AN OPEN LETTER TO HATERS about the “semen” subject, Stalinist regime and Michael Jackson’s problem with disciplining children

This post is meant to close the highly ridiculous “semen” subject which has been given  incredibly much time, space and attention here. When Lynette is back from her work in two days I will ask her to post a continuation of the story in the same post that she already started – to keep it tidy and compact in one place. This will allow Lynette to fully express her views there while I intend to close the subject altogether now by making this open letter to haters –  in the hope that they will go back to their own premises and drone on that semen issue there until their dying day ( if they like) – while we in the meantime move on.

First a couple of words about my correspondence with hater D.

When her comments were blocked due to numerous requests from our readers, she sent me a message which I found truly remarkable from the linguistic point of view. Part of it is found in the comments section where it was eventually released, but over here let me present it in full – please appreciate its style and finesse of expression (the text is intact except for our usual corrections of words not to be mentioned with Michael’s pure name):

“Message:

You people are really pathetic. All of a sudden you are blocking comments. Just PATHETIC, fear-based low IQ imbeciles. After all, anyone who’d believe Michael Jackson was innocent after repeated accusations of pedxxxxxlia and multimillion dollar payoffs has got to be the dumbest person alive.

Don’t bash someone’s integrity and block comments when they try to defend themselves. That is gutter level behavior.

So pathetic. Here is what I’d written in response, you completely spineless imbeciles… Jesus Christ, it’s like being Galileo trying to convince people against heliocentrism!

***********
DNA is in every cell of the body. This is biology 101. The so-called ‘male DNA’ in this case was extracted from semen. It’s in black and white in the court documents. From a cheek cell, a karyotype can be made and the sex chromosomes will prove if someone is male or female. (However, I doubt a semen stain–given its obvious origins (from the penis) and unique composition–needs clarification as to whether it is from a male or female; determining sex would just be redundant.)

Everyone knows this and don’t mince my words for your own ridiculous goals.

‘Male DNA’, as used in the Defense’s “14 items” motion, was a not-so-clever euphemism for semen. The Prosecution stated where this ‘DNA’ came from. It’s not a difficult concept to understand. For ease of use, female DNA would be the opposite to male DNA, as in secretions. But of course a buccal cell from the cheek found in a saliva stain could show female origins. But neither were found. Case closed.

It was semen. Those are the facts; deal with them.

@ Blaine:

You know, Blaine (and, by the way, I know you aren’t gay but I’ve formed a habit in calling you this name so it won’t end), I have more than just 5 people commenting on my blog. A lot of people read all the time, they just don’t comment. Which is find. Popularity is not always a sign of good taste…. Oh, and you cannot make a powerpoint disproving something you were not a witness to. That is silly!

I call Michael Jackson a pxxx because I believe this to be true and his actions belie his protestations of innocence. But I am not a space cadet, so I fully realize that belief is not proof enough. I fully acknowledge this. But I can show reasonable suspicion and circumstantial evidence, and I am sure if I had handled the 2005 case, Michael Jackson would be in prison as we speak.

***********
You people are the lowest of the low. Grow a spine, some testicles, and learn how to debate like adults. It’s pathetic.

This is your blog, yes, but I find it ironic that the Russian blog owner bemoans Stalinist regimes and attributes that way of conduct to Michael’s situation and yet behaves exactly in the ways she is purportedly against.

Do not bash my character and integrity and leave me without a defense. If you have a problem with what I write or me, you can say it to me on my blog or email me through the blog. Cowardice is despicable on adults.

Take care,
Desiree”

My reply to her message was:

“As you remember blocking your comments was the joint desire of all our readers. My position is slightly different – I personally would give you all the rope to hang yourself with. The language you are using is your first step in this direction, so I would very much want to make your message public for everyone to see how far you can go.

However first I need to understand in what meaning that male DNA was used by you. Here I rely on Lynette as even if I wanted to read your writings I can’t now because of my brain concussion – which doesn’t allow me even to come up to a computer (the doctor’s advice I am breaking now).

So if this was a misunderstanding and ‘male DNA’ was used by you as a euphemism for sperm your message will be released.

Helena”

About semen, “male DNA” and who used it as euphemism and who didn’t

To deal with the body of the letter and clarify the meaning of “male DNA” in the context of the discussion between Prosecution and Defense I typed and analyzed three main documents about this dirty laundry business in the following post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/dirty-laundry-and-cocaine-in-michaels-home-it-was-a-set-up/ . Not to repeat myself I will use only short quotations from the first two documents:

In the DEFENSE’S MOTION OF JAN. 18, 2005 the Defense uses the general term “male DNA”, thus doing a disservice to Michael as this general term includes  semen, blood, saliva and other body fluids and it is not clear what exactly was found where. The Defense speaks of:

• three male DNA on the mattress out of which one belongs to Michael, the other two are unidentified.
• the forth male DNA found in a separate sheet which may belong to any of the guests (while no Michael’s DNA is found there).
• Michael’s underwear with a bloodstain and cocaine on top of it, with no cocaine found in the blood

13.   DNA of Anyone other than Mr. Jackson

There are two DNA reports in this case. The first DNA report says 3 male DNA were found on Mr. Jackson’s mattress. Of these 3 males, one was identified as Mr. Jackson, aka “male 1”. The remaining 2 males were not identified. However, the report says that these 2 males are not the alleged victims in this case, i.e. Gavin Arvizo and Star Arvizo. The second DNA report says a fourth male DNA was found in bed sheets. The bed sheets presumably were found in a laundry bag, along with underwear. The fourth male is unknown, but is not the alleged victim, i.e. Gavin Arvizo or Star Arvizo.

14.  Underwear & Cocaine Mr. Jackson’s underwear was found in a laundry bag, along with the bed sheets (discussed in section 13 above). This underwear had bloodstain and cocaine. A forensic lab for the Prosecution tested this underwear. No cocaine, however, was found in the blood.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805notmotexc14.pdf

The second document is the PROSECUTION’S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENSE’S MOTION dated Jan 20, 2005 and Jan 31, 2005 (combined) where The Prosecution uses the words “semen” and DNA in the following context:

• they found one pair of someone’s semen-soiled underpants in the dirty laundry bag
• and three semen stains on the mattress, one of which was Michael’s
• the Prosecution didn’t intend to take the DNA on the mattress to court
• but they wanted to present there some male’s semen-soiled underpants.
• Michael’s underpants did not have semen but were soiled with blood, Demerol and cocaine. Knowing that the cocaine business was only a set-up on their part the Prosecution didn’t press the subject further and focused only on the Demerol.

Item 13. DNA of Anyone Other Than Defendant Several semen stains were recovered from defendant’s bed mattress and from a pair of underpants seized from his home, from which DNA was extracted. The profile identified as “male 1” is the defendant’s. The other profiles found on the bed and the underpants are not his. The sources are unidentified. The DNA on the bed will not be referred to by the People. However the DNA in the underpants suggest that Jackson kept a pair of soiled underpants belonging to another male, just as he did with Gavin, thereby corroborating Gavin’s testimony. We do intend to introduce that pair of underpants and the DNA results. Insofar as Item 13 includes semen stains on one pair of underpants that, from DNA analysis of that stain, apparently was worn by a male other than Mr. Jackson or either of the two young sibling boys (a  lie!) who figure in the pending prosecution, its relevance as evidence corroborating the complaining witness’s evidence that Defendant retained his soiled underwear rather than return it to him seems self-evident.

Item 14. Underwear and Cocaine One pair of underpants recovered from Jackson’s residence had a blood stain. The stain contained cocaine and Demerol. The DNA profile from that stain is in fact defendant’s. It is believed that Jackson has been a Demerol addict for many years and a significant amount of evidence supports that belief. That evidence includes a near-empty vial found on this property with the label torn off containing Demerol; a letter from a Fr. Farschian in Miami promising defendant help in curing him of his “D” addiction; a doctor who acknowledged having delivered him Demerol to this house and numerous witnesses who speak of his addiction. In addition defendant has publicly acknowledged in the past that he had become addicted to prescription medications, and that he required medical intervention for that addiction. …And the jury should be allowed to ponder the fact that defendant evidently desired to preserve, in the same container, both his own soiled underwear and underwear soiled with the semen of another male”.

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

So the whole of the evidence boils down to the following:

• 2 male unidentified semen stains on the mattress (which the Prosecution didn’t want to take to court for some reason)
• 1 pair of semen-soiled underwear of unknown male (which they did want to take to court to prove that Michael had a hobby of keeping someone else’s dirty underwear)

The ‘sheet with male DNA’ was raised only once and only by the Defense but dropped by the Prosecution (for some reason) so this makes us think that it could indeed be urine, saliva, etc. – just as Lynette suggested it in her post.

Let me repeat it – all we have is 2 semen stains on the mattress and one pair of semen-soiled underpants from some male found in a bag with dirty laundry.

Now if the above evidence agitates too many people and really means something formidable to them, I’m afraid that usual over-the-counter sedatives will not help them and they should seek professional help in order to cure their case.

About us as low IQ imbeciles, pathetic and dumbest persons alive, the lowest of the low who need to grow a spine and learn to debate like adults

No comment yet here. We need some time to work on all of our above mentioned deficiencies.

About the Stalinist regime, bashing the hater’s character, blocking her comments and going to her blog

Thank you for this kind invitation of course, but due to terrible lack of time and need to attend to many other issues I’m afraid I have to decline it.

As regards blocking our adversary’s and other haters’ comments in this blog and too much free speech in this blog I must admit that there is some controversy of opinion between Michael’s supporters (including my own co-admins) and me.

Haters call me a Stalinist if I block them, while my co-eds call me too lax as they are categorically against seeing haters’ comments in the blog. They say that people coming here do not expect haters to be given so much power in our own territory – they come here for credible information and not tabloid trash lavishly spread here by Michael’s detractors.

This is quite a dilemma for me as I do really notice that I tend to give haters more freedom than they deserve, don’t refute each of their lies in the comments section thinking that their falsity is tale telling enough to speak for itself…

But everything in life has a reason for it

This strange desire to let haters enjoy more freedom than they should in this blog and my constant disputes with the co-eds over this problem have really bothered me for some time.  The conclusion I finally came to upon hard thinking this over was somewhat unexpected – it suddenly bridged with Michael’s attitude towards children and helped me arrive at an understanding which wouldn’t be possible if my own circumstances were different.

Let me explain.

Those people who haven’t had enough of something in their own lives tend to overdo it when they are given a chance to finally have it. If you haven’t gone through the natural process of acquiring certain habits and learning what it is like since your early childhood you tend to be overzealous in it when you finally get it. You simply don’t know what it’s like and when your time comes to enjoy it you take it to extremes – that’s the point.

Many people must have experienced it in their lives:

• If your family offended you with scorn, ridicule or neglect you will cry in your bed and wake up every morning with a promise that when you  grow up you will always respect the wishes of your children and give them all the attention they need (to the point that they might even abuse your kindness).
• If you had to work hard when you were young you will give your child as much free time for games and leisure as you possibly can – to make up for what you yourself missed when you were a child (and possibly spoil them by making them lazy this way).
• For those who lived in poverty their most cherished dream would be gaining great wealth and when they do acquire it there will be no stopping them in their flamboyant style (they just overdo it like all “the new rich” because they just don’t know “what it’s like to be rich” and that wealth may be “quiet” as it is for those who grew up in well-off families).
• If you haven’t had enough freedom in your life you will tend to overdo it too, while those who have known it since childhood will take the discipline and balance of interests that go with any freedom in a natural way – they will not be too touchy about setting certain limits for others and not allow freedom for some endanger freedom for the rest.

Same with Michael.

All through his childhood and adolescence the only thing he heard was NO to everything he wanted – NO to free time, NO to making choices, NO to communication with friends of whom he had NONE because he always worked, NO to games, NO to leisure time, NO to respect for himself, NO to his sense of dignity which even a small child needs, NO attention from those he loved, NO affection, NO nothing…

Like all children who grow up in a setting like that he probably gave himself a vow that when he grew up he would never, ever in his life treat his own or any children in the same way. You know what it’s like – if your parents beat you when you are small you come to hate it and promise that you will never in your life physically touch your own child – which results in your fear even to slighly slap him or raise your voice at him (so that the small rascal knows it and uses your weakness for his own benefit).

Even Michael’s children admitted in their interview with Oprah that his oldest son Prince “could get away with anything”, while for the rest of them it was different as Michael  finally turned into a strict father. Michael learned how to discipline children but his learning process was slow, difficult and painful for him due to his own life experience…

Michael felt that he simply couldn’t say NO to children who flocked into his room or crawled onto his bed – it was impossible for him to shut the door in their face or drive them away because he was afraid to hurt their feelings and see them cry – it brought over him a tide of his own negative emotions and pain he experienced in his own childhood.

Forget this BS about him being sexually abused in childhood – he was abused in his childhood, but not sexually. He was abused physically, mentally, psychologically by his father’s callousness, lack of affection, humiliation and continuous beatings which made Michael learn to value a kid’s smile and a happy look on the child’s small face more than anything else life could possibly offer him.

Michael’s attitude towards children was formed in his own tender age and never changed since then – saying ‘no’ to a child, seeing him crying, hurt and offended was something too painful for him as it reminded him of his own pain. Saying ‘no’ to a child was like saying ‘no’ to his own self and betraying  everything that made up the essence of his life. It made him  overprotective in treating children, forced him to give them too many rights over himself, too much affection, too little discipline and left him at a loss when they misbehaved, and not knowing how to restrain them.

His affectionate attitude towards these small, vulnerable and helpless creatures, for whom he developed a natural protective attitude since his own unhappy chidhood, could not make him promise to “never associate with children again” as the society demanded it – it was the equivalent of a suicide to him or depriving him of life as such.

This is exactly the callous thing that the world wanted of Michael – and when he didn’t comply it harassed and ridiculed him, humiliated him and stripped him of his dignity, drove him away from his home and his country and physically ruined his life.

People deprived him of what he valued most in life – to stay around children who needed his golden heart, warmth and kindness, his protection from the cruel world of adults, his generosity and affection –  thus killing his spirit and making him turn into a shadow of his former self. Luckily they didn’t manage to take his own children away from him and if it weren’t for them he would never have survived.

The constant fear that those beasts could deprive him of his own children was the nightmare which haunted Michael all during the trial and killed his sleep for the rest of his life. Taraborrelli remembers that Michael woke up at night screaming in terror because he was having nightmares that his children were being taken away from him. The fear was so big that he was afraid to fall asleep.

And this makes you wonder whether it was indeed propofol which killed Michael or the people who had driven him to this terrible insomnia and constant fear for the future of his children…

* * * * * * *

P.S. As to my own complex of being too lax with haters I will also try to improve my ways and discipline them well enough so that they either leave here or learn how to behave themselves.