentence even just to be accused of such a thing. They even have/had specialty lawyers that defended those accused of molestation,and professionals that worked with children adopted an unwritten no touch, never alone policy just for self protection.That was what the world and society had come to. I even ran across a human interest piece on how men alone with children even their own were under very close scrutiny.So much so that when a father had his car break down andand didn’t have a stroller for his daughter while he walked for help he was noticed and the police were called. It was a mess and I don’t think Michael was aware of what society was like or that there were people out there willing to say this kind of thing just for the sake of 15 minutes of fame or 20 million dollars, you pick the poison in this case.
    Michael was shrewd about music, audiences and business but he was lamb lead to the slaughter when it came to human behavior. He created Neverland and because he thought people would understand that was the way society should be,that they would get it,well they didn’t, and his message was lost in his inability to express it to the average persons understanding.
    The 2005 juror Ray Hultman after the trial, when he was going to write a book, said that he thought there was something there because he couldn’t understand an adult male that could sleep with a young boy for 365 days and not have something happen, said it all. I stopped and thought about it and then asked “why is that Ray couldn’t you?”A perfect example of the thoughts that era in time had brought us to.
    Michael didn’t know or understand this thinking, not because he was so childlike himself but because he grew up a poor black boy in a 2 bedroom house in Gary Indiana with 2 parents and 8 siblings during the dawn of the civil rights movement. I wonder why people always forget that.


  36. September 10, 2010 7:48 pm

    “We need to remember that things weren’t always as clear cut as they are now. Documents have leaked, books have come out, testimony was given at MJ’s 2005 trial, files have been released, transcripts have been published – we are constantly learning new information about those allegations. It’s a lot more apparent right now that MJ was innocent than it was in the middle of the case, or even in the immediate aftermath”.

    Charles, I fully agree with you too. New information together with the desire to finally learn the truth about the man, multiplied by the sense of guilt each of us is feeling to this or that degree, is what is making ALL of us wake up from the daze we were in. And Taraborrelli is no exception.

    I would be happy if he joined you in your fight for Michael’s good name – the two of you will be able to do much more than you are doing now, though your lone effort is absolutely fantastic. The posts in your blog and those articles in the Huffington post literally helped us survive in the most difficult times after Michael’s death and even revived some hope in humanity as a whole. Each new post somehow made you feel that all is not lost yet.

    By the way I have never told you that I am thrilled to see you in our blog and very much welcome you here. Please stay with us.


  37. ares permalink
    September 10, 2010 7:53 pm

    Although i highly respect Charles Thomson’s opinion , in regards with Taramborelli i must say that the man is pathetic.Ηe always adjust his opinion about MJ depending on whether a show or a documentary is pro or agains him.And he always lives innuendos.


  38. September 11, 2010 1:18 am

    “I do not know if Dimond lurks on the MJ Vindication Forums as do her associates, but should she be reading this I have a message for her. You are not #1, but you are #2 on my to-do list. If I ever find that piece of evidence which shows your collusion in bringing about unlawful criminal charges and a trial of anyone that does not have a statue of limitation you will need to relocate to a place without extradition laws. And maybe take an old friend or two with you.”

    LMAO out loud twice. Here is the thing about Diane, she has built a lucrative career on Michael Jackson. She trots out whenever there is a Michael Jackson scandal, then no one hears from her until there is another one. Unfortunately for us she will be front and centre parading in January for the Murray trial, I even believe she is negotiating for a show based on what has happened in the past. Unfortunately for Ms Dimond the only time people are interested in what she has to say is when she is talking about Michael Jackson, and after the Murray trial: that’s it.

    One of the things that disgust me about Ms Dimond is, she was resposible for the media’s onslaught on Michael’s children. Dimond proudly takes credit for opening the conversation on the children’s paternity. To qoute:

    “Those of us who’ve covered the Michael Jackson beat have long known that Michael Jackson’s children are NOT biologically related to him. I’ve been saying that on national television since the death of the King of Pop. I think the kids deserve to know their true lineage.

    A few of us actually knew the identity of the sperm donor who entered into a three way agreement with Jackson and Debbie Rowe to create the two oldest Jackson children. On Entertainment Tonight and the Insider I challenged the sperm donor to come forward and help out the children since biological Mom Debby Rowe seems disinterested in them. (Jun. 30 2009 – 1:23 pm)

    Here Dimond unequivocally stated that she challenged the sperm donor to come forward and help out the children. This was written 5 DAYS after their fathers death. SHAMEFUL. We all know what happened next the media and certain individuals heeded he cry for help.


  39. lcpledwards permalink
    September 11, 2010 1:34 am

    @ Charles
    Thanks for your comments, and thanks for sending me the friend request on facebook! I know you’re now good friends with Taraborrelli, and I apologize if you think I was too harsh on him. I know that NOW he supports MJ 100%, and I’ve seen it in all of his interviews. I was even going to read his book last summer when I first started doing research. But I noticed that he is definitely a polarizing figure in the fan community. So many have trashed him for some of his statements about MJ while he was alive, and for the contents of his book. Many of the complaints (especially about the book) seemed legitimate, so I just put it on the backburner, although I’ll probably read it eventually.

    I was just floored when I heard him say that “Sneddon could have won” because he said that some of his evidence against MJ “was really strong” but was overshadowed by the “weak evidence”. My question is this: WHAT STRONG EVIDENCE DID SNEDDON HAVE? He certainly didn’t give us any examples! I know what you mean 100% about innocent people getting convicted from utterly baseless molestation accusations, and I think if Taraborrelli had included that as one of his reasons for MJ possibly getting convicted then it would have been more logical.

    But to me, and I’m sure most people who have seen that clip, it just seemed when he said Sneddon had “strong evidence” that he was implying that there was a hint of truth to the accusations. I think what he should have said is this:

    “Sneddon literally threw everything he had at MJ, including the kitchen sink, and if some of the jurors (like Ray Hultman or Eleanor Cook) had let their prejudices override their judgement, then MJ would have been convicted.”

    Just to show that I don’t have any hard feelings towards Taraborrelli, I’m going to include this comment in the article to let readers know what he probably meant to say. I understand how sometimes when you give lengthy interviews you don’t always clearly explain what you mean, and the interviewer can go back and edit it in order to take your words out of context.

    By the way, if you haven’t done so already, I think you should subscribe to this blog so that you get an email alert whenever a new post is uploaded, and you also subscribe to this or any other individual post so each new comment is emailed to you as well. Thanks!


  40. lynande51 permalink
    September 11, 2010 1:35 am

    Yes Teva I couldn’t agree more. I was unfortunate enough to be watcing her on CBS this morning on July 7th 2009 when she proudly admitted that she “broke” the story about the paternity. She should have been run out of that studio that day and never allowed back on television again. I have always wondered ahbout her possible involvement with the 2005 case. It seems odd to me that she now has a radio talk show with fellow Arvizo fan Louise Palanker,another one of those coincicences that tend to bother me. I wonder if they knew each other before the Arvizo’s met Michael?


  41. lcpledwards permalink
    September 11, 2010 2:19 am

    @ Teva
    If you think that Dimond pleading for the sperm donor to step forward 5 days after MJ’s death was insensitive, look at what she says in this clip only 3 days after he died! When speaking on the increased royalties the estate is earning as a result of MJ’s music getting so much airplay after his death, she made the snide comment that “MJ isn’t here to spend it”!! Absolutely amazing! (In a bad way!)

    Have you no shame, Diane Dimond?


  42. lcpledwards permalink
    September 11, 2010 5:07 am

    @ Lynette
    You’re right, the relationship between Dimond and Palanker is very suspicious! I’m sure they became the best of friends during the trial, as Palanker proudly defended the Arvizos and continued to believe them even after the verdict. Here is a photo of them gleefully posing with the book “Be Careful Who You Love”:

    Larry Nimmer recently conducted a 2 hour radio interview, and he discussed how he recently met up with Palanker, and she is so manically biased towards the Arvizos that she STILL believes, to this day, that they were telling the truth! It’s obvious that this woman is completely oblivious to the facts! In fact, I found a blog she wrote a few years ago, and she condemns MJ as being guilty without bothering to explain how he did it or how he got away with it (as usual!) The Arvizo’s word alone is all the proof she needs! Here is a quote from her “In Defense of the Kids” post:

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

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

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

    Well, when I post my next article, you guys are gonna drop your jaws when you see the dirt I found on Janet! There is someone much close to her to CONFIRMED that she really is the conniving grifter that Mesereau portrayed her as: her ex-husband!

    Here is a podcast with Ron Zonen, Dimond, & Palanker from July 2007! Here is a breakdown of the interview:

    @ 1:40 when Dimond asked Zonen about the difference between a mediator and a prosecutor, and he makes an ironic comment that crime victims (SUCH AS MOLESTATION!!) don’t want to “mediate” anything with their perpetrators; instead they want that person literally executed! When I heard this, I immediately thought of Evan Chandler, of course! Instead of seeking justice against MJ, he wanted to negotiate film deal?!!!

    Fast-forward to @ 32:00 They joke about “banishing MJ” (in reference to rehabbing MJ for his crimes), and then Dimond goes on to spread more rumors about him having liver failure due to drugs and alcohol, and wanting to be a “greeter” and have fans pay to meet him and chit chat. Zonen went on to say that he doesn’t believe that MJ can still sing. They then go on to whine about getting his kids taken away from him, and insinuating that MJ is a bad father because he has the audacity to homeschool his kids. According to Zonen, MJ fans are “idiots” and “morons”. The highlight of this segment, and probably the entire show, was @ 42:00 where Zonen says that MJ is STILL GUILTY, and why is Jesse Jackson and Mesereau SUPPORTING MJ?!! Palanker said that Mesereau LIED in his opening statements about her and the Arvizos! This segment is a prelude of what we can expect from Zonen next week at the Los Angeles Law Seminar! (Which will be sold on DVD, in case you guys didn’t know!)

    @ 57:00 They bring up one of MJ’s lawyers Howard Weitzman, who initially represented him in 1993, and sued Dimond and V. Guitterez over that videotape, and Dimond mocked him for it by saying that he was trying to “silence her”.

    @ 73:00 Zonen is asked about if he has ever tried a case that he didn’t believe in (i.e. did he think the person was truly guilty). Zonen told a story about how he wrongfully convicted someone, and then filed a motion to have him declared factually innocent. I wonder if he’ll ever do the same thing with MJ? Probably not! 😦

    @ 83:00 Zonen has the audacity to criticize Mike Nifong, the prosecutor of the Duke Lacrosse players, for his malicious prosecution. Ironically, he says that Nifong was heavily influenced by the weight of people descending on him to control the direction of the investigation. (i.e. people like Rev.’s Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who wanted to prosecute because they initially believed the accuser.) Of course, this same thing happened with Sneddon, with people like Dimond and Gloria Allred pressuring him to investigate MJ after the Bashir doc. aired. He also said that Nifong should have used better judgement when evaluating the credibility of the accuser, which he admitted was NONE! Coming from Zonen and Dimond, this is pretty disgusting because they obviously practice a “do as I say, not as I do” mentality! This is literally stand up comedy! Zonen describes how the Duke players had legitimate alibis, but yet MJ had one too, so he and Sneddon rearranged the dates of the molestation!

    Here is their podcast just after MJ’s death. Listen to Palanker say that Gavin is “just awesome”, even to this day! It was the first 15 or so minutes of the show, and from what I heard they focused on all of the negative aspects of MJ’s life in a very sarcastic and insensitive way!
    [audio src="" /]


  43. lynande51 permalink
    September 11, 2010 9:18 am

    Of course she has to say she believes him,I think she may have had a part in the creation of the story.


  44. Jan permalink
    September 11, 2010 5:20 pm

    this site is brilliant, thankyou! Have you seen this you tube:


  45. cyn permalink
    September 12, 2010 4:35 am

    We can all sleep more soundly knowing that Ms. Dimond has is spreading the truth about media lies. Of course i;m being sarcastic, because the audacity of this woman makes me sick. She has actually written a book called-
    “The White House Gate Crashers,” Michaele and Tareq Salahi
    In which she warns that “the media lies”.

    This link was posted on Lisa Blooms Facebook page-—b_b_706784.html

    It’s a Huffington Post article about the book. Interesting to note that Bloom is representing the Salahi’s. the ambulance chaser doesn’t fall from from the tree. she’s just like her attention seeking mother, Gloria Allred, the witch that tried to have Michael’s children taken away from him after the Bashir documentary aired.


  46. Dialdancer permalink
    September 12, 2010 4:54 am

    If I remember correctly one of Michael’s doctors said he was very uncomfortable around needles, there were also concerns over his autoimmune condition. I cannot see him allowing anyone other than his personal physician to give him a booster. I will look to see if I can locate that article.


  47. Despina permalink
    September 13, 2010 1:15 am

    Wow!I can’t seem to stop feeling amazed by the amount of work, time and effort you put together for seeking and speaking the truth.
    When you deal with a subject, you exhaust the subject, and besides declaring your personal viewing of the facts (which is always useful), you provide us with the sources so as to check out ourselves, this is excellent approaching.
    Anyway, although I also respect Charles Thompson and was glad to have seen him here, I have to totally agree with ares about her/his(sorry ares) comments on Taraborrelli. I keep on coming across his name as his official biographer and wonder what this is supposed to mean.
    In my opinion, he is even more dangerous than Bashirs and Dimonds, ’cause those guys are ridiculously transparent. You don’t read them to find out infos, you read them to dope yourself if you’re already an MJ hater. But Taraborrelli, well he seems to be a whole different deal. Ares is absolutely right when talking about his constant habit of leaving innuendos. To me, he is just so arrogant he thinks he can manoeuvre from one point of view to another according to his “target group” at the time. And I think he totally adores the spotlight of being an MJ expert.
    As for whether he believes in Michael’s innocence or not…who cares? He never did any serious research on the matter, he’s more known for his twisted interest in Michael’s personal life.I think he’s after the money and the spotlight, I’ve seen him talking about MJ, never sensed sincerity on his behalf. To me, he is a fake. Don’t like him, don’t trust him.
    I’m sorry I hadn’t got the time to check all of your important work until now, so just ignore my request if you already did, but I would really like for you to get into his role so far. What you think, what you know. I think it would help a lot, and help me make the decision to finally read Taraborreli’s books. I’ve been avoiding it for some time ’cause I have this feeling I’ll get upset and so far I haven’t read a formal renunciation of him as his official biographer by Michael’s side.


  48. elizabeth- cawobeth permalink
    September 13, 2010 4:48 am

    get this one…the audacity of Diane Deamon…
    I didn’t eve read it due to the title. What a bad joke.

    The Media Lies to You — Beware! “Modern Day Jouranalist”—b_b_706784.html


  49. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2010 6:21 am

    Look what I found

    “Now 15, the boy lives with his stepmother. He is not in therapy. He continues to have a relationship with his father, who was accused by Jackson’s side of extortion but whom authorities declined to prosecute, saying there was not enough evidence—another fact not mentioned by Diane Sawyer.”


    It was written in September 1995. It’s funny because in the 2nd lawsuit they used the Orth’s article but not the part where she said he was not in therapy. From the 2nd lawsuit

    ‘The boy lives with his stepmother… He continues to have a relationship with his father, who
    was accused by Jackson’s side of extortion but whom authorities declined to
    prosecute, saying there wasn’t enough evidence – another fact not mentioned by
    Diane Saywer[sic]. . .”.


    Just my personal opinion. I think Evan needed his son money which was in a trust and that’s why Jordan got a legal emancipation.

    Look at that article

    “.A. sources say most of the father’s $1 million portion of the settlement has gone to lawyers’ fees and the like. Plus, the landlord of his dental offices has asked him to vacate the premises. The reason? Other tenants are threatening to leave because of the constant police presence necessitated by threats and harassment from Jackson fans.

    On top of all that, the dentist, once tooth doctor to the stars has seen his high-profile Beverly Hills practice virtually dry up. The case has made him a pariah to many of his former patients.”


  50. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2010 6:31 am

    As for Dimond, she is obsessed, look at the title of her new book.

    “Cirque du Salahi — Be Careful Who You Trust”


  51. Suzy permalink
    September 13, 2010 11:58 am

    Just my personal opinion. I think Evan needed his son money which was in a trust and that’s why Jordan got a legal emancipation.

    I agree. Studying Jordan and his behaviour made me realize he is like his father. He was not an innocent victim of his parents’s greed, he was an active participant, he knowingly and willingly lied. And he is greedy on his own right – with parents like this why wouldn’t he be? I realized this when I read about how he joined his father’s ridiculous 60 million dollar lawsuit as soon as he turned 18 and he could join!

    That’s why I don’t believe in the Sodium Amytal story. He was in it 100% knowingly and willingly!


  52. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2010 12:57 pm

    We don’t know that. Jordan had a very trouble life anyway. It’s possible he was under the influence of his father and if the sodium amytal story is true it means he probably doesn’t know what really happened or is convinced he was molested.


  53. Suzy permalink
    September 13, 2010 1:10 pm

    If what Mesereau said is true and he really had witnesses to whom Jordan told he was never molested, that’s another argument against the Sodium Amytal theory. Let’s not forget the story of sedation came from the Chandlers in the first place! And it’s another element in their version that is very suspicious to me.


  54. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2010 2:01 pm

    No because there is possibility that he said that to stop the questions but that doesn’t mean that he was sure about it.


  55. Suzy permalink
    September 13, 2010 3:16 pm

    Well, that’s your opinion. Mine is that everything I have seen so far, his behaviour, his interview with the police etc. points to that he was willingly lying.


  56. lcpledwards permalink
    September 13, 2010 3:59 pm

    Hey guys, if you ever wonder why I used those excerpts from “All That Glitters”, here’s why! I found an article from another MJ hater who rolled off the same New York Post assembly line as Andrea Peyser (who wrote the “Freak of the Week” article). Her name is Lisa Stasi, and she wrote this trashy article after MJ’s death last summer. While not as bad as Peyser’s article, it’s nonetheless offensive because it’s insensitive and poorly researched, which is what you would expect from a hater like her. She claims she knew someone who was Evan Chandler’s cousin, and by talking to that person she knew MJ was guilty.

    Let’s read her description of how the scandal went public:

    I say all this not just as some casual bystander to the Michael Jackson freak show — though I was a Jacko freak back in 1993, when I was as in awe of him as the rest of the world. But then one day, a friend came to see me at my office at another newspaper and everything changed.

    My cousin’s boy’s been hijacked by Michael Jackson,” he said. He pulled out two photos of the boy, Jordie Chandler, with Jackson. They were dressed alike — in fedoras, little black suits, each wearing one freaking glove. They were on a roller-coaster — in Europe.

    Jordie’s mother had remarried, and his stepfather had introduced her to Jackson. Within weeks, the sleepovers among Jackson and her gorgeous 13-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter began. The boy broke down and told his father that he’d been molested at Jackson’s playground, Neverland Ranch, and in Europe.

    The dad, a dentist-to-the-stars and screenwriter, contacted authorities, and shortly thereafter was jumped and beaten bloody in a garage. His home was broken into, and thugs menaced patients in his waiting room. The authorities told him it might be best if he and his son disappeared for a while. They settled for more than $20 million. The father took the boy underground, and he had plastic surgery and disguised himself for safety. Dental practice destroyed, screenwriting career over, family in tatters.

    So Evan Chandler called the police, huh? And Jordie “broke down” and told Evan he was molested? Yeah, right! I’ve already posted the excerpt from the book that describes how the police were notified, and how Jordie’s claims were literally “extracted” from him (pun intended!), so I don’t need to put it here as well. But this is absolutely typical of how MJ haters deliberately manipulate the facts to justify their own negative pre-conceived prejudices. Stasi wants you to believe that Evan Chandler was a concerned father who truly wanted justice, in order to garner sympathy for him. Well, at least she also confirmed that Evan really did undergo extensive plastic surgery to make himself unrecognizable!

    I guess that blood money wasn’t worth it after all, huh Evan?;jsessionid=F8FF757FC7891372E1D440243893AB85


  57. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2010 6:00 pm


    If the sodium amytal story is not true, I don’t understand why Mesereau subpoaned Mark Torbiner in 2005.

    “Jackson’s dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein, is included, as well as Alan Metzger and Mark Torbiner, two physicians whose histories with Jackson are — shall we say — complicated.”



  58. ares permalink
    September 13, 2010 6:19 pm

    Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the majority of the MJ’s detractors are women? And those are the one who use very cruel and inhumane expressions when describing Michael.


  59. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2010 6:45 pm


    If the story of the sodium amytal is not true why Mesereau subpoaned Torbiner in 2005.

    “Jackson’s dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein, is included, as well as Alan Metzger and Mark Torbiner, two physicians whose histories with Jackson are — shall we say — complicated.”



  60. September 13, 2010 8:22 pm

    @ Shelly

    If the story of the sodium amytal is not true why Mesereau subpoaned Torbiner in 2005.

    The sodium amytal story is a complicated issue. When sodium amytal is used on a witness then their testimony is not admissible in a criminal trial because sodium amytal creates false memories in its patients. But their testimony would still be admissible in a civil trial.

    The Chandlers wanted to avoid the criminal trial that’s why they made up the sodium amytal story. Mark Torbiner probably was paid by Evan to back up Jordan’s story. And I doubt he would have changed his story if he had to testify in the trial.

    Sodium amytal allegedly being used right before Jordan told Evan of the allegations completely destroys his credibility. Especially, since he always denied it before.

    The criminal investigation only went as far as it did because the LAPD and Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department were out to get MJ. They ignored this along with the Chandler’s extortion scheme.


  61. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2010 8:38 pm

    Maybe but you can’t force someone to testify in a criminal trial so there was no need to fabricate that story. If Torbiner was paid by Evan it was in 1994 not in 2005 and as far as I know he never made a deposition in 1994 so he had no reason to lie to Mesereau’s PI in 2005. There was no reason to subpoan him if that story had no value. Unless Mesereau subpoaned him because, according to Ray Chandler, he drugged Michael at Evan’s house.


  62. September 13, 2010 9:44 pm

    [I]Maybe but you can’t force someone to testify in a criminal trial so there was no need to fabricate that story. If Torbiner was paid by Evan it was in 1994 not in 2005 and as far as I know he never made a deposition in 1994 so he had no reason to lie to Mesereau’s PI in 2005. There was no reason to subpoan him if that story had no value. Unless Mesereau subpoaned him because, according to Ray Chandler, he drugged Michael at Evan’s house.[/I]

    They couldn’t have forced Jordan to testify, but they could have forced Evan, June, Dave and whoever else they wanted to testify.

    The criminal case still could have gone forward even if Jordan didn’t testify. A victim doesn’t need to testify in a criminal trial in California. And if there was a criminal trial, then MJ definitely wouldn’t have settled with the Chandlers. So, that’s why they wanted to avoid the criminal trial.

    And I never said Evan paid Mark in 2005. If he paid him, he paid him in 1993 when the allegations first surface. Remember all of the witnesses that testified about the 1993 allegations lied, so why do you think Mark Torbiner wouldn’t have lied, too?

    The sodium amytal story still has value even if it is not true. Because either way it undermines Jordan Chandler’s credibility. If he was given sodium amytal then his story is a product of false memories. And if it is a lie, it makes you wonder what else the Chandlers lied about. So, it was a win-win situation for T-Mez if Mark testified.


  63. shelly permalink
    September 13, 2010 10:13 pm

    “The sodium amytal story still has value even if it is not true. Because either way it undermines Jordan Chandler’s credibility. If he was given sodium amytal then his story is a product of false memories. And if it is a lie, it makes you wonder what else the Chandlers lied about. So, it was a win-win situation for T-Mez if Mark testified.”

    Yes but what’s the point of lying for Torbiner for as much as I know he had no reasons to lie about that. And Torbiner is a dangerous witness. He had plenty of problems with the law back in the nineties and if he used it, it was not legal. According to Halperin, you need to write to the DEA and have to say why you are going to use it. If the story is true it means, he broke the law. Why would he said he did if they had no evidence of that?

    It’s just my personal opinion, but I think if you are going to use the sodium amytal story in a case you need evidence, not only testimony. Specially when the doctor was convicted for selling morphine and Demerol to people who didn’t need it, otherwise you look as desesperate as the prosecution with the Neverland 5.

    I mean, if they subpoaned him because of that, it’s probably because they had evidence.


  64. lcpledwards permalink
    September 13, 2010 11:11 pm

    Well, looks like we’re finally making some progress in our war with the media! Montreal-based ID Communications has taken on international distribution rights to “Michael Jackson: The Untold Story of Neverland” documentary, meaning that it will most likely be aired on a regular basis in Canada starting in the near future, although no dates have been given. This is a step in the right direction!

    Let’s look what a representative of ID Communications has to say about the film:

    Dan Shannon of ID Communications said: “This film so far has only been on Amazon USA with some very solid reviews. Originally intended just as a DVD release, we are pleased to offer it to worldwide markets. It is a balanced assesment of Mr Jackson’s troubles with the law, unearthing points of view which have not been heard in mainstream media, beyond a few niche fan sites. In my view, Mr. Jackson’s fans will want to see this film.”

    I couldn’t have said it better myself! And as someone who owns the DVD, I can personally vouch for it! Hopefully they’ll include Nimmer’s test of MJ’s bedroom alarm (which is mysteriously missing from the youtube version of this film 😦 )


  65. September 13, 2010 11:33 pm


    I agree this is a step in the right direction. I have a copy of Larry Nimmer’s DVD and I highly recommend it as well. This documentary needs to be aired on all the major networks. Hopefully, one day it will make it to US networks.


  66. September 14, 2010 1:05 am

    According to Halperin, you need to write to the DEA and have to say why you are going to use it. If the story is true it means, he broke the law. Why would he said he did if they had no evidence of that?

    You are proving my point. It is very hard to get sodium amytal. That is the main reason why I think the story is false. It doesn’t matter whether the story is true or not because either way Mark put himself at a risk to be prosecuted. Why he would do this? I don’t know. But for whatever the reason he did.

    You have to remember that the sodium amytal story comes from the Chandlers. Everything they said was a lie. It doesn’t even make sense. Why would Evan give his son sodium amytal? It is not used in dentistry? And why would he even admit he used sodium amytal? As you said there is and was no evidence that it would have been used. The only way we know of its use is because Evan said so. He had to know that the very nature of the drug would make people question his son’s allegations.


  67. Eloise permalink
    September 14, 2010 1:30 am

    Evan Chandler admitted the use of sodium amytal, because he believed that history will benefit you. Remember that sodium amytal is popularly known as truth serum. But in the end it came lie against him.


  68. Suzy permalink
    September 14, 2010 3:20 am

    @ shelly

    If the story of the sodium amytal is not true why Mesereau subpoaned Torbiner in 2005.

    That he was subpoenad doesn’t mean he used SA. Mesereau certainly wanted to find out as well.

    @ JA

    The sodium amytal story is a complicated issue. When sodium amytal is used on a witness then their testimony is not admissible in a criminal trial because sodium amytal creates false memories in its patients. But their testimony would still be admissible in a civil trial.

    The Chandlers wanted to avoid the criminal trial that’s why they made up the sodium amytal story.

    That’s a good point.

    Fact is, nothing really supports the SA story expect for Fischer’s article and the fact Torbier made a vague comment about that to her. Fischer’s article is great, but IMO in this issue she was wrong and a sucker for a story that originally came from the Chandlers. Fischer took the story from a KCBS TV reporter (was it Henry Levin, who is now running TMZ?). Where did he get that from? From Evan himself maybe? Remember how the Chandlers were leaking stuff to the media back then. Noone else could have been the source of this information than either Evan or Torbiner. And they certainly had an agenda with spreading this story. But then they realized it might get them in trouble and backtracked on it.

    I used to believe in the SA story as well, but when looking at everything that Jordan did, his police interview, his behaviour later in his life etc., no, I don’t think so. It’s a behaviour of a boy who has never been molested and is lying about it and who knows he is lying about it, IMO.


  69. shelly permalink
    September 14, 2010 8:04 am

    “You are proving my point. It is very hard to get sodium amytal. That is the main reason why I think the story is false. It doesn’t matter whether the story is true or not because either way Mark put himself at a risk to be prosecuted. Why he would do this? I don’t know. But for whatever the reason he did.”

    My point was you can’t use in a trial if you don’t have some of evidence and I guess Mesereau’sPI worked on that otherwise they wouldn’t have subpoan Torbiner.

    By the way, no matter what story you believe everyone, from Dimond to MJ, agreed on the fact Jordan was drugged.


  70. Suzy permalink
    September 14, 2010 10:34 am

    It’s a bit expectable that D. Dimond would buy the Chandler’s story about Jordan being drugged. For one, Geraldine Hughes doesn’t buy it. She says Jordan spent time alone in Rothman’s office before the alleged drugging happened and she believes that’s when he was trained what to say. To her the SA story doesn’t make sense. And I can see her point.


  71. Suzy permalink
    September 14, 2010 10:36 am

    My point was you can’t use in a trial if you don’t have some of evidence and I guess Mesereau’sPI worked on that otherwise they wouldn’t have subpoan Torbiner.

    The question is WHY exactly Mesereau subpoenaed him? To prove or to disprove the SA story? Or for something else (eg. to ask him about the alleged drugging of Michael in Evan’s house that is in ATG).


  72. shelly permalink
    September 14, 2010 1:09 pm

    “It’s a bit expectable that D. Dimond would buy the Chandler’s story about Jordan being drugged.”

    Yes but the problem is what is the value of an allegation made under drugs? The story of Jordan being drugged made the whole stuff suspicious and everyone agrees he was under drugs. If you want to convince that this kid is telling the truth, you should say that the drug story is not true. You can say anything including things that are untrue under drugs (I am only speaking about what Dimond and Chandler said in their book).
    If they wanted to be credible, all they had to do is to write that the story is a spin from Jackson PR.

    I don’t know but I don’t think the sodium amytal story and the Hugues story are contradictory. I mean Jordan had to convince the psychiatrists who are trained on false allegations.


  73. lcpledwards permalink
    September 14, 2010 5:10 pm

    hey guys, I see that we’re having a lively debate about sodium amytal! Personally, I used to think it was used, but I believe it’s more plausible that Jordie willingly lied, and Evan Chandler made it up as a smokescreen. If only Mary Fischer would come out of hiding and give some interviews! She’s been unusually quiet the last few years, unlike Aphrodite Jones, who is constantly doing interviews and interacting with the fan base! I posted audio of her last interview from 2003 with Greta Van Sustren, but according to her website she hasn’t given any interviews since. Maybe we should organize fans around the world to bombard her with requests for interviews?

    Here is her interview, in case you didn’t hear it the last time I posted it:
    [audio src="" /]

    Also, maybe we should ask Harvey Levin how the hell did he break the story of sodium amytal being used? Mary Fischer didn’t disclose the reporter who did the news story in May 1994, but when Ray Chandler wrote his “rebuttal”, he said it was TMZ’s Harvey Levin. We don’t know if he actually interviewed Evan Chandler himself, or if his sources told him about it.


  74. shelly permalink
    September 14, 2010 5:23 pm

    How do we know it was Harvey who broke the sodium amytal story, his name is not in the Fischer article but in the Chandler rebutal and Ray never said how he found out. The only thing we know is he was working for the same TV channel as the guy who broke the story but that doesn’t mean it was him.


  75. lcpledwards permalink
    September 14, 2010 5:34 pm

    @ Shelly
    You’re right, maybe it was Harvey, and maybe it wasn’t. He did work for the TV station that Fischer said the reporter worked for, and since Ray Chandler said that Levin was the one who reported it, I just assumed it was true, because why would he lie about the reporter who broke the story? Then again, these are the Chandlers we’re dealing with, so anything is possible!

    This is why I don’t try to stress about whether or not Jordie was drugged or not. For all we know, maybe Evan NEVER pulled Jordie’s tooth, and that was just a part of their master plan. He may have told Jordie to lie to the cops and doctors and say he confessed to the molestation after his tooth was pulled. If they could write a Hollywood script, then they could surely come up with a believable story to extort MJ!

    To me, it doesn’t matter because it’s not up to us to prove that MJ is innocent (although we obviously choose to!), it’s up to the haters to prove that he’s guilty, and in order to do that they have to explain why Jordie’s description was woefully wrong, and why Evan sued MJ before the criminal case was complete, and why then NEVER testified against him in 2005, among other things.


  76. September 14, 2010 8:58 pm

    @ lcpledwards

    “This is why I don’t try to stress about whether or not Jordie was drugged or not. For all we know, maybe Evan NEVER pulled Jordie’s tooth, and that was just a part of their master plan. He may have told Jordie to lie to the cops and doctors and say he confessed to the molestation after his tooth was pulled. If they could write a Hollywood script, then they could surely come up with a believable story to extort MJ! ”

    Exactly! That whole scenario in Evan’s dentist office did not happen. Evan and Jordan were using their writing talents when they came up with that one.

    It doesn’t matter if sodium amytal was actually used or not. The fact that the Chandlers were the one’s who first told of using a drug used to implant false memories in it’s patients completely destroys their credibility.

    @ Shelly

    “Yes but the problem is what is the value of an allegation made under drugs? The story of Jordan being drugged made the whole stuff suspicious and everyone agrees he was under drugs. If you want to convince that this kid is telling the truth, you should say that the drug story is not true. You can say anything including things that are untrue under drugs (I am only speaking about what Dimond and Chandler said in their book).
    If they wanted to be credible, all they had to do is to write that the story is a spin from Jackson PR.”

    It is very important to remember that the Chandlers did not want MJ in prison. All they wanted was money. If MJ would have been arrested in ’93 and put on trial it would have taken years for them to get the money. It is very easy to sue someone in the United States. Evidence is not needed and it doesn’t have to be credible. They wanted a quick and easy settlement and no trial of any kind. That’s why they made up the story of the sodium amytal. They did not care about credibility. All they wanted to do was cause so much havoc in MJ’s life that he would be force to settle.

    Dimond and any other person cannot say the sodium amytal story is “Jackson spin” or”Jackson PR” because it comes from the Chandler’s camp. Jordan admitted he was drug in his Psychiatric interview with Dr. Gardner. Mark Torbiner said he used it on him. And Evan admitted it too.


  77. September 14, 2010 9:09 pm

    @ Shelly

    My point was you can’t use in a trial if you don’t have some of evidence and I guess Mesereau’s PI worked on that otherwise they wouldn’t have subpoena Torbiner.

    The testimony of the person who was allegedly given sodium amytal cannot be used in a trial. But the person who allegedly administered the drug testimony can still be allowed in.


  78. September 14, 2010 10:21 pm

    How can you imply that whether Jordan was drugged or not is not central to the allegations? It is so pivotal because how you garnered a confession from a witness is key in any cross examination, and this is what the Chandlers have said happened. This story was never refuted by Sneddon what was in dispute was whether SA was used on the kid. If Jordan’s confession was obtained under the influence of anesthesia of course this is major. Have you ever since the YouTube clip of the child that had his tooth extracted? Sodium Amytal was not used on him, yet he is certifiable.


  79. lcpledwards permalink
    September 14, 2010 10:51 pm

    @ Teva
    Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that SA wasn’t important, because it is. But what I meant was that it’s not important in terms of determining if MJ is guilty or not. We can argue all day and night about whether or not it was used, but either way we know MJ was innocent when you look at all of the other facts in their totality!

    Mary Fischer thinks it was used (as she confirmed in her interview with Greta Van Susteren), but Geraldine Hughes doesn’t think it was used. Personally, I can’t prove with 100% certainty that it was used, so I just ignore it because I can prove that MJ is innocent even without referring to the SA! In fact, I would rather NOT bring up SA when arguing with people because then I have to explain how it works, and I have to show them that 1994 video from 60 Minutes to prove that it’s not as far-fetched as it may seem. People are naturally very skeptical about this when they first hear about it, but that video and the court case that Fischer referenced in her article show that implanting false is very possible.

    That video can be seen at the bottom of this post:


  80. shelly permalink
    September 14, 2010 11:08 pm

    “The testimony of the person who was allegedly given sodium amytal cannot be used in a trial. But the person who allegedly administered the drug testimony can still be allowed in.”

    My point was it’s better to not use SA in a trial because if you don’t have solid evidence of it’s use you will look desesperate. The DA will say you are so desesperate to prove taht your client is not guilty that you made up a story. It can be very damaging and we are speaking about Torbiner whose credibility is weakened by all the legal problems he had.


  81. September 14, 2010 11:16 pm


    I think we misunderstood each other. I am not talking about SA I am talking about ANY confession obtained after general anesthesia is suspicious.


  82. zeromarcy permalink
    September 14, 2010 11:35 pm

    sodium amytal or not…the truth do not change: They are liars!


  83. September 15, 2010 1:04 am

    Shelly, the sodium amytal story comes from THE CHANDLERS NOT MJ. Jordan Chandler said he was drugged right before he “confessed” the allegations to Evan.

    “Right. And then he demanded me over to his house, because he knew that the circumstances were wrong. And he, like, I was with my mom and Michael, and he demanded me over to his house. So I went to his house, and he said just for a week and then you can go back. And I really started liking it there. And he had to pull my tooth out one time, like, while I was there. And I don’t like pain, so I said could you put me to sleep? And he said sure. So his friend put me to sleep; he’s an anesthesiologist. And um, when I woke up my tooth was out, and I was alright – a little out of it but conscious. And my Dad said – and his friend was gone, it was just him and me – and my dad said, ‘I just want you to let me know, did anything happen between you and Michael?’ And I said ‘Yes,’ and he gave me a big hug and that was it.”

    Evan and Mark both admitted to using sodium amytal on Jordan.

    “In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal—which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson. A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with allegations. Asked for this article about his use of the drug on the boy, Torbiner replied: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.”

    If T-Mez wanted to have Torbiner testify, no one would or could have said that he was desperate and making it up. Torbiner had nothing to do with MJ. He was in cahoots with the Chandlers. So, his credibility problem would have damaged Jordan Chandler’s allegations.

    And we do not know what type of evidence T-Mez had against Torbiner. He might of had an incriminating statement he made to Police back in ’93.

    And I agree with Teva. Any confession obtained after general anesthesia is suspicious. And we can prove that Jordan was giving something right before he told of the allegations. So, either way it’s a win-win situation for Michael.

    I personally think the whole SA story is made-up by the Chandlers to avoid a criminal trial. Evan was planning the allegations for months. He knew exactly what to do. However, if anyone believes it happened that’s find with me because if he was given SA, then that completely destroys his credibility. I just think the whole scene in Evan’s office is bizarre. If Evan truly had suspicious about MJ and Jordan, why would he wait to ask his son this very sensitive question while he was waking up from being drugged? It makes no sense. Also, why would he freely admit that his son was drugged right before he made the allegations against Michael? Especially, considering that SA is used to implant FALSE memories into its patients.

    Everything that the Chandlers alleged was a lie. The only thing that was true was that they knew Michael Jackson.


  84. lcpledwards permalink
    September 15, 2010 8:27 am

    Hey, here’s a reminder to everyone that the Los Angeles Law Seminar is today! In honor of it, here is some more stand up comedy for you guys to listen to!

    I found another interview with Ron Zonen! This is from a few days after the trial, where he tries to paint the picture that MJ’s celebrity got him off. This guy has no morals whatsoever! This is probably a sneak preview of what to expect today!

    Remember to stay cool, calm, an collected, and try not to throw anything at your computer screen while you watch this! LOL!


  85. September 16, 2010 9:16 am

    JA: “I personally think the whole SA story is made-up by the Chandlers to avoid a criminal trial…
    Everything that the Chandlers alleged was a lie. The only thing that was true was that they knew Michael Jackson.”

    Guys, I apologize for not taking part in the blog for so long (had reasons for it). Your lively discussion of the sodium amytal problem is very interesting and JA’s point about the difference in treating such evidence in civil and criminal trials is top important. It does bring a new perspective into the 1993 case.

    JA, is there any link to a legal source which says that evidence obtained under sodium amytal is not admissible in a criminal trial? This could be another proof that the Chandlers didn’t want to take the case to a criminal trial from the very start (and were aiming at money only).

    You remember Ray Chandler always putting the blame on the prosecution saying they were too slow and family couldn’t wait and decided to settle? His numerous excuses like “Jill Garcetti was afraid of prosecuting the celebrity“ or “They never asked the family to testify up to the end of 1993” or “They couldn’t put them under a witness protection program”, etc.?

    I think at this stage of our investigation it would be too early to pass final judgment on what happened and whether sodium amytal was used or not used on Jordan. What we see now is only a general outline of the situation and each of the Chandlers’ motives. If the outline is correct it will be easy to add substance to it later.

    I fully agree with JA that everything the Chandlers said was a lie. And it is by comparing a lie told by one member of the family with a lie from another one that we can hope to reach for the truth. It should be always taken into consideration that each Chandler had his own motives which were sometimes contradictory to the others and these motives were also changing as time went by.

    The outline of the events and motives I have formed for myself at the moment is as follows:

    Evan has great hopes in connection with Michael but eventually becomes jealous of June’s association with Michael and outraged that they excluded him from their company.
    June wants millions, fame and sex (she was already separated from David Schwartz who was 70) and is unwilling to have anything to do with her first husband Evan – she has her own life to take care of.
    Jordan most probably doesn’t want anything from anyone at this stage except friendship with Michael but later grows so desperate with his relatives that decides to make the best of the situation for himself.

    Another round and another change:

    Evan works himself up to a complete frenzy by half-believing his own inventions, speaks of his suspicions to David on the telephone, hoping he will either pass over the information to June and Michael or that they will listen to the tape directly (to me that tape now sounds more like a threat meant for the other side’s ears – “you either listen to me or it will be a massacre for you”).
    June is still undecided what to do.
    Jordan -?

    Another round and another change:

    Evan begins his onslaught against Michael still unsure of what he is doing (remember Geraldine Hughes’ seeing him in Rothman’s office as a complete nervous wreck and Jordan being much more confident than him?). He is definitely unwilling for a criminal investigation to start as this way he will not get any money and all his hopes will be crashed.
    June realizes that her romance hopes in connection with Michael are lost now and it is better to join Evan and handle the case more professionally if she doesn’t want Evan to make a complete mess of it. My opinion is that it is with her cold and clear mind joining the gang that the case has taken a turn towards Larry Feldman and a civil suit. Now that she is cooperation with them she can share probably even some intimate details with them (?)
    Jordan (willingly?) accepts a certain role to play.

    One more round:
    Evan is well on the way to get money, but he needs revenge too – the role of an extortionist does not suit him at all. He and his brother collect every bit of information about MJ and turn it into a thriller story sounding plausible. They make it public through various sources (often anonymously, through internet) to ruin Michael reputation for ever and for no one to ever question the case.
    Jordan’s interests are not taken into consideration at all at this stage, because if the case is regarded as an extortion than it is Michael who was telling the truth – and they cannot afford the public (or prosecution) to think this way. Something has to be sacrificed….
    Simultaneously Ray Chandler is acting like a spokesman for the family reassuring the public that they are really concerned about Michael’s future and well-being. This is a preventive measure for Michael not to sue them for breaking the settlement agreement.
    Both Evan and Ray will rather die than take the case to a criminal court where their whole scheme can be uncovered and all may become in vain.

    Final round in 2005:
    Jordan says “he has played his part” and will sue the prosecution side if they insist on his testifying in court.
    Ray Chandler is scared to death that he will have to prove his lies in court and fights the subpoeana as if it were a death sentence to him (just imagine all this injustice of answering for the whole family!)
    Evan is ill, nervous, estranged from Ray, June, his second wife and children. The only connection he is still keeping with is Jordan who is giving him a humiliating monthly allowance. But even that thread will be broken soon after the 2005 trial when he hits his son with something heavy on his head.
    It is only June Chandler who still has a clear and cold head and who is ready to testify. She is the only one who can still bring different pieces of the whole invention together. Her unashamed boldness to go there and her cold, reserved and sometimes insolent replies during the trial convince me that she could play a much bigger role in this business than we habitually think.

    This is the outline I have for these events in my head at the moment. But with each new fact the picture is still changing, until hopefully we are able to see the whole thing as clearly as if we were direct witnesses to it. Then we won’t need any of Jordan’s “revelations” – we will learn of the truth ourselves.


  86. September 17, 2010 3:15 am

    “JA, is there any link to a legal source which says that evidence obtained under sodium amytal is not admissible in a criminal trial? This could be another proof that the Chandlers didn’t want to take the case to a criminal trial from the very start (and were aiming at money only).”

    I posted the question on yahoo answers, and all of the responses I received were like “Duh! Of course not!”

    I do think it’s obvious that Jordan’s testimony wouldn’t have been allowed in a criminal trial during 1993 or 1994. That’s why the Police were trying hard to manipulate Jason, and other children back then.

    In a civil trial the burden of proof is much lower. So, any type of testimony is allowed. No matter the credibility.

    I was not able to find anything on the internet about sodium amytal and credibility in a criminal or civil trial. But a relative of mine is a lawyer. I will e-mail him tomorrow and ask him if he knows anything about it.

    I did find this really good article that was written last year about Sodium Amytal being used on Jordan Chandler, and why his allegations should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.


  87. September 18, 2010 4:18 am


    I found an article explaining that testimony influenced my SA is unreliable and has been barred in California courts since 1959.

    Repressed-Memory Suit Dismissed
    August 21, 1997| From Associated Press

    Rejecting testimony influenced by a so-called truth serum, a state appeals court has ordered the dismissal of a woman’s repressed-memory suit against her father, who lost his job and his marriage after she accused him of rape.
    Holly Ramona’s proposed testimony against her father, Gary, was inadmissible because it was affected by the drug sodium amytal, the 2nd District Court of Appeal said Tuesday.
    Although Holly Ramona now believes she was molested, she was uncertain before her sodium amytal treatment and her therapist’s assurance that she was incapable of lying while under the drug’s influence, the court said.

    Testimony influenced by sodium amytal is unreliable and has been barred in California courts since 1959, the court said.

    Gary Ramona was awarded $500,000 by a Napa County jury in 1994 in a suit against therapists who he said had planted false memories of child abuse in his daughter.


  88. lcpledwards permalink
    September 18, 2010 6:45 am

    @ Gigi & Helena
    Here is another article that discusses the Ramona case in more detail. This is the case that Mary Fischer referenced in her GQ article.


  89. September 18, 2010 7:54 am

    “I found an article explaining that testimony influenced my SA is unreliable and has been barred in California courts since 1959.”

    JA, this is great. Thank you very much for the find – let us keep in mind the fact that the testimony obtained under sodium amytal is even barred in California courts. No doubt the Chandler’s attorneys Rothman and Larry Feldman knew it and it clearly shows that they were jointly working on a story which would have a maximal effect only if taken to a civil (not criminal) court.

    Just imagine what a cunning scheme they should have devised to simultaneously work in two directions – aim at a civil trial only and avoid a criminal one at all costs. It means they should have been careful not to cooperate too much with the authorities, but not overdo it either as the real reason of extorting money could have become too evident to the police.

    It seems that it is because of this contradiction in the 1993 case that we find it so confusing.


  90. September 18, 2010 8:08 am

    David, thanks for the addition. As you probably guessed I have to leave the blog for a couple of days again. I hope you and Lynette stay and go further – together with our readers who are the best team ever.

    I’ll try to catch up with you when I am back.
    Have a nice weekend, guys!


  91. lcpledwards permalink
    September 22, 2010 11:30 am

    Hey guys

    I have another piece of breaking news! I was looking through the blog of comedienne Louise Palanker, the idiot who testified for the prosecution and still believes MJ was guilty & that Janet Arvizo was a good mother, and I discovered that SHE IS DATING RON ZONEN! This is absolutely disgusting! It really is a small world after all!

    If you skim through her blog, you’ll see that she makes numerous references to “Ronnie”. And the icing on the cake is the photo she has where she, “Ronnie”, Diane Dimond, and Stacy Brown all had lunch together! (Remember, Stacy Brown co-wrote “The Man Behind the Mask” with Bob Jones.) She called it a “Jackson reunion”, showing she feels no contrition or remorse for their actions.

    Here is another photo of Zonen with the apple pie that he baked her. Well, at least Palanker found a man who can cook! Wow, what a gentlemen! LOL!


  92. Suzy permalink
    September 22, 2010 11:32 am

    Isn’t Palanker also doing a radio show or something with Diane Dimond? A small world indeed.


  93. lynande51 permalink
    September 22, 2010 4:30 pm

    I am currently looking for a connection between the2 of them prior to the 2005 case. I was wondering if DD ddn’t work at one of the radio stations owned by Palanker . As a matter of fact I think that is what I will do today, see if Palanker owned one of those radio stations that DD used to work at it LA.


  94. September 22, 2010 4:50 pm

    David, omg! my eyes are buggin’ out my head. Geez…its amazing how all these people are connected You should save both those sites as pdfs, just in case. Before they “mysteriously” come up missing.
    Here’s a site I use:


  95. Suzy permalink
    September 23, 2010 10:18 am

    @ David

    “And the icing on the cake is the photo she has where she, “Ronnie”, Diane Dimond, and Stacy Brown all had lunch together! (Remember, Stacy Brown co-wrote “The Man Behind the Mask” with Bob Jones.)”

    Which one is Stacy Brown?


  96. lcpledwards permalink
    September 23, 2010 12:17 pm

    @ Suzy
    Stacy Brown is the black guy on the right side of the table in this photo:

    Here he is in this video giving his “analysis”. It’s despicable that he sells himself as a “Jackson family friend” because he was once on good terms with Jermaine Jackson. But they had a falling out over a book that they were allegedly going to write together, and because he had dirt on MJ and the family, I’m sure Maureen Orth recruited him to work for MSNBC. Trust me, it’s no coincidence that so many of MJ’s enemies got jobs at MSNBC (such as Bashir, V. Gutierrez, Sheriff Jim Anderson, etc.) Look at the flowchart on the Veritas Project for more info.

    Stacy Brown has a history of writing manuscripts for anti-MJ books. He assisted Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman in their tell-all book that they agreed to write in exchange for blood money, but it was axed when Brown was caught plagiarizing Maureen Orth’s Vanity Fair articles.

    Also, he claims that he & Jermaine Jackson were supposed to write a tell-all book about MJ, but Jermaine changed his mind. When Jermaine publicly denied the book ever existed, Brown claimed that he taped recorded Jermaine talking about the book and saying negative things about MJ, and that he would air those tapes. But Brown never published the book, and the entire matter was dropped. Here are a few links that further describe this fiasco:

    With family friends like Brown, who needs enemies!


  97. Suzy permalink
    September 23, 2010 4:51 pm

    @ David

    Thank you. I knew of the Jermaine story (frankly, I can see Jermaine betraying Michael – he has always been jealous of him -, but then backtracking when he realized what he was about to do to his brother). But I know Brown is a liar and a tabloid writer in the mould of Gutierrez. I just didn’t know his face so far, that’s why I was curious.

    It’s amazing how ALL these people are bound together somehow.


  98. shelly permalink
    September 23, 2010 5:11 pm

    Brown even said he was ready to file a slander suit against Jermaine but never did it. There is also something else, the prosecution knew he was writing a book about MJ. If the book proposal and the tapes were real why those evidence didn’t appear here

    After all, they were more than willing to use Latoya’s quote but they didn’t try to use a tape were Jermaine is saying his brother is a gay child molester?


  99. Suzy permalink
    September 23, 2010 5:25 pm

    Well, to correct myself or make it clearer than I did: I don’t believe Jermaine told Brown that Michael was a gay child molester. I think – like in Bob Jones’s books – there are stories which are exclusively Brown’s inventions and this one is such IMO. I don’t hold a high opinion of Jermaine, as you might have relaized in my previous post, but I don’t think he would sink THAT low.

    However I can imagine there was some sort of collaboration starting between Brown and Jermaine and some of the stories were really told him by Jermaine, such as the story about Spielberg stealing the Neverland logo for the Dreamworks company and so on. (I have heard the same story from Taj Jackson.) But Brown spiced those stories up and added some more sensationalist ones (including those about Michael’s sexuality). This was his method with the Jones book as well.

    Probably Jermaine then realized what Brown was up to and backed out of the project.


  100. shelly permalink
    September 23, 2010 5:49 pm

    Jermaine said he was writing a book with Brown but it was a positive book

    “Laurie Liss, the literary agent who ShowBiz411 said shopped the proposal to several publishing houses, told ABC News the material online is nothing she has ever seen, pitched or represented. Stacy Brown did not respond to’s repeated requests for comment.”

    “UPDATED: A representative for Liss denied her involvement in the book proposal. “Ms. Liss represented Jermaine Jackson at one time related to a very different book concept, but never received a proposal from him concerning the material outlined by Mr. Friedman in the article.”


  101. Suzy permalink
    September 24, 2010 7:33 am

    Look at this! Stacy Brown reviewing Dimond’s book on Amazon:

    “27 of 59 people found the following review helpful:

    Click the image to open in full size. 12 Years In The Making, November 16, 2005
    By Stacy BrownClick the image to open in full size. (New York, NY) – See all my reviews

    This review is from: Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case (Hardcover)
    Diane, first of all the book release party was absolutely fabulous. We all had a ball. One of the many fascinating facts I immediately encountered was you and your producer’s meeting in 1993 with L.A. Department of Child Services workers who pleaded with you to not allow “another Jackson case to be swept under the rug.” Most in the media – and elsewhere- never knew that there were “other” cases at the time of the Chandler investigation. It appeared that Michael Jackson had been investigated at least three other times prior to Chandler in 1993. Even after the Chandler matter was settled, many thought that there was just one other “payoff” and that was to Jason Francia. However, they were sadly mistaken. There were several others and investigators were plenty aware. Michael Jackson, the supremely talented King of Pop, proved to have lived a lie for so many years. The hatred directed toward you is only from those who just can’t stomach the fact that their idol is what he is…. at the very least a person who, with reckless abandon, destroys the lives of children and others. The aptly titled Be Careful Who You Love is filled with anecdotes that some (a small some that is) still believe is Off The Wall; your accounts make for such a Thriller of a read; it exposes Michael as very, very Bad, and Dangerous to children; with its wonderfully versed chapters that highlight the racketeering, conspiracy, cover ups and recklessness, it shows a Jackson History that has spilled so much Blood On The Dance Floor and although in the California justice system he may be Invincible, you really do a great job in tackling the Essential Michael Jackson.”

    Does anybody have Dimond’s book? I’d be curious to know what she wrote about all those other phantom victims. So they claim there were allegations against MJ prior to the Chandlers? How come we have never heard from those from the prosecution’s side? Certainly that would have been an important information for them to show the court. Of course they have never claimed anything like that on court, because they never had prior or other victims.


  102. Suzy permalink
    September 24, 2010 7:43 am

    Not to mention the FBI files which prove once and for all that the claim about “other victims and investigations” and “prior victims and investigations” is a big fat LIE!


  103. lcpledwards permalink
    September 24, 2010 3:44 pm

    @ Suzy
    I have Dimond’s book, and as you would expect, she didn’t specifically mention those other “phantom victims” who were investigated prior to Jordan Chandler. The only other phantom victim she mentions she actually discredits HERSELF! The kid from Germany (who she claimed that nobody from the LAPD or SBPD “remembered” in 2005), Daniel Kapon (who I thoroughly annihilate in Part 2 of my settlements article), and the guy from New Orleans who claimed that MJ abused him in the early 1980s. All 3 of them were destroyed in our phantom victims post from a few months ago.

    Dimond added in those victims prior to 1993 in order to sensationalize the book, and of course she is going to hide behind “unnamed sources”! Remember, all of those anti-MJ books are filled with sensationalized lies, such as Bob Jones saying that he saw MJ licking Jordie’s head on an airplane, but having to retract it on the witness stand!


  104. Suzy permalink
    September 24, 2010 4:38 pm

    @ David

    Thank you. I haven’t read DD’s book, but I knew what Brown wrote was BS. It’s obvious from the fact that even the prosecution never mentioned other victims. And they were so desperate to name victims that they even named people who later would go on the stand and deny being abused. Such was the desperation, so who can believe they wouldn’t use the records of these alleged investigations, if there had been any? Because even if they couldn’t get the “victims” on the stand, they could have and would have used the records of those investigations to establish a pattern. (Eg. they couldn’t get Jordan Chandler on the stand but they still used his case.)

    And then there are the FBI files also. Why is there no trace of other investigations in them? Has somebody asked that of Diane? Or what was her reaction when the FBI files were released?

    Amazingly enough, DD still hasn’t stopped lying about all this! Susan Etok was a doctor of Michael and last year she gave an interview to DD. I don’t why and what made her believe DD changed her mind on Michael (if it’s true she believed that). Here is an e-mail DD sent her:

    “Email from Diane Dimond

    Are you telling people that I now think Michael Jackson was completely innocent of the child molestation charges?

    I keep getting these random e-mails informing me of such.

    Please tell me it isn’t so. Because, Susan, I don’t believe that. It was nice meeting you and I know you love your departed friend but I’ve covered this story since 1993. I’ve sat with damaged children and crying parents too many times, parents too scared to press charges for fear of the media onslaught. I’ve talked with police officers and seen sworn statements they’ve gathered. I sat in the nearly 5 month long trial and watched 20-something young men take the stand and tearfully describe what happened to them at Michael Jackson’s hand. Forget the outcome of the trial – where three jurors later said they were coerced into their acquittal vote and wish they could take it back. It cannot be that ALL these people are lying and Michael is just a victim of his own celebrity.

    Please. Don’t speak for me on this very, very delicate and important issue. As you said – your friend was a drug addict. I’m here to tell you he was an addict for years. He was not a person in charge of his behavior. I know it’s hard to hear but he was also addicted to little boys – and that’s a fact – just as sure as he was addicted to alcohol and drugs.

    I wish you all the best in your endeavors.

    Diane Dimond”

    Full of spins, half-truths and lies, as usual.


  105. zeromarcy permalink
    September 24, 2010 6:47 pm

    suzy thank for the email sent by diane dimond to susan.
    ….It seems that diane dimond SAW very different trial, from expeccially wagener and Mrs Jones….
    Probably she was either in A TOTALY DIFFERENT COURTROOM 🙂


  106. lcpledwards permalink
    September 24, 2010 7:12 pm

    @ Suzy
    I read that interview with Dimond and Etok last year, and it’s CLEARLY OBVIOUS that she was being honest when she said she didn’t follow the media, because if she had she would have known to stay away from Dimond with a 10-foot pole! How could ANYONE be that naive? Etok’s response to Dimond is in the link below, and thought it may appear weak because it doesn’t refute any of the “facts” that Dimond stated in her email, she knew MJ personally, so she has a every right to say that she knows MJ would never harm a child.

    However, we as fans DO NOT have that right because we didn’t know MJ personally, and I think the worst mistake that fans make is when they try to defend MJ by saying “he was so nice and charitable! he gave so much money to needy kids! he was so sweet!” That makes us look like rabid MJ worshippers to the media, and that’s why we need websites and blogs like this one that debunk Dimond and her ilk with THE FACTS OF THE CASES!

    For example, Dimond tried to use those 2 jurors who flip flopped after the trial as a sign of MJ’s guilt, the same way that Nancy Grace did. We already wrote a post refuting those 2 traitors, so I don’t need to refute them here. They claimed that there was a 3rd juror who also wanted to vote guilty, but that juror never publicly stated it, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe them. And if even IF she may have wanted to convict MJ initially, she obviously acquitted him, and BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE we know that MJ was innocent of everything, regardless of what any juror says. That’s why we should NEVER EVER say that MJ was innocent “because the jury said so”, because juries also said the OJ Simpson was innocent, and that the 2 white supremacists who killed Emmitt Till were innocent (google him for more info), and the 4 cops who beat Rodney King were innocent.

    Also, there were NOT “20-something” young men who testified (implying that there were 20+ individuals who testified), there was ONE 20-something (in AGE) named Jason Francia who cried crocodile tears on the witness stand and was thoroughly discredited. And about those “crying parents”, that’s just Dimond sensationalizing her story with facts that cannot be verified or attacked for their accuracy! She may very well have interviewed parents who stayed at Neverland, but that doesn’t mean that they “cried” or were “too scared to come forward with their stories!”

    Here is Etok’s response:

    Here is a photo of Dimond at MJ’s memorial with Entertainment Tonight’s Mary Hart (a friend of MJ who interviewed him multiple times over the years). Dimond had some kind things to say about MJ being an “international superstar”, a “global icon”, etc. Is she really thought MJ was guilty of abusing children, then WHY ON EARTH DID SHE GO TO HIS MEMORIAL! Hart is someone else who knew MJ personally and obviously didn’t follow the media’s coverage, because she wouldn’t have been anywhere near Dimond!


  107. Susan permalink
    September 24, 2010 8:01 pm

    Hi Suzy:

    Here is Diane Dimond’s reaction to the release of Michael’s FBI files. The statement she makes – “I was left to wonder what the agency might have found had they really been motivated to investigate.” Really Diane?

    Now, doesn’t that just give you some insight into how totally delusional this woman really is. The FBI follow him for 10 bloody years, find nothing, and she has the gall to state outright that they had not really investigated him enough for her liking. I truly believe she has mental issues.

    That is why the haters and her type will never believe Michael was innocent. No matter what proof you have, they absolutely refuse to believe it – they have a pathological need for him to be guilty.

    Here is the link, Suzy – and at least the comments are great!!


  108. Suzy permalink
    September 24, 2010 8:07 pm

    @ David

    We would need a psychologist to understand Diane. Her obsession with MJ certainly isn’t healthy. I remember when he went to CNN in 2007 with MJ’s used underwear:

    What was the point?

    And of course, you are right about her spins. She is deliberately twisting information and it’s obvious.


  109. Suzy permalink
    September 24, 2010 9:12 pm

    @ Susan

    Thank you. You are right, these people will never accept the truth that MJ was innocent. Even if both Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo came forward tomorrow and said nothing ever happened, they would say “probably the Estate paid them to do so” or something like that. There’s no way to convince someone who, like Dimond, who calls the FBI files a whitewash, just because they don’t support her opinion and earlier claims. She probably believes her own lies and simply refuses to believe anything that would refute them (and everything we have refutes them). And she has the nerve to call MJ fans delusional….

    I think it’s also a bit like sticking ones head in the sand. If Diane allowed herself a moment of honesty then she would have to admit to herself that she spent the last 17 years of her life lynching an innocent man. No wonder she’d rather not face this fact.


  110. September 24, 2010 11:33 pm

    David, I had no idea DD went to the memorial! The women is very sick and twisted. Oh and Suzy that review Brown wrote for DD’s book, I really have no words…sigh.

    Ok, I don’t know if I read any background information on how Browns came to know Michael and the Family. Was Brown working for Michael at one point before he flipped? Or was he just a supposed “friend” of the family? Also, did Brown and DD know each other before the 93 allegation?


  111. lcpledwards permalink
    September 25, 2010 12:10 am

    @ Gigi

    I made some comments about Stacy Brown’s connection to MJ through Jermaine Jackson. Read comments 14 and 22 on the following post:


  112. September 25, 2010 5:39 am

    Thanks David. The link refreshed my memory on your comments I read the other night. So much information everything is running together.

    Even though I’m iffy about Jermaine. Based on Brown’s pattern with writing trashy books with Bob Jones and trying to persuade those two jurors. I think Brown latched himself onto Jermaine to get to Michael for his on warped reasons. I don’t believe he was family friend at all! I’m assuming while Brown and Jermaine where allegedly writing this book. Brown was working with Bob Jones on their trashy book at the same time?


  113. lcpledwards permalink
    September 26, 2010 3:31 pm

    Hey guys, I updated this post with a new pro-MJ documentary that I watched on youtube! I can’t believe that nobody found it sooner! Watch it and enjoy!


  114. visitor permalink
    December 29, 2010 6:34 pm

    Wow, David.This post is absolutely fantastic. But on the other hand it makes you realise ones more that the harm that it is done in Michael’s legacy is huge. How can somebody correct all this mess, how can somebody restore the truth and correct the lies that had been said about him for more than 20 years now. And the fight i am afraid is unequal.Because the fight is with the media. And as we all know the media is against Michael.


  115. Suzy permalink
    December 29, 2010 7:43 pm

    A new Jacques Peretti documentary about Michael will air tomorrow:

    “For the first time since Michael Jackson’s death, key Hollywood players – including his lawyer, agent, private eye, and a former classmate – shine a light on his life, and on Hollywood’s hidden underbelly.

    Jacques Peretti lifts the lid on how the weird world of Hollywood operates behind the scenes, gaining unprecedented access to some of the people who pull the strings.

    He offers a rare glimpse into the LA behind the smog and shows that Jackson, far from weird, was a perfectly normal by Hollywood standards. His suggestion is that the machine created to service the star ultimately destroyed him.”


  116. December 29, 2010 11:24 pm

    “Peretti shows that Jackson, far from weird, was a perfectly normal by Hollywood standards. His suggestion is that the machine created to service the star ultimately destroyed him.”

    Suzy, thank you for the information. As you understand Peretti’s previous horrible film doesn’t give us a single hope to believe it will be better this time, though the text of the ad sounds not bad. Frankly I doubt that Peretti is capable of changing that much and that quickly. Unless he felt that the wind has changed – in which case it is an encouraging sign.


  117. ares permalink
    December 30, 2010 12:00 am

    “Unless he felt that the wind has changed – in which case it is an encouraging sign.”

    Paretti didn’t felt anything. He is a filthy bastard who forms his shows and broadcasts based on an overall trend reguarding MJ. He is no better than Bashir. A pathetic excuse for human being. I strongly suggest no one sees his “program”. He has been known and has made his living by exploiting and t slandering MJ’s name. NO one. I repeat, No one should watch this program. We shouldn’t even mention it, because by mentioning it, we advertise it. Enough with the filthy “documentaries” on MJ. If they want ratings ,We want the TRUTH, we want facts, we Don’t want sensationalism. Enough is enough already !!!


  118. December 30, 2010 12:23 am


    You are named after the god of war, and you sound like you are about to wage it. I agree with what you said, and as for peretti stating his desire to -“shine a light …… on Hollywood’s hidden underbelly”. He is the underbelly, he should go stand in the spotlight.

    Peretti wants to be the new Diane Dimond. Careful what you wish for….


  119. ares permalink
    December 30, 2010 12:41 am

    Lol. Well, you are very insightful. I chose that name because it suits my character and this whole situation. I may be exaggerating but sometimes i feel that there is an underground war going on. We are trying to vindicate MJ but there is the other side who is fighting for the oposite. I wish i had the powers of the mythical Ares. Because then we all know who the winner of this “war” would have been.


  120. Dialdancer permalink
    December 30, 2010 7:07 am

    Ares said:

    “Peretti wants to be the new Diane Dimond. Careful what you wish for….”

    Too true after 6 years and she still hasn’t gotten her foot back in the door with a syndicated TV show. In the true tradition of Salem Witch Hunt movies, the person who starts the bondfire is the person left alone at the scene of the crime and becomes shunned by the others. She is the reminder of their deeds, a murder they’ll never admit, but won’t forget.

    That’s why she is left to scrounging around with Peretti and V.G. they are so birds of a feather.


  121. December 30, 2010 7:57 am

    “I may be exaggerating but sometimes i feel that there is an underground war going on. We are trying to vindicate MJ but there is the other side who is fighting for the oposite. I wish i had the powers of the mythical Ares. Because then we all know who the winner of this “war” would have been.”

    Ares, many of us feel that what we are involved in here is not a mere discussion. From the zeal with which Michael is being abused even after his death I gather that they (don’t know who) are waging not only an underground, but an open war against him and his supporters. As the resistance to them grows they are using more and more intricate methods with each coming day – masquerading as fans, wasting the fans’ effort on wrong goals, fooling them with catchy but meaningless slogans, molding them into haters, dividing them into fractions, making them fight each other, etc.

    For some reason I feel that the especially revolting piece of their anti-fan project is the attempt to turn us into haters. If we manage to prove Michael’s innocence 1000 per cent but allow hatred to overcome us and make it our main driving force, the battle for Michael will be all lost – because we wouldn’t be worthy of Michael as a result and he definitely wouldn’t want to see us that way.

    Each time I feel the fire of hate rising in me I recall Michael in “This is it” and it helps. It was amazing to see him so friendly, so considerate, so appealing and warm to people despite all they had done to him. What he had to go through is incomparable to any of our troubles taken together but it didn’t nevertheless turn him into someone nasty, cold and revengeful.

    What I am trying to say here is that though we are involved in a deadly fight for Michael our methods should be different from those of his haters – we cannot step on their ground where we cannot win, we cannot use their weapons and should fight with our own. This makes us different and my dearest dream is not really to beat them but make them marvel at what Michael’s supporters are like, turning him and us into an irresistible force.


  122. liz davis permalink
    December 31, 2010 2:44 pm

    i was appalled when yet again i was subjected to utter trash & lies about MJ in a documentary by Jacques Peretti called michael jacksons secret hollywood aired on channel 4 on 30/12/10. go to
    what can we do to stop all this rubbish. help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    i am soooooooooooooooooooooo angry


  123. January 2, 2011 2:52 am

    Regarding Michael’s friendships with young girls, following from your quote about Allison V Smith I decided to compile a post with all the different stories I’d heard about them. Putting it together I’d had no idea that he’d befriended at least 26 girls.

    Sure is a lot for a guy who only wants to spend his time with boys, huh?


  124. lcpledwards permalink
    January 2, 2011 6:48 am

    Thank you, thank you, thank you! That was AMAZING research that you did! Some of the females I had never even heard of! I’m definitely going to bookmark that post, because I know I will be referencing it a lot in the future!!!


  125. Olga permalink
    January 2, 2011 12:40 pm

    @Rockforeveron you have to add Amanda Porter, the girl that appeared in Geraldo’s mock trial (1993) with her mother to support her friend. I am preparing something about the allegations and I was going to refer to the media myth. Your research helps me a lot. Thanks


  126. January 2, 2011 1:17 pm

    Thanks! I wish we had the video for that show. There’s also a Black French woman from Africa that Michael befriended on a trip there and he even said he wanted to adopt her, I need to transcribe that video today.

    I was tempted to also include Peaches Geldof

    She’s a bitch and trying to make it seem creepy and weird because she really is a bitch, but it just proves again that Michael didn’t exclusively make beelines for boys.

    You’re welcome LCP, I started out with just a handful of girls I had in mind, then kept realizing that there were so many others. I know that there are way more too, I’ve heard Dorian Holley’s daughter tells people about how she would hang out with him on the Bad Tour when she was about 3/4, you can see Michael carrying Karen Faye’s daughter on the HIStory stage and I know she must’ve spent lots of time with him and I’ve heard Yukido Sumida his DWT TWYMMF girl has spoken about how she would visit Neverland with her daughter, but I don’t have any proper sources for them.


  127. Olga permalink
    January 2, 2011 3:03 pm

    @rockforeveron Also Woopi Goldberg had let her daughter sleep with MJ and she was a Neverland guest.

    Frank Dileo said that MJ lived in his house for 7 months and Dileo had a young daughter


  128. January 2, 2011 8:45 pm

    “I decided to compile a post with all the different stories I’d heard about them. Putting it together I’d had no idea that he’d befriended at least 26 girls.”

    Rockforeveron, the compilation is great – I enjoyed it immensely!
    Here is my contribution to it – please add it to yours. It comes from our reader Eloise and was on my waiting list for too long as I never had an opportunity to post it. Eloise cites the source of the story as maximum-jackson forum – 1980smjlover is the girl in question.

    Here is the story:

    My times at Neverland

    I know I have never even mentioned this to any of you guys on here that I spent time in Neverland when I was a little girl. I dont talk about it too much to anyone. For the past years, with me it has been either you know or you dont know because I did not trust people. I have been afraid that people would twist the story around and it would be all over the internet. It is taking a lot out of me to reveal this, but I trust you guys and I feel it would be an honor to Michael that I reveal this to you guys and also on another board that I trust.
    Anyways, back when I was around five in 1992 I went to LA, or near there (forgot the exact name of the city) to visit my cousins. My uncle was a manager at Toys R Us and he would always supply me with some toys whenever I would come. One particular day when I he asked if I and my 8 year old cousin Damion would like to come with him at work. He had never asked us before to join him at work. I remember us being a bit hesitant at first because we had just started summer vacation and were not in the mood to work. He insisted that we wouldnt be working and that we would have a big suprise waiting for us there. So we said okay we’ll go. When we got there we didnt notice anything special and as the minutes ticked we began to get bored. Then it happened! We saw a dark colored van pull up in the parking lot. A lot of big guys walked out first. I remember being scared because I didnt know what was going on. The big guys entered and then we saw a smaller man. Damion walked forward to get a better look and then came running back. He told me it was Michael Jackson, but I didnt believe him until my Uncle introduced us to him. Strangely the only memory I have of him that day is that he was very tall and he was wearing a big red jacket. He was also with a kid but I dont remember if it was a boy or a girl.
    I didnt see him again until one day my uncle said that we were going to Neverland for two weeks. At first I thought it was a different country but my uncle told me we were going to visit Michael Jackson. We packed out bags and got ready. A large black van came to pick us up I remember being disappointed when I saw that Michael wasnt in it.
    So we arrived to the gates and I remember me asking my uncle when are we going to see Michael Jackson because looking at the gates i thought we were at a park or something. When we went through the gates I was completely in awe. It was the most beautiful place I had ever seen(it still is). The grass was the most beautiful shade of green I had ever seen and the flowers were very beautifully colored and arranged.
    We enter the house and we see Michael, I dont remember where he was exactly but he was sitting down with some kids. My memory is a blur until we all head outside. I think we went to the guest house first before we went to the backyard. Anyway he took us on a tour of the whole ranch on a train. I remember him blowing the horn a lot. I had to cover my ears. When we were done with the tour he asked us what we wanted to do and we all said Bumper Cars so we all ran to them. Michael, I remember was much faster than us. I think he was racing with my cousin and two other kids. I think he won. I hurried and claimed a car, I think it was gold or yellow color. Then the most amazing thing happend Michael got in the car next to me. I remember starring at him and I remember exactly what he looked like. His hair was curly but it was pulled back in a pony tail. He was wearing a long sleeved black shirt and black jeans. He looked down at me smiled and patted my head. I smiled the biggest gapped tooth smile(I had just lost my front tooth) that any five year old could ever smile. That was the best moment of my life to this day.
    Back to the story…Michael helped me drive the bumper car because I was too little to control it by myself. After that we went on this pirate ship ride that went back and forth. I didnt go on all of the rides because I was too small and too scared. Instead me and a couple other girls got snow cones. After everyone was done riding we went into the theater. I remember there was lots of candy and popcorn and Michael said we can have whatever we wanted. I think we watched Aladdin but I am not sure. I remember sitting with the same girls I ate snow cones with. Michael and some other kids sat in the row behind us. Through the movie Michael started throwing popcorn at us, then the other kids joined in, then we started throwing back at him, it was so funny. I didnt pay any attention to the movie, none of us did really. After that we went into the game room. This place is just like an arcade it had a whole buch of games, pinball machines and my personal favorite table hockey. I think what made me love this game was Michael because I saw him get really into it. I dont know whether he won or not I just remember him laughing alot. I belive he played that game the entire time we were in there. Then we ate(dont remember what) and then Michael showed us around the inside of his house. The one thing that stood out was this larger than life painting of Michael reading to children all around him. It was so beautiful. He also had a lot of maniequins which I thought were real people scattered around the house. He showed us pictures of his family and everything. He introduced us to his housekeepers. They smiled alot I remember and were very friendly. After this I believe my uncle left although I am not completely sure he may have left before but I was having too much fun I really didnt even notice. The house keepers guided us to our guest units to get ready for the night because it was getting dark. I have no idea of what the guest suites looked like because I rarely was in it. Me and Damion rushed back to the main house and to Michael’s room. His room is huge. I dont know if any of you have seen when the Today show gave the tour of his room but imagine that room filled with games and toys and pictures and posters. It was amazing. It acually reminded me of Damions room if he was rich. His whole house is like a kids paradise. Everyone was in their pajamas including Michael. We played hide and seek in a couple of rooms on the top floor. Then the boys and girls started doing separate things. Michael and the boys started wrestling and pillow fighting, while me and the girls were playing with dolls.
    By the way I have just have to say this; I dont know who started the lie that Michael only allowed boys in his room because we were in the room just as much as the boys were. Yes, Michael talked and played with the boys more than the girls but I dont know why that would alarm anyone. Michael is a boy himself so it makes sense. I was never into wrestling, I did enjoy pillow fights but Michael and the boys were doing it a little to rough for my liking. Anyway I just thought I should say that.
    What you all are probobly wondering is did I see Michael sleep in the same bed with children. Yes, but we were all in the same room together and Michael and the some kids were watching cartoons on tv and they were on the bed and others were on the floor. I and my cousin were on the floor.Oh I just thought of another moment. This was too cute. One morning, I dont know if it was the following morning or not but us kids were awake and playing a video game. Michael and some other kid were still asleep in the bed when a little girl came up beside me and asked if I wanted to wake Michael up. I said yeah and we both walked up to the bed. I remember he was sleeping on top of the covers. The girl told me to tickle him. I was shocked and said no because I didnt want to make him mad. I think the girl must have been there before because she was older than me(I belive I was the youngest kid there) and she assured that he wouldnt get mad. She told me that he was ticklish everywhere but not to tickle his feet because he would kick me. So I ran my fingers from his armpits down to his stomach. He started giggling so loud and moved around on the bed and I jumped on the bed with him and continued, and then the other two girls joined, one I think started tickling his feet and Michael laughed even louder. After a minute or two he managed to get up off the bed away from us.
    From that moment on I started having a little girl crush on him. Not in a romantic sense of coarse but I wanted him to be my boyfriend(without even knowing what that was)my brother, my cousin, my father, best friend or anything.
    Everytime I see the final part of the making of thriller where John tickles Michael’s foot and on the private home movies water balloon fight it takes me right back to these days.
    We had a water balloon fight too. It was the boys against the girls and guess who won? Michaels team of coarse. We played in the pool. Yes, Michael did get pushed in alot. I really didnt get in the water because I couldnt swim. But one time, acutally a couple of times Michael let me ride on his shoulders as he walked in the pool. I remember being so scared. I yelled dont drop me dont drop me and Michael said not to worry. Another thing, at that time I really didnt know too much about Michael and I was quite confused because I didnt know if he was a kid or an adult because he played with us like he was one of us but yet he was taller than all of us like an adult. I also remember him reading to us, just my cousin and I in the living room. I asked him if he would read to us like he did in the picture. This was nightime I believe. He sat on the floor I on one side of him and my cousin on the other. The other kids must have alread heard the story. They went up to his room. I am not even going to tell you what the story was, I believe it is pretty much obvious what it was :enamorado: . Anyway a funny, funny story; after he got done reading a few chapters he closed the book and told us that he was the happiest when he was around children. And my cousin asked him ‘you mean you are not a kid?’ I remember that so clearly. Michael laughed so hard. But then he replied ‘I dont know am I?’ At that time I didnt know either but when i realized he was an adult I laughed about it with my cousin so much.
    There was another time when he said that he didnt ever want to grow up and all of us said me niether!
    I totally forgot to tell you about the animals. Michael had a LOT of animals. One that clearly stood out for me was a huge albino python although I cant think of the name I remember holding on to its belly and my cousin grabbed the head. There was also a giraffe, deer, elephant, a llama(i dont know if it was his famous Louie the llama, this was in 1992 so he might have been dead) 2 or 3 monkeys(not bubbles). The monkey’s were also very popular with us. We would all try and mimick the sounds they made and Michael did too, it was soo funny. He had some other animals but I dont remember what.
    Bill came over one day. We would call him Mr. BB. He was very fun and Michael would always play jokes on him like he would snatch his hat off and throw it in the pool, the deep end. But Bill would just push Michael in the pool so he would have to get it. Michael was a great swimmer. Bill was actually the only adult I ever saw him interact with at that time (I went back when I was 8 Lisa was there). Although the house was filled with adults he never really interacted with them at all just us.
    When the first molestation case happened, me and my cousin were put through the ringer. Everyone at home asked me tons of questions. I didnt even know what they were talking about. My uncle called me and he too asked me tons of questions. My cousin, I think got it the most because he acually, got to spend time with Michael and Jordan Chandler because he lived closer. He was acually supposed to go on tour with Michael and Jordan but unfortunately he got sick and wasnt able to make it. It was absolutely the most horrible thing I ever went through. I feel so bad for Michael cause I know he went through worse. I mean, just think of asking a five or six year old about seeing a man naked and penises and touching them inappropriately. Lets just say I found out a lot about the male anatomy at six. I was made to watch my friend Michael almost cry when he made that famous statement to the world.
    Anyway, to a much happier time I went back when I was 8 and to my astonishment someone had stolen my boyfriend from me! I was so jealous of Lisa. She was really pretty and nice. Me and my cousin were there when Michael held a Childrens conference at Neverland, this event
    We werent in this group, we were in the house with Lisa’s kids and a couple others. Michael and Lisa’s interaction was that of a normal married couple at times. I saw them sitting and talking, hugging and snuggling. I really hated to see that. Lisa can cook, one day she made us all omlets with cheese, peppers and ham. All the things she said in the Primetime Live interview about Michael and children was right. We did follow him everywhere he went. I think she got annoyed by it sometimes especially when it was bedtime and we jumped in there with him causing her to sleep on the other bed he had in his room. One night I slept in the bed with him. I acually snuck in the bed with him because he was already in there with 2 other kids I think it was Lisa’s son and daughter, I am not completely sure. Anyway I stayed awake until Michael fell asleep and I crawled inbetween him and Lisa’s daughter. Back then, it didnt mean that much to me looking at him sleeping but, I havent been able to get that picture out of my head to this day a complete 14 years later. :wub:
    Getting back to Michael and Lisa’s interaction well, let me put it like this, Michael really loved her, but it seemed as if he put us kids before her. I cant say that for sure, but the fact that he allowed us to in a way push Lisa out the bed, looking back says a lot to me. Michael’s interaction with adults wasnt as open as it was with kids. I saw more of his interaction with adults during this time but it was nothing compared to the way he was with us.


  129. January 2, 2011 8:51 pm

    Rockforeveron, one more thing about June Chandler and what she once said to Michael about her daughter Lily (according to her testimony in 2005).

    Tom Mesereau:
    Q. Do you remember telling Michael Jackson, You’re like Peter Pan. Everybody wants to be around you and spend 24 hours?
    A. Yes.
    Q. You told him, Lily would too, except she’s not old enough?
    A. Yes.


  130. January 2, 2011 9:37 pm

    Thanks for all the names and info, up to 31 now! 😀


    I’d saved that story from where you posted it before but I’m reluctant to include anything from people where either the child’s name or the parents name is unknown, I know that haters just latch onto those things to discredit us.

    I can’t find anything on Belinda Dileo, have you guys got any specific interviews you can remember where he talks about them together?

    And do you guys remember who was it who said on the stand that Brandi would also sleep in Michael’s room?


  131. January 3, 2011 9:26 pm

    Here is Jacques Peretti’s new documentary on Michael Jackson – Secret Hollywood

    Part 1

    The remaining parts are on the same page.


  132. lynande51 permalink
    January 4, 2011 6:54 am

    It was actually Simone Pech Jackson Michael’s 16 year old female cousin who said in her testimony that she slept in Michaels bed with him and her brother Rio, or sometimes alone with Michael, until she was 14. When she said that Ron Zonen’s next question was “what did you do that for” her answer was ” I don’t know”. It was interesting because he didn’t seem to like the girls in the bed at all. I guess it was contradictory to their theme of “boys only” in the bedroom .


  133. January 4, 2011 12:41 pm

    “Here is Jacques Peretti’s new documentary on Michael Jackson – Secret Hollywood. Part 1 The remaining parts are on the same page.”

    Teva, thank you for the video. There is so much going on now that it’s hard to keep pace with it. I am now in the country and my mobile Internet is terribly slow so I can’t watch the videos. Since you’ve seen it – has Peretti’s tone changed? If it has it means Peretti is a chameleon, as he adjusts to his surrounding – but it will also mean that the surrounding is different – which will be a really good sign for us.


  134. January 4, 2011 11:21 pm


    No I have not watched it, but some fans on seemed to like it others were luke warm.


  135. Alison permalink
    January 4, 2011 11:52 pm

    I saw the last 3 or 4 minutes of the Secret Hollywood programme quite by accident, didn’t know it was on and was hopping channels trying to find something to watch (Christmas TV this year was awful!). It seemed full of the usual lies to me, that was my impression but i can’t remember exactly what i saw now, i just thought ‘more rubbish lies’. i think it was about ‘how MJ was addicted to drugs for years and its rife all over Hollywood’ stuff, blah, blah, blah! but don’t quote me, all i remember clearly was swearing at it!


  136. January 5, 2011 12:31 am

    Charles Thomson Tweets:

    “Watching the Peretti documentary. CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT I AM SEEING. ”

    “He’s talking about stuff that happened between 1996 and 2003, and claiming it happened before the 1993 allegations. WTF?! ”

    “Peretti seems to have reversed his stance on the allegations, now strongly implying that MJ was framed. But new show still full of nonsense. “


  137. lcpledwards permalink
    January 5, 2011 3:37 am

    The only thing I truly learned from this so-called documentary was at the 4:48 mark when he mentioned how MJ slept with a photo of Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle next to his bed. To make a long story short, Arbuckle was falsely accused of raping and murdering a girl in 1921. He had 3 trials, with the first 2 ending in mistrials, and the third ending in a complete acquittal. After the acquittal, the jurors actually wrote an APOLOGY to him! Here it is:

    “Acquittal is not enough for Roscoe Arbuckle. We feel that a great injustice has been done to him… there was not the slightest proof adduced to connect him in any way with the commission of a crime. He was manly throughout the case and told a straightforward story which we all believe. We wish him success and hope that the American people will take the judgement of fourteen men and women that Roscoe Arbuckle is entirely innocent and free from all blame.”

    It’s too bad the MJ’s jurors didn’t write a similar letter to him when he was acquitted! It’s also too bad that they weren’t allowed to write books proclaiming his innocence! Arbuckle’s career was absolutely ruined by yellow journalism, which existed back then (believe it or not!). He had to use an alias for the remaining years of his life in order to work in Hollywood. What a shame! No wonder MJ was able to relate to him!


  138. Alison permalink
    January 17, 2011 2:38 am

    thought you might like this i just came across. its from the guardian. the writer clearly doesn’t feel too positive about Michael, but i offer it for his critique of peretti and his docunentary /s. its interesting because unusually he doesn’t approve the film just because he thinks MJ weird.

    The Guardian, 2nd January 2011

    Rewind TV: Upstairs Downstairs; When Harvey Met Bob; Michael Jackson’s Secret Hollywood; Toast
    Written by Andrew Anthony
    .( couple of other topics)
    Talking of which, can we please now have a moratorium on all and any documentaries about Michael Jackson, including his plastic surgery, sexuality, family, doctors, his relations with kids, even his music?
    The law of diminishing returns states that there is an extremity of weirdness beyond which curiosity becomes increasingly morbid and Jackson operated way beyond that point. Michael Jackson’s Secret Hollywood was a particularly egregious and irritating example of the genre. While it notionally set out to counter the wacko Jacko myth, the film necessarily reinforced it in almost every frame. Like most tabloid exposés, its stated moral high ground turned out to be no firmer than a mound of steaming manure.
    The film was presented and written by a lugubriously earnest Jacques Peretti, who three years ago gave the world Michael Jackson: What Really Happened. Peretti’s MO is to track down various fruitbats who happened across the self-styled King of Pop’s path – an assistant to a cosmetic surgeon, an old schoolfriend, a spiritualist – and have them denounce the various fruitbats who had even greater and more lucrative access to Jackson’s life. Then, to maximise empty indignation, throw in as many unrelated cliches about La La Land as come to mind and point the finger of blame for all Jackson’s mistakes and misfortunes at a nebulous entity entitled “Hollywood


  139. Dialdancer permalink
    February 8, 2011 1:16 am

    “Peretti seems to have reversed his stance on the allegations, now strongly implying that MJ was framed. But new show still full of nonsense. “

    This reminds of I.H and his reversals, they wrote for profit to the audience of the time. Now we are the audience and since we did not believe their song and dance then they have changed the tune. Besides it is difficult to continue in the same vein with evidence to the contrary found here.

    I suspect there are several writers and TV persons who now wish they had left their words in the fertile imagination from whence they came.


  140. February 27, 2011 7:33 pm

    It is great that this blog has already posted the necessary information on urgent action needed against Peretti’s film:

    The blog provides all necessary contact information:

    It has once again been brought to the attention of the Michael Jackson community that another hideous, slanderous, and malevolent “documentary” is scheduled to air March 2, 2011– this Wednesday! Due to the nature of this program, and the limited time slot in which we have to act, NOW is the time to do something.

    Solely signing the petition is not enough! Below is the contact information for setting the wheels in motion so this garbage gets taken out:

    Sign the Petition:

    Background- The first documentary by Jacque Peretti is majorly deflamatory and base solely on the lies and slanderous statements of Victor Guiterrez, Diane Dimond and Randy Taborelli. The ARTE channel is planning on airing this horrendous piece of negative fiction and we NEED quick and immediate action from all the MJJJusticeproject Warriors as well as the entire MJGlobal community.

    @MJJNews has provided much needed addresses to contact the people who are responsible for airing this negative Jacque Peretti documentary.



 To contact them:
> Form:


For French viewers:

4, Quai du Chanoine Winterer
CS 20035
F- 67080 Strasbourg Cedex

For German viewers:
Postfach 1980
D-77679 Kehl am Rhein


    French viewers: 03 88 14 22 55

    German viewers: 0180 / 500 24 88 (0,14 €/min.)

    Viewers from other countries: +33 (0)3 88 14 22 55

    (note from MJJNews: you have to discard the (0) and type +33 3 88 14 22 55)

    Monday-Friday from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm and from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm

    By Fax: +33 (0)3 88 14 21 60


They also have Twitter and Facebook accounts:

    Twitter (in French):

    Twitter (in German):

    Facebook (in French):



We can also react to their programs on their forums (in French or in German):

    Please act now! Time is running out, and all it takes is a comment on any of the above provided sites along with your signature.

    Sample Comment:

    It has come to my attention that you plan to air the slanderous Jacque Peretti documentary regarding Michael Jackson on March 2, 2011. I am appealing to your sense of ethics and morals in not presenting this piece of negative propaganda on Michael Jackson. The sources that Mr. Peretti used for this documentary have been public proponents of the truth for approximately 20 years. Michael Jackson brought a lawsuit against Victor Guiterrez and Dimond and won 2.7 million settlement for slander. Dimond has had a vendetta against this innocent man and continues to this day to press her opinions on people who were proven to be perjure themselves in the 2005 trial, whereby it was proven that Michael Jackson was totally innocent of any crime. Randy Taborelli has made his career on “claiming” to be an insider and friend of Michael Jackson and all the while writes nothing but slanderous lies to sell his books.

    Please do not air this libelous and slanderous bit of Peretti fiction.
    Thank you for you time and consideration in this urgent matter.

    MJJJusticeProject — It’s Time to make a STAND

    For more information on this airing, please visit


  141. February 27, 2011 8:09 pm

    Let me repeat here what was first written in “About the blog” section and was therefore somewhat misplaced:

    Peretti’s film is to be aired on March 2, 2011 by ARTE & NOUVEL OBS – France and that leaves us no time at all.

    We have very many urgent issues at the moment – like Hann and Katherine, Murray, AEG, etc. – but Peretti’s film is on the top of this urgency list.

    What is clear is that haters are preparing the public for Dr. Murray’s trial and are planning to use the interest in the trial for their own purposes – to refresh all those lies about Michael in people’s memory and carve them in stone.

    Though their and our forces are totally unequal it would be a complete shame if we didn’t try to hamper them in their efforts.

    One of the ways to fight the film is to show the true face of those who contributed to its making – Diane Dimond and her best source VICTOR GUTIERREZ. Of couse very little work has been done in respect of Victor Gutierrez yet but we need to disclose whatever we’ve found to everyone.

    The two things we’ve found about him is that he is a pathological liar (for sure) and that he is most probably a pedophile himself (there are very many facts speaking to that).

    If the general public learns that Diane Dimond’s BEST source is a pedophile, it will be a very powerful weapon against both of them.

    Due to my present circumstances I will be able to attend to this problem only tomorrow and will try to make a post collecting everything we’ve learned about VG by now – the information which should be spread immediately among Michael’s supporters.

    In the meantime please look up everything we have on Victor Gutierrez and Diane Dimond:

    *****First about Peretti’s film, Victor Gutierrez and their lies:

    *****Victor Gutierrez and his links with NAMBLA:

    *****Important information about Gutierrez which is found in the comments on those articles:

    October 12, 2010 6:39 am
    Of course VG working for the LAPD as an undercover in 1986 is an obvious lie. Why would the LAPD hire a no-name journalist, who just came to the US, for that job instead of sending one of their detectives? And like you said, Lynette, why wouldn’t there be arrests then? Victor was there, but because he is one of them. I’m sure of that from the way he is advocating p-lia when he talks in that Tageszeitung interview! And as a p. himself – or at least an obvious sympathizer – why would he go undercover for the police against his friends?

    October 13, 2010 5:28 pm
    Lynette, the post is great and the material is mind blowing. You’ve already discussed it so I would like to add just a couple of observations.

    That note about Victor Gutierrez helping Bashir with the documentary is completely sensational. It makes it all the more clear that Bashir’s film was a well planned provocation. It seems we should add to the Veritas scheme picturing the main players a lot more characters from this article including VG/Bashir’s link and all those ‘source maids’.
    I see no reason why we shouldn’t believe that VG-Bashir connection existed. Haters tend not to disclose materials which may be detrimental to themselves so if they published it they evidently couldn’t resist a little bragging about how thorough their investigation was so that their ‘best source’ was working on the documentary side by side with Bashir.
    However sometimes they get entangled in their own lies. What about this sentence that Gutierrez first went undercover with the LAPD? Am I correct in understanding that they mean to say that Gutierrez was sent by the police to a certain secret organization (evidently NAMBLA as they discussed MJ there) and continued his investigation all this time being on a mission from the police?
    But if it was a police mission why didn’t they take any action when Gutierrez sent them his book as a result of his investigation? It was a kind of a report of what he had found, wasn’t it? Then why does Gutierrez say that they didn’t pay attention to it as “he was a nobody. Just a Latino reporter”?

    So he was a nobody to the LAPD or was he on their mission? Which way is it?

    Another phrase which attracted my attention is that “unlike Jordan’s diary he couldn’t prove the existence of the video”. Sorry, but where is the proof that this diary ever existed?
    If it had it should have been provided to the police and judging by the things said about it the diary would have become the main incriminating evidence in both the Chandlers and Arvizo cases. They should have presented it to the Grand jury back in 1993/94 and would have surely obtained an indictment if it had been true and it should have been introduced into the 2005 trial on the very first day of it which would have immediately ended the trial with a guilty verdict without any further effort from the prosecution.
    So what I see about Gutierrez is that he is whistling his lies even without trying to introduce some links between them so that each lie is more or less credible when taken separately however when you put them together the whole story immediately falls into pieces.

    October 13, 2010 6:31 pm
    @ Helena
    VG obviously lies about why he was at that NAMBLA conference. It’s proven by the fact he changes his story about that. In the Tageszeitung they say he was sent by the newspaper he worked for. Or to be more precise they write this: “He quickly finds a job at a Spanish newspaper in L.A., he becomes police reporter (ie. a criminal reporter for the paper, not someone who works for the police, otherwise they would say he worked for the police. In this article however they don’t say he worked for the police.) In 1986 he reports from a congress of NAMBLA.”
    In GQ he claims he was sent by the LAPD. In the Tageszeitung it isn’t even mentioned.
    So which one is true? It’s clear he is not honest about that (among many things) and BTW both of his stories are BS.
    Like you pointed out with the help of this ( article NAMBLA doesn’t welcome journalists to report from their congresses. And the GQ story is even more ridiculous. Why would the police send a no-name journalist to spy on NAMBLA? The police does such actions with their own, trained people, not with outsiders! (I have just seen a documentary the other day about how a detective went undercover within a motorcycle gang called “The Mongols”.) And obviously from his Tageszeitung interview VG has a big sympathy towards NAMBLA and the p. “case” so he would never spy on them for the police. The reason why he lies about why he was there is obvious: because he was there as a member. It’s not only clear from his lies, but also from the way he talks about “man-boy relationships” either in his book or in the Tageszeitung article and elsewhere.

    October 13, 2010 8:04 pm
    Suzy, I agree. The point you are making about why both of the versions are lies is hitting it on the nail. The only thing I noticed is that he is contradicting himself even within one and the same article – starting with one thing and finishing with another, but I completely overlooked the REASON for all his irregular movements and theories.
    And the reason is that he is trying to offer us this and that to explain why he was at that NAMBLA congress. He can’t admit that he was (or is) a member of it and is therefore freely experimenting with all these versions knowing that no one will ever compare them with what he said before.

    So what do we have here?
    1) the version of reporting a p. congress for a newspaper is no good as there is top secrecy around such conferences and no journalists are allowed there.
    The only information known is the city where they assemble. The venue is not disclosed to attendees until the last moment. Even if a journalist manages to overcome these barriers he will be able to see only the surface of what they show to the world. And on the surface they are a like a “trade conference” or scientific congress discussing “relationship between generations” – misunderstandings between father and son, problems of upbringing children and other innocent issues.
    But real talk begins when they break up into groups or dine together where they know each other personally.
    2) The version of being there undercover from the LAPD is no good either as up till now only professional detectives have been able to infiltrate the organization.
    Detectives say that “It’s just a well-run little organization,” “There is never anyone here who can take your calls,” and “the group discourages establishing local chapters to avoid police infiltration.”

    There is no doubt that Victor Gutierrez could not have gone there under cover as he himself sadly admits that he is not someone special for the police – on the contrary, they didn’t even pay attention to his book because he is “nobody” and is just “a Latino reporter” to them.

    So in what other capacity could Victor Gutierrez attend such a congress?
    Only as a member of it.

    P.S. And the book he has written about Michael is full of so many little “details” which can be known only to the insider of p-lia circles and are actually telling the tale about Victor Gutierrez, not MJ.

    *****Victor Gutierrez telling lies about Evan’s diary:

    *****Victor Gutierrez telling various lies about Michael in his book allegedly based on Jordan’s diary (yes, he lied that there were TWO diaries – Evan’s and Jordan’s, while in fact there were none):

    *****Information about Victor Gutierrez going after Michael well before any allegations started in 1993:

    *****A post about Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez lying about the video they allegedly had of Michael and his nephew (you remember that videotape that never existed?)

    The post has information from the Veritas project and the transcript of what DD lied about that video (from the Court of Appeal where the transcript was examined). It is in this transcript that DD calls Victor Gutierrez her best source:

    * * *
    All Michael’s supporters – please help. It is time for action now.

    Even if we don’t stop the film we should make them feel sorry they ever decided to bring Victor Gutierrez into the limelight again!


  142. liz davis permalink
    February 27, 2011 11:44 pm






  143. liz davis permalink
    February 28, 2011 12:00 am



    PLS WHY, WHY ????????????



  144. ares permalink
    February 28, 2011 1:42 pm

    I can’t understand why MJ didn’t do something to stop that Paretti show. He should have sued or something. How could he let all those Maureen articles,that Paretti documentary, Ray Chandler’s book etc being around, damaging his name and do nothing. I find it really weird.


  145. Chris permalink
    February 28, 2011 2:28 pm

    @ Ares
    Cos it would mean more lawsuits, more money spent on legal fees and more of his life wasted.
    The amount of money he must of wasted on lawyers for all these pathetic cases must be huge. I remember in 2000’s when every week there seemed to be a new case brought against him. You can’t fight every battle and with VG skipping the country last time he tried to get justice he probably wasn’t gunna waste his time for some journalist/source to just plead the 1st and escape the country.

    The fact that Dimond’s on the doc proves my point because she couldn’t be touched last time regardless who got involved and she still clucks about and knows she can get away with anything.


  146. February 28, 2011 6:46 pm

    These lies about Michael when they were first made by the Chandlers and the Arvizos were completely unfounded and disgusting. The fact that Perretti is rehashing them now–out of complete disrespect for Michael goes beyond disgusting–to unforgivable. One has to wonder what Perretti’s motive is for all of this. Is it because he wants 15 minutes of fame?, or is it because he is trying to help Conrad Murray lie his way out of a manslaughter conviction by making Michael out to be completely at fault? Either way, what Perretti and the other media vultures out there are doing goes beyond character defamation and HAS to be stopped. If there isn’t a law on the books for this disgusting treatment of a completely innocent person, there darn well OUGHT to be!


  147. lcpledwards permalink
    February 28, 2011 9:22 pm

    Hey guys, I went through and fixed the broken links that were in this post. I added the 1993 MTV News report on Latoya’s press conference, the link to download the 2005 Harvard Law Seminar, and the 5 videos for Pareetti’s 2009 documentary “MJ’s Last Days: What Really Happened?” (although I didn’t embed them.)

    Unfortunately, Part 1 of the 2007 doc “What Really Happened?” was pulled by Sony, but the other parts are still available……………for now.

    Please let me know if you find any other broken links!


  148. Doris Gorgo permalink
    March 1, 2011 1:20 am

    It is because of individuals writing and reporting lies and making false accusations, is the reason there should be a law put in place forbidding anyone to publicly defame one’s character, whether a person is living or deceased. What has this country come to when anyone can slander someone’s reputation and get away with it. In this instance, these lies are about Michael Jackson, and Mr. Jackson is not here to defend himself. If laws were instituted that would prevent defamation of one’s character, the law would not only benefit Michael Jackson but would benefit all.


  149. zeromarcy permalink
    March 5, 2011 6:04 pm

    “I don’t see how it’s the media’s fault. If anything, it’s Michael Jackson’s fault for all of this mess.”

    i DO NOT SEE HOW U DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT media, or at least most of them do not check their sources most of the time-
    Second: of course Michael made his mistakes HE WAS HUMAN, but this documentary CLEARLY is based on bullshits.
    And of course this comment really tell us of people believe what they want to believe and do not understands Michael’s heart and soul.


  150. tish permalink
    March 29, 2011 2:50 am

    Thank you all for this website. a lot of people still refuse to believe in MJ’s innocence. People who have open minds, should really appreciate the fact the media outlets will be exposed for refusing to admit their guilt of framing an innocent man. The fact remains, that Michael Jackson was never a child molester.


  151. Truth Prevails permalink
    April 9, 2011 5:40 pm

    Does Anyone Know why bob jones got fired hes the same dude that was saying MJ Is awesome when he visited his motherland Africa


  152. lcpledwards permalink
    April 9, 2011 5:48 pm

    @ Truth Prevails
    Randy Jackson fired Bob Jones in 2004. I don’t know the exact reason why, but it could be because he was no longer needed. MJ was facing trial, and needed to cut his expenses in order to help pay for his legal defense, so Randy and MJ probably decided that they needed to clean house. As a result of that firing, he became bitter, and he did what everyone who is bitter against MJ does: he wrote a book!

    There are 2 sides to every story, so if you read his book “The Man Behind The Mask”, or his testimony during the trial, you’ll probably hear his version of the story.


  153. Truth Prevails permalink
    April 9, 2011 8:47 pm

    I Can guess that jones version of the story is probaly bullshit and probaly based on what he thinks was going on key word thinks not knowing and probaly added other sinister thoughts i also noticed when hes on mjs payroll hes all goodie like saying hes awesome but as soon as his services are no longer needed mjs the bad guy all of a sudden he needed a job couldnt get one so just like all the other leeches he did it in a undignified way!!!! Shame!


  154. Suzy permalink
    April 10, 2011 6:38 am

    Bob Jones was fired because he was betraying Michael behind his back. After Michael’s arrest he met Stacy Brown and they began to work on their book. Michael found out about it and that’s why he fired him.

    Stacy Brown said in court Jones accepted his offer to write a book on MJ because he had financial problems.


  155. May 20, 2011 11:45 am

    Stacy Brown is now suddenly backtracking from all of his lies from the last 6 years and blaming them on Rebbie’s husband.

    He’s lying about everything, acting like he was innocent and had no control over everything he was involved with, lying out of his old lies.

    So I don’t really care about what he has to say, but it’s strange, why are people like Klein, Pfeiffer, Stacy suddenly backing out of their lies now? Did they realize there’s no profit in trashing MJ? Stacy’s thing seems a direct reaction to the hit Rebbie has taken across forums and MJ fans recently after word of her continued association with Stacy spread. Who’s next?


  156. Suzy permalink
    May 20, 2011 11:56 am

    @ rockforeveron

    “Who is next?”

    I hope Jordan!

    (One can dream, huh?)


  157. Suzy permalink
    May 20, 2011 12:09 pm

    As for Stacy Brown. A reminder for all of us:


  158. Suzy permalink
    May 20, 2011 12:16 pm

    “In October of 2005, Michael and Tom Messereau went over the book in London and Michael later reached out to Bob and expressed that while he didn’t like the book, he didn’t think it was too big a deal and understood that Bob needed money. Michael had blamed Randy for Bob’s firing and told Bob that. He said that “Bob had to do what he had to do to pay his bills” so Michael understood very well why the book.”

    Oh yeah, sure Stacy….


  159. shelly permalink
    May 20, 2011 12:25 pm

    It’s the best joke of the year, I can’t believe it. There is something very wrong with those people.



  1. Complotto contro Michael Jackson - AEG / Sony / Branca / Dileo / Phillips / Ortega !
  2. Jaques Peretti documentary to air March 2. We need your immediate help. | MJJ-777
  3. URGENT: The ARTE Documentary Must be Stopped! « Fan Blog for MJ
  4. Fact Checking Diane Dimond’s Lies from TruTV’s “In Session” « Vindicating Michael
  5. Michael Jackson’s Enemies Are LITERALLY One Big Happy Family! « Vindicating Michael
  6. Michael Jackson’s Enemies Are LITERALLY One Big, Happy Family-Pt 2 | AllForLoveBlog
  7. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 4 of 6: So-Called “Christians” Who Have LIED Against Michael! « Vindicating Michael
  8. Summary and Analysis of the Testimony of Stacy Brown and Bob Jones, the Authors of “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind The Mask”, Part 1 of 2 « Vindicating Michael
  9. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 4 of 7: So-Called “Christians” Who Have LIED Against Michael! | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0
  10. Michael Jackson’s Enemies Are LITERALLY One Big Happy Family! | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: