Skip to content

Joy Robson vs. Victor Gutierrez. The truth against lies

September 26, 2010

Lynette has sent me some scanned pages from Victor Gutierrez’s book (which carries a title so awful that I can’t repeat it here),  but I think you know what book I am talking about so let me shorten it to just Michael Jackson was My L. Gutierrez’s work impressed me so much that I decided to send you a word about it from my vacation.

Firstly, I am greatly surprised to see that the book looks much more respectable than I expected from the drawings it is associated with.  So its primary aim is  to produce the impression of a serious study? I see… Well, frankly, if I hadn’t come that long way in studying  Michael’s  “matters”  I could have bought it as true. But I did go a long way and know a couple of things now and one of the things that helped me a lot was the trial in 2005.  While reading those pages I kept repeating myself “Thank God that there was a trial in 2005!”

I know that remembering the 2005 trial as a blessing is almost an insult to Michael Jackson but Gutierrez’s book is so full of heart-wrenching near-truth stories that if it hadn’t been for the testimonies of various witnesses at the 2005 trial completely refuting those stories they could have gone down into history unverified and would have kept fooling those who were taken in by the misfortunes of Michael’s poor  “victims”.

Take the sad story of peniless Joy Robson and her son Wade Robson (now a successful choreographer) for example.

When the muse of invention visited VG and he created his fantasy about the Robsons family he couldn’t possibly envisage that one day his readers would hear Joy Robson’s true account of the same events at the 2005 trial and would be able to compare the author’s words with the real thing.

Oh My Lord, your deeds are full of wonder…

Before you check up Joy Robson’s testimony with what Victor Gutierrez made of her words I must share with you my suspicion though – I think he probably did talk to her. The peculiarity of VG’s narration is that the general outline of the events described in the book does resemble the truth – which is what it makes it so misleading.

When you really know the facts Victor is describing his recipe of lies becomes clear enough – he takes someone else’s story, mixes it up with some credible dates and locations, sprinkles it with some  true emotions and adds to the mix a good barrel of dirty pedophilic interpretations of his own. And the worse the basic story is  the worse the end result is – so if the original story comes from Evan Chandler you can bet it that it will be the most venomous part of  the book as Evan’s worst suspicions will be multiplied by Victor’s dirtiest ’embellishments’. However if the basic story is that by Joy Robson  the narration will be  relatively “clean”  (without stained sheets or whatever).

To be able to break through the jungles of the book’s twisted facts, crazy details and the author’s pedophilic sick comments (whom I now strongly suspect of being a p-le) the reader should be a really  thorough researcher of both 1993 and 2005 events – which is a relatively rare occurrence even among Michael’s fans. The fans are too disgusted to dig into all this dirt while Michael’s detractors don’t need any facts whatsoever – they are ready to swallow every lie without asking. And this is exactly that narrow gap into which the author sneaks in – he hopes no one will ever check what he has written.

Well, we have checked and after reading this shit (in the literal meaning of this word as the words feces, excrements and stained underwear are as common here as in a hospital laundry report) I really feel sorry for both Lynette and me. Now I  know why others are so disgusted to dig into this dirt – this sanitation work is truly sickening and now will require some purification on our part.  (Lynette, don’t we need meditation and prayers to purify ourselves?)

Wishing to spare you the real dirt of other parts of the book, I’ll present here  a relatively  “clean” story from Victor Gutierrez about Joy Robson and her son Wade. This soap opera comes here as it is related by Victor Gutierrez (slightly abridged) – so you are welcome to shed a tear or  two over the struggles of poor Wade Robson doomed to misery, neglect and homelessness due to Michael Jackson’s callousness and his rage with some questions from Wade’s mother:

The story of the minor Wade Robson predated by investigation of the relationship between Jordie and Jackson and was one that I will never forget. It fueled my incentive to write this book.

On a summer’s day in June 1992, I went with a friend to Venice Beach, California. (so a year before the Chandlers ever met Michael Jackson Victor was working on a book?).

[ ] While we were walking, my friend, who knew all about my investigation for the book about Jackson, pointed out a boy who was imitating Jackson. He was dancing to music from his radio. The song was “Black or White” from the album “Dangerous”, and the boy was dancing so well that he looked like a miniature version of Jackson.

As we got a bit closer, I realized that it was Wade Robson, the nine year old boy from Australia who was one of Jackson’s  “little friends”. I couldn’t believe it. I had been looking for this boy and his mother for more than five months without any  luck and here, by chance, I found both of them. It was a great opportunity to interview them (so Victor Gutierrez started looking for him half a year before their chance meeting, which takes us to January 1992 or December 1991 – the offensive was a well-prepared one, wasn’t it? ).

[] As I approached Joy, Wade ran up to her and said that he had only got three dollars from his latest performance. He took two one dollar bills and some coins out of his hat.

I introduced myself to the mother saying that I was a journalist and that I was writing a book about Jackson which concerned his relationship with minors, including his being a p-le. (Victor was so sure of it that he opened a conversation with each and everybody by informing them of his fantasies as if they were established fact?)

[] Suddenly, she said that she did not want to speak about Jackson because it was not allowed. When I asked what she meant, she explained to me that she signed a contract, together with her son, which stipulated that she couldn’t speak of what she had seen, said, or heard concerning Jackson. I knew that such contracts were very common for Jackson’s employees and friends. (the first time I hear about friends?)

When I explained that I was not from a tabloid or newspaper, (and where are you from, Victor? Pedophile circles?) Joy asked me what I wanted to speak about.[] I told her that the basic idea of the book was to speak about Jackson’s friendship with minors, and to listen to all sides and versions regarding this issue. When I finished speaking Joy exclaimed “It’s not true!”.

I told her that the truth was going to come out one day. I asked her to at least let me explain what I had found out up until now, and then ask her if there was anything that she wanted to add. If not, I would understand.

She silently listened as I told her about the cases involving other young boys and about the several statements made in Hollywood about Jackson’s sexual preferences for boys (just some dirty gossip). I gave details about how he went about persuading minors. (as if Victor Gutierrez knew them).

[] Now that she knew the details of my investigation, Joy sat down on the grass and began to confide in me. Wade was reading a magazine, but was close enough to hear his mother’s story. She expressed her amazement at hearing that other minors had experienced the same story.

“My son was born September 17th, 1982 and we lived in Chatswood Hills, Australia. When my son was five, (1987) he won a dance contest in Australia. The prize was to meet Michael Jackson and go to Disneyland. And so we met him in Australia.

Right away, Michael gave Wade presents and gave us a fax machine so that they could communicate better. The trip to Disneyland would come four years later.

We arrived in the United States in September 1991. On the first day, by husband took Wade to the recording studio to meet Michael. When they met, Michael asked if he could leave Wade with him and he would drop him off later in the afternoon. My husband said it was okay. Michael, though, didn’t bring him back as promised, and I began to call his office like crazy so that I could locate Wade. Finally, one of the secretaries was able to locate Michael and called me at the hotel to say that Wade was okay. I didn’t see my son until the next day. That was my welcoming to the United States”. (sounds like MJ did something terrible to Wade in the meantime?)

Joy told us how Jackson had made special arrangements to facilitate their obtaining a visa to gain entry into the United States. “Michael had Wade and I sign a contract with his production company, MJJ Productions. [The contract was dated October 1st, 1991]. The contract was for one week. Wade was supposed to dance in one of Michael’s videos, and he would be paid $400 a day. He gave us part of the money from his pocket and we received part from his production company” .

Joy, however, was concerned about the contract. “He made it look like we were employees of his under a contract that would make it legal for us to get into the country. The money given to us after the first week was not related to the contract. It was a gift to support us so we could afford to stay in the United States. We were breaking the law, and Michael knew it. There were times that I thought immigration would come and detain us. Michael told us that we shouldn’t worry about it,” said the mother. (looks like he was detaining them there?)

Joy was referring to the fact that after the one week contract expired so did the reason for their visa, and technically, they should have left the country. Jackson, though, wanted Wade to stay, and so he supported his family for another two months in the United States. Joy and her son could not prove that they were working for Michael Jackson beyond the one week, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service could have deported them.

During their stay with Jackson, he bought Joy and Wade numerous presents, and Wade and Jackson spent much time playing together outside of the presence of Joy. One day, though, that would change, “I told Michael that where my son would go I  would go. Of course, Michael didn’t like this. I also told him that I didn’t want my son to sleep with him. Wade would stay with me at night and if Michael wanted to play wit him during the day, it would be in a place where I could keep watch”.

These demands proved to be very costly for her.

“If there was something I learned, it’s that I shouldn’t have gone against Michael. He was enraged. It was because of this that we left the ranch. He didn’t give us any money. He left it up to us to contact him, but he never took our calls. We were calling because we needed money. We didn’t want to leave the country. Wade was finally able to speak with him and asked him if he would take him on the Dangerous tour, but Michael said that he never took kids on tour. My son believed him, but afterwards he found out that he had taken five boys that Wade had known. My son was very said and confused. And depressed.

This is why we are in the street trying to earn money.

At first, it did not seem that they were poor. But after some time it became apparent to me that they were homeless. They once had a rich life with one of the most famous people in the world. Now they were in the street without money, without friends, and hoping that Wade’s dancing would put bread on the table. Joy needed to talk, and she continued “Michael manipulated my son, that was what I didn’t like about him. He always made my son feel guilty if he didn’t do what he wanted. ”

I interrupted her to ask her the obvious, as I needed to hear her say it. “Manipulate your son? What was it that Michael wanted with a boy like your son?” Joy looked at me. She was upset and disgusted with what I had asked. She said: “I think the both of us know what we’re talking about. Michael was obsessed with my son. When I asked him why he wanted to sleep with my son, he replied that we would talk about it later. It never happened.

Joy told of her experience in trying to talk to Jackson about subjects other than her son.  She spoke to Jackson about their life and now they were going to reach their goals. During these conversations, Joy would get upset because Jackson would turn the conversation to boys.

[] Among the boys talked about was the actor Macaulay Culkin.[] Michael was obsessed with Macaulay just as he was with another boy that we knew at the ranch. Jimmy Safechuck, who was the other Pepsi dance contest winner. The obsession with Macaulay was deeper than the obsession with my son”.

Joy was sad and was playing with some plants in the grass. She would not look me in the eye and stared at the ground. “What was most strange,” she said almost laughing sarcastically, is that a few weeks later, I met a man who saw my son dancing and he offered to be his manager. Later, we were informed that he had abused minors too. Can you imagine two men who sexually abused minors were after my son. ”

This was the only time that Joy referred to Jackson in this way. I didn’t press her further for specifics about he son’s friendship with Jackson. I now knew that the statements taken before from other boys were true.

The stories agreed with Joy’s. The same games. The same manipulations.”

Now that you are familiar with Victor Gutierrez’ interpretation of Joy Robson’s words here comes the true story told by Joy Robson during her testimony at the 2005 trial. These are excerpts only as the testimony is really long and I tried to choose only the most interesting parts of it.  From time to time I will remind you of what Gutierrez said about the same:


1 Q. Miss Robson, where is your home?

2 A. In Sherman Oaks, California.

8 Q. How long have you known him? [Michael Jackson]

9 A. 18 years.

10 Q. And how did you meet Mr. Jackson?

11 A. Originally, in Australia. He was touring on the

14 Bad tour, and my son Wade was five years old and

15 won a Michael Jackson look-alike/dance-alike

16 competition.

17 Q. Did you develop a friendship with Michael

18 Jackson?

19 A. Not immediately. (and VG implied MJ had an immediate

interest for Wade, lavished him with presents and gave him a fax

machine?) Two years later, we

20 returned to the United States for — Wade was

21 dancing here, and we reassociated with him at that

22 point, and became friends from there, from 1989.

23 Q. Are you still Michael Jackson’s friend?

24 A. Absolutely.

25 Q. Have you been to Neverland?

26 A. Many times.

27 Q. How many times do you think you visited

28 Neverland?                                                       9211

1 A. I have no idea. We average about four times

2 a year since we’ve lived in the United States, which

3 is 14 years now, and quite a few times before that.

4 Q. Do you remember the first time you visited

5 Neverland?

6 A. Yes. It was in January of 1990.

7 Q. And how did you end up visiting Neverland?

8 A. When we were here, we called around, trying

9 to find Michael again. He had told us if we

10 returned to the United States to contact him. So we

11 called around, and we eventually were put onto his

12 personal assistant, which at that time was Norma

13 Stakos, and they called Michael.

14 He remembered us, and said he would like to

15 see us again. So we met him at a recording studio

16 where he was working at the time (the incident in a recording

studio will come later. It seems that spent most of their time in the

studio working)

17 Q. And did you stay at Neverland on that first

18 visit?

19 A. Yes, he invited us to stay that weekend, so

20 we did. We went — we were touring the United

21 States, we were here on vacation as well. We went

22 away for the week, and came back for the second

23 weekend.

24 Q. Have you seen Michael Jackson’s bedroom at

25 Neverland?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. When did you first see Michael Jackson’s

28 bedroom at Neverland?                   9212

1 A. That first weekend when we stayed with him.

2 Q. Ever stayed in that room yourself?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Do you recall your son staying in Michael

5 Jackson’s room at Neverland?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And explain that, if you would.

8 A. Well, the first — the first night they had

9 been out doing the usual thing at Neverland,

10 playing. And later that night, they all came back

11 to the suite where my husband and I were staying,

12 and my parents were with us, as well. We were all

13 talking in the suite.

14 And Wade had been impersonating Michael for

15 some time and had lots of costumes of Michael’s that

16 we had made. And Michael was looking at them, and

17 we were just all discussing those.

18 And then it was getting late, and my

19 children said to me, both Chantel and Wade, my

20 daughter, said,  ‘Can we stay with Michael. ‘

21 And my husband and I sort of looked at

22 Michael, and said,  ‘Well, if that’s okay with you ‘.

23 And he said,  Oh, absolutely. If they’d like to

24 stay, that’s fine.’ (the children were always the initiators)

25 Q. And did you allow your son and daughter to

26 stay in his room?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. How many times do you think your son and 9213

1 daughter stayed in his room?

2 A. Many times. I have no idea.

3 Q. Did you ever have a problem with them doing

4 that?

5 A. Not at all.

3 Q. Ever see anything inappropriate happen at

4 Neverland?

5 A. Never.

6 Q. Okay. When’s the last time you spoke to

7 Michael Jackson?

8 A. Two weeks ago. We visited his children at

9 Neverland.

10 Q. Okay. And do you consider yourselves

11 friends of the family of Mr. Jackson?

12 A. We consider us very good friends, if not

13 family.

14 Q. Okay. Did Mr. Jackson ever use the word

15  ‘family ‘ to describe you and your children?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Okay. Did you ever have any problem with

18 that?

19 A. Never.

20 Q. Ever seen Mr. Jackson hug your children?

21 A. Mr. Jackson hugs everyone.

22 Q. Ever seen Mr. Jackson kiss your children on

23 the cheek?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did you ever have a problem with that?

26 A. No.

27 Q. Ever see Mr. Jackson hold any of your

28 children by the hand?                           9215

1 A. I think so, yes.

2 Q. Did you ever have a problem with that?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Ever seen Mr. Jackson playing with your

5 children?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And what did you see him do?

8 A. He’d play — I’ve seen him play games,

9 hide-and-seek. I’ve seen them climb trees. I’ve

10 seen them play in the water fort at the ranch. They

11 play constantly.

12 Q. Did you ever have any problem with any of

13 that?

14 A. No. We all did it together often. We

15 were — all played together.

16 Q. How would you describe Neverland?

17 A. I would have once said the happiest place on

18 earth. I — I always felt that when we arrived at

19 Neverland, you forgot all your problems, you forgot

20 everything. It seemed like a world on its own. You

21 would drive in there, and it was very serene, very

22 peaceful, very beautiful. Inspirational. And

23 everything was perfect when you drive out and

24 reality would hit again.

1 Q. What did you do at

2 Neverland?

9 A. We watched movies. I particularly liked the

10 chimpanzees. I spent a lot of time playing with the

11 chimps. All the animals, I enjoyed. We would play

12 on the water fort. We’d drive the quads around the

13 hills. Just a fun time always.

20 Q. Ever see your son in a shower with Michael

21 Jackson?

22 A. No. Never.

23 Q. Ever seen the Jacuzzi at Neverland?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Ever been in it yourself?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. How many times, do you think?

28 A. Oh. Maybe six or eight times.            9217

1 Q. Now, to your knowledge, has your daughter

2 ever been in Michael Jackson’s room at Neverland?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And did she ever stay over there, to your

5 knowledge?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Did you have any problem with that?

8 A. Not at all.



27 As I recall, you first met the defendant at

28 a dance contest in Australia, correct?        9218

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. And that was in what year?

3 A. That was in 1987.

13 Q. And the occasion of you meeting Mr. Jackson

14 was you were brought behind the stage with a lot of

15 other people who were back there; is that right?

16 A. It was a meet-and-greet situation, yes.

17 Q. There wasn’t a lot of substance to it?

18 A. No, it was just,’How are you? It’s a

19 pleasure to meet you’ type of thing.’ (so this is what it was like – quite a formal meeting instead of the “ïmmediate” friendship and presents to Wade  and his mother)

4 Q. And then you were invited up to the ranch,

5 as I understand it, for a weekend?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. So you weren’t there for an entire week?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Just for the weekend?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And when you went there for the weekend, the

12 first night, your son and daughter spent the night

13 in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom, correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Now, as I understand it, then, this was only

16 the second time that you had met Mr. Jackson; is

17 that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And the first time you’d really met him on a

20 one-on-one personal basis, correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And how old was your son at this time?

23 A. When we were at Neverland?

24 Q. Yes, ma’am.

25 A. He was seven.

26 Q. Seven. How old was your daughter?

27 A. Ten.

28 Q. So your son and your daughter spent the 9220

1 first night with Mr. Jackson, and this was really

2 the first night you’d ever met Mr. Jackson, that’s

3 correct, on a substantive level?

4 A. Well, basically we’d spent the day with him,

5 yes.

6 Q. That was the first time?

7 A. Yes.  (only he didn’t ask her about the several years of talking with Michael over the telephone prior to their actual meeting which is when they became really close friends)

8 Q. Now, did you know that your son and daughter

9 spent the night with Mr. Jackson in his bed?

10 A. They did not.

11 Q. They did not.

12 A. They slept on the mezzanine level.

13 Q. That’s your belief?

14 A. That’s what they had told me.

4 Q.  The second night your

5 daughter did not stay with Mr. Jackson?

6 A. She did.

7 Q. The second night also?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Both nights?

10 A. Yes.

27 Q. Now, do you recall an incident that occurred

28 on Mother’s Day during 1990 on a trip to the ranch? 9234

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And you were upset, correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And you were crying at one point?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And the reason for that was that you had not

7 seen your son all day, correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And it was Mother’s Day?

10 A. That’s right.

11 Q. And you found out that the reason that you

12 hadn’t seen your son that day was because he had

13 been sleeping all day, correct?

14 A. I think so. Yeah.

1 Q. When you visited in September of 1991, you

2 came permanently, correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. You had no intention of going back to

5 Australia?

6 A. No.

7 Q. And you had your son and your daughter with

8 you?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And your husband did not come?

11 A. No. (remember VG telling us of her husband taking Wade to a

recording studio on that day? Just a reminder…)

12 Q. And at that point you had been separated

13 from your husband?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And then from that point, from September of

16 1991 up till, let’s just say, September 1993 –

17 okay? – the time frame involved, you and your son

18 spent a great deal of time with Michael Jackson, you

19 were around him a lot, correct?

20 A. I don’t think so.

21 Q. You were not at the ranch on a number of

22 occasions during 1991?

23 A. My memory is in the entire time we’ve lived

24 here since 1991, we’ve only been at the ranch with

25 Michael on four occasions in 14 years. (so it was a truly open door policy for his friends)

26 Q. Four occasions?

27 A. Every other time we’ve been here without

28 him.                                                                  9238

1 Q. Would that be the same for your son?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. So —

4 A. He came one — all the time by himself.

5 Q. You testified that you’ve been out at the

6 ranch on an average of about four times?

7 A. Four times a year, but Michael was never

8 there. (so much for the homelessness of poor Robsons. I wish all

could be homeless like that – coming to Neverland whenever they wanted,

in every season and staying as long as they wanted and for 14 years too)

11 Q. He’s never there when you go there?

12 A. Very rarely. I can only remember four times

13 in 14 years that we’ve been there with him since we

14 have lived here.

24 Q. Do you recall having a conversation in which

25 you — with June Chandler? Do you know who June

26 Chandler is?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. June Chandler is whom?                   9239

1 A. Jordie Chandler’s mother.

2 Q. You’ve met June Chandler?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. You’ve met Jordan Chandler?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Jordan Chandler was at Neverland Valley

7 Ranch at the same time as your son, correct?

8 A. We were all there together on one weekend.

9 Q. Okay. And do you recall testifying to a

10 situation in which your son, Wade, was upset because

11 Jordan Chandler was going to spend the night in

12 Michael Jackson’s room and Wade had to stay with you

13 in the guest cottage?

14 A. I don’t remember that. I remember reading

15 it in my testimony, but I don’t remember him being

16 upset.

17 Q. Maybe I’ll use a different word.

18 Disappointed?

19 A. Possibly.

5 Q. Okay. Do you recall a conversation in which

6 you told June Chandler that some day Jordan was

7 going to be replaced by another one of Michael

8 Jackson’s friends?

9 A. Yes.

19 Q. And in a conversation you told June Chandler

20 that with these special friends, that when Mr.

21 Jackson moves on to the next special friend, that it

22 has a tremendous emotional impact on the children

23 when they’re no longer the favorite, correct?

24 A. As does everybody when they lose a friend.

25 Q. I’m sorry?

26 A. As does everyone if you lose a friend or a

27 friend becomes friendly with somebody else.

7 Q. Now, during the time that you were at the

8 ranch — you described a situation this morning for

9 the jury, you told them that when you go to

10 Neverland it’s like walking through a door and you

11 forget all your worries and all your cares.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. That’s a paraphrase so….

14 Now, it’s also true that what happens at

15 Neverland Ranch, is it not, that when children come

16 on the ranch, they sort of lose all of their rules

17 and guidelines for conduct?

18 A. Well, that depends on the child.

5 Q. With regard to the conduct of your son when

6 he was on the ranch, did he get carried away, do

7 things there that he didn’t do other places in terms

8 of manners?

9 A. No.

10 Q. He was perfectly —

11 A. My son was always respectful, always

12 considered it a privilege to be there.

13 Q. Did he ever do anything that you would think

14 that would not be a good thing to do?

15 A. Not that I’m aware of.

16 Q. Are you aware that he was throwing pebbles

17 or rocks at the lions with Mr. Jackson?

18 A. I think that’s been paraphrased. I think

19 what they did is they threw them at the cage, not

20 the lion.

24 Q. So you make a distinction

25 between throwing them at the cage and the lion

26 itself?

27 A. Absolutely. They were just trying to make

28 the lion roar. All it did was make a noise. 9243

14 Q. Now, when you testified about Mr. Jackson

15 and his special friends in your deposition, you

16 mentioned that the first of the ones that you knew

17 about was your son Wade in 1990, correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And then in 1991 was Macaulay Culkin,

20 correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And in 1992, Brett Barnes, correct?

23 A. I think so.

24 Q. And then in 1993, towards the end, was

25 Jordan Chandler, correct?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. With regard to Brett Barnes, you went to

28 Chicago with your — or I should ask you this: Did 9244

1 you go to Chicago with your son to shoot a

2 commercial?

3 A. A music video, yes.

4 Q. And did you go there?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And with your son?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And did you meet Brett Barnes there?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And was Brett Barnes with the defendant?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And in fact, Brett Barnes was staying with

13 the defendant in the defendant’s room, correct?

14 A. I don’t know.

15 Q. Did you see whether or not — did you meet

16 any of the Barnes’ parents there?

17 A. His mother and his sister were there on the

18 set.

19 Q. You sure of that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And was it your — you became aware of the

22 fact that Mr. Jackson referred to some of these

23 young boys as his cousins, correct?

24 A. Yes.

28 Q. Didnt you say that Mr. Jackson used the 9245

1 term ‘cousins’ because he didn’t want the kids to

2 get jealous of each other?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Now, do you recall an incident that occurred

5 where you were supposed to catch a plane and you

6 couldn’t find your son? (this is the recording studio incident

described by Gutierrez)

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And the fact is that you hadn’t seen or

9 heard from your son for two or three days?

10 A. I think two.

11 Q. And he had been with Mr. Jackson during that

12 entire time; correct?

13 A. Yes.

17 Q. You called a number of people trying to

18 locate your son, correct?

19 A. I was trying to call Michael, and he was in

20 the recording studio, not answering, not receiving

21 phone calls. And I think I called Neverland to see

22 if they had gone to Neverland.

8 Q. Did you call Norma Stakos trying to locate

9 your son?

10 A. Yes.

1 in 1991, in September, you came here on a —

2 originally you came here on a visa, temporary visa?

3 A. A six-month visitor’s visa.

4 Q. Okay. And your goal was to stay here

5 permanently?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And your goal was that you came because Mr.

8 Jackson had indicated to you that he was going to

9 help your son in his career, correct?

10 A. I’m not sure about that.

11 Q. Do you remember testifying in your

12 deposition that the defendant had arranged deals for

13 Wade with his — Sony records, Sony movies and Sony

14 T.V.?

15 A. No, that came after the fact. After we’d

16 been here. He didn’t promise anything when we came.

3 He came here originally in 1991 to work on

4 the ‘Black or White’ video, and we stayed after

5 that. That was the reason for coming in the first

6 place.

1 Q. And when you came here in September 1991,

2 Mr. Jackson also helped you with some rent for the

3 first month, correct?

4 A. That was part of the video — you’re always

5 housed when you come to work on a music video.

6 Q. I think the question was did Mr. Jackson pay

7 for your rent the first month you were here?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Now, when you came here in September, you

10 also went to work for MJJ Productions, correct?

11 A. No.

12 Q. You — let’s see if I get this right. You

13 had a job in a — cosmetics?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And because you were here on a certain kind

16 of visa, they couldn’t pay you; is that correct?

17 A. They did pay me, but they paid me through

18 Michael Jackson’s company.

19 Q. So your checks were from MJJ Productions?

20 A. Well, that makes it sound like MJJ

21 Productions was paying me. They were not.

22 Q. I just — the question was, the checks came

23 from MJJ Productions?

24 A. They were diverted through Michael Jackson’s

25 company.

26 Q. In other words, your company would pay them

27 the money, and then Mr. Jackson’s company would pay

28 you the money?                          9251

1 A. Yes.

5 Q. And that arrangement was worked out with the

6 approval and the help of Mr. Jackson, correct?

7 A. I think so. I’m — I mean, I didn’t speak

8 to him about it. I spoke to Norma Stakos about it.

9 Q. Do you recall telling and testifying to the

10 fact that what actually happened in September of

11 1991 is that Mr. Jackson was your sponsor when you

12 came to the United States with your son?

13 A. Not initially. We were here for six months

14 and then he offered, he offered to sponsor after we

15 arrived.

8 Q. And during this particular point in time,

9 not January, but in 1993, at some point, your son

10 was in the process of putting together an album deal

11 where he — he or somebody with him would cut some

12 records, correct?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. And the negotiations began on that deal

15 when?

16 A. From memory, June of ’93.

17 Q. And I think you described that process as

18 about a six-month process?

19 A. Well, it varies. But that one took that

20 long, yes.

21 Q. And the deal was finally signed on December

22 6th, 1993, correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. And the deal was signed with — with MJJ

25 Productions, correct?

26 A. Correct.

27 Q. And in the deal, your son — not your son —

28 the total deal was for $100,000, correct? 9253

1 A. The production company.

2 Q. Right. And your son’s share of that was

3 $30,000?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. And 15,000 of that was given as an advance?

6 A. I think so.

7 Q. And this was in December of 1993, correct?

8 A. I don’t really remember. I think according

9 to the transcripts that’s what it said.

14 We were in New York

15 recording.

24 Q. And there had been — there had been some

25 delay in the signing of the contracts, correct?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. And one of the things that had happened in

28 between the time that you first started negotiating 9254

1 the contracts in June or July and December 6 when

2 you finally signed the contract with Mr. Jackson’s

3 company was that Jordan Chandler had gone to the

4 Department of Social Services in the Los Angeles

5 District Attorney’s Office and reported that he’d

6 been molested by Michael Jackson, correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And in fact — well, let me ask you this:

20 You know a person, or knew a person by the name of

21 Anthony Pellicano, did you not?

22 A. Yes.

28 Q.  And Mr. Pellicano was the 9255

1 one who was holding up the deal, correct?

2 A. Correct.

5 Q. And the deal was finally signed on December

6 6th because the defendant intervened and said, “Go

7 ahead and sign the deal,’ correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. In the meantime, Mr. Pellicano had given you

10 a $12,000 loan, correct?

11 A. 10,000.

12 Q. 10,000, you’re right. Absolutely. Pardon

13 me. $10,000 loan?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. And did you ever repay that?

16 A. Yes.

21 Q. When’s the last time you saw Mr. Pellicano?

22 A. I haven’t seen him since. I have not seen

23 him since ’93.

10 Q. Do you remember the Los Angeles Police

11 Department coming to your apartment?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you didn’t give them a statement either,

14 did you?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You gave them a very brief one and then said

17 you had to go somewhere. Isn’t that what happened?

18 A. No, they were trying to interview Wade

19 without me and I told them they were not to do that.

20 Q. Was there some concern on your part that

21 trained law enforcement officers shouldn’t talk to

22 somebody who could possibly be a suspect (sic) of a

23 crime?

24 A. I was concerned of manipulation.

25 Q. That the consequence, law enforcement would

26 manipulate your son?

27 A. Absolutely.

28 Q. You felt that your son could be manipulated 9257

1 easily?

2 A. No, but I wasn’t going to take that chance.

3 He was ten.

4 Q. You weren’t concerned about the fact that

5 the defendant in this case, Mr. Jackson, might

6 manipulate your son?

7 A. No concern at all that he would manipulate

8 my son.

9 Q. But two law enforcement officers, you

10 thought they would?

11 A. Possibly. I don’t know them. I know Mr.

12 Jackson.

13 Q. Okay. Now, you received another — you

14 received actually a loan from Mr. Jackson for

15 $10,000 in 1992, correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. You never paid that one back?

18 A. No.

19 Q. And did you receive another loan from Mr.

20 Jackson after the record contract was signed?

21 A. I don’t think so.

22 Q. Do you recall telling an investigator that

23 you had gotten a loan from Mr. Jackson for $10,000

24 and you tried to buy a car? Do you remember that?

25 A. He paid — he paid for the balance of the

26 car.

27 Q. Mr. Jackson did?

28 A. Yes.                                            9258

1 Q. That was $10,000?

2 A. Yes.


10 Q. Miss Robson, in response to the prosecutor’s

11 questions with regard to manipulation you said,  ‘I

12 know Mr. Jackson.’ Do you remember saying that?

13 A. Absolutely.

14 Q. Please tell the jury what you meant by that.

15 A. Well, I’ve known Michael for a long time. I

16 know him very well. I’ve spent many hours talking

17 to him about everything. I feel like he’s a member

18 of my family. I know him very well. I trust him.

19 I trust him with my children.

20 Q. Why?

21 A. Because Michael is a very special person.

22 Unless you know him, it’s hard to understand. He’s

23 not the boy next door. He’s Michael Jackson. He’s

24 very — he’s just a very unique personality. He

25 loves children. And he has a very pure love for

26 children. And to know him is to love him and to

27 trust him.

28 Q. And when did you begin to know Michael 9262

1 Jackson?

2 A. I felt like I knew him from the very

3 beginning. He just has that wonderful way of making

4 you feel at home; that I felt like I knew him very

5 early on.

6 But particularly in the two years when we

7 were living in Australia before we moved here, and I

8 talked to him every day. We had very long

9 conversations about everything that was going on in

10 his life and my life and my children’s lives. And

11 you get to know someone very well when you talk to

12 someone several hours a day over a two-year period.

13 And then once we moved here, too, we

14 continued that. We’ve always been able to talk

15 about just about anything. (remember VG’s interpretation that ‘every conversation was about boys’?)

16 Q. Now, the prosecutor asked you about Mother’s

17 Day at Neverland?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Remember that?

20 A. Yes, I do.

21 Q. And you learned that Wade and Mr. Jackson

22 were in a recording studio that day, correct?

23 A. Not that day. That was — that was the time

24 that we were staying in Westwood, and Wade and I had

25 our ticket booked to return to Australia. And he

26 had been at the recording studio with Michael for a

27 couple of days, and I just hadn’t heard from them.

28 I know that they were working long hours, and then 9263

1 they’d take off again the next day. And I was

2 getting —

3 MR. SNEDDON: Move to strike as a narrative,

4 Your Honor. Objection.

5 THE COURT: Sustained.

6 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember anything

7 else about that day at the recording studio?

8 A. No, just — I had called Norma looking for

9 him, and she found them. She said they were in the

10 recording studio and, ‘Michael is bringing him back

11 to you. They’re on their way.’

12 Q. To your knowledge, did your son spend a lot

13 of time with Michael Jackson at recording studios?

14 A. Often, yes.

15 Q. And why was that?

16 A. Because Wade was interested in being a

17 recording artist, he was interested in being a

18 producer. He was learning. He loved to be around

19 that and absorb that. He was like a sponge. And

20 he — that was the relationship that he and Michael

21 had. It was — a lot of it was a working

22 relationship and Michael was teaching him.

23 Q. Now, the prosecutor asked you questions

24 suggesting that you were allowing your son to be

25 with Michael just to further his career. Is that

26 true?

27 A. Absolutely not.

28 Q. What do you mean?                     9264

1 A. He was — as I say, he was learning things

2 from Michael. Michael was teaching him everything

3 he knew, and he couldn’t — that was part of the

4 friendship, but it was more of a friendship than

5 anything else. And I certainly never asked Michael

6 for anything where my son’s career was concerned.

7 I believe in my son, and I moved here for

8 him to further his career. I believed that he could

9 do that.

13 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you allow your son to

14 spend time with Michael Jackson learning the

15 entertainment business?

16 A. Absolutely.

17 Q. Why did you do that?

18 A. Because he was learning from the best.

19 Michael offered to teach him everything he could.

20 He believed in him, so why would I not?

21 Q. Now, your son has had a pretty successful

22 entertainment career so far, right?

23 A. He has.

24 Q. And has he worked exclusively with Michael

25 Jackson or has he done other things on his own?

26 A. He’s done most of it on his own.

27 Q. What has he done?

28 A. He’s become a choreographer. He started — 9265

1 MR. SNEDDON: Object as immaterial, Your

2 Honor.

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

11 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever allow Wade to

12 be with Michael Jackson only because Michael Jackson

13 could help his career?

17 THE WITNESS: Never. We were friends first.

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Why did you allow Wade to

19 spend a lot of time with Michael Jackson?

26 A. They enjoyed each other. They — they were

27 very similar people. I remember Michael telling me

28 early on that it was like looking in the mirror, he 9266

1 saw himself all over again. His interest was

2 because he saw Wade’s potential. And Wade loved

3 everything that Michael did and wanted to learn as

4 much as he could.

5 Q. Did you ever lose your trust in Michael

6 Jackson during any point in time that your son was

7 with him?

8 A. Never.

9 Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever do anything that made

10 you suspicious about his behavior towards your son

11 Wade?

12 A. Never.

13 Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever do anything that made

14 you suspicious about his behavior towards your

15 daughter?

16 A. Never.

17 Q. Now, the prosecutor asked you questions

18 about children being jealous if Michael Jackson had

19 another friend who was a child. Do you remember

20 those questions?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Please tell the jury what you meant.

23 A. It’s like any child who has a favorite uncle

24 or someone in the family that everyone wants to be

25 around.

26 And Michael’s the sort of person that

27 everybody wants to be around. He has that sort of

28 aura. So naturally, when he was spending time with 9267

1 one child, another child would be jealous. It’s the

2 same in any family, if you spend time with one child

3 more than the other.

7 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: The prosecutor asked you

8 questions about Michael Jackson having special

9 friends who were children. Do you remember that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And what did you mean by that?

12 A. Well, you know, there would be people who

13 would spend time with him at particular times more

14 so than others.

15 It didn’t mean that he didn’t still spend

16 time with all of them. They were all friends of

17 his. But when he spent particularly more time with

18 one than the other, then they were special for the

19 time.

20 Q. Based upon what you’ve observed of Mr.

21 Jackson, would it be accurate to say that all over

22 the world children flock to him, don’t they?

23 A. Absolutely.

24 MR. SNEDDON: Object. Immaterial; leading.

25 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is in.

26 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And have you seen children

27 from time to time get jealous because Mr. Jackson is

28 being nice to another child? 9268

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Has that ever appeared unusual to you?

3 A. Not at all.

4 Q. Did you ever see something that you thought

5 was very suspicious when one child would get jealous

6 of Mr. Jackson’s attention to another child?

7 A. No, I think that’s normal with children.

8 Q. When you used the term ‘special friends,’

9 what did you mean?

10 A. I think just the one that he was spending

11 time with for now. That he considered all of his

12 friends special.

13 I don’t know why I would have said that.

14 I don’t remember saying ‘special.’ But I imagine it

15 would have meant just the child that he was spending

16 time with now.

17 Q. When you used the term ‘special friends,’

18 did you mean to suggest anything criminal was going

19 on?

20 A. Absolutely not. There’s nothing — no — nothing necessarily

of a

6 bad connotation in that.

23 Q. Miss Robson, the prosecutor asked you

24 questions about borrowing $10,000. Remember that?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. Would you please explain why you borrowed

27 $10,000?

28 A. The first $10,000, we had been here for, I 9279

1 think, a year, 18 months. And it was a lot more

2 difficult to establish ourselves here than I had

3 anticipated, so Michael offered to help us out for a

4 while. So we borrowed $10,000 at that point.

5 The second one was a car. I had been here

6 for a while. My credit from Australia cannot be

7 transferred, so I had no established credit in the

8 United States. I was listed as an employee because

9 of the cosmetics company paying through Michael

10 Jackson’s company. Because I was being sponsored by

11 MJJ Productions, I was listed as an employee of the

12 company. So I had asked if the company would

13 co-sign for my car because I was unable to get the

14 credit to buy a car, and Michael just offered to pay

15 for it rather than co-sign.

16 Q. Was it — as you recall, was it his idea to

17 help you or was it your idea?

18 A. I had asked for help. And he was there for

19 me. He was a friend.

20 Q. Okay. Was there anything, as far as you

21 know, improper or illegal about anything you did?

22 A. Nothing.

23 Q. Okay. The prosecutor asked you some

24 questions about whether or not you had borrowed

25 other funds. Do you remember?

26 A. Do you mean the Anthony Pellicano situation?

27 Q. Yes.

28 A. Yes.                                9280

1 Q. And what were you referring to?

2 A. Well, that was because the record label —

3 the deal had been held up, and the advance was

4 something that we needed to survive. And because it

5 was held up, Anthony Pellicano offered to loan the

6 money to me until the balance came through from the

7 record deal.

8 Q. Okay. Now, did you ask Mr. Jackson for help

9 from time to time?

10 A. I asked a couple of occasions with the car

11 and the initial 10,000.

12 Q. And he did help you on those occasions?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. The prosecutor asked you questions about

15 your son’s entertainment career. Did you ask for

16 help from Mr. Jackson once in a while as far as your

17 son’s entertainment career was concerned?

18 A. No. I had called a couple of time to see

19 if — when he was doing music videos, to see if he

20 remembered Wade, because he said he would put Wade

21 in his music video. To remind him more than

22 anything. But that was all.

23 Q. And to your knowledge, did Mr. Jackson help

24 Wade with his career?

25 A. Yes, he’s always very supportive. He’s

26 always very interested in what Wade did with his

27 career. He would check on him. He would ask him to

28 send him — keep him in touch and send — when he 9281

1 was doing music production, he would ask him to send

2 him demos of the music that he was producing so that

3 he can listen to it and encourage him and teach him

4 what he was doing correctly and not. Always very

5 supportive, always very interested.

6 Q. Now, were you allowing Wade to spend nights

7 with Mr. Jackson because you just wanted to further

8 his career?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Why were you letting Wade spend those

11 evenings with Mr. Jackson?

12 A. Those evenings just happened because they

13 were having fun together. They would play till all

14 hours of the night. They would watch music videos.

15 They would watch cartoons. And they’d basically

16 just go to sleep.

17 Q. Did you do that with Mr. Jackson as well?

18 A. Yes, I did.

19 Q. How often?

20 A. A couple of times.

21 Q. Okay. The prosecutor asked you questions

22 about Wade and Michael throwing some pebbles at the

23 lion cage. Do you recall that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. How — when did you learn about Wade and

26 Michael throwing some pebbles at a lion cage?

27 A. I think Wade had told me about it at some

28 point after the fact. He was basically telling me 9282

1 that he heard the lion roar. And it didn’t roar

2 very often, so I was surprised. And he told me what

3 they did to make it roar.

4 Q. Well, was it your impression that they were

5 engaging in animal cruelty or anything?

6 A. Absolutely not. That’s the last thing that

7 either of them would do.

19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Who told you about Wade

20 and Michael Jackson throwing some pebbles at the

21 lion cage?

22 A. Wade.

26 Q. And did he tell you that he had tried to be

27 cruel to an animal?

28 A. No. Wade loves animals.              9283

1 Q. Did he tell you that Michael Jackson had

2 tried to be cruel to an animal?

3 A. No. Michael is — loves all animals as

4 well. Neither of them would ever do that.

5 Q. Now, the prosecutor asked you questions

6 about the word ‘cousin.’ Do you recall those

7 questions?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And did you hear Michael Jackson use the

10 word ‘cousin’ in describing children?

11 A. Yes. He pretty much called everybody

12 cousins, I think.

13 Q. And did you know why he did that?

14 A. No. That’s just something that he — I

15 mean, I think at some point he may have said it so

16 that they weren’t jealous of each other, because

17 that tended to happen.

18 Q. Did you ever suspect there was something

19 criminal about Mr. Jackson using the word ‘cousin’?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Ever think there was something sexual about

22 Mr. Jackson referring to children as his cousin?

23 A. Never.

24 Q. Ever think there was anything inappropriate

25 about Mr. Jackson referring to various children as

26 ‘my cousin’?

27 A. No.

15 Q. Okay. Now, you referred to Chicago at one

16 point in your testimony.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Did you go to Chicago?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And what was the purpose for that trip?

21 A. Wade was dancing on the music video ‘Jam.’

22 Q. Okay. And was that a music video involving

23 Mr. Jackson?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And was Mr. Jackson in Chicago with you?

26 A. Not with us. He was there.

27 Q. Okay. And what do you mean by ‘not with

28 us’? 9285

1 A. Well, we weren’t staying with him. We were

2 flown in as Wade was working. And we stayed at a

3 hotel. He did the job, and we returned to Los

4 Angeles.

5 Q. And to your knowledge, where did Mr. Jackson

6 stay on that trip?

7 A. I have no idea.

8 Q. Did you see Mr. Jackson on that trip?

9 A. On the set, yes.

10 Q. Did you see him in any other location?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Okay. Do you know approximately when that

13 was?

14 A. I’m not sure. I want to say ’92. Maybe in

15 the middle of ’92 somewhere.

16 Q. Okay. The prosecutor asked you some

17 questions about whether you were concerned about

18 manipulation. Remember that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Were you ever concerned about Mr. Jackson

21 manipulating you?

22 A. Never.

23 Q. Did you ever tell anyone you were concerned

24 that Mr. Jackson was manipulating Wade?

25 A. No.

26 Q. Ever tell anyone that you were concerned

27 that Mr. Jackson was manipulating your daughter?

28 A. No.                                   9286

1 Q. Did you use the word ‘manipulation’?

2 A. Not to my knowledge.

3 Q. Are there any other entertainment-related

4 transactions that you recall either you or your son

5 being involved in with Michael Jackson?

6 A. And what do you mean by ‘entertainment

7 transactions’?

8 Q. Any type of entertainment, transaction,

9 project. You name it.

10 A. He did three music videos. He did a Pepsi

11 commercial. And the original L.A. Gear photo shoot.

12 I think those are the only things he’s ever done

13 with Michael.

14 Q. Did Mr. Jackson, to your knowledge, help

15 Wade with those projects?

16 A. What do you mean by ‘help’?

17 Q. Any kind of assistance.

18 A. I mean, he offered — he decided that he

19 wanted — he would want Wade to work on it, because

20 he was the best person for the job. Other than

21 that, no.

22 Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, when is the

23 last time Wade worked with Mr. Jackson on any

24 entertainment-related project?

25 A. The last thing he — Michael performed with

26 ‘N Sync I think on an MTV Music Awards, and Wade was

27 choreographing and directing it. He put that

28 together. 9287

1 Q. Do you know approximately when that was?

2 A. I want to say 2000, something like that.

3 Q. Now, you said that many times you went to

4 Neverland and Mr. Jackson wasn’t there, right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And when you did that, how would you arrange

7 to visit Neverland?

8 A. Through his office. Through Evvy.

9 Q. Had Mr. Jackson given you permission to

10 visit Neverland when he wasn’t there?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And approximately when did he say you could

13 do that?

14 A. He’s always said that, that we’re welcome

15 any time.

16 Q. And I believe you testified that you were

17 there more times when he wasn’t there than when he

18 was there; is that right?

19 A. Absolutely, yes.

20 Q. How many times do you think you visited

21 Neverland when Mr. Jackson wasn’t even there?

22 A. Maybe 40, 50 times.

23 Q. And where would you stay when Mr. Jackson

24 wasn’t at Neverland?

1 Before he had the children, I

2 would stay in the house. But since he’s had the

3 children and they’re now the childrens bedrooms, we

4 stay in the guest units.

5 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: How many times do you

6 think you stayed in Mr. Jackson’s main house before

7 Mr. Jackson had his own children?

8 A. Maybe 15, 20 times. I’m not sure.

9 Q. And where would you typically stay?

10 A. In the rose bedroom.

17 Q. And how far away is the rose bedroom from

18 Mr. Jackson’s bedroom?

19 A. Mr. Jackson’s bedroom is on the ground

20 floor. I don’t know how to describe how far away.

21 It’s probably the length of two rooms, but on

22 another floor.

23 Q. Now, do you recall freely walking in and out

24 of Mr. Jackson’s bedroom?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. And when you say ‘bedroom,’ you’re talking

27 about these two levels?

28 A. Yes.                                9289

1 Q. Okay. Did Mr. Jackson ever put any

2 restrictions on your walking in and out of his own

3 room?

4 A. No.

5 Q. And you freely walked in and out of his own

6 room?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. The prosecutor asked you questions about a

9 lock and alarm. Do you remember that?

10 A. No. Oh, the chimes, yeah.

11 Q. Do you recollect your always having to go

12 through a locked door to get into his room?

13 A. I mean, I would always knock first before I

14 went anyway, so I dont have any idea whether the

15 door was locked or not. But I would never just walk

16 in. I would always knock and someone would open the

17 door.

18 Q. What typically would happen when you’d

19 knock?

20 A. Wade would answer the door, or Michael.

21 Q. Okay. And would someone open the door for

22 you?

23 A. Do you mean —

24 Q. When you knocked and someone responded,

25 would they typically open the door for you or would

26 you open the door yourself?

27 A. I think someone would open it for me.

28 Q. Did you go into Mr. Jackson’s room at all 9290

1 hours of the day?

2 A. At any time I wanted to, yes.

3 Q. Do you recall being in his room during the

4 day?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Do you recall being in his room during the

7 evening?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Do you recall being in Mr. Jackson’s room

10 late at night?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Did you ever get the feeling that somebody

13 was trying to keep you out of Mr. Jackson’s room?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Do you recall spending much time in Mr.

16 Jackson’s room at Neverland?

17 A. I have spent time in there on occasion

18 watching television with them, but not often.

19 Q. Where would you typically watch television

20 when you were in Mr. Jackson’s room?

21 A. On the bed.

22 Q. Would that be the bed on the second level?

23 A. No. On the ground level.

24 Q. Okay. Now, the issue of Mr. Jackson helping

25 you with an automobile, when did that happen?

26 A. I think maybe ’93. Early ’93.

27 Q. And did you go to him and ask for some

28 assistance in getting an automobile? 9291

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Okay. And what was his response?

3 A. Well, I had asked him to co-sign. I wasn’t

4 asking for money. I was just asking for a

5 signature. And his response was,  Well, why don’t I

6 just pay for it. ‘

7 Q. And did he do that, to your knowledge?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did you feel that he was doing that because

10 he wanted something in return in any way?

11 A. Not at all.

12 Q. Did you feel there was any quid pro quo when

13 he helped you with the car?

14 A. Absolutely not.

15 Q. Did you feel there was any quid pro quo when

16 he helped you with money?

17 A. Never.

18 Q. Did you feel there was any quid pro quo when

19 he helped you as a sponsor?

20 A. Not at all.

21 Q. Now, what was this issue — you needed him

22 as a sponsor for what purpose?

23 A. To remain in the United States. We —

24 permanent residence. To be able to have a green

25 card, we had to have someone sponsor us into the

26 country.

27 Q. Did you go to him and ask him if he would be

28 your sponsor?                            9292

1 A. I talked to him about it, and he said he

2 would do whatever he could to do. He just

3 instructed his office to do whatever was needed.

4 Q. To your knowledge, what was done to help

5 you?

6 A. An offer — they put me on their books as an

7 employee of the company.

8 Q. Did Mr. Jackson have to actually sign

9 anything to be your sponsor, if you recall?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And did you ask him to do that?

12 A. Yes. Pretty much. Basically I asked for

13 help. So that was the only way we could stay, so,

14 yes.

15 Q. And he did help you, right?

16 A. Yes, he did.

17 Q. Did you feel like you owed him anything

18 after he helped sponsor your family to stay in the

19 U.S.?

20 A. No. Not at all.

21 Q. Now, you received some payment through

22 Michael Jackson Productions; is that right?

23 A. My earnings from the cosmetic company was

24 diverted through the company, through his company,

25 yeah.

26 Q. What cosmetics company was that?

27 A. Pigments. P-i-g-m-e-n-t-s.

28 Q. Where is that company located? 9293

1 A. On Burton Way in Beverly Hills.

2 Q. And you actually were working there?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. When did you begin working at that cosmetics

5 company?

6 A. I think ’93.  ’92 or ’93.

7 Q. And the idea was that because you weren’t a

8 resident, you were not supposed to be employed; is

9 that the idea?

10 A. I was on a working visa, but it was through

11 MJJ Productions. I was — I was employed to be

12 employed by MJJ Productions only. So I managed to

13 find this job for myself. And in order to make it

14 legal, it had to be diverted through MJJ

15 Productions.

16 Q. And where were you living at the time?

17 A. I was living in Hollywood.

18 Q. And who else was living there with you?

19 A. Chantal and Wade.

20 Q. And were you the main person providing for

21 your family at that point?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You needed a job, didn’t you?

24 A. Yes, I did.

25 Q. Mr. Jackson helped you get a job, correct?

26 A. Well, he helped me, yeah. I mean, he didnt

27 get the job for me. I got the job, but he made it

28 possible for me to be allowed to do that, yes. 9294

1 Q. And how long did that arrangement last?

2 A. Oh, I think three years.

3 Q. Okay. So for approximately three years you

4 were paid through MJJ Productions, right?’ (and according to VG it was a one week contract. What does it matter to him – three years or one week ? Anything is good when it comes to putting that homeless story together…)

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Michael’s Jackson’s company?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Were you the primary wage earner for your

9 family at that point?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And why did that arrangement end?

12 A. Wade booked a feature film. He was working

13 as an actor on a feature film. And because he was a

14 minor, I had to be there with him. So I left the

15 job and worked with him on the film.

16 Q. Okay. And did Mr. Jackson ever ask anything

17 in return for what he had done for you during those

18 three years?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Ever feel you had to repay him for any of

21 that?

22 A. No.

16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: To your knowledge — all

17 right. To your knowledge, has your son ever been

18 held against his will by Mr. Jackson?

19 A. Never.

23 Q. To your knowledge, has your son ever been

24 abused by Mr. Jackson?

25 A. No.

1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: The prosecutor asked you

2 questions about seeing June Chandler at Neverland.

3 Do you remember that?

4 A. I do.

5 Q. Did you see her at Neverland?

6 A. I did.

7 Q. Did you talk to her at Neverland?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was she a friend of yours?

10 A. No.

11 Q. You didn’t care for her, right?

12 A. I did not.

13 Q. Why?

14 A. My impression of June Chandler was that she

15 wanted to be mistress of Neverland; that she was

16 ordering the staff around as if she owned Neverland;

17 that she wanted everything that went with it. My

18 impression of June Chandler was that she was a

19 gold-digger.

20 Q. Did you see her interact with Mr. Jackson?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Did you feel she was trying to use Mr.

23 Jackson?

24 A. Absolutely.

25 Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Jackson about it?

26 A. No, I did not.



5 Q. Miss Robson, you’re not jealous of June

6 Chandler, are you, because she displaced you?

7 A. Not at all.

8 Q. Not at all?

9 A. Not at all.

10 Q. That wasn’t the feeling you had at the

11 ranch, because she was in control?

12 A. Absolutely not.

13 Q. And her son had replaced your son?

14 A. My son was there.

15 Q. Yes, but he wasn’t in the bedroom with

16 Michael Jackson anymore, was he?

17 A. I don’t know that he wanted to be. He was

18 Michael’s friend. They were there together as

19 friends. I had no wish to be June Chandler.

20 Q. Well, I didn’t ask you whether you wished to

21 be June Chandler. I asked you whether you were

22 jealous of her position.

23 A. Certainly not. What position would that be?

24 Q. Of being able to be close to Michael Jackson

25 at that point in time.

26 A. I don’t think she was close to Michael

27 Jackson at that time.

28 Q. You don’t?                     9299

15 Q. So you don’t have any idea how close she was

16 to Mr. Jackson at that point in time, no personal

17 knowledge?

18 A. My personal knowledge from that weekend was

19 when I saw Michael Jackson trying to elude June

20 Chandler for the entire weekend.


19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Could you clarify this

20 issue of something being arranged when you came to

21 the United States; what was arranged, what wasn’t

22 arranged?

23 A. Well, there were no contracts. I honestly

24 don’t know what I was referring to in the grand

25 jury. Perhaps — from my memory — I mean, we’re

26 going back 12, 13 years.

27 From my memory, I remember Michael saying

28 that he would help in whatever way he could. That 9304

1 he had movie companies. He had, you know, record

2 companies. If there’s something he could do, he

3 would help. But there were certainly no

4 arrangements. We came here and — I mean, I had to

5 get a job to work. There was no — there were no

6 contracts. There was nothing arranged. I didn’t

7 come here expecting Michael Jackson to give Wade a

8 career.

9 Q. Has Mr. Jackson always been available to

10 help your family when you needed some assistance?

16 Michael’s a friend. And like

17 any friend, if we needed anything, he would be

18 there, and — and vice versa. We were there for

19 each other as friends are.

20 MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

21 MR. SNEDDON: No questions.

Sorry this was so long.  But it surely gave you a feel about the true relationship between the Robsons and Michael Jackson. In no way did it resemble Victor Gutierrez’ story about Michael “abandoning the family and leaving them homeless and poor to beg for pennies in the street”.

And NEVER did Joy Robson doubt Michael’s innocence and NEVER did she confide in Victor Gutierrez about any of her ‘suspicions’ – she simply never had any and from the way she describes their relations with Michael she never had any reason for them either.

I hope Joy Robson’s testimony showed to you how much Victor  Gutierrez twisted and stretched the truth – to the point of it becoming its complete opposite. And if someone prefers to believe his crooked version of Joy Robson’s story – well, we can’t help it.

Michael’s detractors often call his supporters “crazed  Michael’s fans”  – however I don’t know who is crazed or delusional here – Michael’s supporters who believe a testimony told under oath by the direct participants in the events or Michael’s haters who buy all sorts of dirty pedophile gossip told by some third and suspicious party as if it were gospel truth.

Is there a possibility that VG is lying in this particular case only and is telling the truth in the rest in his book? And what does your life experience tell you in this respect? My life experience says that if a person is a liar he is a liar in everything he does – once a liar, always a liar.

It is exactly about occasions like these that this English proverb is all about:

If somebody deceives you once, shame on HIM, If somebody deceives you twice, shame on YOU.

However some people like to be deceived twice, thrice, a dozen and innumerable times…

P.S.  Some questions in Joy Robson’s testimony revolved round Wade and Michael throwing pebbles at a lion’s cage. It would be interesting to see Victor Gutierrez’s interpretation of the same. I haven’t got a scan of the pages telling that thrilling story but hear that Victor Gutierrez turned into a truly horror story with a lot of bloodshed there.

Lynette, could you help and provide the story please? Just for the fun of it.

215 Comments leave one →
  1. Suzy permalink
    September 26, 2010 9:42 pm

    Hm this is interesting, if VG is telling the truth about the dates (which we can never be sure of when it comes to him, though).

    It’s interesting because, I don’t know who raised this suspicion first, but it indeed would look like he – and not Evan Chandler – would be the original mastermind behind ALL this! Wow!

    If he was fishing for “victims” of MJ as early as in 1991-1992, could it be that he just so happened to meet Evan Chandler in 1993 in his quest – and finally he found his man? And Evan just took his idea and did what VG suggested to him?

    And Helena, I agree, I too have this gut feeling for long that VG is a p-le! He is probably one of the early forerunners of Tom O’Caroll. Who else, if not a p-le, would call a CM the “lover” of a little boy? Who else, if not a p-le, would find pleasure in graphic descriptions of sexual acts between a man and a little boy?

    On the other hand, so far, from this extract from VG’s book I’m not sure if he really talked to Joy Robson. He could have got the basis of these stories from somewhere else, an employee of Michael or someone in his environment. Or maybe the Chandlers, who knows.

    Here is an article about Joy Robson’s reaction to the Not Guilty verdicts of Michael:

    “We just feel so vindicated right across the board,” said Joy Robson, who watched the verdict live on TV from her LA home.

    “We were crying and screaming and crying and screaming.”

    The Robson family has kept in close contact with Jackson during the trial, with Joy last speaking to him when the defence and prosecution rested their cases.

    “He’s always reasonably optimistic,” she said.

    “He has a lot of faith and relies a lot on his faith.

    “He did ask me to pray for him. We all believed ultimately the truth would come out.”

    Joy Robson said she never doubted Jackson was innocent, despite the serious charges against him.

    She said the world has the wrong impression of the entertainer.

    “I’ve never questioned Michael,” she said.

    “That’s the bottom line. I’ve never ever had a second of a concern.

    “I don’t care what people say of me.

    “You have to know Michael to understand.

    “I’ve always said to Michael `I wished the world could know the Michael we do’.

    “He’s not what the media makes him out to be.”


  2. visitor permalink
    September 26, 2010 10:35 pm

    Did we have any doupts that VG is dump and disordered? I don’t think so. I am amazed there are still people out there that never thought that others could know the facts and truth about these things. They are all addressing an uneducated and stupid audience with the same brain deficiencies as theirs. Helena, thanks for undergoing that awful procedure. His “book” of fictions should find a valuable place in society. Like being recycled and used for toilette paper or vomitting bags. At least what is left from it because Michael f***** him in court so the book was banned


  3. lynande51 permalink
    September 27, 2010 12:42 am

    I will add more to the story of Victor but it will be in a couple of days. I would like to add that in the preface to his book Victor admits to “researching” his book for up to 5 years prior to 1993 so it began right around the time Michael built and moved to Neverland. I like you think that it is interesting that most of Sneddon’s prior victims come from a list that Must have been provided by VG via DD. I will touch on that as well but first know that it is entirely possible knowing that VG sought out the parents of Michaels friends for his information that he did run across Evan and quite possibly planted the seeds of the molestation fruition in his distorted mind. If it weren’t so sad on Michaels part it would be laughable how this man got seemingly intelligent people to believe him. And I am more convinced than ever before that the true p. here is Victor after finding a page from the British GQ article written and printed in the May 2005 edition of that magazine where he states that he managed to infiltrate a secret socierty he in the US. Could that be that infamous NAMBLA? More later. I will work on it tomorrow as I work overnight again.


  4. September 27, 2010 2:59 am

    @ lynande51,

    I think you’re right. Evan said in the phone convo with Dave that there were other people involved, and the plan was not his alone. I think he also hired Barry Rothman and planned it all way before June 1993. That had to be the reason why he wanted MJ at his house so badly in May. Their story is too complex to have been thought of in only a few months.

    I always wondered how Evan came-up with the allegations. You have to be a real sick and twisted person to think of something that perverted. And Victor fits the bill perfectly.


  5. Louise permalink
    September 27, 2010 10:48 am

    I think that we will probably find all the answers in 1980’s. We know now that VG begun his research about MJ at least in 1988.

    As JA wrote “Evan said in the phone convo with Dave that there were other people involved, and the plan was not his alone…” We need to know more about VG that’s for sure but also we need to know who were / are behind VG? Who did send him to this mission of finding a way to ruine Michael?We need to dig more about DD and VG. How and when Sneddon’s obsession with MJ began? Who were / are behind Sneddon himself?
    We should perhaps ask fans in Chile to help us find more about VG?


  6. lynande51 permalink
    September 27, 2010 1:55 pm

    I will add something else very quickly. In his book VG keeps all the real names of the people involved. He names Macauley, Sean Lennon, Jonathan Spence, Jimmy Safechuck, Brett, Wade, Jordan , Blanca and everyone except one person. The name he gave to the Chandler’s au pair was Veronica and he said she was from France. We know from the 2004 interview with Ray Chandler about his book that Matt Abrams called her Norma Salinas and illegal immigrant from Central America. Why would he only change her name? He does have photos of Supposed documents from Evan and others that could only have come from the Chander’s. This means there was a connection between the Chandler’s and VG at some point in time even if it was only their maid.


  7. September 27, 2010 5:23 pm

    Guys, I am thrilled by where the investigation is taking us – yes, Gutierrez is surely coming first (before Evan Chandler) – actually he admits it himself!

    Imagine all the undermining work he has done by interviewing all those people and telling them stories about Michael. He ALONE could have created a negative atmosphere around Michael. You remember that he opened conversations with people by calling Michael a p.?

    P.S. I am sorry for so many spelling mistakes in the post – the Internet here is terribly trying my patience as it pauses after every letter. And the time is limited too. But I hope to be with you at the first opportunity. Keep doing the great work!


  8. choupine permalink
    September 27, 2010 7:06 pm

    As for the begining of sneddon obssession for MJ i have read somewhere in a french traduction of an english article that they were first involved together in 1887 (if i recall corectly) whene michael was trying to buy neverland, he try to prevent him to that, he was in campaingn for his reelection and his project was to extend the olive field in santa barbara and michael buying a 3000 acre ranch wasn’t in his plan and the rest belong to HIStory.
    Unfortunately i have lost the link, my recollection are vague and my english a little terrible, but i hope that it could help you in your investigation.


  9. Louise permalink
    September 27, 2010 9:48 pm

    Lynande, do you have more info about Norma Salinas? When did she appear as au paire?

    Guys, I have a suggestion. Let us have a private library. We can create a page containing this library. I would like to read atg and mjwml but I cannot find them anywhere and don’t want to buy them.

    Beside, we have all links, documents, … let us have them in this library. I would suggest that Lynande who has the book (s) be the coordinator of this library. Everyone send material to her and she adds it in the library. Helena should decide who would have access to the library.

    The good thing with this is that many will get involved and more research will be done.
    What do you say?


  10. September 27, 2010 10:13 pm




  11. visitor permalink
    September 27, 2010 10:28 pm

    @choupine I remember reading something like that too but I have to look for it


  12. lynande51 permalink
    September 27, 2010 10:55 pm

    Just so you know I am putting together a library of news articles and the book I can scan to Adobe. It Might take a while because I work but my intention is to get a good online library. I have ATG, BCWYL,and MJWML I will not scan some of that book because it is my FIRM belief that it would qualify as child pornography just because of the wayit is written and It involves so many children. I have Unmasked and Conspiracy as well but if you would like a link to


  13. September 28, 2010 1:11 am

    more info on wade and michael

    and as for this “norma salinas” she was the maid of evan chandler i know she was involved some how in this book and i believe that some of his garbage in his book is a copy from Michael jackson unauthorized.


  14. lynande51 permalink
    September 28, 2010 6:00 am

    I though It might be important to buy Chritopher Andersen’s book as well so I just spent zero dollars to buy it with my Amazon rewards. I wonder why some people call that book the most expensive Michael Jackson book out there? It didn’t cost me a thing. Maybe it was the one that cost the most to publish by the author? Well sorry I don’t get it.Actually the most expensive Michael Jackson book is The Michael Jackson Opus and they are sold out. It is the only one that Michael authorized just before he died. I also have a signed copy of Moonwalk and Dancing The Dream (originals how about that). See I don’t just read the trash trying to dig into the past and straighten it out I read the really good stuff too.


  15. Louise permalink
    September 28, 2010 1:11 pm

    “I also have a signed copy of Moonwalk and Dancing The Dream (originals how about that)” You’re a lucky girl, Lynande!!!

    Thank you for doing a library. Tell us when you have finished it and when we should send you our links and documents. Do you want them?

    Choupine, Visitor, please share the link when you find it.

    Lynande, is VG in the center of the research now? Should ppl who wish to help look for info about him? How about the others? VG-“norma salinas”? VG-DD? Sneddon? … ?


  16. lynande51 permalink
    September 28, 2010 3:28 pm

    Yes I do need help finding out things about VG. For a “freelance” writer as he liked to call himself I haven’t been able to find one single article that he wrote here in the US. That makes me very suspicious because it has always been my understanding that to make any money as a freelance writer you have to have publications that will purchase your work. So far the only thing I have been able to find is ONE other political piece written in Chile in the years following the 1993 case. He is only quoted in the piece he is not given any writing credit and it is basically the same thing he did here, the old ” according to his unnamed sources”. I sure hope that didn’t get the President of Chile in trouble at the time because that was who he was talking about.
    In the tabloid industry it was very common for the writers or the publications to buy information and it didn’t matter what the information was as long as they got someone to buy it. They used people called “brokers” that would find these people willing to sell a story and then connect them to the tabloid that was the highest bidder.For an example Blanca Francia and Hard Copy, I have a newspaper article that says that she used a broker to sell her story to them,also the Havenhurst Five.The interesting part about that would be that she sold her story first and then was deposed by Larry Feldman and then the police. I don’t know why no one picked up on this until after the settlement.Doesn’t it seem like it should have been done in exactly the opposite order? I guess what I am driving at is this: I believe that is what Victor Gutierrez was,only a broker for the tabloids.More interesting would be that he was earning money here in the US that probably went unreported to the IRS because the brokers usually got paid as part of what the person giving the information got paid or a commission.I wonder how much of her $20,000.00 Blanca actually got after Victor got his portion?It sure would be interesting to know that.He was only finding people for the tabs and then the only thing he ever tried to write was MJWML, that is the only writing that is attributable to him.


  17. Suzy permalink
    September 28, 2010 4:14 pm

    Didn’t he also accuse a politician of p-ia in Chile?


  18. shelly permalink
    September 28, 2010 4:41 pm

    I wonder VG knew all that stuff about Joy Robson.


  19. September 28, 2010 5:45 pm

    Here is what Wade had to say about Michael Jackson:

    “Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of human kind. He was a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk.

    I love you Michael.



  20. Denise permalink
    September 28, 2010 8:39 pm


    Whatever you say………..


  21. Eloise permalink
    September 28, 2010 8:52 pm

    joanna = desiree


  22. Denise permalink
    September 28, 2010 8:56 pm


    But that’s what he(Victor) wants you to do. Believe in everything that is written. Whereas you may believe it, everybody’s not that gullible. And if you think that us fans are gullible because we believe in a human being’s innocence, well that’s your opinion. Victor’s book makes NO! sense. Can any of the stuff in his book be proven????? How do you know that He is not lying to the reader????? Do have evidence that suggest’s Michael’s guilt. And di you know Michael sued that weirdo-Victor for $2.7 million bucks????? But Victor NEVER paid his debt, and decided to skip the country til’ he could possibly get aways with it??????

    And it’s not “One thing” in his book he has lied about. He lied about almost every little boy Michael has been freinds with in one way or another. He claims that Culkin was molested, Wade was molested, etc. This book was written in 97′. The trial was in 2005, all of them testified that Michael didn’t fondled them.

    We’re reading all these HATER BOOKS and they scream vindication. More so than the Pro-Jackson books.

    Which one are you gonna trust COURT DOCUMENTS or stupid book written by a cold-blooded nut job?

    I already know who I believe.


  23. shelly permalink
    September 28, 2010 9:00 pm

    No offense, but I think we should stop talking to Desiree/Joanna. If she really think that a book has more values than testimonies nobody can help her.


  24. Suzy permalink
    September 28, 2010 9:12 pm


    Why don’t you have at least the guts to stick to your original name and identity? You are too transparent, girl.


  25. ... permalink
    September 28, 2010 9:16 pm

    One lie? Pfft don’t make me laugh!

    1. He said in a documentary he was hiding because of attacks by MJ fans
    … in reality he owed MJ money and so left the country in order not to pay!

    2. He said that there was an incriminating tape of MJ with his nephew
    …in reality there was no such tape – hence why he owed him money!

    3. He said MJ wrote ‘You are not alone’ for Jordan
    …in reality R. Kelly wrote that song!

    the list goes on…

    And yeah you might be right that MJ may be guilty … but so far you have not said anything remotely convincing.

    Take your argument about those books … one was not even opened – it was from a fan and the second was a book which was legal.

    Which leads me to my next point … all his computers were searched, by the FBI, and they couldn’t find anything apart from those two books … oh and all of those porno mags of women – well I guess that was a facade – just to hide those two books!

    Not only that, but if MJ was a peadophile, then he must have been the most selective peadophile in the world – he molests 3 kids in his lifetime – even though he has the advantage of being one of the most famous people in the world who lives in Neverland and has had thousands of kids visit the place. One of the kids couldn’t remember being molested until 1993 eventhough he was molested many times starting from 1988. Some kids said they had slept in the same bed with him but he didn’t do anything – why would he pass up an opportunity like that if he was a peadophile?

    Contrary to what you think, MJ fans are not blinded, we have open minds … but so far theres nothing to say he’s guilty, so until you come back with real arguments based on information from a credible journalist, we’ll keep thinking that!


  26. September 28, 2010 9:55 pm

    “Take your argument about those books … one was not even opened – it was from a fan and the second was a book which was legal.”

    I thought I heard that the book from “Rhonda” was not even open. How the judge allowed the Prosecution to put into evidence something MJ never seen, I’ll never know.

    Do you have a link or something saying that the book wasn’t open?


  27. shelly permalink
    September 28, 2010 10:07 pm

    It doesn’t matter if they were opened or not. They were in the Library of Congress, meaning they were not considered as pedophile books by lots of people.


  28. Eloise permalink
    September 28, 2010 10:16 pm

    A second book, “Boys Will Be Boys”, contained the inscription: “To Michael: From your fan, Rhonda. Love XXXOOO ♥ Rhonda – 1983, Chicago.” There was no evidence that Michael had ever opened this book.


  29. September 28, 2010 10:29 pm

    @ Shelly,

    I know that. But if they weren’t open it further proves how the Prosecutors made up evidence.

    @ Eloise,

    Thanks for the link.


  30. Chris permalink
    September 28, 2010 11:09 pm

    Not only the most selective peadophile but the most RETARDED as well. Name me a peadophile that would go on international TV and say “yeah i have kids in my bedroom”.
    That would be like a rapist walking down the street with a T-shirt saying “I rape people”.

    MJ guilty hunters seem to not consider these things and where the selective biased ones with no logic? PLEASSSSEEEE!!!


  31. September 28, 2010 11:11 pm

    you could contact some members of the fan club Dancing the Dream Chile may be they have more info of vg, some of the members know english they are on facebook here is the link


  32. shelly permalink
    September 28, 2010 11:14 pm


    I think they were opened. The defense never said they weren’t and it would have been a good point for them.


  33. September 28, 2010 11:33 pm

    and by the way verga gutierrez said that he was going to be a witness in 2005 because he had a lot of evidence that MJ was a cm, but the da called to a newspaper here in Chile and denied it, if all these MJ “experts” had evidence why they didn’t give it to the da, instead lets write books we’ll just gonna throw dirt aND F***** his good name.


  34. lynande51 permalink
    September 28, 2010 11:57 pm

    Dez/ Joanna/Chili/ whatever you call yourself your IP address is showing again.What Desiree would like is an argument a debate. She/HE would like to PROVE for whatever reason that she can be open minded and like Michael but still believe he is guilty. Her/His problem is in her own head. She/He still has not even proven to me that she/he is who her/his blog says she/he is. What makes her/him look at things that are blatant lies and call them lies but say they are true by her own words could confuse anyone. An example I quote her” just because it is fiction doesn’t mean it isn’t a fact”? Difficult premise for a biography isn’t it? here is the definition of fiction:
    fic·tion   /ˈfɪkʃən/ Show Spelled
    [fik-shuhn] Show IPA

    1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form.
    2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
    3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We’ve all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
    4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
    5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
    6. Law . an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law.

    Here is the definition of Fact:
    fact   /fækt/ Show Spelled
    [fakt] Show IPA

    1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
    2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
    3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
    4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
    5. Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
    6. after the fact, Law . after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact.
    7. before the fact, Law . prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact.
    8. in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.

    No can anyone explain how fiction can be fact? Not me.


  35. Eloise permalink
    September 29, 2010 2:08 am

    Does anyone know why Desiree messages disappear? They have also gone the comments Carl Toms (O’Carrold) when I published his criminal record in the comments area of the June 13 article from the Huffington post of Charles Thomson. Do not misunderstand me, I want more than anyone that no trace of such spam. Have the same pattern in this regard. I suspect that behind all these nicks is hidden Thomas O’Carrold.


  36. Suzy permalink
    September 29, 2010 4:21 am


    I’m in full agreement with Lynette about deleting your posts since you add nothing valuable to this conversation. You don’t have arguments, you just come here to troll and flame and advertise your blog. And to make up dirty fantasy stories about little boys.


  37. lynande51 permalink
    September 29, 2010 4:24 am

    I am a nurse and I work some of the time in surgery and some of the time in psychiatry. I don’t go to your blog to belittle you, you however come to ours to belittle not so much Michael Jackson but people that have done you no harm, his fans. It is futile for us to debate you because to you your chosen topic is set in stone so why would we bother engaging in a debate with you. Some people feel obliged to reply when you come to our blog and say hurtful things to them not just about Michael Jackson but you single out the people that comment to our posts. You most certainly think I am the person that deleted your comment but this time you would be wrong a. Now I deal with people like you every day. I don’t think you have a psychiatric disorder but I do believe that you have an AxisII disorder, I think you like to make this more about you than anyone else. You are a distraction that is all you are and I think you will soon find that no one will pay any attention to you soon because you wear out your welcome so quickly.


  38. lcpledwards permalink
    September 29, 2010 4:48 am

    Desiree, Sonrisa, whoever: let’s just agree to disagree, OK? We believe MJ is innocent, and you believe he’s guilty. Nothing we say is going to change your mind, and vice versa. I think it’s best that you just stop posting inflammatory comments on this site. If any of our readers want to engage you in conversation regarding MJ’s allegations, then THEY WILL GO TO YOUR BLOG AND DO SO!

    You should just continue doing what you do on your blog, and if you post anything that we don’t agree with, then we’ll leave comments. Thank you very much for understanding.


  39. Louise permalink
    September 29, 2010 9:01 am

    Please, don’t pay attention to the hater. (S)He just wants to waste our precious time. Let’s just delete his / her “comm.” and get back to work.

    I saw something about VG perhaps you have already seen it


  40. ares permalink
    September 29, 2010 9:12 am

    The work that you guys are doing over here is mindblowing. Is the work that the “reliable” media should have done years ago. Thank you


  41. visitor permalink
    September 29, 2010 10:53 am

    Hello. Can i post some of your articles on my blog. I will provide the link of your page and of course the names of the authors. If it’s not possible i understand.


  42. lcpledwards permalink
    September 29, 2010 12:28 pm

    @ visitor
    Yes, you may repost the articles, and please provide links back to this site. Thanks for asking! You can also subscribe to this blog (or an individual post) to receive an email whenever a new article (or comment) is posted!


  43. visitor permalink
    September 29, 2010 12:34 pm

    I see there is another one with the “visitor” username. So I will change mine to Olga


  44. visitor permalink
    September 29, 2010 1:18 pm

    Thank you very much. The articles on this site are trully amazing.


  45. lynande51 permalink
    September 29, 2010 3:06 pm

    Louise thank you so much for the link to that article. I had read it a ling time ago but didn’t save it . It is now saved and added to my library.I knew there was something about the President of Chile and him but I couldn’t remember what it was. I like his plea to the court about being a humble journalist that makes no money and can not afford to pay such a large amount of $46,000.00 US. I guess that means he probably will never pay his debt to Michael Jackson or the estate now either will he. The interesting thing is he didn’t think it was as bad as other people it was just a small lie not worth the trouble. I wonder if he tried the same defense in the case here in the US.How would it have gone something like this” It was just a small lie about knowing all these boys that he molested, and about knowing of a tape that doesn’t exist,I don’t think it hurt Michael Jackson 2.7 million dollars worth”. I’m almost laughing as I say this but the one and only thing I would ever agree with Ray Chandler about is that Victor Gutierrez is a sleaezbag.From one sleazebag to another right?That was difficult but it wasn’t as bad as Nancy Grace having to eat crow.


  46. September 29, 2010 9:48 pm

    Guys, hello again,
    I see that some comments from Joanna/Desiree (?) have been suspended. It is okay with me if you prefer it this way, though we could have kept her comments as a sample of stubborn hatred which refuses to listen to reason no matter what. Examples of such hatred may be useful to show to third-party readers WHO is really fixed on some delusional ideas here – Michael’s fans or their opponents.

    I would like to comment on Joanna’s opening statement and share some ideas with you in this respect:

    “…you did find it credible. VG did talk to Joy Robson and, although he may be whatever Michael Jackson really was (yet you refuse to believe it), his reportage is solid and accurate.”

    Yes, the problem with all prearranged provocations and well thought-out lies is that they ARE credible. They capture the imagination of people and start a life of their own. This makes well-detailed lies awfully dangerous and harmful – if lies were blatant and foolish no one would believe them.

    Previously I thought that Victor Gutierrez’s book was absurd in its hatred and was therefore harmless. Now I see this is not so. Victor Gutierrez is aiming higher – at a perfect lie which is difficult to neutralize and this is the reason I said that the trial in 2005 was such a blessing to us. Many of Gutierrez’s “interviewees” were witnesses there and said under oath completely the opposite to what he had fantasized about. So the best revenge to Gutierrez is life itself as it goes on.

    Gutierrez tried to be top careful in what he said. To safeguard himself he preferred to attach most of the hateful statements to OTHERS hiding himself behind the shoulders of these people. This way he was immune to penalizing, as few hateful statements could be linked directly to him – his are only pedophilic interpretations based on other people’s stories.

    His intonation towards Michael and Jordan seemed to me slightly different from the usual haters – he is definitely sympathizing with Jordan and shows “understanding” for his feelings. According to him Jordan was in love with Michael and THIS IS EXACTLY THE APPROACH WHICH MAKES ME THINK THAT THE AUTHOR IS A PED-LE. He is not thundering in fury and rage over Michael’s ‘misbehavior’ as others do – no, he is just ridiculing the idea that Michael was heterosexual and trying his best to show this was not so. That is why a large part of his narration is devoted to making fun of Michael’s marriage to Lisa-Maria Presley. And at times you can almost feel he is simply offended by the idea that Michael may be interested in women…

    Guys, do you remember Gutierrez speaking in Peretti’s film and saying a very strange thing? Sitting there in the dark of the car he said that probably one day people would stop regarding this type of behavior (implying ped-lia) as wrong and would look at it more favorably? He said something like “Who knows how people will look at it in the future?” At the time it seems strange to me but now things are starting to fit in – he intentionally dropped the idea of a future acceptance of it by the society (NOT that it has anything to do with MJ!)

    See what I am driving at? At the expense of Michael Jackson someone wanted to introduce the idea of tolerance to “this kind of love”- that is why the basis for the book was allegedly A BOY’S DIARY (which no one ever saw or heard of) describing the feelings of a boy who is in love with an older male… Let us put two and two together and ask ourselves – SINCE NO SUCH DIARY EVER EXISTED WHO ELSE COULD WRITE IT?

    Without ever consulting each other both Lynette and me felt an undercurrent in this book – it seems to both of us to be the work of a ped-le who turned the story of friendship into the story of ‘love’, with the first-hand knowledge of such things communicated to the reader by its ped-le author.

    That is why I would suggest we don’t use the book in our library (which we should otherwise naturally compile). Including this book into our library would be the equivalent of spreading child pornography and eroding natural human resistance to crimes like that. Spreading this information is the dearest dream of each ped-le and we shouldn’t give them such an opportunity. However we will quote it as much as it is only possible for research purposes and try to find an antidote to all its venom.

    Next time I hope to make a post about the dirty ditch into which Gutierrez turned Michael’s marriage to Lisa-Maria Presley (if I manage to come to terms with the hotel’s Internet and the roar of the crowd around).

    If Joanna/Desiree is following us I hope one day she will be honest enough to say that Gutierrez is nothing but a sick person, a dirty liar and a pervert requiring medical help.

    By the way from the article provided by Louise (dated 2008) it turns out that Gutierrez is not married, has a widowed mother and some nieces and nephews only. No wife, no children – just another hint at Gutierrez not being interested in women and being keen on something else..

    The Associated Press
    updated 10/30/2008

    SANTIAGO, Chile — Chile’s Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the slander conviction of a journalist who alleged that a former Miss Universe was having an affair with novelist Paulo Coelho while engaged to Argentina’s president.

    The court ordered Chilean journalist Victor Gutierrez to pay $46,000 to Cecilia Bolocco for the allegations, which he made during a 2001 television appearance.

    Bolocco has repeatedly denied the allegation that she had an affair with the Brazilian author while engaged to Argentine President Carlos Menem. Menem served as president of Argentina from 1989 to 1999.

    In his appeal of a lower court ruling, Gutierrez wrote that “there was no intention to offend, and if there was an offense, it would be minor, not serious.”

    Gutierrez said he would be hard-pressed to pay the fine.

    “I’m only a journalist who does not earn millions with his coverage,” he wrote in his appeal. “We’re dealing with a humble person, whose income goes directly to help his widowed mother and several disadvantaged nieces and nephews.”


  47. Veronique permalink
    September 29, 2010 11:07 pm

    @ vindicatemj

    I have already posted on my blog an entry about Gutierrez’s book. I explained, in full detail, the purpose and intent of the book, outside of it’s investigatory core. You want me to be honest and say that VG is sick and I have already made that clear.

    He may very well be a pedophile. But I referred to him as sleazy and, at the very least, a pedophile sympathizer.

    If VG was a pedophile I wouldn’t find it surprising in the least. However, his sympathies towards such a predilection is not enough for me to ascertain his proclivity. If he refused to abandon sleepovers after being accused of child molestation; had special friends; wrote checks in the millions to parents of young boys; had books of naked youths and naked boys; married a woman following years of singularity only after a scandal, the union crumbling predictably…I could make a better judgment as to whether he was a pedophile. Outside of seeing a tape or a picture, with the aforementioned evidence alone, I’d have to agree with you!

    But even if VG was rapist, it doesn’t change the fact his ‘salacious’ book is chock-full of well-researched reportage. At this point, the only reason you disagree with the book is because you think it is child pornography-lite, disgusting, and it bashes Michael Jackson.

    All of those are just opinions, you know…

    This post on Joy Robson leaves much to be desired in that the only way you try to refute VG’s ‘story’ is by using her words on the stand. I will give you credit in that you acknowledged Victor most likely talked to her. However, we must remember talk is cheap; I think of Wade’s successful career and juxtapose it with the fact this woman allowed her 7-year-old to sleep in the bed with Michael the first time they got to Neverland. I’m not saying she pimped the boy but it isn’t impossible.

    I know he sponsored them when they came to the States; it is yet another debt Joy has to pay to Michael. Is it possible she could pay off this debt by allowing Michael unfettered access to her son? It isn’t impossible.

    Charli Michaels said she saw Michael fondling Wade while they were dancing in the studio, Michael grabbing his crotch and saying ‘Wee! Wee!’ every time he’d lift the boy’s privates. Of course, Wade denied this. It was either he doesn’t remember; he didn’t recognize Michael’s hands-on approach to dance lessons as abuse (most likely); or he’s lying.

    Again, I must think of how far this boy’s career has went, the sacrifices Joy had to make.

    Joy was just odd on the stand, a little too effusive, which makes me wonder about VG’s ‘story’. You think it’s impossible but I think he did talk to her and he probably wasn’t adding to the convo.

    Remember this woman said she cried on Mother’s Day because her son was sleeping after spending an entire day (and night) with Michael. Charli Michael’s remembered this, although Sneddon’s attempt to put her on the stand was too little too late; Charli, as I’ve said above, saw Wade being groped. Joy also told June Chandler that Michael would have a special friend soon enough to replace Jordie (I believe it was stated at some time that Wade, as did other boys, cried when Michael was focusing on a particular child over themselves).

    So, what I’m saying is this: I understand the ‘idea’ of thanking God for the trial so you could have Joy’s words to contradict Gutierrez’s version of events. However, again, talk is cheap. The woman clearly knows more about Michael (neg. things) than she let on on the stand; her previous depositions and testimonies contradict the newer tales. Seeing Wade’s success, it isn’t a stretch of the imagination to think her character testimony was a form of eternal gratitude to her benefactor.

    Quid pro quo, quid pro quo… Joy’s actions and previous testimony belie her effusiveness. At the end of the day, you don’t know for sure (as I don’t) if she was really telling the truth. IMHO, I think she wasn’t, especially after everything Michael had done for the Robsons.



  48. Anna permalink
    September 30, 2010 6:27 am


    I understand the point you are making in your debate, however you say talk is cheap as if it doesn’t really matter at all in this case. If talk is so cheap then why give any side any credibility. If talk is cheap why bother to even have a trial because no one will ever know for sure what the truth is or isn’t. The problem is the talk from those agains’t Michael was coming from a family who had told lies before, and employess who had sold stories to tabloids and lost a civil lawsuit agaisn’t Michael for wrong termination. The testimoney they gave about what they saw had been refuted by the boys they testified about having witnessed such events. Did Joy know more than she was saying, maybe, but she wasn’t the one making the accusations against Michel, the burdon of proof was on the prosecution to prove their case, the defense’s job was to create reasonble doubt. Joy, her daughter and her son Wade were willing to come forward as character witnesses and Wade was there to refute what others said they witnessed with him and Michael. Were they lying, maybe, however, it’s interesting that the those in the media and public against Michael were more easily convinced that these character witnesses and the boys refuting the allegations that included them were lying, yet so quickly believed the accusers were telling the truth, even with all the holes, conflicting testimony and previous lies told by this family. Not to mention the wild kidnapping conspiracy testimony of Janet Arviso.

    The point of this post I think is to show that the trial transcripts were the actual words on the stand that Joy Robson attested to herself regarding her families relationship to Michael. The words in VG’s book can only be verified by VG.


  49. September 30, 2010 7:45 am

    Veronique, Claire, Desiree or Joanna – first may I ask you to stick to one name only, please? If you keep to a legitimate dialogue and don’t insult innocent Michael’s fans with the language used I hope they will allow you to stay and share your opinion.

    You probably understand that from over here (the hotel lounge with all its music and the crowd passing by) I am not able to give you a full answer. So a short answer at the moment will be:

    – judging by the events described it seems that VG did talk to Joy Robson (and to other people) but it doesn’t matter
    – as the interpretation and all the added “embellishments” belong to him
    – and because many people he talked to are no better than him (Joy is surely an exception).
    – if you think that the interpretation and the nature of the person who is writing are nothing you are wrong. It is EVERYTHING. Michael Jackson is a kind of a mirror in which we see not him, but ourselves
    – because the problem with Michael Jackson lies in OUR NATURE (not his) and in our own habits, perceptions, interpretations of other people’s behavior, our cynicism, our disbelief in another person’s best motives and in our inability to even imagine that such purity can exist.
    – so everything you’ve said above may be interpreted in the worst or the best possible light – and it depends on an approach each of us chooses in life. Your choice is to explain it by dirty motives – my choice NOW is to explain it from a rare and practically lost now sheer purity. I also believed Michael’s detractors and never took the trouble to really listen to Michael – but when I did I felt the difference and was horrified by myself… Call it a miracle or a return to innocence or whatever but I feel it almost physically that I have become cleaner since I really met Michael through the lyrics of his songs, his intimate tapes, his Oxford speech and everything else.

    If you read VG, Anderson, DD, M.Orth and the rest you will never meet Michael. But if you are honest in your research you should give it a try and meet the other side too. I suggest Michael’s Oxford speech first. If it doesn’t help it will only mean that your case is graver than mine – we’ll see what we can do about it.

    In the meantime as a kind of a small exercise may I suggest you try to find a refutation to your own very first accusation:

    “He refused to abandon sleepovers after being accused of child molestation”


    Suppose you befriend some teenagers (as I did at this hotel because only them and me are using the internet here) and the teenagers’ parents grow suspicious of your friendship and insist that you can’t use the internet because it is unnatural for a 56 year old woman to associate with teenagers on this basis? What will you think and do about it?

    I’ll be waiting…….


  50. shelly permalink
    September 30, 2010 9:41 am


    We don’t even know if he talked to Joy. He is a friend of Dimond who is a friend of the DA. Look at Orth, she never talked to Joy but published plenty of info about Wade just because she talked to the police.


  51. Suzy permalink
    September 30, 2010 1:33 pm

    I agree with Shelly.

    I personally don’t believe VG even ever talked to Joy Robson. IMO he talked to other people, employees of Michael, perhaps the ones who later also sold stories, and police. That’s how he knows certain stories, such as the story with the lion and so on. (Of course, then he spiced them up in his book.)

    I’m not even convinced yet he has worked on anything prior to 1993. In the hindsight he can claim that, but we only have his word for it, which isn’t worth much. Of course, if he did then it would be an interesting turn of events, because like we have already discussed that would mean he is the original mastermind behind portraying MJ as a p. And since he – to me at least – seems like an early version of Thomas O’Caroll, one can only wonder about the bigger schemes behind all this….

    That’s a possibility, of course, but as I said: we only have his word for the claim he has been working on the subject for years before 1993. It could be true, but it can be a complete lie, like so many things he says.


  52. shelly permalink
    September 30, 2010 3:14 pm

    If Joy really talked to Gutierrez and said that tje prosecution would have use it against her. They were very well aware of the book and they would have done to her what Mesereau did with their witness.


  53. Suzy permalink
    September 30, 2010 4:36 pm

    And let’s not forget the Chandlers were around at the time. Joy Robson and June Chandler knew each other. And Gutierrez likely talked to the Chandlers. So the Chandlers too could be the source of some information about the Robsons.


  54. shelly permalink
    September 30, 2010 4:44 pm

    Let’s not forget the video tape story. He said he spoke to the mother of Jeremy Jackson and totally made up the story. Nobody believed him including Sneddon and his team. It’s possible he talked to Evan because Evan was caught on tape saying he wanted to destroy MJ’s career but it can be another lie from Gutierrez.


  55. September 30, 2010 4:55 pm

    “I personally don’t believe VG even ever talked to Joy Robson. IMO he talked to other people, employees of Michael, perhaps the ones who later also sold stories, and police. (Of course, then he spiced them up in his book).”

    Girls, IMO it doesn’t really matter whether he did or didn’t talk to Joy Robson – what does matter is that he took some facts (from whatever source ) and gave them his own coloring. Even from his version of her words it is clear that Joy Robson never said anything bad about Michael – the most he could muster about Joy was a ‘meaningful’ look, which in reality (if he did talk to her) must have been a glaring look at VG’s most outrageous comments but which he interpreted in his own ped-c way.

    The technique of lies here is very easy. Suppose he did see Wade demonstrating his dancing skills somewhere – all boys like boasting about them (even Jordan imitated Michael in the street and people marveled at it, stopped to see and jokingly offered money). Someone could have applauded Wade and offered him money in the same way. So what? But for a crooked writer like Victor Gutierrez it is a perfect start – a homeless boy begging for money in the street! Dropped by MJ after a fall out with his mother! Doomed to poverty! While the most that could have taken place was that VG stood by Joy Robson’s side watching Wade and asking an innocent question or two about how he had learned to dance so well and whether they had ever seen the great Michael Jackson live. She could have mentioned something – and then it was a matter of technicality to add a couple of ‘details’ – and voila – the smashing story is ready. And formally he is right – they did meet!

    Michael spoke in the tapes with Shmuley of similar situations – he shook hands with thousands of people whom he met for the first time but who later bragged to journalists they were Michael’s friends (and told stories about him) though the only thing was that they shook hands with him just once. Well, technically, they did meet, didn’t they?

    “I’m not even convinced yet he has worked on anything prior to 1993. In the hindsight he can claim that, but we only have his word for it, which isn’t worth much. Of course, if he did then it would be an interesting turn of events”

    Suzy, and do you remember that LA newspaper found by Lynette which said that the police had interviewed VG among the first? They didn’t find anything substantial from him but the fact speaks for itself – he had been collecting something about Michael.

    “And since he – to me at least – seems like an early version of Thomas O’Caroll, one can only wonder about the bigger schemes behind all this….”

    What’s funny is that VG, Thomas O’Çarroll (and Martin Bashir) look very much alike. You can see the photo of T.O’Carroll in my post about the book he wrote as Carl Tom and compare it with the film by Peretti where we see Victor Gutierrez. Of course saying that all the two (or three) of them are one and the same person would be too far-fetched but they do look to me like brothers. Or are all ped-les alike?


  56. Suzy permalink
    September 30, 2010 6:55 pm

    @ Helena

    Suzy, and do you remember that LA newspaper found by Lynette which said that the police had interviewed VG among the first? They didn’t find anything substantial from him but the fact speaks for itself – he had been collecting something about Michael.

    Yes, I remember. But then remember that when Diane Dimond announced that 27 minute video of Michael and Jeremy Jackson, that never existed, the police also “interviewed” people like Kevin Smith – a reporter who just happened to call the police to enquire about the tape. And then they interviewed him what he knows. They were basically enquiring from each other, because nobody knew anything. LOL.

    So I can see something similar with VG as well.

    I do not exclude the other possibility at all. I’m just not yet totally convinced.


  57. September 30, 2010 8:56 pm

    But then remember that when Diane Dimond announced that 27 minute video of Michael and Jeremy Jackson, that never existed, the police also “interviewed” people like Kevin Smith – a reporter who just happened to call the police to enquire about the tape. And then they interviewed him what he knows. They were basically enquiring from each other, because nobody knew anything. LOL. So I can see something similar with VG as well. I do not exclude the other possibility at all. I’m just not yet totally convinced.

    Yes, I know. With these people we can’t exclude anything at all and should be ready for any twists and turns in the events. Actually Victor Gutierrez is such a liar that we could discard his manuscript altogether. I don’t even know why I am dealing in it – it is giving it too much honor it doesn’t deserve. The only reason is probably to show everybody how utterly ridiculous this haters’ bible is.


  58. September 30, 2010 11:00 pm

    @ vindicatemj

    No, no… I will not attack anyone on this thread. If they traveled to my blog, they’d see I’m very subdued. I only leave snarky and contemptuous comments here because I knew someone would eventually delete them and I figured: ‘Why not go out with a bang?’

    Since you are allowing me to engage in a dialogue such ‘language’ and hostility is no longer needed. I don’t know about any of you, but I dislike preaching to the choir. If I can get into a lion’s den, I’d prefer it. I know it is unlikely that I’ll change any minds here (and vice versa; given the sources with proximity to Michael Jackson I’ve spoken to, I could never think he was innocent, never ever), but if I can understand the logic behind what I can’t help but view as delusional, as well as give you fans sparing practice, I think this all serves a purpose…

    Anyway, I’ll answer your last question first:

    If I were a 56-year-old woman who had done nothing but strike up a friendship with youngsters because they shared a like interest in the the Net, I would tell those parents–who, on that basis alone, believed our friendship odd because of the age difference–to shove it.

    But what did you expect me to say to that? Using the internet is not unnatural nor is striking up friendships with youths–using a like interest in the internet as a catalyst–unnatural. People bond with whom they bond; Evan Chandler said it best when he stated ‘age in itself is not a horrible thing’.

    But if I was the mother of a teenage son (or daughter) and a 56-year-old woman wanted to spend more time with my child than I did, to the point they want to share a bed with my teen when other beds are abundantly available, that’s a problem. Anyone who does not possess the street smarts to know that that’s a problem has a problem.

    It is quite obvious that Michael Jackson could not give up the sleepovers, emotionally, mentally, spiritually. They were a compulsion. You may think it is based on his purity, innocence, and his lost childhood, but I think it reeked of a psychosexual need to be near young boys.

    Based on what I’ve researched and with whom I’ve come into contact because on having my blog, I know he was a P. I know it. Is there evidence out there that says, without a doubt, he’s guilty. Well, no; all that exists is the anecdotes of witnesses who claim to have seen inappropriate conduct between Mike and boys. These witness have credibility issues in that public dogma says if you go to the tabloids, you are a liar.

    On that tip, let me ask any and all of you this: Neverland employees who went to the tabloids are illegit, correct? Now, if you saw a tabloid story with the headline: DA TOM SNEDDON AND MJ JOURNALIST DIANE DIMOND CAUGHT IN COMPROMISING POSITION! would you not believe it? I know many of you believe–even if it is in your most fantastic speculative moments–Diane Dimond has to have done something to get all of her sources and documents. I know I used to joke about that when I still believed Michael was innocent.

    Of course there exists selective attention and many people will believe what they want to believe, but tabloid magazines are not always full of false stories. At least with tabloids here in the US, many of their stories turn out to be true or, at least, partly true. Given the attention I pay to celebrity affairs (we all have our vices), I know the value of a tabloid story.

    Anyway, it’s funny that you make a value judgment on Gutierrez and his sources (ie. other employees he’s spoken to) without knowing them yet you accuse me of not knowing Michael well enough, which keeps me thinking like a ‘hater’. That seems hypocritical.

    I cannot say for sure whether or not Joy Robson pimped Wade to Michael but, if she had, I would have no problem saying she is lower than Gutierrez and any employee that sold a story to the tabloids before talking to police. The reality is we know none of these people. Michael’s songs are a reflection of his inner self, which is why I feel perturbed by his constant mentioning of children and childhood in songs dating before Thriller. His words, however, need to be given context.

    If he’s sitting in front of a camera or knows he’s being recorded, I’ll have to take what he says with a grain of salt, knowing how image-conscious he was. However, if it’s something secretive, like those Glenda convos that were recorded without his knowledge, I’ll give it more weight. In those, he said he hated his ‘nigger hair’, which tells me he was a racist against blacks and saw himself as distinct from his own people.

    I have read his Oxford speech and it is all PR and fluff. (I read it as it had been printed in Shmuley Boteach’s book ‘The Michael Jackson Tapes’, if that is the full version.) Michael hated his father (he mentioned him in the speech) and would regurgitate. Joe Jackson sexually abused Michael when he was a child, which is why Michael continued to sexually abuse other male children.

    Do you not believe Michael was a victim of sexual abuse? By Joe and other men?

    You know, you’re making Michael out to be a messiah and he was so far from it! Asking me to be cleansed by a man who was a P is kind of insulting. Mike’s behavior cannot be seen through any other prism than the one that showcases his behavior as unacceptable. I don’t believe people are so prurient that they see everything as dirty or sexual. But I do believe most people are intelligent enough to know when someone is COMPULSIVELY engaged in creepy behavior.

    The ‘lost childhood’ garbage was PR spin. It was most likely a compromise between Sony and their billion-dollar man: they wanted to clean up his image, get him married off (LOL), end the ‘boy thing’, while Michael couldn’t really commit to all of the rules. They say, ‘Fine, you can’t give up the sleepovers, we’ll say you do it because you lost your childhood.’ We all know Michael loved being a star and being in the spotlight; his childhood was traumatic but he always said he’d never change a thing. So, the ‘lost childhood’ stuff is BS.

    I don’t think Michael is being jeered for being different. He’s jeered because, in his compulsions, his ego and his detachment from reality, he refused to give up the boys. Knowing what I know from the source I have, I know for a fact Michael’s sleepovers and special friends weren’t ‘pure’ or ‘innocent’; they were sexual.

    I think you guys should keep reading. I have researched extensively and I do know both sides. My aim is not to nail Mike to the cross but I do believe there are too many MJ fans that seem slightly delusional. You can believe what you’d like, I feel, but at least be able to defend it!

    BTW, Michael Jackson wasn’t straight. (sorry so long)



  59. September 30, 2010 11:01 pm

    @ Anna

    I understand what you are saying about Gutierrez’s story can only be verified by Gutierrez. It’s true: if we don’t have a tape recording or transcript of his convo with Joy, it will always be up to debate. If you think VG is no good, his story is BS; if, like me, you think VG has value, his story can be looked at as having merit.

    Anyway, when I say ‘talk is cheap’, I mean ‘actions speak louder than words’.

    Joy Robson cried on Mother’s day to Charli Michaels because she couldn’t find her son. That makes me think she knew Michael’s proclivity for boys and feared for his safety. Her words to June Chandler (which she confirmed she’d said) about Michael finding another special friend to replace Jordie makes me think she knew about Michael’s proclivity for boys.

    I was researching pedophiles and ‘boylovers’ last night and I stumbled upon a blog featuring pictures of boys (dressed, playing kid’s games, etc.) and one of the ‘boylovers’ said something to the extent that a boy, who’d been about 12 in one of the pictures, was now 19 and was ‘too old’.

    This would certainly jive with Michael’s revolving door of special friends and how he just drops them and has a new one, something Joy told June Chandler. (Interestingly enough, when Michael knew Jordie would not be able to come along with him on the Dangerous Tour, he quickly brought in Brett Barnes–Jordie’s ‘twin’–as a replacement; it makes me wonder if that was intentional on Michael’s part…)

    That Joy Robson said that to June Chandler and then was on the stand saying Michael was a great guy, etc., etc., makes me question the veracity of her testimony.

    That is all I’m saying. Words are frequently sources of true but, as always, everyone needs to be checked out. I believe very strongly that Joy knows a lot more about Michael than she said. She’s an intelligent woman, I can tell, but she looks likes she hiding something.

    I am up in the air about whether Wade had ever been molested but I do believe Charli Michaels saw Michael handling the boy in an inappropriate way during dance lessons. The group New Edition recounted that Michael would be very physical in handling his subjects (they were all teen boys at the time and were weirded out that Michael liked to touch them on the hips, etc.). Is it impossible Wade simply mistook the fondling as normal instruction? I don’t think so!

    As for the media, anyone who believed the Arvizos without a question is full of crap. They had a history of lying and extortion. They were greedy. However, while I don’t necessarily believe Gavin Arvizo was molested, there was something suspicious going on regarding the unindicted co-conspirators (the Germans, Schaffel, Frank Cascio, etc.) trying to get them out of the country. Why were people taking their furniture? I believe Michael knew what was going on and possibly arranged it; he just had a good attorney in Tom Mesereau and T-Mez was able to effectively distance Michael from the truly strange goings-on with the Arvizos. I don’t know if Gavin was touched but I wouldn’t be surprised. Everything was too weird…

    Remember, reasonable doubt does not equal completely exonerating evidence showcasing innocence. Nor does Not Guilty equal innocence.

    I implore you to look at behavior. Michael said he’d slit his wrists before he’d hurt a child but in 1993, he ran like a man scared. He fought the doctors during the body search. He wrote checks in the millions to Jordie, Jason, and Jimmy Safechuck’s dad. He didn’t ACT innocent.



  60. Anna permalink
    October 1, 2010 1:01 am


    I see. It seems you’re not convinced of Michael’s guilt or innocense, but that you have made up your mind up about how you view Michael Jackson as a person.

    My goal specifically, is just to encourage people, particularly haters, detractors or anyone on the fence to hear the other side of the argument rather then what bias members of the media have chosen to focus on, not to say Michael “was innocent because I say so” Honestly I believe that is the goal of readers and commenter who frequent this site, to present the sides of the argument that the media chooses to ignore.

    My point about reasonable doubt was that the defense’s job was to create reasonalbe doubt, outside of credible witnesses and forensic evidence cases such as the People vs. Michael Jackson would be impossible to acquit if the law was to prove innocense “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” There simply wasn’t enough evidence or credible tesimony for the jury to convict, hence the prosecution couldn’t prove their case. The defense was successful in creating reasonable doubt, obviously reasonable doubt won’t fully exonarate a person in regards to public opinion, which is why accusations like this are so hard to defend against. How was Michael Jackson defense going prove he didn’t molest Gavin. How do you prove something “didn’t happen” it’s impossible. Obviously no one could be %100 percent sure, and many of us feel awful that Michael placed himself in such a vulnerable position. I think we all realize how much his poor judgement in this instance and others put him at serious risk and did do much harm to his reputation. (I won’t spend time going into my personal hypothesis of why I think he had poor judgmenet and turned out differently than the rest of us from the research I’ve done on my own. That could be an entire book. LOL) However, while none of could be 100% absolutly sure of anything, many of us feel we can be reasonably sure based on evidence (or in this case lack of evidence) and testimonies from all witnesses, the timeline, even motivations of people making and backing up the accusations. The problem many of us have in these vindication efforts is so many in the public do not know all the facts, anyone following the coverage in 2005 could easily see how bias the reportage was. Bias reporting in combination with sketchy tabloid reporting and smear books also has influenced public opinion into believing Michael was guilty.

    I just really wish people who take the time to learn all the facts themselves, go to websites that have the complete transcripts and come to their own conclusions rather than following whatever is popular public opinion at the time. I’m not saying you’re doing this, but there are many who do this and that is been frustrating to those of us who have taken to the time to learn both sides of he allegations.

    That is why I appreciate sites like this, it may seem like everyone is preaching to the choir but we all share a collective goal in educating anyone who is interested in the how unfair trial reporting, anti-MJ propoganda (i.e. smear books, tabloids) and bias media treatment has shaped public opinion about Michael Jackson in regards to the allegations.



  61. lcpledwards permalink
    October 1, 2010 7:12 am

    @ Anna
    Obviously no one could be %100 percent sure, and many of us feel awful that Michael placed himself in such a vulnerable position. I think we all realize how much his poor judgement in this instance and others put him at serious risk and did do much harm to his reputation. (I won’t spend time going into my personal hypothesis of why I think he had poor judgmenet and turned out differently than the rest of us from the research I’ve done on my own. That could be an entire book. LOL)

    I just want to make 2 quick points: yes, MJ used poor judgement in hiring Bashir without having his legal team do a complete background check on him, and without reviewing the contract. That is something we can all agree on, but if Bashir had an ounce of intergrity, he would have told MJ to have his team review the contract (out of courtesy!) Instead, he LIED to MJ for 8 straight months about how “honest and fair” the documentary would be, and how he would allow MJ final editing rights. He reneged on EVERYTHING that he told MJ. To top things off, he didn’t tell Janet Arvizo her son would be used in the doc, and he didn’t hide his face when it premiered.

    Also, I’ve heard a lot of people say that MJ used bad judgement by letting Star and Gavin sleep in his bed. It’s easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback and say it was irresponsible, but let’s keep in mind that Janet Arvizo had every intention of weaseling her way into MJ’s life by using Gavin, in order to leech off of him or falsely accuse him of molestation and hope for a settlement. She met with a lawyer(s) in January 2000 to try to sue MJ for molestation, even though she didn’t meet MJ until August 2000! If MJ had told Gavin and Star to sleep in the guest houses, then they STILL would have concocted a molestation story one way or another (for example, they could have said that MJ came to their guest house in the middle of the night and molested them), everyone would have believed them, and everything else would STILL be the same. Janet is a certified schizophrenic who manipulated her kids to lie against JC Penney, to lie against their own father, and someone who physically and sexually abused a younger female cousin.

    In my opinion, both the 1993 and 2003 cases have so much exculpatory evidence that we can, in fact, prove a “negative”!! I am that convinced of MJ’s innocence, and I’m sure all of our regular readers will agree with me! BTW, feel free to give us small parts of your personal hypothesis about why he used poor judgement! I’d love to hear it, because I know you’ll be fair to him. I’ve seen a lot of armchair psychologists try to “evaluate” MJ, while they’ve never even met him, and it’s usually negative and condescending. But fortunately I found a positive MJ documentary that features psychologists who sympathize with MJ and actually show him respect! It’s listed at the bottom of this post:

    For more info about Janet’s background and testimony, read here:


  62. October 1, 2010 9:11 am

    Desiree, I’ll get back to your post later as it is indeed long and I’ve missed most of the morning hours at the beach already. At the moment I’ll say only one thing – you haven’t met my request to try and find a positive explanation as to why Michael continued ‘sleepovers’ after the first accusations.

    I have a reason for asking you to do it. Up till now you’ve been adhering only to one side only. Try the other one – otherwise there will be no dialogue. The dialogue starts only when the other side tries to understand the opposite side. It takes two to meet. But if you keep saying that Michael was this and that, there will be no point in the discussion at all – I will answer you that he wasn’t and that will be all there is to it.

    By the way I perfectly understand your side as I’ve been there before and it is easy for me to remember what I thought about all those events at the time.

    As to a 56-year old Russian woman associating with English teenagers it takes only one step for a dirty mind to start suspecting that:
    1) she may be recruiting them for the KGB (I don’t have anything to do with this esteemed organization)
    2) that she is part of a Michael Jackson sect and is luring them into “ped-le”circles
    3) that she has a special “liking” for innocent teenagers

    This is as far as my dirty imagination took me (I can’t think of anything else).

    And I must say I’ve already noticed incredulous looks of other hotel guests who saw some teenagers waving a hand at me. The first step to “weirdness” has been made…


  63. October 1, 2010 3:59 pm

    “Joy Robson cried on Mother’s day to Charli Michaels because she couldn’t find her son. That makes me think she knew Michael’s proclivity for boys and feared for his safety.”

    Desiree, I am truly surprised by the explanations you give to Michael’s motives. When people are afraid they don’t cry! A when a mother is afraid for her son she is as brave as a tiger. .

    People cry because of the injustice or offence done to them. Joy Robson was offended that her son forgot about her on Mother’s day. They were working in the recording studio (most probably with a whole group of people) until late and didn’t remember what day it was.

    I’ve read somewhere that MJ was so intent on his work that during a break of recording “In the Closet” (I may be mistaken in the name of the song) they all suffered from terribly hot weather and during the break his team went home to take a shower. When they returned they found Michael still in the studio – he just asked for two buckets of water for himself into the studio and that’s it. He remained there working…

    If you work like that you don’t know what time of day it is and whether it is day or night at all. Remember that they recorded “We are the world” in the same way finishing only in the morning.


  64. Eloise permalink
    October 1, 2010 4:32 pm

    The Australian Wade Robson, one of the latest young Hollywood talent, revealed yesterday to have shared the bed com Michael Jackson.

    Robson has a hit show on TV and an agreement to direct three films with Disney has broken his silence.

    Now 21, but began his friendship with MJ at 5 years, Robson said that everything was an innocent friendship.

    “I never had that experience and I hope that does not happen to anyone,” he said.

    Robson has visited Neverland Ranch, and his family moved to USA to be near Jackson.

    Robson won meet Michael in 1987 after winning a dance contest, the prize was to dance with him at the Brisbane show.

    In 1991 he moved to Los Angeles with his family and appeared in 3 videos of MJ, including Black or White. After he joined the company MJJ and recorded a duet album with Quo.

    Robson said Jackson bought him instruments and continued a friendship based on creativity.

    “His initial interest in me was about how I dance. He saw the talent and the spark that was inside and what I always wanted to do is help my career.”

    Asked if he had slept in Jackson’s bed, Robson said: “Yes, but it was not anything unusual”

    Robson says he does not think it “strange” for a man to share the bed with a child.

    “Because he is at a level of genius, creative artist, an intellectual man but on the other hand, is like a child because he has never experienced the things that men normally do as they grow,” he says.

    “Everything in life is very complex, just want something very simple, being surrounded by kids”

    Robson said that Jackson never understand why you question the time spent with children.

    “The most important thing to understand is that he has no concept of reality,” he says.

    “It’s been a superstar since he was 5 years. I mean, what concept will have to society by right?

    Robson said he did not see Jackson as often: “Maybe a conversation every six months.”

    “I always support you. I hope this goes well. It’s sad to see”

    Robson, choreographer and composer of Britney Spears and ‘N Sync, just got the second most watched MTV with live dance contest The Wade Robson Project.


  65. lcpledwards permalink
    October 1, 2010 4:44 pm

    While I was reading Joy Robson’s testimony, Mesereau asked her something that jumped out at me, and is truly indicative of Sneddon’s vendetta against MJ. He asked her if Sneddon had tried to get her to say that MJ kidnapped her son, Wade. Before she could give her answer (which surely would have been “yes“), both Sneddon and Zonen objected, and Melville threw out that question, so Mesereau followed up by asking if MJ had ever kidnapped her son, and of course she said “no“!!

    23 Q. Now, you spoke to Mr. Sneddon before today,

    24 did you not?

    25 A. Yes.

    26 Q. And you were actually questioned by Mr.

    27 Sneddon before today, correct?

    28 A. Yes. 9295

    1 Q. When were you questioned by Mr. Sneddon?

    2 A. Before the grand jury, I think in ‘93 or

    3 ‘94.

    4 Q. Was that the only time?

    5 A. Yes.

    6 Q. And do you recall Mr. Sneddon trying to get

    7 you to agree that your son had been kidnapped by

    8 Michael Jackson?

    9 MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object.

    10 Argumentative; hearsay; and irrelevant.

    11 MR. SNEDDON: It’s my objection.

    12 MR. ZONEN: Oh.

    13 MR. SNEDDON: Let me do it this way. I

    14 object. Same basis.

    15 THE COURT: I’ll sustain both of you.

    16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: To your knowledge — all

    17 right. To your knowledge, has your son ever been

    18 held against his will by Mr. Jackson?

    19 A. Never.

    20 Q. To your knowledge, has your son ever been

    21 kidnapped by Mr. Jackson?

    22 A. No.

    23 Q. To your knowledge, has your son ever been

    24 abused by Mr. Jackson?

    25 A. No.

    I have a lot more dirt on Sneddon’s underhanded tactics, so much so that I will write a report called “Tom Sneddon’s Malicious Persecution – Not Prosecution! – Of Michael Jackson”. Don’t expect it anytime soon though, because I have to go through all of those court documents so that I can get a complete picture, so it may be a few months before I’m done, but it’s coming!!


  66. October 1, 2010 5:07 pm

    While I was reading Joy Robson’s testimony, Mesereau asked her something that jumped out at me, and is truly indicative of Sneddon’s vendetta against MJ. He asked her if Sneddon had tried to get her to say that MJ kidnapped her son, Wade. Before she could give her answer, both Sneddon and Zonen objected, and Melville threw out that question, so Mesereau followed up by asking if MJ had ever kidnapped her son, and of course she said “no“!!

    Yes, David – it is good you mentioned that fact from Joy Robson’s testimony. I also noticed it but the excerpt in my post was too long to include it. If we read the full version of Joy’s Robson we will be able to find even more signs of Sneddon’s malicious tactics. This is why it is worth returning to one and the same thing again and again. And it is great you are working on Sneddon – given his ‘contribution’ into Michael’s life it is a really big job and we will look forward to it.

    P.S. Sorry I have no opportunity to read your part 2 now – my internet time is very limited here and there is no sound here – but I sure will when I come back (only a few days are left).


  67. October 1, 2010 8:15 pm

    @ vindicatemj

    “At the moment I’ll say only one thing – you haven’t met my request to try and find a positive explanation as to why Michael continued ‘sleepovers’ after the first accusations.”

    You are asking me the impossible! Even when I believed Michael was innocent (and I ceased such uncritical thinking early June), the de facto ‘He lost out on his childhood and the sleepovers were his way of reliving those lost days’ agrument seemed woefully lacking. It never sat with me. The only non-pedophile explanation I can give as to ‘why’ he continued the sleepovers–INSISTING on them–was because he didn’t think the sleepovers were wrong and, in his egotism and stubbornness, he refused to give up bad judgment.

    That’s all I have. I think that was something Frank DiLeo had said and it seemed to make moderate sense when I’d heard it.

    As for you being an older Russian woman mingling with English teens, I don’t know how Russians are viewed in Europe. As an American, and a 21-year-old not old enough to be thoroughly familiar with the KGB, secret police, or other shadowy Communist organzations, I wouldn’t view such mingling with suspicion. AT ALL. If you were a man, maybe I would (?). Because, in reality, men have a higher sex drive than women which is why sex crimes are overwhelmingly commited by men on women and children. Using a woman as an example to compare to Michael Jackson’s conduct is ineffective to say the least.

    Your list of what ‘dirty minds’ would think of your interactions with teenagers was flippant, half-hearted, and a stretch. Most people think it is a good thing for youths and the elderly (no offense) to bond. I do, especially since, in America, old people are relegated to the bottom of the totem pole and thrown away. In sum, no one, at least on this side of the pond, would think your interaction was strange.

    “otherwise there will be no dialogue. The dialogue starts only when the other side tries to understand the opposite side. It takes two to meet. But if you keep saying that Michael was this and that, there will be no point in the discussion at all – I will answer you that he wasn’t and that will be all there is to it.
    By the way I perfectly understand your side as I’ve been there before and it is easy for me to remember what I thought about all those events at the time.”

    I get that this is your blog and all but I don’t think it is fair–with regards to debate–to make rules for the dialogue (outside of no name-calling, petty personal attacks, etc.). So, basically, you’re saying if I don’t see how Michael was innocent and ‘pure’, there will be no discussion? Okay…? Isn’t the goal of this site is to DEFEND his innocence? To REFUTE the ‘haters’?

    You seem hypocritical.

    You know, I’ve been on that side of the fence as well and, because of my extensive reading of court documents, books, etc. and going back through those 3-4-5 times over, I have changed my belief that he was ever innocent. I mentioned previously that I do have a source in the music industry with ties to the PR man of a famous musician who was VERY GOOD friends with Michael (I cannot reveal, unfortunately, but the fruit of my conversations with my source will be viewable on my blog). The conversations about Michael from that source have convinced me that, whatever sympathies I’ve held for Michael (because I do feel tremendous sorrow that he was a molestation victim and an abuse victim himself), there is NO WAY he was EVER innocent. Ever. No chance.

    It isn’t about seeing things through a ‘dirty’ prism; it’s about using common sense. I have no emotional attachment to Michael Jackson so I have no vendetta or anything. I simply go where the facts go. Would you let your child sleep in bed with a man who was accused of child molestation (and settled with two boys families) and owned books that were on pedophile reading lists? I wouldn’t, no matter if I thought Thriller was a collection of some of music’s best songs. I wouldn’t do it.

    Anyone who says differently is not telling the truth.

    Also, you say a mother wouldn’t cry if she couldn’t find her son, that she’d be ‘brave’. Really? I’m just repeating what both Joy and Charli Michaels had attested to, that’s all.

    Maybe it’s different out in Russia, but many women would cry if they couldn’t find their children. I think she was hurt by the disregard, as well, but she was worried about her child possibly being predated upon.

    I stand by my explanation, given what I’ve researched, Joy’s past behaviors, and my source in the music industry who has detailed Michael’s proclivity…

    I hope you can address points in this comment as well as the other, although–and I mean no offense; it is simply an observation–I think sedimentary rocks are more likely to understand Michael had ‘boy issues’ than his fans.



  68. shelly permalink
    October 1, 2010 8:44 pm

    ” I mentioned previously that I do have a source in the music industry with ties to the PR man of a famous musician who was VERY GOOD friends with Michael (I cannot reveal, unfortunately, but the fruit of my conversations with my source will be viewable on my blog).”

    You realise that it means nothing because it’s not a direct sources and with all the false quote you made about LMP, Geraldine Hugues nobody is going to believe you?


  69. lynande51 permalink
    October 1, 2010 8:56 pm

    Desiree or Veronique what exactly was it that changed your mind. The one thing that you read not the culmination, but the one thing that made you start looking for or feeling that Michael was guilty? You know don’t you that at least one of us here at this blog were once just like you. Maybe you could just share what it was and how that effected your change of heart? You are undoubtedly steadfast in your belief now so it would help us to understand your point of view if you told us what caused your change of heart.


  70. shelly permalink
    October 1, 2010 9:57 pm


    She is a self admitted troll and I think you should read her blog and see the crazy stuff she is talking about.


  71. shelly permalink
    October 1, 2010 11:17 pm

    It’s probably an infected site by the way.


  72. Eloise permalink
    October 1, 2010 11:29 pm

    Comments on this troll are doing great harm to this website, especially those entering for the first time. My impression caused me so bad I thought this page was of haters, take several months to re-enter. You can not have any dialogue with him / her, so it is useless. The only thing that is making this troll is mess this site so valuable. Could use a good cleaning around here, in my opinion.


  73. Anna permalink
    October 2, 2010 12:45 am



    I hope I didn’t offend anyone with that not knowing something 100 percent. I have a hard time claiming to know something as an absolute truth even if personally I believe it to be absolutley 100 percent true based on what the research of myself or others has revealed. I don’t know if that makes any sense but that’s the only way I know how to explain it. I would love to feel as if everything I’ve read and researched has proven a negative. I know you know more about both cases than I do so I look forward to reading all of your pieces and becoming as convinced as you are.

    The point I guess that I was trying to make to Veronique was that even if there was less than a thousandth of doubt in either case the media still blew it up into a 99.99 percent chance that Michael was guilty.

    I find it incredible that some people are so convinced that Michael was guilty and I know it’s mostly because of the media treatment he endured that people think this way.

    I would love share my hypothesis about why I think Michael used poor judgement in these instances but I don’t think the comments section would be a good place. Maybe I’ll send you an e-mail sometime.


  74. Anna permalink
    October 2, 2010 1:20 am


    You confuse me. Here you say

    “You are asking me the impossible! Even when I believed Michael was innocent (and I ceased such uncritical thinking early June)”

    Really, yesterday you encouraged people to visit your blog so to be fair I though I would go check it out and skim through a few of your MJ posts. I did want to know more about who I was choosing to debate this with. The above statements seems strange considering that on Marth 18, 2010 of your blog you said this.

    “I had not given a flying fig about ‘wacko jacko’ until his passing. Yep, I’ll be honest and say I was one of the haters, albeit it wasn’t ‘deep-rooted’ as some people… But nonetheless I still laughed at pedophile jokes about him, not thinking of the pain he probably felt. (I used to call my mom ‘Michael Jackson’ because she likes children and had been excited to work in the nursery at her church.) *hangs head in shame*

    So how long did you believe Michael was innocent, was it just a few fleeting moments before you became a hater (your words) or for just a few fleeting momemts after he died until early June?

    Just curious. In any case, thanks for the debate, I can’t change your mind and you can’t change mine. Continuing will only create harsh sentiment.


  75. lynande51 permalink
    October 2, 2010 1:47 am

    Thank you Anna for letting us know that she was blogging hate as early as March and I completely agree with you. If she has been a hater( her words) all along ,comes here to engage us in debate and doesn’t disclose all the facts about herself she came here under false pretenses. To me that indicates that she just wants more people to go to her site and looks for them here. Most of her comments regarding MJ fans are very derrogatory so she might find us entertaining in a mean spirited way and instead of making fun of people she actually knows she feels safe ridiculing the anonymous person on a blog. Hasn’t she heard what happened to the Rutger’s student? It seems like because she hates Mchael Jackson she hates his fans too.


  76. shelly permalink
    October 2, 2010 1:48 am


    Desiree is a liar. She made up the quote about Geraldine Hugues (I own the book she never use racial slur against Jordan), she made up the LMP quote and probably the New Edition one. There is no way that someone who believes he is innocent or is on the fence would call him like that. She is a hater and always was. I know I sound like an hypocrite cause I answered her but she is just trolling.


  77. Anna permalink
    October 2, 2010 2:38 am

    @lynande51 and Shelly

    Yes, now I realize she seems to just be trolling. It would have been best for me just to ignore her to begin with. (Live and Learn)

    @Shelly Thanks for the info about the quotes, much appreciated!


  78. lynande51 permalink
    October 2, 2010 3:08 am

    One thing we must do is understand how important it is that we analyze the book by Victor G. I was just reading one of Ray Chandlers rebuttals from ATG and it suddenly struck me that the purpose of their book is not to paint Michael as a p. but to explain or excuse Evans reaction and declare that it was not extortion. In Victor Gutierrez he does say that Evan was more concerned with the money and not his son but that Michael was a p. and it was ok.If that were the case that would make me lean in the direction that Victor was as well. What is important is that the police interviewed VG for about 10 hours in a 2 day period. The uncanny thing is that most of the people he found for DD were the same ones that Larry Feldman and the police considered witnesses. Knowing that and seeing how this book is written and the many many lies in it, it enforces the extortion claim it does not diminish it.


  79. October 2, 2010 3:12 am

    My Mentor by Wade Robson

    (In Photo: MJ with his protege Wade Robson.)

    I used to talk to Michael for three hours a day. I never really worked out how he came to find so much time because he seemed so busy, but he would ring me and we would talk and talk and talk. When he got a cell phone he would call and text all the time. It was part of an amazing friendship that lasted for 20 years.

    I had first met Michael when he was kicking off his bad tour in 1987. I was five, but Michael’s company were holding a dance competition in every country and I entered the one in Brisbane. I remember being a kid and dancing to his video- the first ever I say was “Thriller” when I was two. It was my mum’s tape and I just went nuts over it. I used to run into the kitchen scared every time the werewolf came on. By the time I was three I had pretty much learned its entire choreography.

    I ended up winning the dance competition. We went to see Michael in Brisbane and at a meet and greet i was introduced to him. I remember wearing a custom made outfit from “Bad”- my mum’s belt was wrapped around me, like five times. Michael was impressed and asked me if I had danced. I told him that I did and he said ” Do you want to perform with me in the show tomorrow night?”

    I couldn’t believe it. He was due to play Brisbane the next night. His idea was for me to come out for the last song of the show which was “Bad”. He was bringing on some orphaned children so he figured it would be cool to bring me out in the full “Bad” outfit. At the end of the song we were all onstage- Stevie Wonder was there too and Michael came on and said “Come on”. I took it as him meaning “Get into it!”.I moved downstage and threw my hat into the crowd and started going crazy. When i turned around Michael was saying goodbye to the crowd, the other kids were gone and Stevie Wonder was being escorted off. What he meant was “Come on lets go, It’s over”.

    When I realized, I ran off. After my mum and I spent two hours with Michael into his hotel and we became friends. He showed us clips from the new Moonwalker he was working on and we talked and talked. We didn’t really stay in contact but i joined a dance company- literally the next day and two years later I was in America to play at Disneyland. I got in touch with Michael through his people, he remembered me. Me and my family went to Record One Studio where he was mixing the Dangerous Album. I showed him some of my dance videos and he said to me. “Do you and your family want to come to Neverland tonight”? We all agreed and ended up staying for two weeks.

    Our friendship blossomed. For two weeks he’d take me into his dance studio, put some music on and we’d dance and jam for hours.We’d sit there and watch films like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.Other time we’d just leave Neverland and drive out in a car, blasting music really loud.

    He even taught me how to do the moonwalk.We were in his dance studio. He taught me foot by foot. I couldn’t sleep that whole night. The thrill of pushing off the bar and sliding backwards in a moonwalk with the guy that made it famous was so exciting.

    Later, me and my mum wanted to move to America to pursue my dreams of becoming a dancer and he helped us out. He gave me a big start by putting me in some of his videos like “Black or White”. The role he took on was one of a mentor.

    He told me when I was seven that I’d be a film director and that’s what I became, he created a thirst for knowledge in me. Once, a mini recording studio turned up on my doorstep, but what was cool was that he stopped me from becoming a spoiled brat. He would say “This is for you, but I want to see you do something with it. Don’t take it for granted or I”ll take it back”.

    The last time I saw him was in July 2008. I was in Vegas working on a show and he was living there. Me, my wife and him and his three kids had a barbecue. It was the most normal thing in the world. Me and my wife had been to Whole foods and bought stuff to cook. But when we got there he’d provided loads of catering. I said, “Dude, Why did you bring loads of catering? We’ve got regular food here”. I remember cooking outside while Michael sat there under an umbrella.

    We had great times because he was such a caring person. Most of all I’ll miss those phone conversations. I still have my mobile phone with his number on it. I just cant bear the thoughts of deleting his messages.

    Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of human kind. He was a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk.

    I love you Michael.

    – Wade Robson


  80. October 2, 2010 5:08 am


    I just love that personal story form Wade. I have a copy of the Opus and Wade’s story is in there.


  81. Suzy permalink
    October 2, 2010 7:49 am

    @ Eloise

    Comments on this troll are doing great harm to this website, especially those entering for the first time.

    You can not have any dialogue with him / her, so it is useless.

    I agree. And I also agree with what David suggested the other day: whoever wants to discuss with Desiree her issues (because these are HER issues really), should go to her blog and engage in a discussion with her THERE and not invite her to fill this blog with her trash! Don’t you guys see that this is exactly her goal? Distraction and to be in the center of attention?

    You will NEVER change her mind, because she is not an honest truth seeker, she is just a troll (and self-admitted at that) who has mental problems and finds her pleasure in deliberately upsetting other people. Probably this is also why she chose to “believe” MJ was guilty – it’s so much more fun for a troll to be on that side, you know, upsetting MJ fans and so on. She doesn’t care about arguments – her own main “argument” seems to be “MJ was a p. because I, Desiree say so”.

    I don’t see the reason of feeding this troll here, to be honest.


  82. Suzy permalink
    October 2, 2010 8:45 am

    @ Lynette

    Yes, Ray Chandler seems to be more upset by the allegation that it was an extortion on their part than by what Michael allegedly did to Jordan! This is very telling. I don’t know if it was you or someone else who noted earlier that he seems to be more angry with Anthony Pellicano in his book than with Michael! In fact they don’t seem to be angry with Michael at all. I mean his comment in 1995 about how they are sorry to have ruined Michael’s career. Or Ray’s comment after Michael’s death about how he hopes he is happy where he is now. WTF?! (Pardon my French.)

    Lynette, so Gutierrez writes it was an extortion too? That would explain why he and the Chandlers might have had a falling out later and why even Ray Chandler labels him a sleezebag.


  83. Eloise permalink
    October 2, 2010 3:04 pm


    Totally agree whit you and David. I understand why this troll uses many different names, to give the impression that there are many who haters. It is bound to multiply, Lol! is pathetic.
    Please remove all comments of Desiree, are disgusting. I have a question: Is there any way that their comments not registered? Must get rid of it, do not let them be entertained at the expense of you, surely if she / he sees your messages disappear of this page, sooner or later your blog will disappear.


  84. lynande51 permalink
    October 2, 2010 3:13 pm

    Yes Ray Chandler used a lot of space in his book painting Anthony Pellicano in a bad light. I probably won’t condone some of the tactics Tony used later in his career for other clients but in this case he was only working for the best outcome for Michael who was his client. In the later cases he was as well so I won’t find fault with his motivation only his tactics.However the Chandler’s attempt to debunk Tony more so than Michael tells me he had more evidence against him than the world knows. It is also important that everyone remember that Jordan would have been charged as a party to the same extortion that Evan would have because he went along with the molestation story to the police. Even a 13 year old has a legal obligation to tell the truth in our legal system. Theyare not seen as small children they are many times charged as adults if they committ adult crimes and extortion of that magnitude is an adult crime.


  85. lcpledwards permalink
    October 2, 2010 3:30 pm

    @ Suzy
    Yes, like I said before, I’m DONE with Desiree. I just went to her blog to read her comments, and it’s absolutely pathetic! There are maybe 4 or 5 people who routinely comment there in support of her, and all of their theories have been debunked on this website. For example, they feel that Jordie’s description matched, and that Sneddon was telling the truth when he declared it a match in 2005 (because they feel that Sneddon would “NEVER” put his career on the line by lying!). Oh, please! (Ironically, she feels that Mesereau was lying when he said that MJ’s insurance forced him to settle.) We have around 4 or 5 posts strictly refuting that myth, and more importantly we have that LA Times article from January 1994 detailing Feldman’s desire to have the photos excluded from court, so that should be all the evidence you need to know it didn’t match.

    She also DEFENDS Ray Chandler’s decision to not testify because “he didn’t need to”. Well, he made over 20 media appearances promoting the book, yet refused to make an “appearance” in court! You would think he would WANT fight tooth and nail to testify, but no! (Think about those Victim Impact Statements that I referred to in part 2 of the settlements article.)

    Finally, they had some pretty derogatory things to say about us. They say that we are bad writers who use horrible grammar, and we can’t hold a candle to Desiree. Whatever. They also think that they chased me out of their forum because they “won” in a debate against me, when in fact I just choose to not engage them at all. There are over 100 posts on this blog that debunk so many myths, and her arguments are rooted in those myths, as well as rationalizing EVERYTHING that the Chandlers did (such as refusing to testify in court,etc.)

    So, I’m done with her. There is no point in having a circular argument with someone who thinks that Sneddon has more credibility and integrity than Mesereau. When Helena gets back, I’m going to recommend that she just block Desiree once and for all (she’s the only one with the authority to do so.) Eloise was right, Desire is just a distraction. It’s ridiculous that this post has 80+ comments, with more than half being devoted to Desiree. I suggest you guys go to her blog, and read her comments about us in her most recent post, and ask yourself if this is someone worth reasoning with?

    If you think she is, then knock yourself out.


  86. lynande51 permalink
    October 2, 2010 5:04 pm

    David I saw the same thing when I went to her site that you did and thought about the same thing as you did. I became very discouraged when I saw that Elena was allowing her to comment here and was first thinking of starting over again with a different blog because it was becoming so obvious that she had control of this one again, which is her ultilmate goal she wants nothing more that to stop our progress and instead waste valuable time talking to her. I also saw when I finally went through some of her past posts that this is not the first blog she has done this to. I say this is the last thing that I will write about her. Mark her as spam and I don’t care if she screams censorship or whatever she screams this is our site and she isn’t getting it.
    Did you get the link I sent you for the site to read Geraldine Hughes book. I hope you have gotten some information from it. When I was reading through the articles that I have I found a small part that says that Anthony Pellicano turned over papers from a lawsuit that had been drawn up prior to the one from Larry Feldman and was presented to Michael and him. Now remember that they say that Michael, Tony, Evan and Jordan all met at the Westwood Marquise Hotel on August 4th to discuss custody arrangements for Jordan. I think they presented more to him than a copy of Dr. Abrams letter, I think they already had a lawsuit drawn up and they stupidly left it with Tony that day when Evan yelled at Michael “only he can help me” and left in another one of his huffs. Anyway it is time for me to just sit down and put everything together for good picture of what happened. I was waiting for your piece to come out so it would get the attention it so deserves before I did t because mine will support it with articles from real newspapers


  87. lcpledwards permalink
    October 2, 2010 5:38 pm

    Lynette, yes I got your email, and I’m sorry for not replying. I will read Redemption as soon as I get the time. I’ve just been caught up with so many other things. For example, the “Frozen In Time” seminar is now available for sale, and I finally confirmed with the LACBA that it is available on DVD, but it can only be played on a computer, and not on a standard DVD player. They didn’t explain why, but that’s fine with me. I need to find out if it is copyright protected, and if it isn’t I’m definitely going to buy it and post it here and on other blogs. If I can’t post the video, then I’ll definitely post excerpts of it and thoroughly fact check it. Speaking of law seminars, if you guys go to the blogroll you can download the 2005 Harvard Law School seminar with Mesereau. Please let us know if you have any problems downloading it!

    Once Helena gets back, I’ll recommend to her to just block Desiree. She’s just a troll, and we’ve wasted too much time arguing with her. Helena is the only one with authority to block comments, and if Desiree uses another IP address, then we’ll block it too. The fact that she still says on her blog that MJ’s settlements were signs of guilt, despite EVERYTHING that I just wrote in my article, just proves that she has no intention of engaging in intelligent discourse. She is not saying anything relevant to “hang herself”, or even trying to refute what I wrote, but she’s only trying to engage in circular arguments where everyone is going in circles with the same arguments.

    And just to let everyone else know, we don’t mind if someone who has doubts about MJ’s innocence respectfully asks us questions. We’ll answer them, and then direct that person to a post that addresses their doubts. There are posts here that cover every topic imaginable, and if a doubter is willing to engage in a civil, open minded debate, that’s OK with us. If they can give us their reasons for doubting MJ’s innocence, then we can research their reasons and debunk them in future posts. That’s why I have read all of the anti-MJ books and use them to defend MJ.

    But coming here to troll and start mess and distract us won’t be tolerated, and at this point that is all that Desiree is doing.


  88. ares permalink
    October 2, 2010 6:10 pm

    with all do respect I Don’t Think That Anyone Should Go on her blog only to read some stupid comment made by ignorant people.There are a lot of people like that out there.You can not change their mind whatever you do.Only yesterday i had a conversation with a person like that.It’s useless. So, i don’t think that we should do her a favour and increase her blog traffic. Stop giving her so much attention.After all that IS what she/he is asking. The best way to beat those people is to ignore them. If you “don’t listen to Desiree that is speaking” then Desiree or whatever cease to exist.


  89. Eloise permalink
    October 2, 2010 6:32 pm

    I agree with David. The only way to get rid of it / he is to block your comments. It is very easy to say that it is best to ignore it, but the end is very difficult to avoid responding to his provocations. He has no right to mess this page waste and myths that exist only in his sick mind.


  90. October 2, 2010 7:50 pm

    David: “Once Helena gets back, I’ll recommend to her to just block Desiree. She’s just a troll, and we’ve wasted too much time arguing with her.”

    Lynette: “I became very discouraged when I saw that Elena was allowing her to comment here and was first thinking of starting over again with a different blog because it was becoming so obvious that she had control of this one again”

    Guys, I am sorry Desiree’s posts offended you so much and that I left them intact for a time being. There are various reasons why I did that. Firstly, Desiree has acquired a new tactic – she is posting as several different people (probably changing the IP address too – I haven’t checked it yet). So if we block Desiree, there will be Veronique, Joanna and a dozen new names and all our time will be taken by following her traces here and there.

    In a way it is easier to allow her to be who and what she is. But in response to this I want her to be HONEST and follow chivalry rules. If she is Desiree, let her stay Desiree and never troll. If she agrees to it, but then deceives us I will be the first to trace her down and eradicate.

    Secondly, our goal here is to turn everybody – even Desiree – into someone who is able to understand and appreciate Michael as a person. It may sound idealistic but I hope you will agree that if they don’t change, the general attitude towards Michael will not improve much – they will continue to poison the atmosphere. So the ultimate goal is to make THEM change whatever it takes.

    It does not necessarily mean involving ourselves in a discussion with Desiree – let her read here and think and probably one day we will register a slight change in her attitude. It is only then that any exchange of opinion with her will be possible.

    I did reply to her however and the reason for it was the point she mentioned in her e-mail which made me believe that she was not that hopeless – she said that Michael was crucified and she was not ready to accept the fact that it had been done to him without any guilt on his part. If someone is still in doubt, let me say it – YES, HE WAS CRUCIFIED DESPITE NO GUILT ON HIS PART. This is a fact of life and we will have to live with it. We will also have to accept that we’ve done it with our own hands (each of us to his own degree).

    I know that I am probably too hopeful as regards Desiree. We’ll see. In the meantime any discussion with her is out of the question unless she “tries to do the impossible” and makes the first steps towards Michael. I personally am not going to reply to her unless that condition is met and under no circumstances am I going to her site. If her comments become outrageous in this blog they will be handled accordingly.

    However I would like to give an answer to a very easy question Desiree couldn’t manage. She, as all haters, is terribly annoyed by the fact that Michael said he would allow children to stay in his room (if they wanted to) even after the 1993 case. She considers it to be a sign of guilt – however it is absolutely the opposite case.

    When innocent people are accused of something they never did, any promise “to never do it again” is a tacit agreement that they did the wrong. That is why only innocent people look at such a demand with indignation. No one – I repeat no one – has the right to dictate to a person who has done NO wrong what to do and what not to do. If you have never molested it is a terrible offense and an insult to demand of you “to never do it again” – your very first reaction will be fury – HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT?

    Probably now Desiree will understand my (not best) example with Internet. If those parents thought something bad about me and demanded I shouldn’t be around their children – my reaction would be exactly as Desiree suggested – indignation at their absurd demands, probably telling them to shut up or ignoring them altogether.

    This is exactly what Michael was doing. He wasn’t guilty and didn’t want to bend down to the people with dirty minds who demanded of him that he should drive all children from his room and shut the door in their face – even if they were his nephews and the children of his best friends who believed him without any reservation. His dignity was immeasurably wounded and this is why he didn’t comply with the demands. It was his way of saying HOW DARE YOU and WHY should I change my ideals in life because of YOUR DIRTY MINDS?

    By the way will a true p. behave in such a way? NEVER! If he is suspected of a crime and is required to never to associate with children, he will swear on the Holy Bible that he will never, ever, never come up to them – but will continue to do it covertly so that nobody knows.

    I’ve been told that after the 1993 case if children stayed in Michael’s room there was always another adult always present in the room. Michael was safeguarding himself against any possible allegations. But in no way could he offend and refuse a child – the joy of a child meant more to him that appeasing his haters’ demands.


  91. Louise permalink
    October 2, 2010 8:37 pm

    About the hater here, I suggest to all ppl on this site to let Helena to deal with this. If (s)he adds comm. DO NOT answer. Let only the host do it.
    Let’s get back to our normal work.

    I have a request. I STRONGLY ask you to NOT use words beginning with m or p together with MJ’s name. Please rephrase, use other words like accusations, allegations, accused, alleged… It’s perfectly possible. If you do quote and in the quotations there are these kind of words, in my opinion we should delete them. Normaly we give the source and the link, our readers can find the original article. We should refuse to use haters’ vocabulary. Remember how much Michael suffered his name being associated with these terms. They have wanted to cement these terms beside his. We need to find our words, associations and vocabulary.


  92. October 2, 2010 8:54 pm


    It is wonderful that you are so open minded, but you cannot negotiate with terrorists. It will cause fustration of the spirit. Why is it even a goal to convert Desiree? Appearing ambiguous in emails is a tactic her true intention is to convert YOU.


  93. October 2, 2010 9:25 pm

    “I have a request. I STRONGLY ask you to NOT use words beginning with m or p together with MJ’s name. Please rephrase, use other words like accusations, allegations, accused, alleged… It’s perfectly possible. If you do quote and in the quotations there are these kind of words, in my opinion we should delete them.’

    Louise, I ABSOLUTELY agree. You’ve said it very well – we shouldn’t use haters’ vocabulary, we should create our own.

    As to Desiree, guys – yes, please don’t answer her. Let us have it between her and me only.


  94. October 2, 2010 9:33 pm

    “you cannot negotiate with terrorists”.

    Teva, you are right. I don’t know what Desiree is up to and what her tactic is. My only weapon is honesty.


  95. Chris permalink
    October 2, 2010 10:17 pm

    @ vindicatemj

    I admire your MJ-esk attitude to let people have there right to say whatever but Michaels greatest attribute was to see the good in people, it was also his biggest weakness. Although I think it should be applauded not critised.

    I haven’t and will not speak to this individual but I will say to u I have dealt with these people before. One thing I have learned growing up people can never accept it when there wrong.
    I have told people about the insurance carrier apparently it is something out of the “MJfan magazine”. I’ve shown people all the false evidence of the trial and they still refuse to accept that nothing happened with Arviso.

    You said “She, as all haters, is terribly annoyed by the fact that Michael said he would allow children to stay in his room (if they wanted to) even after the 1993 case. She considers it to be a sign of guilt – however it is absolutely the opposite case.”

    According to one of the lawyers before MJ hired Mes said to Michael:
    Lawyer- I can win this case cos it is a no brainer but you have to promise me that you will never have children in your room again
    Lawyer- Because society doesn’t see it as acceptable behaviour (or words to that kind.)
    MJ- That’s society’s problem not mine.

    I couldn’t put it better. Everyone seems to forget that only when MJ let the outside world into Neverland the controversy started. That tells me more about people in our world than in Neverland.
    That King bloke who always states MJ was this cos he had kids in his bed. So thats societys logic?
    If i emptied a room and left Mr King and a child alone in that room is he admitting that he would molest that child? As far as i’m aware peodophiles don’t stick to bedrooms. Hell some do it outside in public places.
    And yet all the 300 kids that were interviewed in 93 only 1 said it happened and the FBI and LAPD for the next 10 years couldn’t find any evidence and yet journalists and haters have the “difinitive proof” he was a peadophile PLEASEEE!!!

    That same “proof” that MJ bleached his skin, wanted to be a white woman etc etc and then his autopsy showed that he had vitiligo. But hey it wasn’t as if he told them about the condition a hudred times…they were just “negligent”.



  96. October 2, 2010 11:27 pm

    @ Lynette:

    What did I read that made me question–not think he was guilty, mind you–Michael’s innocence after a year of believing he was innocent?

    MODERATOR: What I don’t like in this post, Desiree, is that you are pretending and masquerading as a fan. “You just questioned, you didn’t think that he was guilty, you believed for a year that he was innocent”? Who do you want to fool here? This is not serious, Desiree. We KNOW you are a hater and have always been – so please stop this cheap acting and clown job.

    It was a Roger Friedman article which talked about some money being given to a mother and son. This payment was then authenticated by legitimate people (3 of them) who were close to Michael, so I had no reason to question their sincerity. I’m not a fan of Roger Friedman because I don’t believe he is a scrupulous journalist but the story intrigued me so I researched it outside of his article and found other articles saying the same thing about this mystery family. At that point, I still was up in the air.

    So then I researched some more and re-read the Farshchian story, looking at it from a different perspective. But I still didn’t believe he was guilty of predating upon a child. I thought: ‘Well, maybe he has a problem but he isn’t a bad guy; we all have our demons.’

    Stop acting, it is really getting on my nerves. I would prefer you the way you are – a hater with no dancing around.

    Later, I ordered some back issues of Vanity Fair to read Maureen Orth’s articles on Michael. I dreaded reading them (THIS IS VULGAR! Presenting yourself as a sheep is laughable when we all know what nastiness you are capable of. I want you to be HONEST!) because I had heard she was a ‘hater’, as you guys call Michael’s detractors, but her Nightmare in Neverland article was really really fair. So I thought: ‘What made this woman change so drastically? Did she encounter something explosive that changed her viewpoints?’

    MODERATOR: If you think that Maureen Orth (with her blood baths) is fair, we have really nothing to discuss here. I could rip her article into shreds if I wanted to dig into that dirt. I probably will one day – it is only that at the moment I am busy with Victor Gutierrez’s shit book and doing both Maureen and Victor at once is really too much. But her time will surely come too.

    Well, I researched some more. It was a document in the FBI files about a couple on the train hearing odd noises between Michael and a boy that shook me; it really did.

    MODERATOR: I also wondered about that couple on the train, but the question I asked myself was why Michael was supposedly traveling with a boy but without any bodyguards or anyone at all and on a train too? Can anyone imagine Michael Jackson traveling all by himself in a crowded train in one compartment only with some strangers behind both sides of his compartment? He – who had to take the whole floor when staying at a hotel – not because he needed it, but because he would have been otherwise mobbed. Hey, I see no hands – is there anyone at all there who believes that story? You simply can’t imagine that a person who was smashed by a crowd wherever he went and had to shield himself with his hands when he ran into a building through its back door would travel all alone on a train? On a train? A person who preferred planes and private ones too?

    Did the couple which saw a “Michael Jackson” have their spectacles with them? Or did they forget to put them on? Or was it some joker who was impersonating Jackson and was specially making “suspicious” noises for the fun of it? Isn’t it laughable that Michael would 1) travel alone 2) on a train 3) in one compartment only 4) with no bodyguards 5) and he would additionally make suspicious noises to attract attention to himself? As if he didn’t have enough attention without it?

    And does any of you consider that FBI guys are so sloppy in their work that they could leave a truly serious fact unattended? The FBI files show that the couple’s story didn’t have any continuation. The FBI guys probably just took the couple to their home and made sure they didn’t fall off the steps due to their lack of vision – that’s all.

    I then checked out Chris Andersen’s Michael Jackson: Unauthorized and found that it had answered so many burning questions, especially about the insurance company.

    MODERATOR : What is so burning about the insurance company? There are a hundred documents proving Michael didn’t pay. Lisa Campbell even named the company which paid (see her book).

    Funny thing is that I had VG’s book and originally thought it was full of lies. Same with my other books, like Be Careful Who You Love. (Actually, I read that in Aug 2009 and I had thought it was so terrible; in hindsight I think it was because I didn’t know about Michael’s cases as much as I thought. I had only been reading his side.)

    MODERATOR: Desiree, I told you NOT TO LIE in this blog – you are not going to fool ME (or anyone here). The effect of these books is the OPPOSITE – first you think them credible and it is only AFTER you make research and compare facts you realize that all their stories are lies. And again this is only in case you do make research – without it the books will pass off as true. DD and VG are professional liars and they know how to make a thrilling story out of nothing. Remember DD saying that she saw non-existent love letters and an equally non-existent video molestation tape and LOOKING INNOCENT at telling lies like that? It really takes much training to attain such perfection in lying. Those who don’t do research buy everything these people say – their lies look credible enough. That is why I don’t recommend people to read them unless they are ready to make the necessary research.

    I had MJ Conspiracy but when I talked to Aphrodite Jones via email about her book, I found her…unintelligent, not to mention she was very quick to advertise her show to me, which I didn’t like.

    MODERATOR: Dear me, Aphrodite Jones is “unintelligent’ but Diane Dimond with all her non-existent love letters and somebody’s dirty underwear waved live on TV is! What was the point of waving anyone’s underwear after the 2005 trial on TV? What was it supposed to say to anyone? I would consider DD a complete imbecile for doing that if I didn’t know that the people who allowed it on TV and those who enjoyed the show were imbeciles too. What world are we living in? Everything is topsy turvy here…

    Anyway, I read everything I could get my hands on about Michael (hence the book collection I have pictured on my blog; I also read Ian Halperin’s book, which, because of my own research, is quite accurate in many places): pro-Michael blogs, news archives, documents, everything! I bought DVDS and watched videos on Youtube. I read Jordie’s convo with Gardner and studied the convos between Evan and Dave.

    MODERATOR: Dear hater, your effort to present yourself as a serious researcher has been lost on us. We have read MUCH MORE than you – we here are studying the testimonies of the 2005 witnesses with a magnifying glass, we are looking up the court documents (not only about Ray Chandler), we are searching for rare haters’ books and scanning them and I am retyping their texts with my own hands as you dear, refused to help in supplying us with those materials (you said they were too costly and you wanted to sue me for using a page out of it), we are digging into archives, etc. In short we are leaving no stone unturned and this is why we are talking to you here too. What if you say something which we don’t know yet?

    I’ve been here before, in the same boat as you fans (DON’T LIE!), but it just clicked one day that I realized I was wrong. All of a sudden all of the PR and spin was rendered moot and, like a Phoenix from the ashes, the truth emerged (DID YOU STUDY DRAMA?) Couple that with my source (I’d love to divulge the musician to whom my source is proximate but even one hint will reveal too much but he’s big.), I don’t know if I can ever think he was innocent. It’s just too much suspicion, even outside of my source.

    MODERATOR: Where was your source when Sneddon made a public appeal to the nation to come up with any accusations anyone anywhere could have against Jackson?

    I just don’t find Michael believable in his protestations of innocence.

    MODERATOR: Because he was forced to explain himself and felt that each interview was an interrogation employing torture technique.

    I used to but I think I may nave been driven on emotion of how much I liked Michael and only knew one side (YOU NEVER LIKED HIM) . I can’t say I like Michael Jackson because he didn’t like being black. But I do pity him on occasion. Acting like he’s a messiah is unfair to his memory. Michael wasn’t perfect. (I DELETED PART OF IT BECAUSE IT WAS INSULTING TO MICHAEL).

    Michael was human and millions of people thought that he was a robot with no feelings. They incessantly tested their hate and mockery on him and then feigned surprise why the “robot” was bleeding. They poked him with a stick to see whether he was still alive and when they saw that he was still breathing they kicked him again with their feet. THIS IS UNFORGIVABLE AND ALL OF US WILL ANSWER FOR IT (in the degree in which we did it to him).

    I write about him because he’s fascinating, maybe in a macabre way, but fascinating nonetheless…

    MODERATOR: You write about him because you KNOW that he is innocent but you are desperately looking for something else to accuse Michael of as you evidently have an agenda of your own. You also like making fun of people and fooling them. You are just playing a game.


  97. October 2, 2010 11:27 pm

    @ David:

    You know, David, you claim that the comments on my site are pathetic but I disagree. One of the commenters is a MJ fan but she has doubts about the settlement because it’s not so much that he settled–come on, David, that has nothing to do with guilt, per se–but the AMOUNT to which he settled. Why so much, she asks. I think it’s a legitimate question that you have refused to answer, which I cannot understand why. I mean, Jordie got 15.3M and Jason (for ‘tickling’?!) got 2.2M, close to the amount Sneddon spent at trial. I just don’t understand why so much. If I made an allegation of sexual misconduct against Michael, I doubt he’d pay me such a large amount if it were untrue.

    Because Michael was rich and these people were greedy and were playing a big game. Actually Evan Chandler thought that he had asked for too little and at the next opportunity – when the History album was out – already demanded $60 million. These bloodsuckers are never satisfied – they want more and more and more.

    The reason why they asked for so much was the same that the judge gave for demanding $3 million as a bail for Michael in the Arvizo case – he said that the sums for the wealthy should be bigger than for ordinary people.

    Think about it, David: he went after Gutierrez for the tape (not his book, though) and the Neverland Five. Both lost. Yet he didn’t even try to fight Jordie in civil court. Why? Please don’t say it was because the civil case was before the criminal case. That’s not a good answer because the truth is always the truth: if Michael was innocent, even if the DAs could hear his defense strategy, he’d still win his case, especially if the allegation is false.

    Fighting in a civil court and spending some 5 or 6 years of his precious time when he has other businesses to attend to – music, career, love affair with LMP and children he hoped to have by her? (LMP was the one who persuaded him to settle and get done with it).

    Throw away these YEARS out of his life? With a necessity to come every day to court and testify there? Not being able to claim the fifth amendment without detriment to himself (because it was a civil suit) and having to answer again and again? Are you kidding? Didn’t he have enough humiliation already?

    If I were 35 and had Michael’s money and also had a many-million insurance paying for me I WOULDN’T DOUBT FOR A SECOND AND WOULD ASK THEM TO PAY WHATEVER THEY WANT – JUST TO LEAVE ME ALONE!

    As to Gutierrez’s book – even without suing him for the book Michael Jackson was forced to have some 1500 (!) suits in his life. If he had sued every author for everything they wrote this number would have increased tenfold. And we see how time and money consuming these suits are. So exhausting him this way was probably the idea of the haters – it is simply impossible to be always in a state of suing.

    And, also, he settled right before his court-scheduled deposition, not to mention Norma Staikos fled as well, only to show up at the Grand Jury after the settlement. I still want to know why? Since this is a pro-Michael blog, I thought this would be a great place to ask the question, yet, you said ‘case closed’ about the settlement. But I still have questions!

    All these depositions and other beautiful procedures like stripping him naked were only adding to Michael’s humiliation. He didn’t want to lose the remains of his dignity and didn’t want more of a media circus – by then he had already known for sure that nothing he said would be interpreted in a positive way for him. Telling them what he did or did not was just like adding more fuel into fire – they would have remorselessly twisted and wrenched it (see the 2005 trial as an example).

    Okay, here’s the thing about ‘extortion’: it only is effective when said extortioner has something that is either embarrassing or incriminating to the extortionee (if that’s a word). Even if Evan Chandler was extorting Michael–as was claimed by Pellicano–he had to have something incriminating against him. According to his convos with Dave (where he doesn’t sound like an extortionist, by the way, but a concerned father), he said he had evidence.

    No, he didn’t – he had NOTHING BUT SUSPICIONS. No other than Victor Gutierrez writes about it on p. 124 of his MJWML book:

    “Friday, August 20. Jordie was again interviewed by Ann Rosato. Police detective Rosibel Ferrfino, Willaim Penzin, the assistant district attorney, and Rani Steinburg from The Stuart House, a clinic for chidlren, were also present. While Jordie was being interviewed by Rosato, the police were questioning Evan about the negotiations he had had with Pellicano and why he hadn’t reported it earlier.
    Evan gave them all kinds of excuses, and said that he only had suspicions and no solid evidence. No one had confidence in what Evan declared. They were listening to excuses from a man who had negotiated using his son. They thought it appropriate that Jordie be placed in state custody away from the negotiations and from the fighting between the parents.”

    Also, there is a difference between Sneddon lying and T-Mez lying. Both of them, BTW, wrote their briefs, and Zonen made his request in court, under the penalty of perjury. Sneddon is someone who is trying to win a conviction, as he is part of the State of California prosecuting a defendant; why would he risk his conviction by showing the jury a picture and it’s corresponding description if they didn’t match? That’s all I’m asking, David. It would seem nonsensical to me to put up a picture of Michael’s penis and then have the jury say, ‘So what? It doesn’t match.’ You know that’s true, David; no DA working for the State would risk his reputation on something as stupid as showing a picture that didn’t match! I wouldn’t. If I were to believe he was lying, I would have to think to myself that Sneddon knew beforehand that the judge would refuse the request. Knowing this Sneddon asks for it anyway just to fan the flames of speculation that the photos and description did match when they really didn’t. That’s one hell of a conspiracy, David; I don’t buy it!

    You’ve answered it yourself – it was a show on Sneddon’s part (so you can understand when you want to?) . You say, “I would have to think to myself that Sneddon knew beforehand that the judge would refuse the request. Knowing this Sneddon asks for it anyway JUST TO FAN THE FLAMES OF SPECULATION that the photos and description did match when they really didn’t”. You are right – this might be exactly the reason. It was BLUFF and he was using it as a last resort.

    I defend Ray Chandler because, if any of you had actually read the 70 page document against the subpoena, he made it perfectly clear Michael could get his documents from other sources and could authenticate them himself, not to mention Michael had no right to any of Ray’s memos, etc. anyway. There was a reason the judge sided with Ray Chandler and not Michael.

    MODERATOR: Well, I have read all the 70 pages and agree that probably the defense could have obtained the same alleged “documents” from someone else if it were not for the following:

    – many of the documents were just newspaper cuts (these were indeed useless in court)
    – the others were of Ray Chandler’s (or Evan Chandler’s) making and the defense wanted the author of the documents to answer for them. Ray claimed he was a custodian of these documents so the defense wanted to examine and re-examine his testimony in court and show all its falsehood. So what they needed was actually THE MAN, not the documents.

    However technically speaking Ray Chandler turned out to be immune to any subpoena because he had safeguarded himself against it by opening a publishing house for one book only! Just think of all the precautions he had taken not to be caught red-handed!

    * * *

    The rest has been deleted not because I have nothing to say (which I have) – I just have no more time for it. My last day here has been irreversibly spoiled by answering Desiree, so those guys who say it is not worth it are right. I’ll probably do it the way you suggest it as this is too tiresome a business to answer each of Desiree’s reflections.


  98. October 3, 2010 12:34 am

    @ Desiree

    Evan asked MJ for $20 million dollars BEFORE the allegations were reported. Wouldn’t it make more sense for MJ to give Evan the money then if he was really guilty? Waiting until the whole world knows about it and after pictures of your nakedness have been taken is ass backwards. Don’t ya’ think?

    Desiree, people who think like you never answer the question why he didn’t settle with them when he first had a chance. Can you please take time to answer that question for me? I would really like to read your answer.

    I actually agree with you that the settlement was a lot of money. However, I think the lawyers involved had something to do with that. I think they pulled one over on the insurance company. When a settlement is reached it is usually for far less than what was asked. If MJ would have paid out of his own pockets, then I really don’t think it would have been that high of an amount.


  99. Eloise permalink
    October 3, 2010 12:35 am

    Helena, reminds me of your decision to what Michael said of Hitler, I thought that if he had spoken with him, maybe he could not have become an evil. There are people who have no choice, it is impossible to save and that’s a lesson that Michael should have learned before, would have been spared many problems. Helena, do not make the same mistake with Desiree, not worth your time. Your time should be spent on the good work you are carrying out, not try to enlighten airheads.


  100. October 3, 2010 12:45 am

    ” Why Michael continued ‘sleepovers’ after the first accusations. ”

    MJ never slept in the same bed as a child after ’93. There is not one person that was around him during and after that time period that says he did.

    When Gavin slept in his room in 2000, MJ gave Gavin and his brother the bed while he and Frank Tyson slept on the floor. After that, Gavin and Star slept in the guest units. Gavin confirmed this on the stand.

    If he really was still doing the ‘sleepovers,’ Gavin and Star would have been in bed with him. But they weren’t. Frank Tyson said in an interview that MJ really didn’t want them in his room with him. That’s why MJ made Frank sleep there, too.


  101. October 3, 2010 2:11 am

    @ JA:

    Omer Bhatti said he slept in the bed with Michael Jackson. Google search Omer and Michael slept in bed together; they have stories…

    MODERATOR: Google always has stories. One of the stories is that Omer is actually Michael’s son. To me it sounds like a true fact considering that Omer seems to be still living with the family. Every man sows his wild oats – even a religious-minded and the one who was brought up not to accept premarital sex.

    It is funny but I’ve read the conclusion of a palmist who studied Michael’s hand and he said that 1) firstly, his three children were biologically his because he found the respective signs in his palm and 2) secondly, he said that he surely had a fourth baby in his youth but didn’t know about it as the mother of the baby didn’t tell him. Omer can very well be Michael’s son.

    I tend to believe truly professional palmists because a friend of mine had an aunt who consulted her every day on what she should beware of (so she knew it up to a day!). The aunt implored her not to swim one day and the girl defied her advice as she thought it was ‘nonsense’ and was drowned. Speaking of “stories” this is real story, no fiction.


  102. shelly permalink
    October 3, 2010 2:14 am

    Again, she is lying about Friedman, there was no articles where he spoke about money given to another mother and son. There were only articles about Francia and Omer Bhatti and no money was involved in the Bhatti thing.

    As for her statement “the truth is the truth”, we are speaking about a case where he was left alone with the kids so all he had for him was the reasonable doubt and nothing else.

    As for the DA wanted to use the pictures in the trial, he perfectly knew that the judge would say no because you can’t use a testimony without cross examination and you can’t use shocking evidence at the end of a trial and they couldn’t have their story straight on why they wanted to use it.

    She is just using the board to spread lies.


  103. lynande51 permalink
    October 3, 2010 2:18 am

    So Desiree what is your goal in coming to this site? It is clearly one that is favorable to Michael Jackson so one would have to ask why you return? One last question if I may: what sort of treatment do you think Michael Jackson should have gotten and for what? I work in the field of psychiatry and what you call Michael is actually considered a chronic and progressive mental illness with no effective treatment so what do you think you know that is not known to a professional? I would be very interested in it as I work with that type of individual all the time and if there is something that helps perhaps you could let me know I would be grateful.


  104. Eloise permalink
    October 3, 2010 2:33 am

    The best thing you would do is block it and delete all your comments on this page. What to expect? This woman / man must have some sort of mental disorder, “if not, why coming here? Is a troll and wants attention, their opinions are worthless because they are based on lies and not facts. Why keep wasting time with him / her?


  105. lynande51 permalink
    October 3, 2010 2:40 am

    I will contact Elena but it may take some time for her to respond. In th emeantime just read through the other information and try as hard as you can to ignore her if she is upsetting you. It will be all sorted out by tomorrow though so don’t give up on us yet ok. Another thing you can do is go to you tube and type in Michael Jackson History concerts and you will have something fun to watch and take your mind off the trouble here.


  106. Eloise permalink
    October 3, 2010 2:49 am

    Forgive me if I was heavy, Helena is the moderator, is your decision, not mine. Yes, better entertain my mind on something else, if I’m not sure I’ll dream .. (Well, I’ll have nightmares) with Desiree the rest of my life XD.


  107. lynande51 permalink
    October 3, 2010 2:53 am

    No not heavy just hurt by what she says. I suggest History Munich it was the best and of not you can also find a complete verison of Moonwalker which is very fun.


  108. Eloise permalink
    October 3, 2010 3:08 am

    Lynande, good idea :-).

    Never have I said that I think your wonderful research, based on facts and good sources. I managed to make them doubt the “guilt” by Michael a few people (or at least to shake their prejudices), I just had to send them to this page. Thank you all.


  109. October 3, 2010 4:11 am

    @ Desiree,
    Could you post a link to the article about Omar. All I get is tabloid junk. Do you have anything with Omar’s own words. Thanks!

    And Evan confronted MJ about settling. Jordan Chandler said this in his interview with a social worker on August 17, 1993.

    “In an Aug. 17 report detailing the allegations brought by the 13-year-old alleged sexual abuse victim, a county social worker wrote: “Minor stated he and his father met with Michael Jackson and attorneys for (the boy’s father) and Mr. Jackson and confronted him with allegations in an effort to make a settlement and avoid a court hearing.”

    Ray Chandler said that Evan demanded $20 million dollars from MJ in his 2004 book, All That Glitters. On Pg. 128 he wrote:

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

    The Chandlers admit they were the ones who first brought up money, in order to keep the allegations quiet. So, I asked again. Why didn’t MJ give Evan the money when he demanded it from him in August if he was guilty?

    And if Evan Chandler really cared for his son he would have called the police, instead of several civil attorneys with his suspicions. Also, he wouldn’t have wanted to release an album about the rape of his child. And he would have tried to put MJ in prison, instead of suing him for 4 yrs.

    Evan does say he is concerned for Jordan in the taped convo with Dave Schwartz.

    6 MR. CHANDLER: — and became actively
    7 destructive in Jordy’s life is when I stepped in
    8 and when I decided I have to do something about it.
    9 I tried to talk to her about it, Dave,
    10 on several occasions.

    22 MR. CHANDLER: — the issue has never
    23 involved potentially harming Jordy for the rest of
    24 his life —
    25 MR. SCHWARTZ: [Tape irregularity.]

    1 MR. CHANDLER: — issues over Jordy
    2 before that I’ve backed down —
    3 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    4 MR. CHANDLER: — because you asked me
    5 to or whatever the reason was —
    6 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    7 MR. CHANDLER: — and I’ve never
    8 been — I’ve never been that set on pursuing it
    9 until now because I truly believe this will damage
    10 him for the rest of his life.

    But then he says things like this:

    10 MR. CHANDLER: Michael’s career will be
    11 over.
    12 MR. SCHWARTZ: And does that help
    13 Jordy?
    14 MR. CHANDLER: It’s irrelevant to me.

    6 MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, let me ask you
    7 this — I mean, did you give Jordy any ultimatums?
    8 MR. CHANDLER: Yeah.
    9 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Because, see,
    10 that’s how he feels trapped, I think.
    11 MR. CHANDLER: Too bad.

    22 MR. CHANDLER: — the facts themselves
    23 are gonna overwhelm. It’s gonna be bigger than all
    24 of us put together, and the whole thing’s just
    25 gonna crash down on everybody and destroy everybody

    1 in its sight. That’s [tape irregularity]
    2 humiliating, believe me.
    3 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. And is that good?
    4 MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. It’s great.
    5 MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?
    6 MR. CHANDLER: Great, because —
    7 MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, is that how
    8 you’re —

    9 MR. CHANDLER: Because June and Jordy
    10 and Michael —
    11 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    12 MR. CHANDLER: — have forced me to
    13 take it to the extreme —
    14 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
    15 MR. CHANDLER: — to get their
    16 attention. How pitiful, pitifuckingful they are to
    17 have done that. I’ve tried to get their
    18 attention —

    Which completely negates any concerns he voiced about his son. Jordan can’t be both irrelevant to him and his top priority at the same time. Nor would he have wanted to destroy his own son, if he really was concern for him.

    If he truly cared about his son why did he wait more than a month to report the allegations? Jordan supposedly told him about the allegation in July, but he doesn’t take his son to the Psychiatrist until August 17. And that is only after MJ had refused to pay Evan’s multi-million dollar demand.

    Do you honestly believe Evan’s actions are those of a concern parent?


  110. lynande51 permalink
    October 3, 2010 6:14 am

    Yes I tried the links that she provided and what I found was an article that quoted 2 previous employees. Adrian McManus was one of the now famous Neverland Five who left Michaels employment in February of 1994 so I don’t know how it was that she met Omar who met Michael in South Africa in June or July of 1997. Michael offered the family jobs in the US and Omar’s mother became his Prince’s nanny.


  111. October 3, 2010 7:47 am

    “According to one of the lawyers before MJ hired Mes said to Michael:
    Lawyer- I can win this case cos it is a no brainer but you have to promise me that you will never have children in your room again
    Lawyer- Because society doesn’t see it as acceptable behaviour (or words to that kind.)
    MJ- That’s society’s problem not mine.

    I couldn’t put it better.”

    Chris, oh, I couldn’t put it better either! That is why I am afraid we have no choice but try and deal with the mentality of the haters. It will probably take a hundred years and the effort of several generations. But I personally refuse to live side by side with those who think only the worst about you, me or Michael. It is suffocating.


  112. October 3, 2010 8:32 am

    Desiree, firstly, I see that you have a lot of spare time to write all these long posts. I haven’t as much free time as you do even on my vacation because I don’t want to stay by a computer the whole day (the point of a holiday is lost this way). That is why please don’t make so many numerous posts – I simply won’t be able to handle all of them.

    Secondly, since I have asked NOBODY to answer you and if there is a conversation here it will be solely between you and me. So there is no point in addressing others. Your keeping to me only is actually a condition of your staying here as everybody else insists you should be blocked and it is only me who is taking the risk. I am not sure my decision is correct, so please don’t make my position even worse than it is.

    Thirdly, the source you probably have in former Michael’s surrounding is not necessarily correct in what he/she is saying (whatever he/she says). I’ve read an article by a person who was one of the children by Michael’s side (I’ll find it when I come back) who said that ALL people he saw surrounding Michael in the recording studio thought bad of Michael. This person explains that the process of making a video has numerous pauses in between and while waiting these guys made dirty jokes about Michael – something like “I’d never stay alone with him so that he …. (word I couldn’t find in the dictionary). Mind it that all those people were never really close to Michael, didn’t know the first thing about him but considered themselves great experts on his mentality and behavior. This is exactly the terrible deficiency of the present day society we are talking about here – ITS PREDOMINANT CYNICISM.

    The person who tells the story says that the children who associated with Michael couldn’t understand this “adult thinking”. They knew that nothing was wrong and didn’t know how to explain it to Michael’s assistants – the adults only laughed or winked or gave dirty and “knowing” grins.

    The author of that article even made a supposition that perception of reality by children is different from that of adults and conducted a sort of a quiz in his blog about who believes Michael more – adults or children. Children were the majority who thought him innocent. The conclusion he and I make is that while growing up and learning to be street smart people lose their inherent innocence and become cynical (if they don’t make an effort to be different).

    Associating with cynical people is sickening. I cannot deal with them (and Michael probably couldn’t either and this is why he kept to children) – they twist and turn and present a crooked picture of everything they see. We may be looking at one and the same thing and their perception is completely different from what I see.

    All those whom you referred to – Maureen Orth among them – are cynical in the ultimate degree. Cynical and corrupt. In my worst nightmare I would never believe that Michael could take a bath of sheep blood which this lady M.Orth described. Michael was a deep believer in God and part of his life he was also a vegetarian – and these people can’t see meat or blood as it nauseous to them. And Michael loved animals no less than he loved children. What is M.Orth talking about? Whom is she taking us for? He could not only have taken such a bath – he couldn’t have seen it, of which I am sure.

    The problem with you is that you choose to believe journalists like M.Orth. And this is a very big problem indeed. If you don’t make an effort to overcome such a perception nothing will change in your attitude to Michael. And this will mean that all the readers here are right and I am wrong – any dialogue with cynicism is useless.


  113. Suzy permalink
    October 3, 2010 8:52 am

    Oh now all of a sudden – when her tabloid sources are dismissed – Desiree has her own sources those were close to Michael. Yeah, right….


  114. ares permalink
    October 3, 2010 8:53 am

    @ HELENA

    Again with all do respect (and the danger of becoming a stalker here) i don’t think that a Voltaire approach in a person like this woman or man who is constantly posting here, is the best one. There are millions like her out there.You can all visit some Youtube videos and you will see. So why bother???You can not convince her Helena. And i think that you should aim at the bigger picture. She has seen the profes and for some reason of hers, she can not accept the fact that MJ was in fact innocent. Well, i have a theory but i will keep it to myself.(race by the way is a big part of it)

    What is more ,I thought that this is a Michael Jackson blog. But it is slowly turning to a joanna,veronique or whatever site. Voltaire said : I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it. And i agree that the freedom of speech is a very, very important issue. BUT, i also have to say that a persons freedom ends where someone else’s freedom begins. This woman is not providing something true and healthy so the debate may proceed. She is spreading lies and perpetuating a dangerous propaganda. Like so many people have done all those years against Michael. And where was his right of freedom of speech then?? Taken away maybe??

    Finally, i don’t think that is fare for some bloggers here, ( David for example)who have done an incredible amount of work, their research – WHO IS BASED ON FACTS – to be overshadowed by the absurdities of an individual who, in my native language, we call attention who..e.

    SO, what i am basically trying to say with my rambling is DELETE HER COMMENTS AND BLOCK HER FROM THE SITE. And do the same whenever she is posting a comment with different aliases. Helena, i know that you are trying to be fare and keep away from dictatoric methods ( i don’t know if i am saying it right), but in this case i think a Mussolini tactic is the best.


  115. October 3, 2010 8:59 am

    Desiree, with so many long posts you are making it really difficult for me – I’ve got only one day of my vacation left and request you to give me some free time while you attend to other businesses you surely have.

    However here is a short answer to some of your statements:

    “Jordie got 15.3M and Jason (for ‘tickling’?!) got 2.2M, close to the amount Sneddon spent at trial. I just don’t understand why so much.”

    Because Michael was rich and these people were greedy and were playing a big game. Actually Evan Chandler thought that he had asked for too little and at the next opportunity – when the History album was out – already demanded $60 million. These bloodsuckers are never satisfied – they want more and more and more.
    The reason why they asked for so much was the same that the judge gave for demanding $3 million as a bail for Michael – the sums for the wealthy should be bigger than for ordinary people.

    “Even if Evan Chandler was extorting Michael–as was claimed by Pellicano–he had to have something incriminating against him. According to his convos with Dave (where he doesn’t sound like an extortionist, by the way, but a concerned father), he said he had evidence.”

    No, he didn’t – he had nothing but suspicions. No other than Victor Gutierrez writes about it on p. 124 of his MJWML book:

    “Friday, August 20. Jordie was again interviewed by Ann Rosato. Police detective Rosibel Ferrfino, Willaim Penzin, the assistant district attorney, and Rani Steinburg from The Stuart House, a clinic for chidlren, were also present. While Jordie was being interviewed by Rosato, the police were questioning Evan about the negotiations he had had with Pellicano and why he hadn’t reported it earlier.
    Evan gave them all kinds of excuses, and said that he only had suspicions and no solid evidence. No one had confidence in what Evan declared. They were listening to excuses from a man who had negotiated using his son. They thought it appropriate that Jordie be placed in state custody away from the negotiations and from the fighting between the parents.”

    I hope this answers your question. However you have your own book and are cheating on me here – you could have found such an answer yourself.

    This will be all for now – and please don’t bother others. Now it depends on you ONLY whether you stay here or not. If you spam and troll here you will leave me no choice but block you and delete all your earlier messages too.


  116. October 3, 2010 9:16 am

    “Helena, do not make the same mistake with Desiree, not worth your time.”

    Eloise, dear, thank you and all the other guys who are saying absolutely correct things. I have never been in such a situation before and it is probably my awfully curious nature (Michael had the same) which is taking me that far. I am sorry for that and hope my curiosity doesn’t do any harm to you. Just give me a chance to try – I must be sure that I’ve really tried before abandoning her altogether. This way I will have no remorse that I haven’t done everything within my power and can walk out of this situation without ever looking back.

    But I will try to shield you and the others from her. That is why I am deleting her posts now where she is insulting her correspondents.


  117. shelly permalink
    October 3, 2010 9:39 am


    The problem is she using your blog to spread her lies. She was never a fan. She said she fought he was innocent until June but she called him wacko Jacko in March.
    She lied on everything she is talking about and probably even with her source.


  118. October 3, 2010 10:43 am

    “The problem is she using your blog to spread her lies. She was never a fan. She said she fought he was innocent until June but she called him wacko Jacko in March. She lied on everything she is talking about and probably even with her source.

    Yes, Shelly, I KNOW that Desiree is a liar. But I want everyone (including haters) see the same. I have never bought her lie about being a fan of Michael, etc. Moreover I sometimes doubt that she is actually a woman – she looks to me as a gay man actually (impersonating a woman) and not in his twenties either. If she/he is a student of biochemistry I don’t know where she/he takes so much spare time from? I also have the impression that once she/he said something about teaching children – is D. a teacher? (or am I confusing her with some other hater? please correct me if this is wrong).

    Why bother with her/him then? I really don’t know. Probably because I believe she is still human and I am as hopelessly idealistic as Michael and think that everyone has something good in him. But I promise to go back to her posts (in a day or two) and edit them so that they don’t do Michael more harm.


  119. shelly permalink
    October 3, 2010 2:22 pm


    I think she was talking about that article,2933,151465,00.html

    “Was there a kid who made a deal with Michael Jackson before his first accuser settled with the pop star for $20 million in 1993?

    Tape recordings left behind by a deceased National Enquirer reporter would suggest there was, but on closer inspection, it turns out there probably wasn’t.

    In fact, the tapes show that there was a zealous push on the part of the supermarket tabloids 12 years ago to find any boy who might have been abused by Jackson.”

    If they are allowed, what could they be and where did they come from? And are they real
    Sneddon is prepared to subpoena every ex-Jackson employee and cop who was involved in the first case, even those who’ve since sold their stories to the tabloids. The result could be a veritable list of the supermarket tabs’ sources and leakers from a dozen years ago.

    The result is a revealing look at how the tabs salivated to get the most salacious story about Jackson, often disregarding the exact truth for kernels of plausible items that could be inflated into screaming front-page headlines.”

    “Often the Globe printed stories, written by Mitteager, that were based on the flimsiest of evidence.

    Mitteager, at least in the case of Jackson, relied heavily on a sketchy stringer named Taylea Shea. Her veracity consequently became integral to a lot of tabloid reporting at the time.

    “On one tape, Shea reads what sounds convincingly like a legal document drawn up between Jackson and a 12-year-old boy named Brandon P. Richmond, who is represented by his mother, Eva Richmond.

    Brandon, according to the document, received $600,000 from Jackson. He and Jackson would no longer have any contact with each other.

    Shea read the document, which is dated July 1992, to Mitteager the following year.”

    “The Globe published the story without using names. Over time, it was assumed that Brandon P. Richmond was in fact Brandon Adams, a boy who had appeared in Jackson’s “Moonwalker” video.

    According to the Adamses, whom I met in January, they don’t know an Eva Richmond.

    Brandon Adams’ mother is named Marquita Woods. And Brandon’s grandmother assures me she knows nothing of a $600,000 payment. The family has lived in a modest home in Baldwin Hills, Calif., for 30 years.”

    “On the tapes, Mitteager tells an editor that Shea also has “shocking” material about David Geffen and Keanu Reeves, among others. None of it would turn out to be true, but all of it was tabloid fodder that spread to more mainstream publications for a short time.

    Curiously, nobody I spoke with who worked at the tabloids could remember Shea. And her own alleged main source — an attorney then associated with the office of Larry Feldman, the first accuser’s lawyer — insists vehemently that she did not know Shea and had little knowledge of the case anyway.

    Lisa Campbell spoke about that document in King of pop darkest hour on page 70-71. Agains it’s another bullshit story.

    In that book there is an interesting quote from Jack gordon on page 57.


  120. Eloise permalink
    October 3, 2010 2:32 pm

    @ Helena

    I understand your point of view of trying with her / him until the last resources. I would also believe that there is a possibility with him / her, but it would be too miraculous if this change took place. Thanks for replying to my post so graciously. 😀

    PS: Desiree, if not change, you have to reward Helena lost valuable time with you with a new vacations with all expenses paid.


  121. October 3, 2010 5:14 pm

    “Desiree, if not change, you have to reward Helena lost valuable time with you with a new vacations with all expenses paid”.

    Eloise, thanks for the idea but I would prefer Desiree to just leave us alone or at least give me some time off as tomorrow I am flying back and am afraid will have a pile of work undone at my office waiting for me.

    I have also amended Desiree’s posts in this thread leaving my comments there. She has made me angry…

    P.S. Guys, I will be happy to see you in a couple of days!


  122. shelly permalink
    October 3, 2010 11:25 pm

    I know it had nothing to do with Joy and VG but I found this article from Friedman

    Former Protégé Vouches for Jacko

    No matter who testifies next in Michael Jackson’s alleged “prior acts” of sexual abuse mini-trial, the prosecution will have to deal with the fact that only one boy will show up to say he was molested many years ago by the pop star.

    Now comes Robert Newt, 30, long a “Holy Grail” for The National Enquirer from its investigation into Jackson circa 1993.

    Newt and his twin brother Ronald Newt Jr. (now deceased) were aspiring performers and spent two weeks as guests in the Jackson family home in Encino, Calif., around 1985. They were about 11 years old. This all occurred before Neverland was completed. Michael, Janet Jackson and LaToya Jackson were all there, as well as the Jackson parents.

    Fast-forward to December 1993. The National Enquirer, desperate to get a scoop that Jackson has abused children, heard that the Newt kids once spent time with Jackson.

    The tabloid offered the Newts’ father, Ronald Newt Sr., $200,000 to say that something happened between his kids and Jackson.

    Newt, a San Francisco “character” and filmmaker whose past includes pimping and jail time, considered the offer.

    A contract was drawn up, signed by Enquirer editor David Perel. Enquirer reporter Jim Mitteager, who is also now deceased, met with Newt and his son at the Marriott hotel in downtown San Francisco.

    It seemed that all systems were go. But the Newts declined the offer at the last minute.

    Ron Newt Sr., to whom $200,000 would have seemed like the world on a silver platter, wrote “No good sucker” where his signature was supposed to go. The reason: Nothing ever happened between Jackson and the Newt boys.

    Indeed, no kids, no matter how much money was dangled by the tabloids, ever showed up to trade stories of Jackson malfeasance for big lumps of cash after the first scandal broke in 1993.

    “Maybe there aren’t any other kids,” a current Enquirer editor conceded.

    I met Bobby Newt yesterday near the office where he works as a mortgage broker in suburban Los Angeles.

    Just as his dad promised me a few days earlier, he’s a good-looking kid. He’s half black and half Chinese.

    Robert and his twin brother were likely very cute kids. They have the same features as other boys advertised as alleged Neverland “victims.” But all Bobby Newt remembers of his encounter with Jackson is good times.

    And all he remembers about the man from The National Enquirer is that he wanted Bobby, then 18, to lie.

    “He said, ‘Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,'” Newt said. “He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, ‘We take these people down. That’s what we do.'”

    Prior to Bobby’s meeting with Mitteager, Bobby’s father met with him and brought along an intermediary, San Francisco politician, businessman and fellow jailbird Charlie Walker.

    Walker is infamous in San Francisco circles for being “hooked up” to anything interesting cooking on the West Coast.

    “My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy [Mitteager] said, ‘Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on ‘Oprah’ in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we’ll give you money,'” Newt said.

    Two pieces of evidence confirm the Newts’ story. One is the actual contract proffered by the Enquirer and signed by Perel, who declined to comment for this story.

    The contract, written as a letter, says it’s an agreement between the tabloid and the Newts for their exclusive story regarding “your relationship with and knowledge of Michael Jackson, and his sexuality, your knowledge of Michael Jackson’s sexual contact and attempts at sexual contact with Robert Newt and others.”

    Mitteager expected them to sign, even though it was completely untrue and there was, in fact, no story.

    He knew you were lying, I reminded Bobby Newt.
    “Exactly! And he didn’t care! He was like, ‘Just say it and we’ll give you the money.’ And I was like, ‘He [Jackson] never touched me!” Newt said. “He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, ‘We’ll give you this money,’ even [if it’s not true]. And they’d take it.”

    Bobby Newt recalled more details of the 30-minute meeting with The National Enquirer’s reporter:

    “He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said ‘You know, it’s going to be a huge scandal. You’ll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You’re going to be famous!’ But to me, you’d be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn’t do anything even close to trying to molest us.”

    Ironically, the second piece of evidence also backs up the Newts’ story. Unbeknownst to them, they were taped by Mitteager.

    I told you last week that Mitteager did more surreptitious taping than Richard Nixon. When he died, the tapes were left to Hollywood investigator Paul Barresi. His dozens of hours of tapes include a conversation between Mitteager, Ron Newt Sr. and Charlie Walker.

    When I read some of the transcript back to Newt the other day, he was shocked.

    “I said all that,” he observed, surprised to have his memory prodded some 12 years later.

    Back in the mid-’80s, Ron Newt Sr. put his three sons together as a singing group much as Joseph Jackson did. He called them The Newtrons.

    After much pushing, he got the attention of Joe Jackson, who agreed to manage the group. Joe Jackson got the Newtrons a showcase at the Roxy in West Hollywood.

    Michael showed up and loved them. The result was a two-week stay for the boys at the Encino house on Hayvenhurst Ave., where they were supposed to work on their music.

    “We would see Michael in passing. We didn’t see him, maybe, because he was working on an album. We saw him downstairs in the kitchen and we talked to him,” he said.

    The Newtrons eventually got a record contract and recorded the Jackson 5 hit “I Want You Back” at Hayvenhurst. They also spent the night at Tito Jackson’s house. But nothing about what Bobby Newt hears now about himself or others makes sense.

    “I don’t know what to believe. He had prime time with me and my brother in the guest room for two weeks,” he said. “And he didn’t try anything.”

    As a footnote to all of this: In the small world of the Los Angeles music business, Bobby Newt recently worked with choreographer and alleged Jackson “victim” Wade Robson on tracks for his first album, a potential hit compendium of original R&B ballads.

    Jackson’s former maid Blanca Francia implicated Robson in the case during Monday’s testimony. Robson is not testifying for the prosecution.
    “Wade is straight as they come. He’s getting married. And nothing ever happened to him, either,” Newt said.

    He shakes his head, thinking about those who have made claims against Jackson.

    “You have to look at these people, go back and see when their relationship with Michael fractured. The calls stopped coming,” he said.

    And Newt should know. After the adventure in 1985, the Newts never saw Jackson again. It didn’t bother them, Bobby says, as much as it might have others.

    “They probably didn’t like it. And this is their way of getting back at him,” he said,2933,152708,00.html

    I am not a fan of Friedman but I think he was fair to MJ during the trial and I think the article shows what the tabloids were willing to do to Jackson just to sell magazines.


  123. Suzy permalink
    October 4, 2010 5:44 am


    I actually find that Friedman was one of the very few journalists who were fair to Michael during the trial. He said he was innocent when it wasn’t cool for a journalist to say so.


  124. lynande51 permalink
    October 4, 2010 11:49 pm

    I have this article in my library and have read it before. The most interesting thing about reading it is that there were only ever 2 boys who testified that Michael had touched them inappropriately.Only Jason Francia and Gavin Arvizo ever went to court and were cross examined. Jordan Chandler refused, he never gave a deposition and he was never cross examined.Sneddon’s other alleged victims all came from other sources, adults that claimed to have witnessed something. The Neverland Maids, Blanca and Adrian McManus, The security guards know as the Havenhurst 5 and the Neverland Five, The Lemarque’s and The Quidloy’s. All of them adults that stood and watched ,all with the same reason for not reporting it ( no one would believe them) and all of them sued for money and took money from tabloids for their stories. Did you know that Neverland Ranch and amusement park had 200 employees? None of the other employess reported such a thing do you think all 193 of them were afraid they would not be believed. Second thing to note is Neverland Security and Michael Jackson security were 2 different entities. Neverland security were like mall guards, Michael Jackson’s security were like the secret service. Not one of them has ever come forward to say anything negative about Michael and they would have a better idea about what was going on in Michaels life than a few mall cops that rode around in golf carts and watched kids on rides. Why does it seem so unreasonable that he was innocent when there was never more than 2 that testified and the principal player in 1993 refused and threatened legal action against the prosecution if they subpoened him?
    To answer the question that everyone that disagrees will ask here is the answer. I said that 200+ people worked at Neverland Ranch and none of them have ever spoken out in favor of Michael either. The answer is in the settlement agreement. For MJ’s side it include employees in all of his holding companies ,plus stock holders, heirs, attorneys, investigators, former and present so forth and so on Does 1-100 were not able to write about or speak about the allegations to the media in any form or the settlement would be null and void. What this did was eliminate any other employee going on television and saying that the people involved were lying.


  125. shelly permalink
    June 3, 2011 1:27 pm

    I am sure Dr Dinnes who knew for 20 years agrees with the story of the lion and the dead giraffe told by the Neverland 5


  126. shelly permalink
    June 3, 2011 1:31 pm

    “Dr. Dinnes, who for 20 years has helped Jackson assemble and maintain his exotic zoo, was just the latest in a long line of creditors to trundle a wheelbarrow full of unpaid bills to the county courthouse when he dunned the expatriate prince of pop for $91,602.05 on Dec. 27”


  127. July 29, 2011 4:41 am

    Some Wade videos:


  128. September 16, 2011 10:57 am

    Guys, why are you raising the fact that VG talked to Joy Robson in 1992 as if it were some news? It was mentioned in this post exactly a year ago.

    The post doesn’t give much analysis but provides you with information on both what Victor Gutierrez lied about Wade and Joy Robson and what she really said in her testimony during the trial (her testimony is almost full here).

    How could Jermaine know about VG finding Joy Robson in 1992? Everyone knew (evidently except La Toya who kissed and hugged Victor Gutierrez later) that Gutierrez was working against Michael as early as 1992!

    Gutierrez was making rounds of all the parents of the boys who knew Michael at that time and was not interviewing them – no, he was TELLING them dirty stories about Michael! He was preparing ground for the future allegations. It was then that he planted all those suspicions into Evan Chandlers’s head.

    Gutierrez says about Joy Robson “being an opportunist” and calling Neverland after their “interview”, only he explains it by Joy trying to “win Michael back” into her life:

    “She tried to use my interview as a means of making good
    Jackson’s promise of the “good life.” The next day, Joy
    called the manager at Neverland Ranch, Norma Staikos,
    who was, according to police, the person that “provided”
    the “boys for Jackson. Joy told Norma that a journalist had
    an abudance of information and was asking questions about
    the relationship between Jackson, her son and other boys.
    She explained that the journalist was writing a book about
    Jackson on the subject of his being a pedophile. Joy told her
    that the journalist knew where Wade was and he would
    return to continue vith the conversation. Staikos became
    alarmed. She believed Joy’s manipulative story, and
    understood what Joy wanted. She told Joy that the first
    thing they were going to do was pick her up at the apartment
    and take her to the ranch. Joy was happy. She thought her
    economic problems were going to be over soon, and that
    she had Jackson in the palm of her hand”.

    At the time I was writing the post I had only several pages of Gutierrez’ book, but now that have the whole of it I can say that VG states when exactly he spoke to Joy Robson:

    “Wade was an 11-year-old boy who I had interviewed
    with his mother in 1992 about his sexual life with Jackson, as
    we will see in the following chapters”

    And to be honest with my readers let me add that it was then that VG said Pellicano came into his life and “threatened” him. This story was made much of by Diane Dimond and the rest of the media:

    “Staikos needed to find more information about who
    this journalist was that knew so much. She turned to
    Anthony Pellicano. He commenced an investigation into
    my book. Two months after I had interviewed Joy, he paid
    me a surprise visit.
    Pellicano, together with his assistant, arrived and
    presented himself as Michael Jackson’s representative and
    pointed out that he wanted to speak with me regarding
    conversations I had had with his client’s friends. He asked
    why I was saying that his client abused minors. I told him
    that, as a journalist, I was trying to investigate Jackson’s life
    with a focus on his sexual preference for minors. I pointed
    out that Joy Robson’s testimony had put to rest any doubts
    I had had from earlier interviews. Pellicano then said that
    “I know that you work with The Quindoys.”
    The Quindoys were a married Philippine couple that
    had worked for Jackson at the ranch from May of 1989 to
    August 1990. Their position was essentially that of ranch
    administrators (they were in charge of the maids, gardners,
    etc.), and they sometimes cooked for Jackson. They were
    replaced by Norma Staikos, who took the title of ranch
    manager. They had left the ranch unexpectedly, and thereafter
    threatened and made demands of Jackson. “I told Pellicano
    that I knew little about the Quindoys, but that I was
    interested in interviewing them. When he mistakenly
    claimed that I was working with the Quindoys, I questioned
    his ability as a private investigator. Pellicano’s continuous
    mistakes made matters worse for Jackson. Jackson would
    later fire him.
    I asked Pellicano to explain this contradiction: “Wade
    Robson is a friend of your client? What kind of friend lets
    his friends dance at the beach to make money? Was he
    thinking of friendship or was he only concerned about his
    own reputation? Why didn’t he send Joy and Wade back to
    their country, instead of them having them ask for charity
    in the street.” Pellicano didn’t know what to say, so he
    started to insult me. Just before he left, he said “We’ll be
    back! Consider yourself dead!” The only thing I could think
    to say in return was that he should not forget to buy my
    book. As I returned to my apartment, it was apparent to me
    that Michael Jackson was now aware of my investigation.”


  129. shelly permalink
    September 16, 2011 2:19 pm

    It’s precosely the problem Vindicate, we don’t know where Jermaine got this story. Did someone told around MJ in 1992 told him or did he read on Internet forum last year. Gutierrez is not reliable.


  130. September 16, 2011 3:11 pm

    “Gutierrez is not reliable.”

    Gutierrez is an absolute liar and dirt when it comes to Michael Jackson, but when this despicable creature says it himself that he started harassing Michael at least in 1992 there is absolutely no reason not to believe him. Moreover, Gutierrez says he started following Michael in mid-1980s.

    When he was bragging about this he also carelessly disclosed to us that he had attended a NAMBLA conference. He wanted to splash dirt on Michael by saying he heard the NAMBLA boy-lovers saying that Michael was their “hope” who could open a door for their social acceptance (only Michael failed their hopes as we know).

    But instead Gutierrez splashed dirt on himself because now we are wondering in what capacity he could attend a NAMBLA conference. Even FBI agents have tremendous difficulties in infiltrating this organization and Gutierrez says that he was sent there as a reporter! As if they allow anyone “from the street” to attend meetings of their organization!

    I absolutely believe Gutierrez when he says he attended a NAMBLA conference as his own text about MJ shows the author’s inclinations. In the same way I believe him when he says he started following Michael as early as 1986 or so. And that he tried to brainwash Michael’s acquaintances by making rounds of them, including Joy Robson in 1992.

    Why shouldn’t I?


  131. shelly permalink
    September 16, 2011 4:57 pm

    Because he is a liar and we don’t know when he is telling the truth.


  132. September 16, 2011 7:26 pm

    Gutierrez is a pathological liar. We can disregard him altogether and forget about him and his book. And tell the media to shut up with their lies about MJ because all of them are taken from Gutierrez’s book which is actually their bible. Even Tom Sneddon used “information” from it.

    Only they won’t shut up and will continue with their lies formally distancing themselves from Gutierrez as he is too inconvenient a figure for them. This is actually what they are doing (because you never hear of VG). And since they won’t shut up we still have to deal with Gutierrez’s BS.

    I see no reason why he should lie about talking to Joy Robson in 1992. In his book he provided certain details from their conversation which made me think that he didn’t lie about the fact of it. And if he didn’t lie about the fact, I don’t think he lied about the date either.

    It is the interpretation of that conversation and his conclusions from it which were a complete lie. And all the “embellishments” he put on that story. All that was disproved by Joy Robson at the 2005 trial.

    But if you think different I can’t help it.


  133. shelly permalink
    September 16, 2011 8:54 pm

    I don’t know you might be right, I am not saying you are wrong, but I’d like to have more evidence of that. We just know for sure that he knew the Chandlers.


  134. lynande51 permalink
    September 17, 2011 1:33 am

    shelly I sent you an email about your request. I should say do you want them both ways if I enlarge them and then send them to you and the way they appear on the page.


  135. shelly permalink
    September 17, 2011 1:39 am

    Yes please.


  136. Alison permalink
    September 18, 2011 5:57 pm

    I’ve been reading some old newspaper articles i bought off ebay, one is ‘Today’ but the date is cut off, its written in 93. it refers to a lot of the same stuff and lies but it raised an interesting thing, sorry if its already been written here, i don’t recall it.
    it refers to an undercover social worker working at Neverland as part of surveillance of Michael Jackson. Now i am sure social workers don’t go undercover so i don’t know if this is total fabrication or if it could have been VG?? or someone like him. it says that “a mexican gardner” reported concerns to social workers in May 1992 and as a result Michael was put under surveillance by this undercover social worker. it goes on to say”the woman who revealed the gardner’s complaint said she did not want any money”(!!).

    a different article says ” 2 families ended up rowing when they discovered they had both been invited to Neverland on the same weekend” and “another mother was upset when she discovered Michael had not chosen her little boy to accompany him on a trip abroad” – which whoever it was and whatever the detail was, makes it pretty clear that there was lots of jealousy and high feelings going on in the familiies and children and its interesting how in the court transcript above joy says she noticed Michael trying to avoid june – makes sense.
    jealousy and being miffed would have been a big motivator for jordie to go along with the plan. and then as time passed and it wore off, for him to want to drop it.

    Is there any other proof that jordie was invited to go on DANGEROUS tour other than chandlers saying it – it doesn’t sound as if Michael would have wanted june around anymore by then.evan talked about Michael withdrawing from him, perhaps he also did with june and jordie a bit later on. it all sounds a bit too stressful to keep around you to me.


  137. shelly permalink
    September 18, 2011 7:05 pm

    Could you scan and post them. The story of the mexican gardner is interesting because it’s in the FBI files. By the way Gutierrez was working with the woman who was the editor of Today and she won an award for her work on MJ.


  138. Suzy permalink
    September 18, 2011 8:24 pm

    @ Shelly

    Where do the FBI files mention this? And in what context?


  139. shelly permalink
    September 18, 2011 8:55 pm

    I made a mystake, they spoke about 2 mexicans boys. I think it’s Dimond who said they were the son of a mexican gardener.


  140. Suzy permalink
    September 18, 2011 8:59 pm

    @ Shelly

    Thanks. Because I ran through the FBI files but didn’t find anything about a Mexican gardener.


  141. shelly permalink
    September 18, 2011 9:35 pm

    Tina Weaver was the editor of Today and VG thanked her in his book.


  142. lynande51 permalink
    September 18, 2011 9:50 pm

    They found the story about the Mexican boys unsubstantiated.That is where they talk about an author that gives them a story about these boys and says that the FBI agent that he told covered it up because Michael was going to the Whitehouse. The only person in Michael’ s history to say he was a social worker was Rodney Allen.
    Shelly I emailed you that copy of the August 1993 interview or panel discussion with Diane Dimond didn’t I? If not let me know and I will.In part of it she says how she saw this stack of papers this thick ofthe investigation on Michael. Well we know that VG had a very think stack of papers from his “research” on Michael. So now we can safely assume that it was probably VG that gave her all of this information. No surprises there and of course he would have had to get that narrative from Evan wouldn’t he. See he really did have people ready to move in certain places.


  143. shelly permalink
    September 18, 2011 10:43 pm

    I didn’t receive it Lynande.


  144. shelly permalink
    September 18, 2011 10:52 pm

    I love that article about Dimond and tabloid TV

    Buffalo News
    See all results for this publication matching your search terms

    Browse back issues of this publication by date
    December 27, 1993 | HOWARD ROSENBERG – Los Angeles Times
    FLASHBACK. After Joey Buttafuoco claimed he never slept with Amy Fisher, his loose tongue during a television interview brings him serious trouble, indirectly leading to a guilty plea that sent him to prison for statutory rape.

    Let’s see, now, the interview was on “A Current Affair.” No, no, it was NBC’s “Today.” Or was it “Arsenio”? ABC’s “Nightline”? If not Ted Koppel, maybe Dan Rather? Larry King? Surely not Barbara Walters.

    Actually, that wonderful lug Buttafuoco was in the company of Phil Donahue when, in effect, he blabbed himself into a jail term in front of millions of TV viewers.

    Pardon the confusion, but 1993 had a way of muddling things.

    It was a year that magnified the blurring of lines that traditionally had separated components of television. Who was on first? You couldn’t blame viewers for being disoriented, for the “trash” news media and the “legitimate” news media increasingly covered the same tabloid-style stories, rendering the labels almost meaningless.

    Those media brats, the tabloid talk and magazine series, were doing what they always did. But by falling in behind them in this tabloid parade, the so-called respectable media were not only squandering themselves on relative minutiae but also diverting the public’s eye from the truly significant issues of the day.

    Who topped the shish kebab of personalities that attracted attention from so many elements of the media?

    Wasn’t it the celebrated Diane Sawyer who devoted an hour in mid-December to breathlessly reprising the trials of Lyle and Erik Menendez — accused of premeditated murder of their parents — stratagem by stratagem, on ABC? And wasn’t it the Fox magazine show “Front Page” that added its own Menendez hour hosted by Ron Reagan a few days later?

    Even more prominent in the media eye at times was alleged Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss, whose press-mobbed maiden court appearance in August became the bra shot seen around the world. With four camera crews at her arraignment, CNN must have been expecting Fleiss to burn her bra.

    A very hot ticket, indeed. Yet it wasn’t Heidi, Erik, Lyle or Joey who headed the media spike in 1993. It was — there should be absolutely no suspense here — Michael Jackson.

    A seminal moment in 1993’s incestuous media process came in August when “CBS This Morning” co-host Paula Zahn conducted an interview about those widely reported sexual abuse allegations that a 13-year-old boy had made against Jackson.

    The person she interviewed was Diane Dimond.

    Diane Dimond of the syndicated “Hard Copy.”

    “Hard Copy” the notorious tabloid series.

    Zahn was respectful, if not reverential. Had Dimond heard of other boys being involved? Had she heard of the existence of incriminating photos? CBS News had joined the inquiring minds wanting to know. “Hard Copy” was working on those angles, Dimond disclosed.

    CBS News and the extraterrestrial “Hard Copy” merging on coverage of Michael Jackson? It was an exotic hybrid that probably sent Edward R. Murrow spinning in his grave.

    The media were doing plenty of their own spinning, which included tabloid and local news choppers spending enough time above Jackson’s various residences in Southern California to earn frequent-flier mileage. And late in the year — after he had aborted his world tour because of a reported prescription drug problem — came the Search for Michael. The search for the Loch Ness Monster was less intense.

    Where was he doing his rehab? In Switzerland? In Oz? Inquiring quacks just had to know. How big was this story? So big that on the evening of the crucial vote on the North American Free Trade Agreement in Congress, the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles topped its major newscast with 15 minutes of Jackson.

    Trade barriers were about to fall; news standards had already fallen.

    Whether Jackson is guilty or innocent of sexual molestation is not the point. How the media have covered his story is.

    Anyone with a damning tale to tell about him, even if unsubstantiated, has been assured of air time somewhere. Heading the group was a man who insisted he had been Jackson’s “friend.” Negative statements made about Jackson by his estranged sister LaToya Jackson continued to get wide play even after she admitted on “Today” that she could not substantiate her innuendo about her brother molesting young boys.

    A former Jackson housekeeper and four of his former security guards made damaging statements to “Hard Copy” in recent interviews that the tabloid program paid them for. Paying for interviews is odious enough, a sure way to encourage interviewees to do the bidding of the payer and give a performance. Omitting mention of that payment compounds the sin. And that is exactly what several stations did in excerpting the “Hard Copy” remarks of some of Jackson’s former employees.

    There was one positive side to the Michael Jackson coverage in 1993. At least no one implied that he was associated with Heidi Fleiss. Or that he was Heidi Fleiss.

    But “Hard Copy” may be working on it.


  145. lynande51 permalink
    September 19, 2011 12:39 am

    I’ll send it. That was the link that was provided when I got the book Tabloid Baby.


  146. shelly permalink
    September 19, 2011 1:31 am

    Thank you Lynande but I think she was just talking about the DCFS report.


  147. lynande51 permalink
    September 19, 2011 2:08 am

    She actually talks about a stack of papers of 4 or five boys and the narrative is just one part of it.


  148. shelly permalink
    September 19, 2011 2:21 am

    I was wondering what she was talking about when she spoke about the 4 or 5 others boys.


  149. lynande51 permalink
    September 19, 2011 2:39 am

    Hi here is an actual link to where the transcript is found. That way everyone can read it or save it.
    What Jordan said is that Michael told him he did this with Mac, Wade and Brett at least that is what he said in the beginning and during his interview with Dr. Gardener. I read somewhere that an investigator in 2003 was on a show on Biography where he said that he found out that Evan had really used Sodium Amytal. I’m looking for a transcript of that show. Michael’s lawyers investigators were Scott I.Rossi and Eric Mason.


  150. shelly permalink
    September 19, 2011 2:41 am

    She said spoke about that 2 days earlier, it’s strange.


  151. lynande51 permalink
    September 19, 2011 3:37 am

    Yes that interview was August 26th,1994. So she already had that information in front of her two days before that. Jordan went to Dr. Mathis Abrams on Friday August 17th and goes in for a three hour session. He then calls and reports it to Social Services. They go over on either Saturday the 18th or Sunday the 19th. Social Services says in a statment to the LA Times that in the middle of this a Policeman by the name of Tom Felix comes in and says that they are taking over and tells Social Services to leave. Then the police search Neverland and the Century City Condo on August 22nd. It is not until the next day that it hits the newspapers on August 23rd but no one knows what the allegations are yet. So how did the cops get all of this information collected for her to see in one day? They didn’t that’s how. Then there is the fact that when they told social services to leave the only one that they had even talked to was Jordan. In a case with this allegation the social workers would have interviewed Evan, Natalie, Niki, June, Dave and Lily. None of them were ever interviewed by social workers. I believe that Evan, June and Dave were interviewed by the police but I don’t know if Nathalie ever was and Niki never was.That means that before they even talked to Brett, Wade or Mac she was already reading stories from files on those and probaly Jonathan Spence and Jimmy Safechuck.


  152. shelly permalink
    September 19, 2011 3:57 am

    There is still the possiblity that she was talking out of ass. You never know when she is telling the truth or not.


  153. Teva permalink
    September 19, 2011 3:58 am

    Does anyone know if Jordan’s mattress from June’s house was DNA tested? Since it was allegedly claimed by Jordan masturbation took place there.


  154. shelly permalink
    September 19, 2011 4:03 am

    I don’t think so, Dimond and Chandler never spoke about that in their book.


  155. Teva permalink
    September 19, 2011 4:25 am

    Hmmm I felt the police would have tested it.


  156. Teva permalink
    September 19, 2011 4:50 am

    I think when DD is talking about the 20 families she has interviewed and claimed inappropiate behaviour took place she is refering to the ones that she believed but the DA’s office dismissed. Like the German kid from her book. Also she mentioned these 20 boys before in an email to Dr. Susan Etok.


  157. ares permalink
    September 19, 2011 5:46 am

    I don’t believe a single word that is coming out of Dimond’s mouth. I don’t believe that she ever interviewed 20 families , i don’t believe in anything she says simply because she is a crazy and lying b. I’m waiting those 20 families to became 40 and at some point 1000. Like the amount of the money in the confidential agreement.She knows that she can say whatever she wants about Michael because no one is going to fact check her claims and because the general public will believe in almost anything negative that is said about MJ without questioning it. The media ,on the the other hand, need a person like Dimond because the media need this negative picture of MJ. My feeling is that those who use Dimond as a commentator on their programs know very well that she is lying or exagerating but they hire her for that. They might even tell her that they want to trash MJ because that is that brings them ratings.

    Michael is the one that has always brought food on Diane’s table. She will not throw her food resource any time soon. The media needs this demonized picture of MJ that people like Dimond have created and Dimond will keep feeding this picture because that is what’s feeding her. – oh, and ofcourse my feeling is that she is getting a secret masochistic pleasure from it.


  158. Teva permalink
    September 19, 2011 6:13 am

    Well her food supply is about to run out by mid-november when the trial is over. There will be one or two stories surrounding MJ that will pop up from time to time, but nothing that will generate the revenue expected from the Conrad Murray trial. Her expertise will be un-needed.

    I don’t think some of the commentators (eg. Joy Bahar) know DD is lying. I believe they trust her reporting because they don’t do any investigation of their own. The trend is to use the reporting of the people who cover celebrities for a living like Radar Online and TMZ. That is the reason you see Dillion Howard of Radar Online, Havey Levin or Mike from TMZ being used on panels. Recently DD sat in for Nancy Grace on her show.


  159. Suzy permalink
    September 19, 2011 7:25 am

    @ Ares

    I agree. We can wonder who are the other boys DD is talking about but most likely she simply makes up numbers. Also the prosecution in 2005 kept calling Brett, Wade and Macaulay “victims” even AFTER they personally told they weren’t. So to boost the numbers Diane might count all these boys among her “victims” as well.

    I also agree about the media. This is deliberate. Wasn’t this this show where Joe Vogel was supposed to talk about his book? Instead they drop him and replace him with Dimond about whom they know dead well that she will trash MJ. This is totally deliberate. They hire her because this is what they want to hear and project about MJ.


  160. lcpledwards permalink
    September 19, 2011 8:13 am

    Good news guys! I was so outraged at Dimond that I spent my entire weekend transcribing that segment she did, and rebutting her with facts, and I was able to finish the post today! It will be posted in another day or two, so be on the lookout! 🙂


  161. shelly permalink
    September 19, 2011 3:30 pm

    From Dimond’s twitter

    @DiDimondDiane Dimond

    @resaformj @wingheart Karen you are perpetuating crap. There is no truth to that. I’m no pal of Victors but that’s just not true. Stop it.


  162. September 19, 2011 4:14 pm

    Dimond fabricated another “story”


  163. Suzy permalink
    September 19, 2011 4:24 pm

    Actually Dimond mistook Karen for someone else. It wasn’t Karen who tweeted her about VG, but this person:!/resaformj

    VindicateMJ is mentioned (there are links given to the articles about VG).


  164. shelly permalink
    September 19, 2011 4:24 pm

    I know that, she is not able to read a twitter page.


  165. Suzy permalink
    September 19, 2011 4:32 pm

    ResaforMJ: My facts are not wrong. Where is the tape that Victor Guiterrez told you that he had and you reported it as fact?

    Dimond: Your facts are all wrong…just repeated from one MJ fan to another. Its an urban myth, my dear. Don’t swallow internet crap

    So does she claim the tape story with VG is an “urban myth”? LOL! What a liar!

    ResaforMJ answered to her: Victor Gutierrez thanking you in his book is not internet crap.

    And she linked in the foreward from VG’s book.


  166. lynande51 permalink
    September 19, 2011 6:43 pm

    Here is a link to the Appeal that Michael’s Attorneys filed against her and the other dismissed defendants.

    I had no idea that the California Court of Appeals heard cases of urban myths. That California sure is one kooky state.
    Poor DD she just can’t catch a break can she. In respect to her being pals with VG I don’t think they are pals but I just think that she was lead easily astray what can I say. If only she wouldn’t have used the defense that she believed him about something that hadn’t come true yet when this happened. That’s like saying she believed a crystal ball. And as for the perdiction that MJ and LMP would get a divorce the marriage to divorce rate in the US is 50/50 so those were the odds that he would be right.As a matter of fact it wouldn’t have mattered when they got divorced in that case if it was 2 years or 50 years later he would have been right.
    One other thing about MJ and LMP some people don’t believe that she still wanted to get back together with him for 4 years after they divorced. There is a You Tube video of MJ with OB parasailing. The title is misleading because some of them say that it was in South Africa but it wasn’t. It was at a place called Zaca Lake which is a place near Neverland. Anyway I have a still shot of that and guess who else was there. LMP and Riley. I sure wish I knew how to add a photo to this comment.


  167. September 19, 2011 8:46 pm

    ” I was so outraged at Dimond that I spent my entire weekend transcribing that segment she did, and rebutting her with facts, and I was able to finish the post today! It will be posted in another day or two, so be on the lookout! “

    David, thanks, you’ve been talking about Diane Dimond but I couldn’t watch a thing, so the transcript and your post will very helpful.


  168. Julie permalink
    September 19, 2011 10:04 pm

    Lisa Marie told Oprah on the show she did in 2010 that she spent another 4+ years with Michael constantly getting back together and breaking up and she even stated she followed him around the world for those 4 years. That was the first time she admitted doing so.

    I just watched Jermaine on The View and I think he did a much better job than he did on Piers Morgan. Whoopi remained silent for the duration and Elizabeth brought up the molestation crap. Jermaine stated that Michael wanted to settle, but “they” wouldn’t allow it. Babs had to jump in and say, “The media wouldn’t allow it?” Jermaine said no, the system wouldn’t allow it and his lawyers advised for him to settle. Then Joy brings up the sleeping in bed with children crap and here’s where Jermaine did a little better. He tried to explain that that was normal to their family because they grew up poor and had to share beds constantly and stated they would have big sleepovers all the time. He then went on to talk about Jordan and stated the media never brought up that Lily and June were also there and that Michael bought June jewelry and pretty much insinuated that June was overlooked as a possibility of Michael’s affection. Then Sheri brings up Jermaine’s statement that has been in the press about flying Michael off to Bahrain, etc. Jermaine kind of bristled up his back and said, “That’s not what I said.” He went on to try to explain that he couldn’t stand watching his little brother being handcuffed and treated so badly and that he had the idea in his head to do it, but that Mesereau kept telling them everything was going to work out. Babs had to jump in with, “I read your book and you said…” Jermaine jumped back at her and said, “I love you Barbara, but you need to listen.” With that Babs pretty much told him he had to wrap it up. Babs final question, which is so unprofessional and completely ridiculous and one that she asked Rebbie too, was whether or not the other family memberrs were upset because Michael only left money to his mother and children. I don’t know why she chooses to make such a big deal out of that. I can’t stand her anyway and never could, but that is uncalled for.


  169. September 19, 2011 10:43 pm

    “ResaforMJ: My facts are not wrong. Where is the tape that Victor Guiterrez told you that he had and you reported it as fact?
    Dimond: Your facts are all wrong…just repeated from one MJ fan to another. Its an urban myth, my dear. Don’t swallow internet “

    Suzy, Dimond is hopeless. Her cheek at telling lies is indescribable. This woman says that the absence of the tape is no fact? The woman who allegedly went to police with that tape said she never heard of it. Dimond was sued by Michael for telling that lie and she hardly escaped justice because she couldn’t prove the existence of the tape and had to hide behind that Shield Law protecting journalists.

    And this condescending attitude in teaching others what to do and what not to do… She must be mad, completely mad.


  170. September 19, 2011 11:19 pm

    Diane’s cage is really being rattled, she’s been tweeting barely literate things in the heat of anger lately.

    She accused Joe Vogel of having said something a few weeks ago that he did not, and she just accused Jermaine Jackson and Karen Faye of tweeting things that they did not, also. She doesn’t seem to know whether she’s coming or going.


  171. September 20, 2011 12:56 am

    “Diane’s cage is really being rattled, she’s been tweeting barely literate things in the heat of anger lately. She accused Joe Vogel of having said something a few weeks ago that he did not, and she just accused Jermaine Jackson and Karen Faye of tweeting things that they did not, also. She doesn’t seem to know whether she’s coming or going.”

    She knows that the wind has changed. Hence the agony of all these feverish movements.


  172. lcpledwards permalink
    September 20, 2011 5:43 am

    @ Julie
    I saw Jermaine on The View today, and it’s available online temporarily on The View’s website, for everyone else who didn’t see it. Go to the Monday, September 19th episode.

    personally, I was disappointed with Jermaine, because he keeps rationalizing MJ’s decision to have other people’s children sleep in his bedroom. While everything he said is true, he’s missing the point: people can’t comprehend why Michael Jackson, the world’s biggest superstar, after already been accused TWICE of child abuse (by Jason Francia and Jordan Chandler), after having his public reputation smeared by the media, after giving the appearance of guilt by settling the civil case, would put himself in a position to be accused again? People want to know if he, as MJ’s brother, ever lovingly and respectfully advised him about being more careful with children. The problem with Jermaine’s explanation is that he’s making it out be a family thing, but the Arvizos were not family, and were never intended to be a part of MJ’s inner circle. I could have sworn I heard a few faint claps from a few audience members when Joy asked him about it; and I know Joy will further grill him on this topic when Jermaine goes on her show tonight.

    Think about this: in all of his post trial interviews, did Mesereau try to explain or rationalize it? No! He merely said that MJ put himself in a bad position due to his kindness, and he learned his lesson, and will discontinue that practice. Simple as that. I think Jermaine should follow that example, instead of trying to rationalize something that MJ himself said he would never do again. I think maybe he feels MJ is being attacked, and he has to defend him, but I think he has to realize that in the eyes of the general public (who make up the vast majority of the viewers of The View, Dr. Drew, Joy Behar, Piers Morgan, and the other shows he’ll do in the future) MJ should have taken personal responsibility after 1993. Those hosts feel that it’s a fair question, as that’s one of the top questions people have about the Jackson family: “Why didn’t you guys tell him to stop after 1993? That trial was so preventable!”

    Here is an article from December 2003, which includes excerpts of an interview Barbara Walters did with Jermaine and Jackie. It’s titled “Jackson Family Regrets Fame”, and in it I was taken aback by something that they said Katherine said years ago: that she knew that MJ would be accused again. The general public will surely ask “If you knew he would be accused again, then why didn’t you warn him to stay away from other children?” I couldn’t believe that she said that, and I’m sure she truly regrets not warning MJ, as he surely would have listened to her.


  173. September 20, 2011 6:06 am

    smh..I think the Jacksons should just stop talking about Michael altogether. They have not been doing him any justice since his death. First Janet goes on Oprah and feeds fire to Murray’s defense team by talking about his drug use, then Rebbie does the same thing a few days later, now Jermaine is making him look worst by still defending this whole sleeping in bed with children issue. What a disastrous family.


  174. Teva permalink
    September 20, 2011 7:28 am


    I think the Jackson family did warn Michael along with others in his inner circle that it could happen again, but Michael felt differently. Even if he slept on the floor and the child(ren) in the bed it is the look of impropriety. I don’t think he acted with prudence especially with all he went through in 1993.


  175. lcpledwards permalink
    September 20, 2011 9:31 am

    @ Teva
    I don’t know about the Jackson family, but I know of at least two of his friends who warned him:

    Uri Gellar claims to have warned MJ about it, although he could be lying to make himself sound good, considering he claimed this after MJ was arrested in November 2003. Here’s part of what he said:

    “I told him, ‘You’ll end up in jail,’ ” Geller said. “Not because he’s guilty … but because this behavior of inviting children into the bedroom, the behavior is unacceptable to the outside world, to the community, to society, and society gets very, very suspicious.”

    Unfortunately, Geller said, his counsel wasn’t enough because he wasn’t being backed up by people in Jackson’s camp, who should have taken a harder line with the singer and not just automatically agreed to whatever Jackson wanted.

    “It’s just, ‘Yes, Michael,’ and he might not like to hear this, but in my opinion, Michael needs help, and I don’t mean for what he’s been accused of doing. … He needs more [people who aren’t afraid to speak the truth]. I have my own chutzpah, I am an Israeli and I don’t bullsh–. I couldn’t care less what people think about me. I speak the truth.”

    If Jackson had such a brutally honest sounding board, Geller said, perhaps someone would’ve stepped in and convinced Jackson not to do the Bashir interview after Geller had recommended it. Geller said he felt duped by Bashir, who told him he wanted to do a “very positive documentary, a really wonderful documentary … to bring justice into the man’s life.”

    “In short, I fell for it,” Geller said. “But I was convinced … that Michael would call his lawyers or agents or managers or whoever is advising him, his PR company, and at least let them see the agreement the TV station made him sign, or at least have some sort of power or veto in this agreement. And apparently Michael didn’t do such a thing.”

    Since the documentary aired, Geller and Jackson have only spoken once, “and Michael was very upset,” Geller said. “Although I’m not to blame for Michael Jackson’s not asking a solicitor to read that contract, or Bashir for doing that unbelievably negative documentary, I was a person that he trusted,” Geller said. “My friendship toward him still stands, but I think that his friendship towards me tarnished a little bit.”

    Also, Steve Harvey said he warned him too, and told him why he should be careful of what he says in interviews. He said this while doing standup comedy at the 2005 Megafest, but that video isn’t available on youtube any longer.

    On a more positive note, my Diane Dimond transcript and analysis is done! 31 pages of Dimond bashing is coming soon to an MJ vindication blog near you! 🙂


  176. Chris permalink
    September 20, 2011 9:55 am

    @ Stacey I agree with you. I give some of the Jacksons as much benefit as I can but I’m really getting sick of seeing misinformation coming out by specifically Jermaine and Latoya.

    Either they do the research and comment or not comment at all.
    It may seem harsh but they are not helping anyone especially MJ. When they both have books and new albums coming out that doesn’t look good either.

    What also is scary is that both lawsuits against Murray have errors in them. What are Katherine and Joes lawyers paid to do?

    Also in Jermaine’s book has he discussed how Tohme came into the picture? He said he wouldn’t go into it on twitter cos he had not enough space. Thats fair and fine. So surely he must tell in this book.


  177. September 20, 2011 1:04 pm

    “personally, I was disappointed with Jermaine, because he keeps rationalizing MJ’s decision to have other people’s children sleep in his bedroom.”

    David, I don’t know what Jermaine said but to me rationalizing Michael’s decisions sounds okay. Different people come from different surrounding and what isn’t good for some is acceptable for others. Instead of agreeing that allowing the whole gang to stay in Michael’s room is a total taboo, I think we should explain things the way they really were.

    First we need to deduct the word “invitation” from all those stories. Michael never invited anyone into his bedroom – once his friends were in his house they could go anywhere and it was natural for them to go to Michael’s premises because he was there. Adults also spent lots of time there and liked to rake through his closet, by the way. All of them came there on their own as there was an open-door policy in the house.

    Second, Michael never invited children into his bed – they just followed him everywhere he went. Remember that picture of Michael with a crowd of children behind his back and several of them grabbing him by his hands and arms and touching him all over? This is what it was like – they imposed themselves on him and there was simply no getting away from them, even when he went to the bathroom (as LMP said).

    Third, Michael had problems with saying “no” to children because he was afraid of their tears and them feeling “pissed off”. Remember Amy Agajanian and how she was devastated when Michael said that small girls shouldn’t be left unchaperoned at night and took her to her mother? This is how those children felt when he drove them away.

    For teen boys Michael didn’t have so strict rules because he himself grew as part of a gang of boys living in one room, and it was a totally usual situation for him. But if it came to ill children, I can bid whatever you like that he would not have the heart to refuse an ill child from staying in his room – boy or girl alike. An ill child, like Gavin, could turn him round his little finger – and Michael would never refuse an ill child anything at all. Especially if he thought that the child was terminally ill. What if it was his final wish?

    I think that when it came to ill children Michael would forget any precaution and would do only what his conscience told him to – so if an ill child wanted to stay in his bed, so be it, even if the whole world was at Michael’s door the next day with their screams. The only precaution he took was asking another adult to stay in the same room (I hear it was Frank Cascio) who could testify if need be that Michael was sleeping on the floor or in the bedroom on the second floor of his room (which was indeed the case).

    And there is one other thing. When you know that you are not doing anything bad and the world thinks you are, it is an insult to have to listen to them – this way you more or less agree that they are right in their suspicions. Michael knew that he never did any wrong and it was a matter of principle for him not to give in to those with dirty thinking. Similarly if someone thinks that you allow your dog to sleep in your room due to your inclinations to bestiality it is their problem, not yours that they are thinking that way.

    “Those hosts feel that it’s a fair question, as that’s one of the top questions people have about the Jackson family: “Why didn’t you guys tell him to stop after 1993? That trial was so preventable!”

    I am not sure of it. Sneddon and Co. were so keen to “get” him that they would have thought of something else – some provocation like indecent telephone conversations with a teenage boy, willing to play a part in this farce, some “incriminating photos” or whatever.

    P.S. Having said all that if someone asks me a quesion whether I consider Michael’s slumber parties a model of behavior for all others I will say NO.

    Michael was in a unique situation in which none of us find ourselves, so there is no reason to apply his situation to us.
    And he was a unique person too who was extremely attractive to children and people in general, and if we are not that way we shouldn’t pretend we are.
    If we don’t have to face crowds of people imposing themselves on us every minute of our life, we simply cannot imagine what it’s like and what problems it involves.
    That is why our recipes of behavior were no good for him, while his recipes of behavior are not applicable to us.


  178. September 20, 2011 2:46 pm

    Thetis, thank you for the link. I haven’t been able to watch it due to my slow Internet but left my today’s statement there as a comment. I hope it shows, because this is what I really believe in. Michael had the right to behave the way he behaved and it is not the dirty-minded us who should tell him what he should or shouldn’t have done.

    To some people average rules do not apply. Why did Jesus have 12 male friends following him? Most probably people at the time also thought it “inappropriate”. And given that he said to one of his disciples not to bury his father and follow him instead (“Follow me and let the dead bury their own”), such behavior could be considered totally outrageous – both then and now.

    I am not saying that Michael is Jesus. What I am saying is that application of one and the same rule depends on who you apply it to – a saint or a criminal. What is allowed for one is not allowed for the other. Of course it is difficult for the world to decide who is who and who lives according to the laws of the Heavens, and who doesn’t. But it is more the problem of the world as you understand.

    Telling the true nature of a person has more to do with feeling rather than knowing it. Most of those who were around Michael FELT that he was a very pure person and therefore trusted him with their children and never had any problem with it. Most probably the Chandlers and Arvizos felt it too, only their material interests took the upper hand over their natural feelings.


  179. Julie permalink
    September 20, 2011 3:07 pm

    I am going to have to disagree about Jermaine “rationalizing” Michael allowing children to sleep in his room, etc. The reason being is that I’m not sure it’s rationalizing, but merely trying to explain where Michael was coming from. It’s the same old tired questions that keep getting asked over and over again as though people cannot accept Michael’s explanation. Was it smart on Michael’s part to even allow children into his home after 1993? As it turns out definitely not; however, when Diane Sawyer asked him in the 1994 interview if he was going to stop — he stated no because he was not doing anything wrong. I truly believe Michael did not see anything wrong because he was not doing was he was being accused of. Having said that, I’m quite sure that he was warned by several people that it could happen again. When Michael was interviewed by Ed Bradley and asked the same question — Michael responded that he was always more cautious after 1993 (sadly not cautious enough), which is why he slept on the floor and had Frank sleep in the room with them. Since Frank was a co-conspirator to the conspiracy charge, he was unable to testify on Michael’s behalf. Very clever plan by Sneddon and to me also criminal. Who names several co-conspirator’s to a crime and then only indicts the principal suspect so as to keep those individuals from testifying? Sneddon!

    In any event, I truly believe that Jermaine is trying to do his best to defend his brother. I may be alone in that, but I believe that. I watched him on Behar’s show and he didn’t do very well because he stumbles around. I’m not sure if it’s nervousness or if he’s been traveling so much that he’s tired or what. But Behar did as you said and asked the same questions again. It’s like beating a dead horse. He is questioning things that I think should be questioned such as why did the security tapes of the night Michael died mysteriously get erased. That’s a pretty scary thing to me. However, why can he not come on any of these shows and just say that Michael was a wonderful person and talk about the positives of Michael without being bombarded with all of these questions that have been asked over and over. Michael is the only one that can answer as to why Michael made the choices that he made and he’s not here to answer them, but when he was here those were his answers and Jermaine is trying to explain where he feels the behavior started. I have done the same thing in defending Michael because I truly believe that he saw nothing wrong with “sleeping” in the same bed, room or whatever with children because that’s all he was doing was sleeping and as Michael said in the Bradley interview — it happened many times when he was a child (having adults other than his parents sleeping with them while traveling, etc.).

    No one really ever wants to get into what the Chandlers and/or Arvizos were up to with making the charges — it’s seemingly always Michael’s behavior that gets questioned over theirs. I would love to hear one of these idiots in the media bring up what Sneddon did and talk about things that were done to Michael for a change.

    To Behar last night Jermaine asked her straight out if she had ever called Michael a pedophile and she said no. He said, “Are you sure?” She again said no and I think it struck a nerve with her. She concluded the interview right after that. Jermaine said his reason for writing the book was to show Michael the true person and to disprove all of the negative stuff about Michael. As has been said before no one else in the world had Michael’s life. No one! It’s easy to judge someone else’s life, but not a one of us went through his experiences and what he had to endure so I for one just believe that his life should be celebrated without having to continuously hear from the same disgusting media types that want to perpetuate things that don’t need to be perpetuated.

    On The View, I wish just for once Whoopi would stand up and say something as someone who also grew up a poor black child and raised herself to star status. She also knew Michael. The only thing that I ever heard her say in his defense was when she was going against Peter King and when Behar asked her if she would allow her child to stay with Michael — Whoopi said yes and that she did let her child stay with Michael. On The View also, in the background the pictures they were putting up of Michael were the ones of him in his pajamas going to Court and to me the most unflattering ones.

    In my mind Jermaine is trying to vindicate Michael and he is being way more vocal than I have heard anyone else in his family, except for Katherine. Sadly, the Jacksons are not very good at articulating things — not a one of them, even Michael. So, it’s usually open season on them whenever they say or do anything.


  180. ares permalink
    September 20, 2011 4:11 pm

    —–And there is one other thing. When you know that you are not doing anything bad and the world thinks you are, it is an insult to have to listen to them – this way you more or less agree that they are right in their suspicions. Michael knew that he never did any wrong and it was a matter of principle for him not to give in to those with dirty thinking. Similarly if someone thinks that you allow your dog to sleep in your room due to your inclinations to bestiality it is their problem, not yours that they are thinking that way.—- Helana


    —-when Diane Sawyer asked him in the 1994 interview if he was going to stop — he stated no because he was not doing anything wrong.——- Julie

    And This!!!!

    ——Michael was in a unique situation in which none of us find ourselves, so there is no reason to apply his situation to us.———— Helena

    And finally this!!!

    Surelly MJ was warned a lot of times to be careful with who went on his room but i’m pretty sure that since he didn’t do anything wrong, he continued to permit to people, both young and grown up, to stay there. On the other hand Neverland was MJ house and i think that Mike,like any one of us, wouldn’t like it so much to be indicated what to do or not in his house,since what he did didn’t hurt anybody. In this i completelly understand MJ.


  181. September 20, 2011 5:53 pm

    Celebrities have to be careful with what they say in interviews because the camera picks everything up. Once that journalist has you on tape, he or she has the power to cut and paste it anyway they want too..Bashir had set out to paint Michael as a child molester, and Michael gave him exactly what he wanted by admitting that he let children sleep in his bed.


  182. September 20, 2011 5:56 pm

    I also read somewhere that Bashir had requested that Michael bring Macaulay Culkin to Neverland..hmm I wonder why.


  183. September 20, 2011 6:00 pm


    I wish Frank would have testified. His testimony would have been extremely damaging to the prosecution and the Arvizo’s credibility.


  184. Julie permalink
    September 20, 2011 6:46 pm

    Stacy2 – that’s exactly right, which is why Sneddon the snake did what he did to keep him from testifying. I remember Aphrodite Jones stating that Bashir was the one that encouraged Michael and Gavin to hold hands and for Gavin to put his head on Michael’s shoulder. So if ever there was a conspiracy — Bashir was a part of it. None of that really gets spoken about. It’s all Michael and sleeping with boys. It’s gets repeated and repeated and he never said that he invited boys into his room. Like I said, the media hangs on to two lies – that Michael admitted it’s ok to sleep with young boys and that because Michael settled the case in 1993 it equates to guilt. Neither of which is true. It’s just like Harvey Levin talking to Diane Dimond the other day and stating his “sources” said Michael was a drug addict who liked to push the propofol in himself. It made me sick just hearing it and the mere fact that he, as a supposed lawyer, thinks it’s ok and also his duty to inform the public before the trial all of this garbage. I have said all along he is for Team Murray. I get so sick and tired of people also asking the family if they blame the doctor. What? Of course, the man left Michael alone to go talk on the phone for an extended length of time and Michael died. Some people are truly stupid! The other argument and I also remember on The View was Brooke Shields as guest host and someone was talking about Michael and both Brooke and Whoopi said that if that doctor hadn’t done it then Michael would have found another doctor. As if that makes it ok what Murray did.


  185. lcpledwards permalink
    September 21, 2011 4:12 am

    @ Julie and VindicateMJ
    I know what you guys are saying, and I respect your thoughts on this issue, but there is one critical issue here that you’re missing: how is Jermaine helping Michael by giving such poor explanations/rationalizations for Michael to continue to share his bed/bedroom with OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN after 1993? That is what the general public wants to know, and I’ve seen that question a lot. In the days and weeks after MJ died, I listened to numerous talk radio problems, and read the comments on numerous articles and forums, and a question that came up over and over and over is “WHY DID MJ USE SUCH POOR JUDGEMENT AFTER 1993?” and “WHY DIDN’T HIS FAMILY AND SO-CALLED FRIENDS WARN HIM?” The number one, NUMBER ONE reason that people had for thinking MJ was guilty was his poor explanations of his sleepovers! In both the Bashir and 60 minutes interviews, he didn’t specify that he never forced anyone into his bed, that the parents not only gave their permission, but were also in the room as well, etc.

    From what I saw, many people didn’t question his right to do it, as it’s his house and his guests, but they just question the judgement and wisdom of MJ putting himself in a position where he could be accused again. It’s something we’ve all heard a million times, and it’s valid, because that decision set in motion the chain of events that led to the trial. Let’s look at what Jermaine said to Piers Morgan from the viewpoint of the general public:

    MORGAN: I remember — I remember all that. And it just always struck me that I didn’t know enough about the reality of the truth, certainly not in the position that you were. It just seemed to me that Michael, he did stuff that was — to the public, just looked a bit inappropriate, especially as he got older.

    Did you ever think as his big brother of warning him, it may not be a good idea to have sleep-overs with young boys, because people won’t get it. They won’t understand what you’re doing.

    JACKSON: See, but I’m the same way, because what’s wrong with sleep- overs? What’s wrong with sleep-overs with — with kids?

    It’s only the demented mind that thinks something different. It’s like Michael said it best, why do you — why do you relate the bed to sex? We can have sex standing up. We can have sex in the car, outside, on the ground. And during those times when he was sharing his bed, he was on the floor.

    But at the same time, these are people/’s minds who were demented. Like they were saying Neverland was used to bring in kids and to molest them. And when you go to Neverland, the wheelchair ramp going up to the rides. He was concerned about bringing the joy to kids who were terminally ill, who were dying of all types of diseases.

    This is — this is a man who lived his life according to God’s will. This is a man who really cared about people. And it’s so sad, because this world didn’t look at that until after he was dead. And he was trying to say this all along while he was alive.

    MORGAN: But when you watched the Martin Bashir interview, the infamous interview, clearly Michael did that to try and set the record straight, and, if anything, made it 10 times worse.

    When you watched that, what did you feel about that interview?

    JACKSON: Well, first of all, Martin Bashir needs to be slapped and he never should have been around Michael. And there again, Michael trusted. And — and see, why this — there’s a question for us, why does people in the media want to say the most horrible things about someone, knowing that they have all the right intentions to do good?

    MORGAN: I guess the answer, if I’m putting my media hat back on, because I worked in newspapers at the time of all that, is that it’s not normal — I use that word in, you know, just in a straightforward way — for a guy of, say, 44, to be sharing a bed with a boy of 12. That — it’s not what most men of 44 do.

    So when the public hear about this —

    JACKSON: But how do you know that?

    MORGAN: — or the media —

    JACKSON: How do you know that?

    MORGAN: I just —

    JACKSON: How do you know that?

    MORGAN: I just guess — I don’t anybody like that.

    JACKSON: No, but you can’t just guess, because see, that happens all over the world and people don’t think of that as people —

    MORGAN: But do you believe that?

    JACKSON: Yes. Yes.

    MORGAN: You do?

    JACKSON: Absolutely. Absolutely.

    MORGAN: I don’t think it does.

    JACKSON: Yes, it does, because –

    MORGAN: And I’m not casting aspersion over Michael. I’m saying I don’t think it does happen all over the world. Was Michael too innocent for this modern world, do you think?

    JACKSON: Absolutely.

    MORGAN: You really believe that, that he was just from a different era?

    JACKSON: He was from the era that — that we were from. I wish that we were around him more to tell him, Michael, get this person away from you because they have a hidden agenda, whether it was the — all the people who accused him of — of the — of the child molestation, but at the same time, he saw the good in people, the good.

    You’ve got to be kidding me, right? How on EARTH did that ridiculous explanation help MJ’s legacy and reputation? There are people who, to this day, still think that he lured kids into bed to cuddle and spoon with them, and this is the best that Jermaine can come up with? That there are lots of other 45 year old me all over the world that do it too? What is someone who is already suspicious of MJ going to think after hearing that? They’re probably gonna say “it’s no wonder MJ was accused a second time! His family were a bunch of enablers who didn’t warn him to stop!” Let’s look at what Latoya said in March 2003 on Larry King:

    KING: Did you watch the special done by that Londerner, Mr. Bashir, on your brother?

    L. JACKSON: Yes, I did. KING: What did you think?

    L. JACKSON: I thought he was very unfair to him. I thought he was manipulated. And I feel bad because he poured his heart out to him and when you do that and you share your privacy and life with someone and you put trust in them and then they turn around and you do this to you, it hurts. And I understand his feelings.

    KING: He agreed to be taped and if they tape you they can edit you.

    L. JACKSON: Yes, of course. You’re absolutely right.

    KING: What about the sleeping with young boys? How does he explain it to you, how do you explain it to yourself?

    L. JACKSON: Michael addressed that to the public on television and I think that no one can consider that question but Michael and he addressed it to the public and I think that’s the way it should be.

    KING: Did it satisfy you?

    L. JACKSON: That’s totally up to him. I understand and I know him.

    KING: I mean, but — did was his reasoning…

    L. JACKSON: Yes. Yes.

    KING: … acceptable to you.

    L. JACKSON: Yes, it was. And I think it was fair for him to address it to the public to let them know what he felt and what he thought.

    How did Latoya’s explanation help MJ? Did she clear any of the misconceptions that people had? NO!!!! It was Mesereau who finally cleared it up on Jay Leno in June 2005, and he didn’t make any excuses. Can you imagine if he had given any of those lame excuses? Another thing that I want to point out is that Sneddon filed a motion to only include the clips from the Bashir and 60 Minutes interviews that talked about sharing beds, and THAT’S IT! Everything else from those interviews would be excluded, and the purpose behind this was to prejudice the jury into thinking the worst about MJ, and forcing him to have to testify to explain himself, which would have opened him up to an absolutely brutal cross-examination! Fortunately Mesereau won his pleading, and ALL of the Bashir outtakes and the entire 60 Minutes interview was played, and MJ didn’t have to testify.

    In closing, the next time someone asks Jermaine (or any other Jackson family member) about the sleepovers, they should follow Mesereau’s example (starting at 6:15):


  186. Alison permalink
    September 21, 2011 11:50 pm

    “Another thing that I want to point out is that Sneddon filed a motion to only include the clips from the Bashir and 60 Minutes interviews that talked about sharing beds, and THAT’S IT! Everything else from those interviews would be excluded, and the purpose behind this was to prejudice the jury into thinking the worst about MJ, and forcing him to have to testify to explain himself, which would have opened him up to an absolutely brutal cross-examination”

    The more i learn about sneddon the more i am thinking of just getting my entire salary paid directly to William Wagener’s campaign. that individual needs to be in the dock and have to be cross examined and answer for what he did.


  187. Teva permalink
    September 22, 2011 6:22 am


    Have you read the Shmuley Books on MJ, excluding the Rabbi’s narrative and just MJ’s word? If you read those books then you will know why Michael continued.


  188. lcpledwards permalink
    September 22, 2011 7:31 am

    @ Teva

    We all know that this is a very controversial issue, and by far the most mis-understood issue when it comes to MJ: his continuing to let OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN sleep in his bed/bedroom after 1993. I emphasize “other people’s children” because of course he should let his own nieces, nephews, cousins, and the children in his inner circle sleep in his room, because those are people he knows and trusts. That’s not the issue.

    The issue is the fact that the Arvizo’s, and any other children who were NOT in his inner circle, and who he did not trust, were allowed to sleep there, thus putting him in a dangerous position if he got accused again. The fact that he had someone sleeping in there with him, like his bodyguards, shows that MJ acknowledged that possibility, and thought that having a 3rd party would neutralize another false allegation, but to me (and most others), that’s exactly the problem. If he felt he needed someone there to protect him from another allegation, then he should not have put himself in that position in the first place! If you were about to use your stove, and noticed a grease spill near the burner, would you grab a fire extinguisher and place it nearby to put out the fire if the grease ignites, or would you clean up the grease spill before using the stove? You would obviously clean up the grease so that it doesn’t ignite in the first place, and if it doesn’t ignite, then you don’t have to worry about putting it out. Same thing with false allegations.

    In retrospect, with everything he went through, was it worth it to keep doing it? Just imagined if he had the Arvizo’s sleeping in the guest house with their mom? Or better yet, he paid for them to stay at a local hotel, and had a limo pick them up in the morning? If that decision had been made, that trial wouldn’t have ever happened!

    If you make the argument that because MJ was innocent, he had no reason to change, then you might as well as that he should have ignored Mesereau, his mother, his fans, and practically the entire world, and he should have just allowed other children who were not in his inner circle to sleep in his bed/bedroom while he was in Bahrain, Ireland, with the Casios in New Jersey, in Las Vegas, and in LA. But of course he wasn’t going to do that after what he went through with the trial!

    Here is an excerpt from an article on Meserea, which is included in this post:

    Mesereau says Jackson has never acted inappropriately with children or allowed them to stay in his duplex-sized bedroom without parental approval. Nonetheless, Jackson “has to recognize what a target he is,” Mesereau said. “I have counseled him not to let families stay in his bedroom.”

    Was Mesereau wrong in his counseling of MJ? Was he wrong for telling him has to RECOGNIZE that he’s a TARGET?

    Now, let’s look at what Katherine had to say after the trial, starting at 2:40:

    She’s practically BEGGING him not to allow other kids to sleep in his bed/bedroom! And what was MJ’s reply? “From now on, I’m gonna help these people FROM A DISTANCE!” And that was the right decision, as he wasn’t falsely accused again after the trial. If it was the right decision in 2005, then it would have been the right decision in 1993.


  189. September 22, 2011 6:50 pm

    “Or better yet, he paid for them to stay at a local hotel, and had a limo pick them up in the morning? If that decision had been made, that trial wouldn’t have ever happened!”

    David, I am not sure of it. When someone like Tom Sneddon has a vendetta it is purely a technical matter to accuse someone of “molestation”.

    You don’t need a bedroom to accuse someone of it. Remember Philip Lemarque who said he saw Macaulay Culkin being “molested” in the video arcade? Or the bodyguard who said he saw something through a window in the bathroom (and never said it to the police though many of them were former policemen obliged to report such cases)? And if Gavin put his head on Michael’s shoulder (as Bashir asked him to) without those bedroom issues, wouldn’t the reaction have been the same? Only this time they would have claimed that the molestation took place in the woods, bushes, pools, guest-houses, theater which also had beds or chairs as a minimum, etc.

    A “bedroom” is just a thunderous word, that’s why they liked it so much – if they had called it Michael’s sitting room, which it actually was, the effect wouldn’t have been so dramatic. The word bedroom was needed only for extra drama – for “molestation” per se it isn’t that indispensable .

    That sleepover problem was highly exaggerated. It was a very convenient pretext that is why they blew it out of proportion. But if it hadn’t been for those slumber parties, they would have thought of something else. Love letters, secretly recorded video or audio tapes, sex telephone conversations – what not!

    Their only problem was to find the right “victim” who for some $200,000 or so would tell a dirty story about Michael. Remember the Newt family – what if they had agreed?

    “The tabloid offered the Newts’ father, Ronald Newt Sr., $200,000 to say that something happened between his kids and Jackson. Bobby remembers about the man from The National Enquirer is that he wanted Bobby, then 18, to lie.

    “He said, ‘Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,'” Newt said. “He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him.'”

    “My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy [Mitteager] said, ‘Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on ‘Oprah’ in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we’ll give you money,'” Newt said.”,2933,152708,00.html


  190. September 22, 2011 7:37 pm

    Jermaine also revealed that back then Joy Robson had also been offered six figures by the National Enquirer to say anything negative about Michael.

    So Newt, Robson’s and Alfonso were all offered money to say anything negative about Michael.


  191. September 22, 2011 8:24 pm

    “Jermaine also revealed that back then Joy Robson had also been offered six figures by the National Enquirer to say anything negative about Michael. So Newt, Robson’s and Alfonso were all offered money to say anything negative about Michael”

    Rockforeveron, we can add several more people to this pack. Lisa Campbell in her book of 1994 “King of Pop’s darkest hour” is writing about some others who were offered six figures to slander Michael:

    – “Alfonso Ribeiro appeared on Geraldo, to say there was never a time when he felt uncomfortable with Michael Jackson. Ribeiro, at the age of twelve, had starred with Michael and the other Jacksons in a Pepsi commercial in 1984. Ribeiro felt like Michael was one of his buddies and felt the allegations were “preposterous”. He also disclosed that his own father was offered $100,000 by a tabloid to say anything negative about Michael Jackson”.

    And this is what Lisa Campbell writes about the sudden transformation undergone by the Filipino couple the Quindoys. No sums are named in this case but their nephew clearly points to the money being involved. It is also interesting that they couldn’t explain why they didn’t go to the police when they allegedly saw ‘things’ at Neverland, though Mark Quindoy was a former lawyer!

    – “Soon former employees of Michael’s would begin crawling out of the woodwork with inside information on Michael’s personal life. This “information” was for sale to the highest bidder, and the tabloid magazines and tabloid TV shows were climbing over each other at the chance to land “the exclusive interview”. Whether or not the information was true was not an issue, as long as they had someone to say it was true. First up was Mark and Faye Quindoy, a Filipino husband and wife who had worked as a housekeeper and cook at Neverland from 1989 to 1991.

    He was a former lawyer. They left their employment at Neverland claiming they were owed $500,000 in overtime pay. If this is an indication of their pay scale, it certainly explains why he stopped practicing law to become a housekeeper! The Quindoys had filed a lawsuit against Michael Jackson for their overdue pay. Later, they claimed they quit because they couldn’t stand what they were observing at the ranch. They weren’t concerned enough to mention any of it to the authorities though.

    The season premiere of Geraldo was the first of a several shows devoted to the story. This one even included a year old interview with the Quindoys which at the time only offered slight insights into the personal life of Michael Jackson, but now was being analyzed in a new light by Geraldo Rivera to see if anything said then could now be construed differently. A year earlier, the Quindoys described Michael Jackson as “the shyest person in the world”. Other things disclosed in the earlier interview included their observation that each member of Michael’s family had visited the ranch with one notable exception, LaToya. They also said Michael had young friends visit him and that they stayed in the “Shirley Temple” room, a separate, enclosed bedroom inside Michael’s bedroom. In an effort to get him to eat better, Mrs. Quindoy developed meals named after Michael’s zoo animals and Disney characters.

    By this time Mark and Faye Quindoy had drastically changed their story. While one year earlier they described Michael to Geraldo’s audience as a very nice man, they had now suddenly obtained a diary which they held at a press conference which they claimed they had kept while working at the ranch in which they described various questionable acts by “MJ”. A very important thing to point out here is that, like so many others in this media fiasco, the Quindoys first told, and sold, their story to A Current Affair and did not take anything to the police. And then the police went to them, they did not take their “information” to any authorities. In response to the Quindoy’s media blitz with their “diary”, twodetectives, Federico Sicard and Deborah Linden, flew to Manila to question them. They were found to be worthless as witnesses.

    A Current Affair, in their ever objective reporting technique, referred to the Quindoys’ press conference as “The press conference that could bring down Michael Jackson forever.” Actually the statements made the Quindoys only weakened the case against Michael Jackson, proving people will do and say anything if they think they will profit from it.

    The Quindoys were further discredited by their very own nephew. Glen Veneracion, a law student and nephew to the Quindoys, told interviewers his aunt and uncle were opportunists and they were an embarrassment, “I just feel bad that this is happening. I’m ashamed. I’m ashamed to be related to these people. I’m ashamed for the people in our country. It’s an embarrassment It really is.” He described the Quindoys antics as a desperate attempt to make money, “What disturbs me the most out of all of this is that they waited so long. Why did it take them three years to come up with these allegations? That’s what really is disturbing. If this was true, they should have come out with it a long time ago instead of jumping on the bandwagon. They never said that Michael was a pedophile, they never said that Michael was gay, so I don’t know where this is coming from. I find it shocking. It’s very disturbing to me.”

    Veneracion went to Pellicano with his statement and established the lack of credibility of the Quindoys. He answered questions concerning the diary the Quindoys claimed to have kept, “I’m quite sure they wrote that diary to fit in with these allegations. He was gonna get it at any cost. And that’s what’s coming out now.” Veneracion was willing to testify in any court proceedings, “I’d be willing to step forward in a court of law and make these allegations.”


  192. shelly permalink
    September 22, 2011 8:33 pm

    Actuallyn the Quindoys first spoke to News of the World a few days after the scandal broke.


  193. September 22, 2011 9:32 pm

    Very obviously Terry George accepted money for his story. He also sold the tapes of his interview but edited out the portions where the other Jacksons in the room were also being interviewed by him, making it seem like a one on one interview with just Michael.

    I’ll be interested to hear if Frank Cascio relates also being offered money to sell negative stories on MJ, I’m expecting he will.


  194. September 22, 2011 9:33 pm

    “the Quindoys first spoke to News of the World a few days after the scandal broke”.

    Speaking of the News of the World here is an excellent video which shows us who was the person who taught Michael to show babies out of the window.

    It was Debbie Rowe!

    Yes, when she and Michael were in a hotel room in 1997 she urged Michael to show the baby to the crowd below – see how insistent she is, though he is a little hesitant (you can turn off the sound to cut the usual media crap but apart from that the video is very nice):

    Now I am no longer surprised why Michael did the same with Blanket in Germany five years later. It was an absolutely natural thing to do for a proud father! The only difference is that the window sill in Germany has a railing over it so he had to put the baby over it, and that is why it looked a little more dangerous, but otherwise the idea is absolutely the same – sharing your enormous joy with friends while keeping the baby safe and sound!


  195. September 23, 2011 12:05 am

    Speaking of Debbie Rowe here is a unique outtake from Barbara Walters’s interview with Michael Jackson which was deleted from the original interview.

    They talk on September 7, 1997 in Paris. She asks him whether his wife is pregnant and the way he reacts tells you the story of his love, happiness, great expectations and a prayer for another baby. He even looks up to the skies in silence to show that everything is in God’s hands.

    He laughs, “let’s say I’m not sure” with a great hope in his voice. He indeed isn’t sure yet as Paris will be born on April 3, 1998 or eight months after this conversation.

    It is both nice and sad to see Michael happy, hopeful and so much alive here:


  196. Teva permalink
    September 23, 2011 4:02 am


    I understand what you are trying to convey, and you will get no arguments from me. The “sleepovers” & the “photos” are the 2 main weapons used by the average person (not just the media) when they talk about MJ being guilty. I think there is a certain defense mechanism by fans to any criticism of MJ because of the way he was vilified for years, and that too is understandable. I think the point you made was valid and you were very brave for doing so. There is a very dominant portion of society that you will never win over by saying the sleepovers were normal.


  197. shelly permalink
    September 23, 2011 4:14 am

    Jermaine’s book is on Jetzi.


  198. lcpledwards permalink
    September 23, 2011 5:21 am

    @ Teva
    No hard feelings. We get into these kinds of debates all of the time here, and it makes us all better and more knowledgeable. We all made good points in our discussion, but something we all have to realize is that in order to improve MJ’s image in the court of public opinion, we have to look at things through their eyes, and examine how they will perceive us. If they perceive us as being MJ apologists who make up excuses for some of his choices, and try to absolve him of personal responsibility for what happened to him later in life, then we will NEVER win them over! That’s why I always write my posts with such great detail; I want to leave no stone uncovered in my attempt to fully vindicate him. I want to answer their questions before they have a chance to ask them!

    This is why I was so disappointed with Jermaine, and this is how this discussion got started in the first place: looking at that interview with him and Piers Morgan through the eyes of a skeptic, when he says to Piers “Why can’t you share your bed?”, the skeptic is going to yell at their TV and say “Because you might get falsely accused of molestation, you idiot! Just like your brother Michael! Maybe if you had told him to stop he wouldn’t have gone on trial and he’d still be alive!” I feel that Jermaine, and all fans in general, should simply follow Mesereau’s examples from all of his post-trial interviews: he didn’t mince words, or try to explain, rationalize, or justify MJ’s behavior. He simply stated that MJ made a mistake, and he won’t open himself up to more false charges by letting families stay in his bedroom. Simple as that.


  199. lcpledwards permalink
    September 23, 2011 5:33 am

    @ Helena
    You may not even realize it, but not only did you contradict yourself, you actually VALIDATED the claims that many people have made about Michael’s judgement: he should have stopped being around other people’s children ALTOGETHER!

    Your arguments are very circular; when I said that I felt that Mj should have stopped letting unrelated families sleep in his bed/bedroom after 1993 (just as Mesereau told him to stop after 2005), you said that he couldn’t stop because of his kind nature, his innocence, his not wanting to disappoint the kids by telling them no, his upbringing,etc.

    You don’t need a bedroom to accuse someone of it. Remember Philip Lemarque who said he saw Macaulay Culkin being “molested” in the video arcade? Or the bodyguard who said he saw something through a window in the bathroom (and never said it to the police though many of them were former policemen obliged to report such cases)? And if Gavin put his head on Michael’s shoulder (as Bashir asked him to) without those bedroom issues, wouldn’t the reaction have been the same? Only this time they would have claimed that the molestation took place in the woods, bushes, pools, guest-houses, theater which also had beds or chairs as a minimum, etc.

    Yet, when I said that he should have had families stay in the guest house or put them up in a hotel, you replied with the above statement, which basically says that MJ could have been accused REGARDLESS of where they slept! And you’re 100% correct!

    And that’s why so many people feel that he should have stayed away from other people’s children ALTOGETHER, just as he did after the trial to his death!! Was he ever surrounded by other people’s children after the trial? No! If he would have lived, do you think he would have EVER invited anyone’s else’s kids, even if they were sick kids, to sleep at his house, regardless of where in the house they slept? NO!! Because he said to his mother that he would help people “from a distance”, after she begged him not to do it again!

    So if it was the right decision in 2005, then it would have been the right decision in 1993.

    At this point, if anyone reading this disagrees with me, then we’ll have to agree to disagree, and just move on. This is a matter of opinion, and I tend to err on the side of caution, so that’s why I feel the way I feel. But I don’t want this topic to take over the blog, because we have important matters to attend to, and we all have to be on the same page.


  200. lynande51 permalink
    September 23, 2011 6:51 am

    David how many unrelated kids do you think he let sleep in his room with him other than the ones that had always been there? I can name the ones that were allowed in there: Almed and Omer and their families, their whole families. Contrary to the Arvizo story he did not allow Gavin and Star in his room when he was there without another adult in the room. David Arvizo vehemently denied that he had allowed that to happen when he was taking Gavin there in 2000. They did not go there in 2001 according to the testimony of Gavin that it was due to his Chemo. It was in fact due to their engrossment in the JC Penney case among other things. That leaves 2002. The Arvizo’s only went there 2 times once with Chris Tucker and one time for the Bashir thing. Michael left the ranch that night for Vegas. Next time was when they asked Chris to take them to Florida to see Michael because they had already sold their story to David Gardner of the London talboid News of The World for $4000.00. They had the excuse that all kinds of press were after them so Michael should protect them.That was when Chris tucker took him aside and said keep away from them there’s something wrong here and he did. If you look through the testimony and the MJ timeline you will see that he deliberately left the ranch for Florida and stayed at the Beverly Hill’s Hotel to avoid them.Their original plan was to accuse MJ of showing the boys porn on the computer.
    I know that it sounds cliche` but there is no other answer other than that is just another lie or exaggeration that he kept letting kids in his bed because he did not.Most of his life after 1993 he did not even spend living at Neverland.As a matter of fact he was gone so much of the time that Sneddon asked for a 3 year extension on the statute of limitations so the original case was open until 2003.
    He never invited them in there ever. Not with one single kid did he invite them in there. Now I think the thing that is bothering you is that when people say things like why were kids in the bed why did he allow that because that is not “normal”. Well no Michael was not the average everyday guy. The thing is he thought on a plain that no one will ever understand. He thought on the level of a musical genius. We cannot begin to understand the workings of a brain like that. Anyone that is a genius in one area only appears odd to the rest of the world. He was odd, he thought above and beyond what the average person does. I think you want to attribute common human behavior to him and it can’t be done. I think you should study some other geniuses to get better acquainted with some of the oddities they have.
    For instance did you know that Albert Einstein owned 6 brown suits, that was all he ever wore, One for everyday that he had to go to work. When he was asked about this he said it was so he did not have to spend any time on making a decsion on what to wear because he felt it wasted his time.That seemed odd too and that is just the tip of the iceberg with someone like that. Look at the overall picture of Michael. Did he dress like other guys when he went out? No he did not. Why? Because he liked to wear what he liked to wear should we have to explain his wardrobe too?


  201. lcpledwards permalink
    September 23, 2011 7:31 am

    @ Lynette
    I never said that he invited kids in his room; in fact, I always defend him against that myth! I know he didn’t do that, or do anything else he was accused of as far as the whole bed sharing nonsense, and I know that he was a unique person with unique experiences. But what I said is that I wish Jermaine and others would take the same initiative to educate the public against the#1 reason why people dislike MJ: they think he forced kids to sleep with him!

    Another thing that I want to point out is that, without realilzing it, you support my stance by mentioning the unrelated kids who slept in his bedroom: Almed and Omer. They were already in his inner circle! They weren’t strangers off the street that he was helping, like the Arvizos!

    And I still think that, regardless of the situation, they shouldn’t have been in his bedroom arguing over who sleeps on the bed vs. who sleeps on the floor! Mesereau would have advised him not to ever do that. I want people who aren’t educated about Michael to learn the truth from him, but the people who are in a position to educate the public keep fumbling each opportunity, whether it’s Jermaine (with his stupid escape plan), Latoya (for hugging VG), Lisa Marie Presley (for saying she was never in the same room as MJ or the kids to Oprah), or even his mother!

    For the third time (that I know of) she referenced Jordan’s fake confession as “proof” of MJ’s innocence! I know what you’re gonna say: “She’s a grieving 81 year old woman, you can’t blame her for it! She loves her son!” I’m so demoralized each time I read crap like this:

    During the funeral when the children were given the crown to put on top of the casket, he put his hand on my shoulder and started to cry. He wanted to be strong because he was around all his cousins. From the moment they came from the hospital [after Michael died], they were all bawling their eyes out.’ She composes herself slightly. ‘He was a very good son. People tried to poison the world against him. All this molestation stuff was just a lie.

    Oprah Winfrey says if a child tells you something, believe it. It’s just the opposite! That first boy came out and admitted he lied because his father made him and the father wanted the money.’

    I’ll give her credit where credit is due: she bashed Oprah for her biased thinking in believing any accusation that is thrown out there, although I wish she could have told her that to her face last year on her show!

    As I said earlier, this topic is getting tiring and we need to move on. We’ll agree to disagree on this issue.


  202. lynande51 permalink
    September 23, 2011 7:39 am

    Are we sure she is referencing the fake confession or is it the fact that he admitted it to other people that were going to testify?


  203. lcpledwards permalink
    September 23, 2011 8:13 am

    @ Lynette
    Based on her past statements to Dateline NBC and the Today Show, as well as Steve Manning’s ridiculous question to Diane Dimond during the In Session roundtable discussion, she surely meant the article. I think that if she was referring to other people who were going to testify against Jordan at the trial, she would have specifically said so.

    And even if she was referring to the other people, that’s still bad to me because it’s UNCORROBORATED BY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE! It’s essentially hearsay, and she’ll be no better than Dimond and her “inside sources”. This is why I NEVER refer to Jordan’s confessing to his college friends, because I cannot verify it with 100% certainty. Even with Mesereau’s statement from the Harvard Law seminar, haters can say “well, he’s just lying to protect his client.”


  204. lynande51 permalink
    September 23, 2011 9:08 am

    David I just realized something else too. Remember when I said that Jordan was 13 so his Declaration doesn’t mean a thing because he can’t be held legally responsible for it until he is 14. Well the same thing applies to the description. He gave it in September and possibly again in October 3 months before he turned 14 and could be held for perjury. Now maybe Jordan didn’t know that or at least not until his lawyer told him but his Lawyers and the DA both had to know that. So their arguments are invalid. What difference did it make if he would never be held responsible for it unless he testified in criminal court after he turned 14. The arguments that they use are and were worthless in a court of law.That is why they never testified. Not only that they could not be used as evidence if they were not a match and they were never introduced to the Grand Jury as evidence in either county to the best of my knowledge.Now if there had been anything that corroborated that description it would have had to be introduced to the Grand Jury because that is what they got them for in the first place was for evidence.That whole thing about the photos being a match for some people is just plain baloney. Everyone should know they weren’t a match if they never arrested him on the spot or were never shown to the Grand Jury. If they had been and they were a match MJ would have been indicted at least in LA county Sneddon had nothing to say about that. He was never indicted and if the photos were introduced to the Grand Jury in LA they called Katherine to testify at that Grand Jury and what was she asked to testify to. I bet she was called about that check that LaToya said she saw on TV. The only reason that the Chandler’s said anything about it was to cause Michael more humiliation.


  205. September 23, 2011 9:25 am


    Josephine Zohny was one of the witnesses prepared to testify against Jordan, she’s listed in the defense list.


  206. September 24, 2011 1:06 am

    “When I said that he should have had families stay in the guest house or put them up in a hotel, you replied with the above statement, which basically says that MJ could have been accused REGARDLESS of where they slept! And you’re 100% correct! And that’s why so many people feel that he should have stayed away from other people’s children ALTOGETHER, just as he did after the trial to his death!! Was he ever surrounded by other people’s children after the trial? No! If he would have lived, do you think he would have EVER invited anyone’s else’s kids, even if they were sick kids, to sleep at his house, regardless of where in the house they slept? NO!! Because he said to his mother that he would help people “from a distance”, after she begged him not to do it again! So if it was the right decision in 2005, then it would have been the right decision in 1993.”

    David, I understand your anger with me. You know your people and their way of thinking better than I am. Some in my country also shudder when I speak of MJ, but the majority will probably say that he was a Big Kid – at least until the trial started when he immediately grew up and lost every illusion about the world he was living in.

    Let me try to explain my views in the hope that you will allow them to at least co-exist with yours.

    Basically what I see is that someone terribly wanted Michael down, and no matter what he did they would have “got” him this or that way. If it hadn’t been the “sleepovers” it would have been something different. By the way the matter of those sleepovers was highly exaggerated too – they were never intentional and not that frequent as Macaulay Culkin said.

    Another thing I know and believe in is that when you are not doing anything bad, no one in the world can tell you to stop it – because it is a total insult to publicly demand of a person not to do what he isn’t doing anyway.

    The only people who could have demanded anything of Michael were the parents of those children who associated with him – for example, they could demand explanations why their children wanted to stay with him and what he was doing to them in their absence.

    However the irony of the situation is that the parents were exactly the people who – all as one – said that Michael’s association with children was absolutely innocent. They saw it with their own eyes and repeated one and the same thing – Michael and the children were just “hanging out” and the parents also took part, and when there came a moment to part and go to bed some children begged to stay for a little more and just fell asleep there – with all the activities resumed the next morning.

    I’ve always said that the only thing parents could reprimand Michael for was lack of proper regimen and not enough discipline, as Kit Culkin did in his book, but apart from that no parent ever saw or noticed anything bad. Some even interrogated their children (father of the Cascio brothers, for example) in reply to which the children looked at their parents in disbelief that they could be crazy enough to repeat that nonsense.

    Kit Culkin says that children are perfect reporters on each other and other people’s misbehavior and this or that way something would have transpired. However it never did because Michael’s behavior was impeccable. Impeccable. And he never discriminated girls – Kit Culkin’s younger daughter was always part of the “gang”, Kit said. The same was repeated by JC Agajanian about his daughter Amy – she was Michael’s best friend, and not her brothers.

    I think we should listen to all these people instead of saying that “he should have stopped it”.

    If no parent or child ever noticed anything bad about Michael (except those few extortionists) I personally find it totally unacceptable for the “system” to interfere and part Michael with his friends by a steel hand. If you ask me – it is a totalitarian approach, only in the sphere of morals. You don’t do anything bad but they stamp their dirty feet into your life and force you to live according to their rules because they think that you misbehave. They think so.

    This is exactly what the “system” told him to do – to part with children forever and help them, if he wanted to, “from a distance”. Never see them, never open the doors of Neverland to any of them, never invite any families there again. And they were relentless even if he said that there were no sleepovers and had to excuse himself at every corner. They even went so far as saying they would take his own children from him if he ever opened another window at a hotel.

    This is especially outrageous as at the very same time a real pedophile (a priest) was molesting children in the same Santa Barbara but Tom Sneddon refused to prosecute him. Or Corey Feldman said that he and his friend had been molested by someone in Hollywood but the police didn’t pay attention because they were after Michael only. Or Lou Pearlman was allowed to have sleepovers with the boys from his boy groups and some boys and their parents even protested – but things were hushed up and it is only now that these boys say that “what goes round comes round”. Or a film director Christopher Lewis, who was indicted with “soliciting boys ranging from ages 6 to 17 to perform lewd acts in their movies” was charged with “child molestation and filming and distributing child pornography, along with 13 other men” as Wiki says. And what happened to him? He was sentenced to probation and a $500 fine!

    If you ask me all this smells of terrible hypocrisy. When you monitor every minor step of one person, though everyone who is directly involved says that he is perfectly okay, and ignore all those whose criminal behavior you have direct evidence of, it is terrible hypocrisy and a terrible travesty of justice!

    That is why I resent people saying that “he should have stopped it”.

    Stopped WHAT?

    What do they know of Jackson to demand things they know nothing about? And why don’t they look elsewhere – at those who are the real criminals who molest their children under their very nose?


  207. September 24, 2011 10:54 pm

    “it’s UNCORROBORATED BY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE! It’s essentially hearsay, and she’ll be no better than Dimond and her “inside sources”. This is why I NEVER refer to Jordan’s confessing to his college friends, because I cannot verify it with 100% certainty. Even with Mesereau’s statement from the Harvard Law seminar, haters can say “well, he’s just lying to protect his client.”

    David, in addition to the above uncorroborated evidence of Jordan saying to friends that Michael was innocent, we can also recall the strange reaction of Jordan Chandler to the news that the case against Michael was finally closed. If it weren’t from Victor Gutierrez’s book it would be a great evidence of Jordan being forced to slander Michael and now happy that they are leaving him alone. Here is the account and though all of us know of its source is it is nevertheless impressive:

    “A representative from the OA’s office telephoned him, and told him “Michael
    Jackson will not be prosecuted, but if some day you change
    your mind and you want to testify against him, the case will
    be open for another six years.”

    Upon hanging up the phone, Jordie felt “relief and peace,” according to what he told to
    his best friend. “No one would speak about it anymore.”

    Jordie went to the swimming pool at his house where his
    stepbrother and Nathalie were, and jumped in with his
    clothes on. When his brother asked him if he was crazy, he
    answered, smiling and hugging him, “You don’t understand,
    but this is a good day.”

    Jordan Chandler hailing the news that Michael Jackson would not be prosecuted! Can you imagine it?


  208. September 24, 2011 11:24 pm

    “Remember when I said that Jordan was 13 so his Declaration doesn’t mean a thing because he can’t be held legally responsible for it until he is 14. Well the same thing applies to the description. He gave it in September and possibly again in October 3 months before he turned 14 and could be held for perjury. Now maybe Jordan didn’t know that or at least not until his lawyer told him but his Lawyers and the DA both had to know that”.

    Lynette, you are making a valid point. This can very well explain why in 1993 there was still some talk and hope from the prosecution for Jordan’s testimony, and why all of it stopped in the year 1994, when Jordan turned 14. He was afraid that he would be held responsible for perjury!

    Considering that nothing in his settlement agreement with MJ was standing in the way of his testimony in the court of law, this can be the only explanation why he didn’t want to testify. It is one thing to tell a lie when you are an irresponsible child, and it is another thing to repeat it when you have to answer for it.


  209. December 12, 2011 8:44 pm

    I just found that article

    Joy Robson said her son would push ahead with his career, but also was looking forward to his August wedding with Rodriguez, a 25-year-old beauty from Hawaii who he met in LA.

    Jackson is on the wedding guest list, but it’s unclear if he will attend because he does not want to turn his friend’s wedding into a “circus”.

    “He asked for an invitation and we took an invitation to him and he said he’d love to be there, but he thought he’d turn it into a circus,” Joy Robson said.


  210. goodie permalink
    June 13, 2013 2:17 pm

    these WR claims make me really sad… i don’t know what else to say


  211. Bajeux laurence (laurencia62) permalink
    August 6, 2014 2:36 pm



  212. August 6, 2014 5:19 pm

    ——————-. WR and MJJ met in 2008 with their children in Las Vegas while WR was working there and Michael lived there for a pleasant family barbeque.Then WR at some point claims his father committted suicide in 2002 over those alleged abuses of his son WR.Now his father had a longstanding illness, ie a bipolar condition which indeed if not well controlled has a high suicide rate.The timing of events is odd indeed.And wanting over a billion – WR maybe in the early stages of a manic episode.Just like EC imagination flies high under those conditions.


  213. August 6, 2014 5:25 pm

    ——————-. WR and MJJ met in 2008 with their children in Las Vegas while WR was working there and Michael lived there for a pleasant family barbeque.Then WR at some point claims his father committted suicide in 2002 over those alleged abuses of his son WR.Now his father had a longstanding illness, ie a bipolar condition which indeed if not well controlled has a high suicide rate.The timing of events is odd indeed.And wanting over a billion

    – WR maybe in the early stage of this illness, imagination flies high under those conditions.Just like the case with EC.



  1. Wade Robson: What The Heck Is Really Going On? Pt 1 | AllForLoveBlog

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: