DIRTY LINEN in Michael’s home and common UNDERSTANDING of the need to find it there
Despite many people thinking that greed was the main motive for people’s outrageous behavior towards Michael my opinion is that narrowing it down to money only would be underestimating the problem. Money does explain many of the instances, but not all.
For example, it doesn’t explain why Larry Feldman was so insistent on taking the Arvizo case to the authorities – he personally called Tom Sneddon when the DCFS rejected Dr. Katz’ report as ungrounded and took the case to the D.A. despite the fact that he completely disbelieved the Arvizos’ story.
He said so himself as he confided in Larry King and his assistant that the family was ‘wacko’, was only after money and he didn’t want to represent them – but the fact that he knew the truth didn’t stop him from taking the case to Tom Sneddon with a view to have it started against Jackson all over again.
You can argue that Feldman was interested in making millions out of a new civil case. He might be – but handling a case against Michael Jackson was not the only opportunity for him to make huge money. After his tremendous success in 1993 Larry Feldman was litigating for numerous corporations and could have earned a good deal of money from them alone. So why go into all this trouble with the Arvizos by sending them back and forth to psychologist Katz and then reporting his scarce findings personally to Tom Sneddon?
If you think that he was after money then why did this top-earning lawyer do pro bono work for Janet Arvizo’s parents when Thomas Mesereau wanted to get access to their account where Janet was hiding her funds?
Why did he – a professional lawyer – leak in 2003 the so-called “Jordan’s declaration” made in his law office ten years earlier though he was supposed to observe Jordan’s privacy and spare his client’s feelings in the first place? Why was that paper leaked on the same day Bashir’s film aired? To deliver Michael a double blow, encourage some new accusers to speak up and prompt them the right words in order to create the impression of a “pattern of abuse”?
The declaration could not have been leaked by anyone else but Feldman because Feldman was a sort of a custodian of the documents and was supposed to fully observe the confidentiality of the agreement. The agreement closed the case and it is general practice for every business agreement that the documents prior to signing it become null and void and should be naturally never opened to the public.
Though these and other similar facts may look too small to you I regard them as top important and am still seeking for an answer to explain them, otherwise it will be impossible to put this jigsaw puzzle together and see the picture the way it really is. Every person’s motive should be understood and the more I think the less I agree that all those people were motivated by greed alone.
What I see behind these random but important facts is a kind of a tacit understanding between all the parties involved – a sort of a common concept or goal connecting the main players in the game. This common goal seems to do a lot with “morals” and what is considered “acceptable” and “not acceptable” in the society.
When you listen to Michael’s detractors many of them are of the opinion that even if he was not guilty of anything, “sleeping with children” was still unacceptable, “he should have known better” and he “deserved it”. Their zeal in harassing Michael cannot be explained by anything else but their conviction that they are right in what they are doing – they think they are defending “morals” this way and are pursuing a “noble” cause.
Unfortunately it is awfully typical for the people driven by some “higher” motives not to see that they are committing atrocities – they think they are doing it for a good purpose and their goal justifies their nasty means.
This shouldn’t make us believe that these people are necesarily in a conspiracy with each other – they may be or may be not – but it explains the powerful driving force which is uniting them in their animal hatred towards their poor innocent victim.
This phenomenon was standing behind the Holy Inquisition with all its witch hunts when people of the Christian church (!) tortured others at a mere suspicion of practising witchcraft. This went on and on because people were fooled enough to believe the system to be “holy” and were even ready to “help” by uncovering those who were “in contact with the devil”.
The same thing happened during our darkest times of Stalinist regime when people were terrorized by a search for “internal enemies” in every family and numerous collaborators thought it necessary to report those who dared show even minimal dissent – they must have indeed thought them to be a danger to the society. Add to it that in support of those nasty campaigns the media would be bombarding the public with highly exaggerated fictional stories and you’ll understand why even the brainiest could be lost in doubt in the situation and would not know what to think.
Classical signs of the above ‘ideological’ harassment are easily recognizable in the devilish slander campaign arranged against Michael Jackson. Calling it a conspiracy would be probably an exaggeration but saying that it wasn’t organized at all would be a definite understatement.
To give a note of organization to the whole thing it would probably be enough for someone, who has the major media channels in his hands, to give a nod to his employees that “this guy should be stopped” – and the rest of the people will gleefully oblige.
Humans are a little bit of beasts in their nature and it is only our inner moral code and social rules which prevent us from showing ourselves at our worst. So when someone releases people of their moral and social stoppers many do not withstand the temptation and loosen their worst instincts. It is especially dangerous when people think they are doing it for the “common good”. The road to hell – as you know – is indeed paved with good intentions.
This is probably how the whole thing started with Michael Jackson. Some resented that a poor boy got to the very top and had more than they could ever dream of. Some were envious of his talent. Some were racists who didn’t want to share the same neighborhood with him. Some wanted to make a political career out of putting him in jail and some saw it as an opportunity to make money off him.
And some were willingly cooperating with the authorities who were bent on “showing him his place”. They could be very well guided by some “high moral principles” the way they understood them and could be always ready to help the police with planting some “evidence” in his home – and all this in the name of the noble cause of defending the society from a “predator”.
What was common for all these different people was their preconceived notion that he was guilty and “it” should be stopped. Cases like that do not require evidence as such – your confidence in someone’s guilt replaces the need to prove it and when you have a goal to stigmatize someone as a criminal the reality will stretch itself well enough to fit the goal set – especially when there are so many “well-wishers’ around. You can’t imagine what extremes these well-meaning collaborators can go to when they feel that the authorities are encouraging them in their efforts…
Only this type of mass ‘understanding’ of the common good can explain the easiness with which the doors of many homes (including the Chandlers’) were open to characters like Victor Gutierrez. If he was starting a conversation with statements like “Everyone knows that he is a p-le” (and this is what Victor Gutierrez did indeed state as he admitted in his book) and continued it with something like “Will you help me to collect the necessary evidence to rid our society of this criminal?”, I’m sure many parents would gasp in horror and immediately recall the “suspicious” episodes which they completely “overlooked” before. Is it awfully typical of people to suddenly remember some non-existent evidence if they work themselves up into dread and fear and are told by someone what to look for.
What I am trying to say is that this harassment campaign would have been impossible without a massive support from the people in general – be it top professionals like Larry Feldman or Stan Katz or ordinary guys like those who ran to the FBI after seeing someone resembling Michael with a child on a train.
Everyone was affected by this hysteria and witch hunt for one person – even Michael’s maids who were generously paid for their services, given bonuses and gifts, and were never mistreated by their employer.
I am mentioning his maids because I’ve been told that our opponent is making a great fuss over some dirty linen (in the literal meaning of the word) found in the closet of a video arcade during the police raid of Neverland in November 2003 when some other male semen was found on Michael’s mattress.***** Michael’s haters are running around with this dirty linen all over internet screaming that it is proof of him being gay (even if this is the case, gay is not a p-le, so I don’t see the point of all this celebration).
– Michael never made it a secret that he often gave his bed to other people, so them leaving something on his mattress would be no problem
– there must have been lots of males who would ejaculate their semen in sleep, as it happens (I hear) to males starting with adolescence
– if some adolescents dozed off in Michael’s bed during their slumber parties it was quite possible that they left their DNA on Michael’s bed (the documents presented by Tom Sneddon mentioned the DNA which could come from hair, saliva, urine and other liquids and not only semen from their wet dreams).
– the dirty laundry was found stored in a bag somewhere in a closet and at a time when Michael was away from Neverland. He was in Las Vegas and the funny thing is that he stayed there for three weeks or so working on a new song and video to it – which should have been exactly the time when that bag was put into the closet.
When I heard of all this fuss the first thing I wondered about is why his maids thought it necessary to store some dirty linen while all they were supposed to do was to immediately wash it?
And why did they keep it there for several weeks before Tom Sneddon finally raided Neverland?
The fact that the maids hid some dirty linen for Tom Sneddon’s officers to come and pick it up is a sign in and of itself of at least an ‘understanding’ between the parties that some dirty evidence should be found at the ranch – otherwise I cannot explain such a terrible neglect of duty on the part of the maids.
If such an ‘understanding’ between the authorities and Michael’s domestic staff was there then the reason for all those findings could have been much graver – the maids were the colloborators and no one can guarantee that they did not use one and the same linen for some male guests after giving it to Jackson (or vice virsa) and then store this tremendously valuable evidence in the closet.
If such an ‘understanding’ was reached between the authorities and Arvizos too then it would explain why Gavin and his brother insisted that the guard allowed them into Michael’s room while he was away. They could be sent on an errand to plant a couple of things there. Only God (and the boys) know what they could have left in that bedroom….
The police also found an odd piece of someone’s semen-soiled underwear (in the same bag if I remember it right) and though the underpants didn’t belong to any of the Arvizos Tom Sneddon nevertheless asked the boy at a cross-examination whether the hadn’t lost any underwear in Neverland (which he probably did). This loss and find is evidently supposed to be someting meanful in their opinion – while to me it speaks only to a desperate and awkward attempt to set Michael up.
With so much ‘understanding’ displayed by all the participants of this performance I wonder why – besides that hidden bag – the police didn’t find there tons of soiled underwear, used condoms, broken syringes, heavy drugs, child porn and lots of other valuable things which my imagination is not even able to suggest. From the open-door policy in Michael’s home one would expect the police to find there truckloads of the above precious stuff.
But all they found was someone’s pair of dirty underwear conveniently stuck into a closet and kept there when the owner of the house was away, waiting for the police to arrive and get it….
Not much even with the enormity of all the ‘understanding’ the authorities could summon from all the parties involved.
UPDATED on January 20, 2011
***** The story of the “semen” found in that dirty linen was told to me by my long-time opponent and I was naive enough to believe that the information she said she found in the documents was indeed there.
In order to check some details I went to her site – which I usually never do – and had a closer look at the documents she is referring to. To my surprise I did not find any mention of “semen-soiled sheets there! What they do mention is only the DNA which may be found in urine, saliva and any other body fluids….
Still thinking that no sensible person will lie in such a blatant way (knowing that we can check) I believe that I may have overlooked something or didn’t see it all.
In any case it means that now I am doomed to rake through all that dirty linen in full earnest. I hope to be able to present my findings in the near future.