Skip to content

DAPHNE BARAK’S CAREER PORTFOLIO. Will there be any questions NOW?

July 7, 2011

Many wonder why I ask to be patient with the Aaron Carter situation and what we should have done instead. I think we should have investigated Daphne Barak first. I am not ready to pass any judgment on Carter at the moment as it is still too early to conclude what he really said, whether he meant Michael Jackson at all (at least in part 2 where he didn’t give any names) and under what circumstances his conversation with Daphne Barak took place.

In all his earlier interviews Aaron firmly stood by Michael’s side and I am not ready to shrug it off as a mere nothing. Daphne, on the other hand, has a long history of harassment of Michael Jackson – only this harassment took place in such a sly manner that even the good and well-meaning mother of Michael Jackson’s didn’t notice any malice on Daphne’s part and willingly gave her interviews.

You can always recongnize the vultures by the way they smile

I see Daphne Barak as an extremely ugly species of a tabloid viper. She is as vicious as Diane Dimond and Martin Bashir but is not as straightforward as they are – surprisingly, she poses herself as a “friend” of the Jackson family and does indeed have access to them. Michael’s parents evidently considered her trustworthy enough to give her several interviews (which means that they should be satisfied with her work), and there was even a time when Daphne, Joseph and Randy Jackson found themselves in a business project together. This points to her being considered an insider of the Jacksons’ family and someone who is trusted – at least by Michael’s parents.

This is a terrible mistake and misconception on their part of course, which is all the more harmful as it misleads other people as to Daphne’s real intentions regarding Michael Jackson. People assume that if Michael’s parents are friends with her, they can also rely on her being a friend.

Grace Rwaramba, for example, didn’t give interviews to anyone for 17 (!) years and the only person she chose to speak to was Daphne Barak. Why would a reserved and cautious woman like Grace do such a reckless thing? Only because she thought Daphne to be friendly and trustworthy enough to listen to some of her observations on why she no longer worked for the Jacksons.  However you do remember what came out of that trust, don’t you?

The same could have happened to Aaron Carter. With someone else he wouldn’t have tolerated insistent questions about whether he ever saw Michael take any drugs (he said that he didn’t) but with a well-meaning Jacksons’ “friend” he didn’t regard such speculations suspicious – especially since it was a casual talk between the two of them. How many of us also babble our tongues with friends, discussing, for instance, the various versions of Michael’s death? And would it be normal for a “friend” to secretly record you and sell the tape to tabloids (as Daphne Barak did) especially after tampering with the tape and twisting your words into their opposite through heavy editing?

Thinking that you are talking to a friend when in fact you are not is an extremely dangerous thing because you lose your usual vigilance and open yourself to all sorts of provocations. From Daphne Barak’s cut-and-paste videos it looks like she is quite capable of framing up people, so learning about her ways is absolutely crucial for correct interpretation of the Carter situation – same as knowing Bashir’s cannibal nature is crucial for learning how and why he used Michael’s exceptional honesty and trust for his own cannibal ends.

I have scraped some information on Daphne Barak and must tell you at once that she produces a very contrasting impression. Her secret is that on the face of it she sounds very sincere and genuine, but when her true nature is accidentally uncovered you are shocked to see how malicious she is, how criminal her ways of obtaining information are and how big and shameless is her desire to falsify facts in order to get the best price.

If you don’t know the way she is operating her sophisticated lies may very well go unnoticed, but if you do, all of it is seen in a different light. This is why Roger Friedman who knows all the tricks of their trade calls her nothing less than a “vulture-like celebrity interviewer” and even “a blood-sucking vampire”.

Wiki introduces Dapne Barak as

  • “an Israeli-American interviewer whose subjects have included film and music celebrities, royalty, world leaders, and international personalities”.

In the Wiki discussion section Daphne’s compatriots sound awestruck by her extraordinary talents. They say that she studied for 4 years in Tel-Aviv University and also attended exclusive programs for “over-intelligent” 15-17 year olds at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology – though she was only 14 at the time. She worked in “Haolam Haze” for 5 years (a famous Israeli magazine which doesn’t exist any more) and became a top interviewer in Israel almost overnight when she was barely 20. When she was in her mid 20’s she moved to the U.S as an interviewer for Fox TV and the NY Daily News.

Now she presents herself as an “international” journalist who interviews people and sells them (the interviews) to the world media channels after posting small teasers on her website. The bigger the initial shock is the higher the eventual price is. The fact that the follow-up full versions simply do not exist or do not corroborate the ideas suggested in the teasers doesn’t bother their author in the least – we are living in a free society so anyone is allowed to interpret what he sees as he likes best. It isn’t her fault that you assumed the worst while watching the teaser – it is your problem, not hers.

The site names the following Daphne’s specials:

  • Two Jackson television specials in 2004 produced b Daphne Barak and Elisabeth Murdoch. These specials continued to make huge ratings worldwide on 2005: from the eve of the Michael Jackson’s sensational trial, until his acquittal on June 2005.
  • The first Jackson special aired on 20/20, ABC. Daphne aired three more Jackson specials between 2004 and 2005. The last two aired on 48 Hours, CBS.
  • Since late 1990s Daphne interviewed Michael Jackson, his parents Joe and Katherine, his brothers Jermaine and Tito and his sons 3Ts, plus other key players during his trial.

It would be highly interesting to find what kind of specials were made by Daphne Barak about Michael Jackson during the trial. I haven’t seen them but from an earlier post  made about the media remember that back in 2003-2005 the American TV channels went into a crazy competition over who would make a more damaging and salacious program about MJ. I also remember that after the “success” of his LWMJ documentary Bashir was invited to work for ABC too and did several revolting documentaries in cooperation with his assistant, a NAMBLA suspect member Victor Gutierrez .

My prayer is that Daphne wasn’t part of that horrendous Bashir/Gutierrez job – because if she was there would be no point in discussing the matter further. So let us give her the benefit of the doubt but make a mental note that one day we should check what kind of TV specials about Michael Jackson this woman made during the trial.

The fact that “since late 1990s” she has interviewed many of the Jacksons and they still kept coming back to her gives some reason to believe that the specials were probably not too bad (at least on the surface of them). From what Roger Friedman says Daphne had access to Neverland, was seen filming there and since she was even part of a “big support event” for Michael Jackson my theory of her posing herself as Michael’s friend is beginning to be substantiated:

Monday, December 22, 2003

By Roger Friedman

The word is that ABC, which already gave us one interview with Michael Jackson’s parents and another with his brothers, is ready for Round 3.

I told you yesterday that cameras were rolling at Neverland on Saturday for the big support event staged in honor of Jackson. There were celebrities, performances, and lots of family.

Now I’m told that Daphne Barak, the same correspondent who conducted the parents’ interview, was all over the Saturday event. Apparently it was her film crew gathering testimonials for Michael’s next TV show.

This, of course, would continue to be a sore point for CBS, which was supposed to air a Jackson special in November but postponed it for obvious reasons.

Barak and her crew were criticized last week when several outlets, including Jeannette Walls’, reported that some kind of payment was made to the Jackson family for their participation in the other specials. The same deal would seem likely for this one as well.

It’s one thing for ABC to pay the Jacksons or get money to them through an intermediary. But I wonder how Michael feels about his family cashing in during this time of great stress? Maybe he’s actually pleased they’ve found a source of income other than himself.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106353,00.html

It was this measure of trust between Daphne and older Jacksons which led Grace Rwaramba (and probably Carter) to believe that talking to Daphne could do no harm to Michael. However as a result of it Grace  found herself in the center of a terrible scandal as her “friend” attributed to her a good deal of lies which in reality had never been told!

Same as Gutierrez is constantly centered on you know what, Daphne also has a fixed idea of her own – she focuses on celebrity drug addiction (which makes me suspect that going to a rehab and overcoming Carter’s addiction was one of her pretexts for talking to him at all).

Daphne Barak has written a book about celebrities taking drugs and the way I see it the main character of her drug addiction book – which is yet to be released – is  singer Amy Winehouse.  As we all understand the book needs publicity, or better a good scandal over someone’s supposed drug addiction,  in order to raise interest in Daphne Barak’s writings. The title of the book (“Saving Amy”) is evidently a misnomer as from the preview published in the Observer it becomes clear that that the book is more about drowning Amy in mud than saving her from it.

Following Roger Friedman in her assessment of Daphne Barak the Observer reporter calls our author “the devil of celebrity gossip” with whom Amy’s parents had the misfortune to dance (they will surely regret it after the book is released if you ask my opinion). The reporter says that Daphne managed to obtain impressive access to the family as her modus operandi – you’ve guessed it – is befriending her subjects:

  • “Barak’s modus operandi is to befriend her subjects. She takes Mitch [Amy’s father] to dinner with friends, where the other guests – all “top lawyers” – lend a hand when a crisis unfolds. Blake Fielder-Civil – Amy’s then husband – has absconded from rehab and turns up at the hospital where Amy is being treated. Barak is there for Mitch, too. “I tell him: ‘Mitch, collect yourself. Be calm.’ And he follows my advice.”
  • There is one gruesome picture of Barak with her arm around Amy, giving the camera a toothy smile while Amy and an unidentified woman are absorbed in something else”. 

I don’t know whether I understood the reporter’s idea right but my impression is that the she says that one of the biggest troubles Amy Winehouse is currently going through is her association with Daphne Barak (please correct me if I am mistaken):

  • The one fresh conclusion you can draw from this flawed but illuminating book is that, as well as all her other problems, Winehouse fille is suffering from the mother of all writer’s blocks.

If this is really the case then we can imagine what kind of “saving Amy” the book is, though I must admit that these trusting people involved themselves with the author of their own free will. They even allowed her to spend several months with their family which reminds me of another similar interviewer who also infiltrated another person’s life and ruined it forever:

  • “Interviewer Daphne Barak spent several months with the troubled singer and her parents on the Caribbean island of St Lucia earlier this year filming Saving Amy”.

However it is time we returned to the way our good old Daphne went about Grace Rwaramba in the first days after Michael’s death in 2009. Since her main idea is to tear down innocent people and label them drug addicts the ugliest lie Daphne said about Grace was that she “pumped MJ’s stomach” and many times too.

Grace said she didn’t even know how to do it, but such minor detail didn’t bother Daphne – her job was to shock and run, and let the lie live a life of its own. She did promise she would back up that allegation with a corresponding video but for some strange reason this promise never materialized and no such video was ever provided.

The story of the big fat lie from Dahne Barak is told by several articles:

Reddit.com says:

“Tabloid-contributor Daphne Barak interviewed Michael Jackson’s former nanny, Grace Rwaramba, shortly after the King of Pop’s death in 2009. In video footage of the interview, Rwaramba expressed her frustration over being fired by Jackson’s team — understandable and in no way controversial. Yet Barak’s later publication of the interview suddenly had Grace the Nanny claiming that she had pumped her former employer’s stomach for drugs, several times! 

Rwaramba quickly fired back: “I am shocked, hurt and deeply saddened by recent statements the press has attributed to me. […] The statements attributed to me confirm the worst in human tendencies to sensationalize tragedy and smear reputations for profit.”

“I don’t even know how to pump a stomach!!” she added.

Mallika Chopra explained in the Huffington post article how Daphne managed to swindle Grace Rwaramba and work her name into this crazy story.

Grace got acquainted with Daphne through the Jackson family and was consequently led to believe that Daphne was a good friend of hers who “came to her rescue” at a difficult moment in her life. Daphne even promised to help Grace with some charity work in Africa and the only thing she asked for was an interview about her future work – however when it came to it all questions naturally centered on Michael Jackson only.

Doesn’t it mirror the situation with Michael and Bashir and show the pattern these vultures use against innocent and trusting people? Bashir also pretended to be a friend and lured Michael into an interview through a promise to help him with his humanitarian projects….

Though I’ve actually learned this story from you, guys, I need to repeat it here as what Mallika Chopra said is very illuminating as to the methods employed by this fake “everyone’s friend”:

“Daphne Barak, a so-called journalist who claims to be a friend of the Jackson family and who got to know Grace through them, has been cultivating a friendship with Grace over several years. Unfortunately, the story with Daphne and Grace seems to be one that echoes the vultures that took advantage of Michael throughout his life.

Daphne reached out to Grace a few weeks ago, when she knew she was in a vulnerable place, having recently been let go by Michael yet again (this was a regular pattern). In the 17 years that Grace has worked with Michael, she has never spoken to the press. She loves Michael and his children at her core.

Grace genuinely believed Daphne was her friend who was trying to help her. Daphne had offered to help Grace launch a foundation she was creating to monitor non profit work in Africa. (Grace was originally from Rwanda.) She told Grace that they should record her speaking about the work. However, every time they began to record, her questions would center on Michael. Grace would say she was uncomfortable speaking about him.

On the morning of June 26th, after finding out that Grace was also in London, I rushed to her hotel. She was staying in a suite with Daphne. Daphne told me she had invited Grace to stay with her in Switzerland as her guest, and how she had helped Grace with the immediate aftermath of shock hearing about Michael’s death. She said that she had spent several thousand dollars to buy a business class ticket for Grace to fly to LA. She boasted about how close she was to the Jackson family, world leaders, etc.

I witnessed Daphne act as a friend while trying to bait information from Grace on her conversations with Jackson family members and friends about his death. She warned Grace that the family was going to try to set her up for Michaels downfall, and that it was critical that Grace speak with a lawyer before leaving. As a friend, she had organized a “lawyer” to get Grace’s story before she left for the airport.

In essence, Daphne was setting up a scenario to garner more information from Grace before she left for LA. I discovered that one of her friends who happened to be there had made a documentary on Princess Diana.

When we tried to leave, Daphne screamed at Grace – in front of my young children who began to cry — that she was an ingrate. She had spent thousands of dollars hosting her, she was her guest, and she wanted to spend the time to say goodbye. (Daphne obviously could not believe her luck that she had baited Grace as a sympathetic friend for stories before he died, and had Grace with her on that sad day.)

Ultimately, Daphne, having obviously drunk a bit much, threatened to release the recordings she had made of their private conversations. Grace was petrified. I held her by the shoulders, looked in her eyes, and said lets just go. So what, let her put it out there. She is a washed up journalist trying to mine a tragic situation. Michael was gone now, and the future is the well-being of the children. Grace agreed.

Ultimately, I had to get the hotel manager involved to escort Grace out of the hotel. I also bought Grace’s ticket home myself, discovering that Daphne had misled us about the time and the price. It was a 650 Pound economy ticket, not several thousand dollars.

Twenty four hours later, I found that Daphne indeed had written an article full of quotes by Grace for a tabloid magazine. (A quick search of her other work not surprisingly shows she did a recent feature on Amy Winehouse.) Grace’s quotes are now being picked up by other tabloids and will find their way into more magazines and articles. (People Magazine is also featuring some today, including the inaccurate claim the Grace pumped Michael’s stomach several times. For the record, Grace never pumped Michael’s stomach. She has no idea how she would even do such a thing.) Which quotes are true, which are in context, (many are not) to me frankly doesn’t matter. I will not be surprised if Daphne releases audios or videos soon.

Grace feels used, insecure and shaken that she could have been so naïve, particularly having witnessed so many vultures in Michael’s world over the years. She made a mistake. The sad truth is that when you are a celebrity, or a close friend or family of one, in a world of tabloids, you must be impeccable in what you say and to whom. Michael probably faced the epitome of vultures, bloodsuckers and hanger-ons displayed in his endless cycle of managers, enabling doctors, and new business partners. How could anyone blame him for becoming so paranoid in his life?

In the article, Daphne tries to portray a rift between Katherine Jackson and Grace. This is not true.”

So even if we forget about the near-criminal methods of forcing Grace into that interview some of the quotes were true, some were true only in context and many were not?

And Grace felt used and shaken that she could be so naïve? And realized that in order to deal with those vultures one should be impeccable – otherwise you don’t have a chance to stand up to their methods? And she was also caught in a very sensitive moment of her life, when she was on the cross-roads and needed help?

Doesn’t it remind us of anything? I mean the present situation with Aaron?

Here are the two videos over which all the terrible fuss was made by the media (or at least I didn’t find anything else). As we could easily expect there is nothing bad in Grace’s words to Daphne:

It is hard to believe it but the above innocent content was reported by Daphne Barak to the Daily Mail or embellished by the local guys in such a crazy manner that it is impossible to recognize the original interview in a pile of things mounted on top of this story. The lies are very inventive, with a lot of credible details to them, and if it weren’t for Grace’s vehement denial and the actual absence of the tapes we wouldn’t be able to prove that all of what is written below is just one BIG, insolent and blatant LIE.

The lie is naturally told by some anonymous “Sunday reporter”:

I love my babies and I miss them…when Michael Jackson was around they froze: Former nanny’s shocking revelations

By MAIL ON SUNDAY REPORTER

Last updated at 1:21 AM on 28th June 2009

According to journalist Daphne Barak, who spoke to Ms Rwaramba on the night Jackson died, the former nanny said: ‘I love my babies. I miss my babies. I used to hug them and laugh with them. ’

However, she said they ‘froze’ when Michael was around. [INCREDIBLE LIE which doesn’t even need a disproval on our part]

‘He didn’t like me hugging them,’ she said. ‘But they needed love. I was the only mother they knew.’

‘Usually, the security would alert me that he was about to come,’ she said. ‘Blanket immediately stopped. The kids looked frightened.’ [They must be CRAZY to say that!]

She said that Jackson was furious – and she knew he would fire her. ‘Whenever the children got too attached to me, he would send me away,’ he said. [I thought she said refused the job HERSELF as Tohme cut her salary?]

She said the children hated the masks they were forced to wear, supposedly to protect their identities. [The children said to Oprah the masks were indeed helpful as they could open their faces when there were not around their father].

The glamorous 42-year-old also claims she frequently had to pump Jackson’s stomach after he took dangerous drug.

She is reported  to have said: ‘I had to pump his stomach many times. He always mixed so much of it. ’

[Pump his stomach? Many times? Mixed so much? These tabloids should indeed be collected into one big pile of trash and set fire to not to spread the infection among the people!]

Miss Barak says Ms Rwaramba called her a few weeks ago, telling her: ‘He doesn’t let me see my babies.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196022/I-love-babies-I-miss–Michael-Jackson-froze-Former-nannys-shocking-revelations.html

And so on and so forth with the rest of it having no word of truth as the real videos preceding this article show.

The difference between real life and the way it was reported by Daphne Barak and her Daily Mail collaborators is staggering, shocking, unbelievable.

However it worked and lots of people fell for it at the time. Even Roger Friedman who knows the true worth of Daphne Barak and calls her a vulture-like interviewer made the mistake all of us make when we face such a really BIG lie – instead of doubting the lie and disproving it we tend to find fault with the poor victim whom this lie is attributed to. What is noteworthy is that the author of the lie always manages to get away with it, to modestly stand aside and go unnoticed by public attention….

Thus even the experienced Roger Friedman swallowed Daphne’s lie like any ordinary citizen would and fumed so much about Grace Rwaramba’s “betrayal” that I began to suspect him of being a secret fan of Michael Jackson. This is what he wrote after seeing the video and evidently under the influence of rumors about it:

Jacko Nanny Was Paid For Negative Interview

07/10/09 12:00am

Roger Friedman

Michael Jackson’s longtime nanny and employee, Grace Rwaramba, did indeed sell out to vulture-like celebrity interviewer Daphne Barak.

Barak has posted a clip from the interview on her website and on YouTube as a teaser.’ The intention is to sell it somewhere. Barak routinely gets her “scoops” by paying her interview subjects, according to sources.

Today Barak started e-mailing the clip around to various Jackson insiders hoping to get them to jump on her bandwagon.

Rwaramba has denied doing the interview. But the clip speaks for itself. She tells Barak how she was fired last spring on a Sunday morning by telephone. The nanny says “the guy”’ presumably Tohme Tohme ’”terminated” her by offering her a “ridiculous” salary.

“Were you surprised?” Barak asked her. “Not really,” Grace replied. “It had happened before.”

The minute-long clip is interesting because Rwaramba will be offered as an important person in the lives of Jackson’s children when their grandmother, Katherine, goes to court next Monday to establish custody rights. The Jacksons seem unaware that Rwaramba’ who was well compensated by Jackson would turn on him, and for money.

Also, the nanny seems to indicate to Barak that she was “laid off” because she refused to take a low salary. That would certainly bring into question her selfless devotion to the children.

Ironically, Barak now is the common thread between Rwaramba and Michael’s parents, Katherine and Joe Jackson. Back in 2005, Barak interviewed the Jacksons, then sold the interview to CBS. Sources told me then that Barak kicked back a fee to the Jacksons.

In 2005 I reported that both Joe Jackson and Daphne Barak were secretly in business with a man named Charles Coupet, who also served as a literary agent for Macaulay Culkin’s father, Kit.

‘A year earlier, in 2004, Barak called this reporter and said, “I have Joseph Jackson on the phone and we want to talk to you about a project.” I passed.

http://www.showbiz411.com/2009/07/10/20090710grace-rwaramba-nanny-daphne-barak-interview

In other articles Roger Friedman lashes out against Grace in a much harder way and finds a very apt comparison for Daphne Barak – now he calls her a “blood-sucking-celebrity vampire”. However Roger’s general attitude to the problem reminded me of the recent outbreak of rage against another victim of Daphne Barak’s interviewing:

Friedman: Grace Rwamba Is A Liar

(28-6-2009) Grace-less Nanny Sells Out Jacko
How long has Michael Jackson been dead? Two minutes? The woman who worked for him for 14 years, who served as nanny to his kids and protector of his privacy, has already sold him out.

Grace Rwaramba has sold an interview to blood-sucking-celebrity vampire Daphne Barak. The story appears in today’s Times of London.

Rwaramba, who was given a four-star life by Jackson, now reveals he was a drug-addled nut whose stomach she personally pumped. Many times, no less.

Rwaramba has nothing nice to say about Jackson. She does say he was broke all the time, took advantage of everyone, and was a bad father to boot.

Jackson eventually fired Grace, a woman who was universally despised by his family and professional associates. But his reward for giving her a lavish lifestyle is this:  no good turn goes unpunished.

Interestingly, it was Barak who paid Michael’s parents for a TV interview in 2005 while he was on trial. Now Rwaramba has done the exact same thing.

She tells Barak that Michael fended off an “intervention” that she was part of while he lived in Las Vegas.

But I can tell you that during that time, Jackson’s family tried to see him. It was Rwaramba who wouldn’t let them in.

The nanny’s testimony is a sellout, a cash-in, and pathetic. Whatever value she had is gone. Let’s ignore her, and hope she goes away.
Source: MJFC / http:/www.showbiz411.com

Since Daphne Barak was never able to produce proof of Grace telling any of those things attributed to her, Roger Friedman must be sorry now for being so harsh on her. However his reaction does make you wonder – what can be expected of us, laymen, if even he was naïve enough to believe that big media lie? And this in spite of the fact that this brainwashing technique is very well known and is called exactly “the big lie technique”. Its idea is to present so big and so shocking a lie that it would never occur to people to even think of verifying it – so they swallow it hook, line and sinker and without thinking twice too.

The truth of what happened with Grace is most probably lying somewhere in the middle between the people’s misconceptions and her own words. Misled by Daphne’s friendly passes Grace could have agreed to give an interview about her humiliation by Tohme, her refusal to work for a ridiculous salary as well as her future life and projects she might undertake. She may have even taken money from Daphne intending to partially spend it on charity work. But when it came to the interview she was asked questions not about her future, but only about Jackson, drugs and similar nasty things which she actually refused to answer (as there is no video of it) – and voila, here we have the fact of an interview but nothing bad said in it about Jackson.

The absence of the horrifying revelations, however, did not stop our good old Daphne from shamelessly replacing the missing content of the interview with her own ideas which were then repeated (or further embellished) by the Daily Mail, Times of London and other media outlets. The actual video was of course never found – but what does it matter if all the harm is done, the price is asked and received, the necessary publicity is made and the whole world is being agog over the “bad nanny” and “evil ways” of her boss?

Does it remind you of anything again?

It should be noted here that Daphne Barak does not select just anyone for her treachery interviews – no, she chooses only those who are capable of saying a word of support for Michael Jackson. This is an extremely important point as those who are the real sources of Daphne’s information are treasured and guarded by her in a most careful manner.

When in 2010, on the eve of the first anniversary of Michael’s death,  Daphne published some tapes recorded by an answering machine where Michael asked for cash and sounded sleepy (it was at 4:30 in the morning) which she naturally explained by him “being drugged” – Daphne Barak did not say a single word about who provided her with those tapes. It was only through a comment of a German fan that I found out that the tapes came from Dieter Wiesner and were therefore totally disregarded in Germany. The fan said about about them the following:

  • “the German manager of MJ Deiter Wiezner, who happened to be a mafia himself, published these tapes …he told the fans that he loves MJ but MJ fans in Gemany are smart enough to boycott this leech”.

What is funny is that those tapes also look like a cut-and-paste job. The fans who listened to them noticed the following:

  • “I listened to the tapes, the speech pattern, word choice, rhythm etc…sound nothing like him, the last portion however, talking about the super hero movies and stock prices being low…that sound very much like him. I think they’ve got babbling nothinginess spliced together with some actual messages that were taken out of context.”
  • I don’t believe anything I read or hear about Jackson. His voice was easy to imitate and of course there is some motive in releasing this now – fake or real.
  • You know why they are put out there today, don’t you? To help strengthen Conrad Murrays Demonstration tomorrow. They were released just in time to attempt to sway the MJ fans and public into thinking MJ was just a druggie. He may have done drugs, these tapes are from 2003,but I am sure he didn’t know Conrad Murray was going to kill him – they are irrelevant – they are in the PAST. Let them stay there.

Yes, all of the above is beginning to fall into a pattern. Releasing some dubious interviews on the eve of every anniversary of Michael’s death,  tampering with the tapes so that Michael doesn’t sound right, implying each time that some “drugs” are being involved and all this instead of looking into Conrad Murray’s criminal deeds as if the main idea is to substitute innocent Michael for the real criminal in whose hands he actually died?

And isn’t it interesting that the author of the ‘answering machine tapes’ was never mentioned by her – though the names of Grace Rwaramba and Aaron Carter were trashed inside out?  Is it because Dieter Wiesner is no friend to Michael and should be protected from the public outcry?

In this context it becomes extremely interesting that the next victim of Daphne Barak’s journalism was Kit Culkin, Macaulay Culkin’s father. The story of his relationship with Daphne Barak follows exactly the same pattern – she says that there was an interview but in reality it never took place (though it was nevertheless reported in the press). This story didn’t acquire the same level of scandal as Carter’s situation, but only because Kit Culkin is no shy guy and reacted to the lie with all the rage it deserved.

He also had a good reason to be enraged by Daphne Barak – besides lying about the interview which he never gave, this woman urged Kit Culkin to send his book to a so-called “literary agent of the Jacksons”, who took advantage of his book and published big portions of it in the New York Daily News. And in the end it turned out that the man was no literary agent at all and said he didn’t know who Kit Culkin was!

PEOPLE NEWS
Culkin’s Father Fumes Over ‘Exclusive’ Jackson Interview
By WENN
Apr 8, 2005, 17:18 GMT

Macauley Culkin’s father Kit is fuming after the New York Daily News published what they called an “exclusive” interview on Sunday (03APR05), in  which he spoke frankly about his children’s experiences as close companions of troubled superstar Michael Jackson.

Kit is adamant he never gave an interview to Daphne Barak and did not authorize any such publication – claiming the journalist used material from a proposed book without permission, according to esteemed Fox News correspondent Roger Friedman.

Last autumn (2004), Barak visited Kit and his co-author Jeanette Krylowski in Oregon to film them for a TV special where she heard Kit read segments of the book, and she suggested he send it to a literary agent linked to Jackson’s parents.

Krylowski says, “She told me to send it to Charles Coupet, an agent in New York. Daphne said he handled Joseph and Katherine Jackson.

But Coupet and his associates were less than impressed with the book. She continues, “They continually told me how bad it was. They laughed at it once. I just never told Kit how bad they told me it was. (Barak’s assistant) Erbil told me he went crazy just trying to read through it.”

Following the negative response to their narrative, Kit and Krylowski were shocked to discover their copyrighted material printed in the New York Daily News – and that Coupet is not a listed literary agent, reports Friedman.

In the article Kit says he saw no signs of child molestation during his children’s numerous stays at the singer’s Neverland ranch.

© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/printer_5959.php

Roger Friedman tells us this incredible story in more detail.  What stands out of his narration is that Daphne Barak employed with Kit Culkin her favorite method again – she befriended him and his companion, made them believe that she was highly sympathetic to Jackson and won their trust to such a degree that they provided her (or her collaborators) with the manuscript of Culkin’s unpublished book from which they allowed her to use some pieces in order to help Jackson.

However our Daphne preferred to write a fictional interview instead where she attributed to Culkin only God knows what, while her collaborator stole Culkin’s book and published its content without the author’s consent!

And after all that Daphne Barak’s spokesman didn’t bat an eyelid saying that Daphne had the right to do all of the above:

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

By Roger Friedman

Macaulay Culkin’s Dad Ripped Off?

“Celebrity interviewer” Daphne Barak is at it again.

On Sunday, Macaulay Culkin’s father Kit Culkin was horrified to see in the New York Daily News an “exclusive” interview that he supposedly gave Barak. He says that he never gave the interview and didn’t authorize it.

A spokesperson for Barak said that she did have the right to use the material.

But Kit Culkin and his companion, Jeanette Krylowski, tell a different story.

You may recall that about 10 days ago in this space, we ran excerpts from a written piece by Kit Culkin in which he claimed that Jackson never touched his children inappropriately.

It was part of a book proposal that Culkin and Krylowski had written, but not yet sold. This column secured their permission to use an excerpt.

However, Krylowski tells me that last fall, Barak came to their Oregon home to film them for TV.

“She said it was for a special,” Krylowski said. “But it wound up on ‘Access Hollywood.’ We were shocked.”

In the filming, Kit Culkin read some portions of his proposal. Afterward, Krylowski recalls, Barak told them they should send it to a book agent. That’s where the story gets even weirder.

“She told me to send it to Charles Coupet, an agent in New York,” Krylowski said. “Daphne said he handled Joseph and Katherine Jackson.”

Krylowski did as Barak suggested. But all she heard from Coupet, she says, were criticisms.

Barak, coincidentally, has made her name lately “interviewing” the Jackson parents and then selling the material to shows like “Access,” “48 Hours” and “20/20.”

“They continually told me how bad it was,” Krylowski said. “They laughed at it once. I just never told Kit how bad they told me it was. [Barak’s assistant] Erbil told me he went crazy just trying to read through it.”

But Krylowski was also under the impression that Barak, a journalist, had access and was sympathetic to Jackson.

“One day, Daphne tried to put Katherine Jackson on the phone with us to say ‘Thank you’ because we’d written something nice about him in our book,” Krylowski said.

The referenced chapter was about how Michael thought he was abused, she said, but really just had a tough father.

Ultimately, nothing happened with the book. The project drifted.

Krylowski says she wrote to Barak and told her they had no interest in pursuing a book project any further. She said that if there was anything that could help Michael, he could use it.

Krylowski said that Barak seemed like an agent for Jackson and that’s why she trusted her.

“I thought she would use a little bit of it. But I wasn’t giving the whole thing to her. She could use pieces to help Michael. But I wasn’t giving the rights to her,” she said.

Krylowski says that she wrote to Coupet at Tech Plus Systems Inc. and told him they no longer needed his services. She says she received a reply on Feb. 8 acknowledging cancellation of their relationship.

Yesterday, I tracked Coupet down on his cell phone after calls to his office produced no replies.

He said he was not a literary agent, “knew of” Daphne Barak and nothing of Kit Culkin.

“Macaulay Culkin I’ve heard of, but no, not Kit Culkin,” he said.

He said he did not represent the Jacksons either, and did not know what I was talking about.

“He’s called here, and he’s e-mailed me. I have a copy of this letter,” Krylowski said.

The relationship between Barak and Coupet remains a mystery. There is no listing anywhere for Coupet as a literary agent.

His Tech Plus Systems, at 99 University Place in Greenwich Village in New York City, is described on a Web directory for “minority and women-owned” businesses as “custom computer programming services.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152588,00.html

As you have noticed Daphne Barak often uses the magic names of Joseph and Katherine Jackson to win people’s trust and give more weight to her words and actions. Katherine Jackson did indeed give Daphne several interviews (which I am not even willing to look at) and Joseph Jackson and Randy Jackson were close enough with Daphne to get into a business project together. Roger Friedman explains that the idea was to get Michael’s finances under the family’s control and force two Michael’s financial backers out of the picture:

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

By Roger Friedman

Jacko $aved: But Father and Journalist Almost Wrecked Deal

In a strange twist of fate, Michael Jackson’s family members almost derailed the deal to restore him financially.

As I reported in this space last month, yesterday — February 17 — was a key date in Jackson’s financial soap opera. It was the day a $70 million “put” or loan installment was due on Jackson’s $350 million worth of loans with Bank of America.

The New York Times incorrectly reported last week that Jackson could be filing for bankruptcy on that date. The reporter there failed to read with care our January story, which outlined how Jackson’s backers, Charles Koppelman and Al Malnik, had guaranteed the $70 million to Bank of America.

Of course, the two men came through with their promise. Yesterday the papers were drawn up between Jackson and Bank of America for the payment of the $70 million, with funding provided by Jackson’s two leading dealmakers.

But now I’m told that a second proposal by Jackson’s father, Joseph, with help from a brother, Randy, nearly derailed the Koppelman/Malnik plan.

A couple of weeks ago, Randy Jackson, according to sources, announced to Malnik that he’d been in touch with a Las Vegas businessman and entertainer named Tony Brown.

In turn, Randy Jackson claimed, Brown had managed to gain the confidence of an investment bank, which offered to undertake the entire Bank of America loan, including the “put.” Michael would be free of his commitment to the bank, and to Malnik and Koppelman as well.

Joseph Jackson endorsed the deal, and consequently became allied with Michael’s two previous managers, German Dieter Wiesner and Canadian Ronald Konitzer. Both of those men, who had been iced out of Michael’s business life by the Nation of Islam, were suddenly back in the picture. In addition to them, my source claims, came a new party: journalist Daphne Barak.

Barak did not return messages sent to her through her publicist yesterday. But apparently at some point in the last two weeks, she crossed the line from journalist to quasi-manager, taking part in phone calls with Wiesner, Konitzer and Joseph Jackson regarding Michael’s finances and making a deal through Tony Brown with the new investment bank.

This new twist is maybe the most interesting part of the story. Last Sunday, Barak — who portrays herself as the only TV journalist with access to the Jackson family — interviewed Wiesner on NBC’s “Dateline.”

There was no mention that in fact she may have been in business with Wiesner and his group and participated in phone conversations advocating one deal over another for Michael Jackson.

On “Dateline,” Barak pestered Wiesner for answers to questions about Jackson’s finances. But according to my source, she may have already known the answers.

Nevertheless, it didn’t matter. Several days ago, I am told, Barak, Joseph Jackson, Wiesner and Konitzer called Malnik and Koppelman to say their deal with Brown had fallen through, and that they had failed to come up with the goods.

This means that Joseph and Randy Jackson’s attempt to wrest control of Michael’s financial dealings has also failed, and they are back to square one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111749,00.html

Besides the Jacksons’ association  with Daphne Barak it is again Dieter Wiesner’s name which pops up here and there. Considering that he gave Barak numerous interviews (I mean, really gave them) it seems that this man is deeply involved with this vulture of a journalist. But isn’t it strange that despite all their contacts we never hear about their close association?  I hope you will understand that now that we know of their “friendship” the persona of Dieter Wiesner has become a non-grata for me – same as the persona of his friend Daphne Barak.

To close this small investigation of Daphne Barak’s ways it wouldn’t hurt to learn of the mess she created around the name of the former Pakistani Prime-Minister Benazir Bhutto. Daphne called Benazir Bhutto a bosom friend of hers and wrote an article where she boasted she managed to win so much trust of the former Pakistani political leader that they even discussed sexy lingerie together:

  • “I had the great fortune to get to know her as a woman, wife, mother and friend, the sides she revealed only to people she could trust, and these are the areas I want to concentrate on”
  • “She cared about what she looked like under her clothes. I introduced her to Victoria’s Secret, the sexy stylish underwear company, whose range she loved and always wore. She was very Americanised and wore her headscarf only when it was politically correct to do so”.
  • Of course we talked a lot about men, as all women do when they get together. She enjoyed hearing in detail about other people’s love affairs but most of all she was totally fascinated by Princess Diana. She knew I was friendly with Hasnat Khan, the Pakistani doctor whom Diana fell totally in love with before she died. Benazir enjoyed speculating endlessly about the couple’s relationship.
  • Asif [Benazir’s husband] is also very liberal and they behaved like teenagers together. In public they were very restrained, but in private or with close friends they were very demonstrative and would hold hands and kiss. You could feel the passion between them. She could be very giggly when she was with Asif and I can tell you he was the power behind her throne because although she was very strong-willed, she always wanted to please him.
  • He is really the one who has been calling the shots. He is a brilliant man and she always did everything political that he advised her to do. He will certainly run for office instead of her to maintain the legacy.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera…

I can very well imagine that the above typically women’s irresponsible (and unverified) gossip can hurt the feelings of those who remember Benazir Bhutto not as an idle housewife but as a powerful political leader. The enraged comment on this article which you’ve also posted in this blog, called Daphne Barak “a meddling tabloid vulture masquerading as a journalist” and said that “any references to Bhutto or Pakistan that she writes should be taken as near-fiction or nothing less than a complete fabrication”.

Here are some excerpts from that comment:

TUE MAR 24, 2009 AT 06:41 AM PDT

by southasiawatch

Daphe Barak, a platinum haired femme-fatale, has been foisting herself upon the famous and noteworthy families of the world for years now. Her living is made by offering “exclusive” interviews, scintillating gossip, and manufacturing rumor and innuendo at every turn. She is often spotted interviewing members of families in crisis, taking advantage of their grief and need for hope, in order to fuel her personal drive for fame, access, and notoriety.

Her journalistic standards, if they can be called that at all, fell to a new low recently as Daphne tried to insert herself into the political turmoil afflicting Pakistan.

Daphne Barak likes to portray herself as a journalist, but she is much closer to paparazzi or tabloid writers. She shamelessly pursues the tawdriest of stories about drug-addled stars like Amy Winehouse , cozying up to her parents, feeding off their grief and concern for their daughter. In the tragic death of Princess Diana, Daphne Barak’s quest for fame and notoriety at any cost ran her afoul of the law . [VMJ: Daphne was indeed sued by Al Fayed but didn’t appear in court and was on the run for four months so that they couldn’t serve the court papers on her].

Daphne’s predilection for the banal and fictitious takes on a scandalous and humiliating turn for the late Benazair Bhutto, beloved former leader of Pakistan, in this article which Daphne exposes, literally and figuratively, the most private aspects of Bhutto’s personal life. Daphne portrays and tarnishes the image of Bhutto by revealing or blatantly manufacturing details that cannot be independently verified about Bhutto’s life.

Bhutto’s legacy will not be stained here by repeating the slanders put forth by Daphne Barak, but any references to Bhutto or Pakistan that she writes should be taken as near-fiction or nothing less than a complete fabrication.

In Daphne Barak’s “news” stories, the names have not been changed to protect the innocent. In more recent Pakistan news, Daphne Barak has done the nation of Pakistan and its people a grave disservice by manufacturing a news story featuring “statements” from Benazair Bhutto’s sister, Sanam, regarding the President of Pakistan, Asif Zardari. While biased journalism may be tolerated in many circles, Daphe Barak crossed the line into complete fiction. Sanam Bhutto, outraged and distressed at the lies attributed to her, vigorously denounced the fiction produced by Daphne Barak, via print and video .

Daphne Barak could best serve the public by ceasing her shameful, tabloid-style writing, and blatant manufacturing of hurtful lies.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/03/24/712377/-Daphne-BarakA-meddling-tabloid-vulture-masquerading-as-a-journalist

The Sanam Bhutto situation the article refers to is just another of the innumerable Daphne Barak’s lies. According to this lie Benazir’s sister gave Daphne an interview after her sister’s assassination where she allegedly spoke against the current President of Pakistan.

Quote:

  • “Sanam who rarely talks about politics lost it after an emotional dinner with Bilawal, myself and my producer Erbil. On our way back from dinner, Sanam’s anger came out: “I will never forgive HIM. Why is he taking over the party? Let democracy happen.
  • Let the people in the PPP decide who will be the leader. He always criticised my sister that she did not have the right people around her, that she does not know… that he knows better… She was working so hard. He always criticised her… She wanted so much to spend time with him. He always preferred to spend time with his friends. And she tried so much to please him… So now, let us see what he can do. Whether he can do any better…”

After reading the above and not knowing a thing about why Sanam would be so much against the present Pakistani leader I – to be frank with you – was also overwhelmed by a dark suspicion that Sanam might be thinking him responsible for Benazir’s death. But the very first sentence from Wiki made me realize that my dark thoughts, triggered off by this beastly Daphne Barak, are totally ridiculous – it turned out that Azif mentioned earlier as the beloved husband of Benazir Bhutto and Azif Zardari, the current President of Pakistan, was one and the same person! He is a widower of Benazir to whom she bequeathed her party so that he could maintain her legacy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asif_Ali_Zardari

So it didn’t surprise me when I saw a video of Sanam Bhutto practically shaking with anger at Daphne’s irresponsible lies about her, her sister and her brother-in-law. We find from her video rebuttal of Daphne Barak’s lies that her interview with Daphne naturally never took place, that the whole of it is a total fabrication and that Daphne Barak was never a friend of  Benazir Bhutto –  but was just an acquaintance. And the video of that interview was naturally not existent.

Sanam Bhutto’s statement reads:

ISLAMABAD, 18 March , 2009

“I was stunned to read today’s piece in the News International titled “Another bombshell for Zardari by Azim Mian”.

The allegations in the article are a total fabrication and a vicious attack on me, my family and the memory of Benazir Bhutto Shaheed. I made none of the statements attributed to me in this piece. There was no interview with Daphne Barak and each insinuation is a complete fabrication.

Barak was never a friend of my beloved sister Benazir Bhutto Shaheed. They first met for an interview fifteen years ago. Ms. Barak being a socialite remained an acquaintance. She knows nothing about my sister nor about our family’s relationships.

She is not, as is suggested, in any way an insider of the Bhutto family on any issue. I am on excellent terms with my brother-in-law, President Asif Ali Zardari. I have no property or financial issues with him as has been alleged in this article. Views attributed to my nephew Bilawal Bhutto Zardari are also a figment of the authors imagination, clearly designed to damage our family and create a rift in the Pakistan Peoples Party.

Ms. Barak knows nothing about events surrounding my sister’s murder on 27 December 2007. Any suggestion otherwise is a blatant attempt to exploit and ingratiate herself for her own purposes into what is a serious investigation by the UN of the assassination. I want to be very clear to avoid any misunderstandings; I totally deny all allegations made in this article.

Such baseless stories are not only a disservice to objective journalism but are also a source of immense anguish to me and the children of Benazir Bhutto Shaheed. I reiterate that the Bhutto family stands united with President Zardari at this critical juncture when the nation faces serious internal and external threats. I expect the media to carry this rebuttal in the same prominent manner as the concocted news story has been splashed.

Here is the video of the angry Sanam Bhutto:

So it is he same pattern of behavior, the same missing videos, the same big lies told about everyone around, the same embittered people who find themselves slandered, hurt and betrayed! However this doesn’t stop our good old Daphne Barak from going on with her “journalism”…

As a small postscript to what our blonde author wrote about Benazir’s husband here is a little more bragging from her. I bet you will never believe what she is saying this time.

This time she is bragging that she prompts the President of Pakistan what to say to the public for him to look clever and produce the right impression on the people! I’ve learned about this fantastic turn of Daphne’s mind from a reader who contacted her and surprisingly received the following reply:

Some info that was sent to me from Daphne Barak’s website. I emailed her and asked if she did an interview with Sanam Bhutto and I got some interesting emails back..

“Asif asked help-clean his image and make him look like a leader.  And Daphne said that this can only be done with an interview which will not only make reference to Benazir’s name but also answer questions about some of the burning foreign policy issues.

So when Daphne posed the foreign policy questions to Asif, during the interview, he could not answer any of them. Instead, he asked if Daphne would write the answers on his behalf.

For the sake of her friend Benazir, Daphne said she would continue helping him and make him appear like a statesman. BUT, Daphne said, Asif still needs to say at least few words on each issue.

Asif couldn’t even do that. He repeatedly asked Daphne to place smart answers as his own views.

We did help Asif. He took OUR answers as his own and he was very grateful.

That is how a leader was born!

By the way, we documented Asif’s original “answers” too.”

 

Didn’t Daphne Barak earlier say (in that article devoted to Benazir) that Asif was a brilliant man who advised Benazir on political issues? And now we find out that she claims she is prompting him smart answers to make him appear like a statesman?

Frankly, it was only after reading of the above that I noticed another feature of Daphne Barak – she evidently considers herself a prominent figure in the world politics as besides the above self-aggrandizing craziness she also drops here and there phrases like the following ones:

  • She [Benazir] was confident in the support of the Bush Administration. But I wasn’t so sure.
  • When we met – usually in New York, sometimes in London – we talked about politics, of course. I knew she was determined to bring democracy back to Pakistan and I would sometimes arrange parties for her and make sure she met the right politicians in a private and relaxed setting.
  • I remember having a meal with them and some other friends. I had just come back from interviewing Segolene Royal, the Socialist candidate for the French presidency against Nicolas Sarkozy last May. Benazir wanted to know what Segolene wore and how was her relationship with her partner.
  • Asif asked me to check with my own contacts in Washington and Islamabad. I did and the information I got was that as soon as Musharraf ended the state of emergency, the Bush Administration would abandon its support for Benazir. She would be left extremely vulnerable. I thought it was a death trap.
  • In one of our last phone calls, Benazir told me: “Washington is behind me. I can’t lose this opportunity. I have been waiting for it for nine years. We need to get Pakistan democratic again. I am needed here. It is now or never.” I said: “There will be a better opportunity for you and I wouldn’t bet on Washington’s  support. You have already been prime minister. Try something else.” Again she didn’t listen”.

GUYS, I AM AWESTRUCK.

The former prime-minister of Pakistan, who had been in power for two terms, consulted Daphne Barak on whether she would be supported by the US?

Daphne  put in a word for Benazir and arranged parties for her so that she could meet the right people via our good old blonde?!

And the blonde is also busy writing smart answers for the current President of Pakistan so that he is able to say a few words on each issue and looks like a leader?!!

THIS IS INCREDIBLE STUFF….

I never knew there were so many mental cases around us.

All of them are good enough for a lunatic asylum – Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth, Martin Bashir, Victor Guiterrez  –  but Daphne Barak seems to be outdoing them all.

Do you have questions about this woman now?

* * * * *

UPDATED on July 11, 2011

To finalize the matter of our good old blonde and her possibly existent or possibly non-existent interview with Aaron Carter here is a statement from the Michael Jackson Estate concerning this matter (Shelly, thank you for providing it):

The Estate Message To Fans Regarding Aaron and Latoya

The Estate of Michael Jackson Message to Fans – RE: Aaron Carter & Latoya Jackson
Fans have asked the Estate to elaborate on its decision to respond to some of LaToya Jackson’s comments as she promoted her new book, as well as its decision not to respond formally to a false and erroneous report out of Australia that allegedly quoted Aaron Carter as saying he and Michael used drugs together.

If someone severely misrepresents the facts surrounding Michael’s Estate and makes serious, reckless and false accusations that go unanswered, it demeans and maligns Michael’s memory and legacy, and may also potentially hurt the business of the Estate, thereby affecting the future earnings that benefit Michael’s beneficiaries.

When a tabloid report like the Aaron Carter story occurs, involving claims made by people who knew Michael during his life, the Estate always must ask the same questions: how credible is the source; can it be verified; and would issuing a public response only put an unwarranted spotlight on a questionable, negative story about Michael the Estate has no desire to publicize?

In this case, the Executors knew the account came from a marginal celebrity gossip site, and was conducted by a journalist with a long history of controversy involving Michael and his family. Furthermore, the Executors also knew Aaron Carter had previously denied the allegations to People magazine, something that was noted to any media who asked the Estate about the report. In the end, the Estate believes the story took care of itself: Aaron Carter’s decision to refute it himself was the best solution, in that it called the most attention possible to the credibility of this story. Any benefit from the Estate calling out irresponsible media reportage could then possibly be outweighed by the detriment of even more media spotlight on a bogus story.

As for LaToya Jackson, the Estate felt compelled to respond to irresponsible and untruthful statements that were defamatory, and which grossly misrepresented facts that are in the public court record. LaToya was going on many television shows, repeating some of the same bogus info, and the Estate felt it important to try and contain any additional/future damage beyond that which had already been done, and, sadly, which had already started to be repeated as fact by other media to promote their sites or sell their news reports.

It’s probably an impossible task to make decisions that everyone likes. Some will agree, some will disagree, but in the end, it is the ultimate responsibility of the Co-Executors to fulfill their obligations per Michael’s wishes by doing what they think best in each and every instance, to protect, preserve, and grow Michael’s legacy and memory for Michael and his fans, and to protect, preserve and grow the Estate for its beneficiaries.

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/michael-jackson-news/the-estate-message-to-fans-regarding-aaron-and-latoya

118 Comments leave one →
  1. anniedomino permalink
    July 14, 2011 3:52 pm

    Kaarin – I fear it will. This guy is 52 BTW! The “guitarist” for Motley Crue. Remember Gene Simmonds (I think I spelled this incorrectly)? That sector of the rock world – who themselves have addiction issues and admit to sleeping with underage girls – have deep issues with the King of Pop.

    Like

  2. July 14, 2011 1:47 pm

    anniedomino,I hope this will not spread among 20 something rockers to
    get free, no brainer publicity for themselves.

    Like

  3. July 14, 2011 1:39 pm

    anniedomino, I hope this will not spread among 20 something rockers to get free, no brainer publicity for themselves.

    Like

  4. anniedomino permalink
    July 14, 2011 1:17 pm

    Sigh….Another day, another fool taking a shot at MJ for some time in the spotlight. I am sure by now that you have all heard of Nikki Sixx’s vile comments. And one of his “fans” stated that Michael “definitely” gave Aaron and Mac drugs. I just can’t with these people anymore. I think that many of the haters are just plain racist. I also think they are jealous of Michael’s dominance and re-invention of the music industry. There is a certain kind of person who adopts a “rock star” persona that is based on how white rockers behaved in the 60’s/ 70’s and 80’s. You know – long crazy hair, promiscuity, profanity, theatrical clothes, groupies, drugs, etc…They think that this is “cool” and epitomizes some kind of rebellious, anti-establishment, devil-may-care attitude. But when they come up against someone who truly went against the grain – and he is a black guy who started out as a soul singer – they just cannot handle the real thing. I think Michael broke all the rules – he was truly an individual who lived his life on his own terms. “Independent of the opinion of others” as Wayne Dwyer (I think) put it.
    And I know I have said this before – but if Michael’s family were more out there stating his case, these people would have less room to talk. ALL of them should be saying the same things to the media every chance they get – Arviso’s story was absurd, Jordan recanted, his autopsy showed him to be healthy, LMP and DR both were crazy about him, the kids are his biologically, he was a proud Black man. Instead these people who have access to a huge audience are busy with their crazy conspiracy theories and plots to nullify the will.

    Like

  5. July 13, 2011 5:13 pm

    In the earlier clips she, DB,also got the words “strange” and “weird” to come out of Aaron’s mouth, not to forget “bed”. It is time for Aaron to speak out. Michael was seriously damaged by Bashir’s editing, he made a prompt rebuttal. Someone who was there at the party said they played video games.

    Like

  6. July 13, 2011 7:46 am

    “Personally I don’t believe it was edited (you can hear the cutlery throughout the clip)”

    This is why it took her so long to release part 3. Editing the phrase and adding it to this video with no background noises would have been too non-professional. And this way – with cutlery and birds – it looks more or less okay.

    However I find it funny that Aaron said exactly one and the same phrase “I never smoke(d) weed with Michael Jackson” twice, only the second time with the key word NEVER missing.

    Given that the original variant was said under oath and we actually see it (and not just listen to the sound of cutlery and birds) I tend to believe the first variant – which is here at about 2:25: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtURiWjGM8o&feature=related

    Though Daphne is laughing now behind everyone’s back, he who laughs last laughs best.

    Like

  7. shelly permalink
    July 13, 2011 6:04 am

    @teva,

    Yes, but he spent a part of the night at Neverland, I think it’s what she meant. He didn’t stayed the whole night.

    Like

  8. Teva permalink
    July 13, 2011 5:53 am

    @ Shelly

    I thought Nick left the party and went home; leaving Aaron at Neverland overnight, and that drove Momma Carter crazy?

    Like

  9. shelly permalink
    July 13, 2011 4:55 am

    Shana Mangatal
    @Ana..I was at the party when Aaron and Nick Carter spent the night. After all of the guests left, we went to the arcade and played VIDEO GAMES! Innocent fun! Wine was served because it was a party, but no cocaine! lol. And if Aaron had wine, he probably got it himself. Michael was extremely kind and welcoming to Aaron and Nick, so its sad that Daphne Barack has turned their friendship into something sinister. She’s very good at getting people to say things they will regret later. It’s a shame.

    Like

  10. shelly permalink
    July 13, 2011 4:27 am

    The strange thing is, it’s not on Daphne website but only on youtube.

    Like

  11. Teva permalink
    July 13, 2011 2:16 am

    Personally I don’t believe it was edited (you can hear the cutlery throughout the clip). I just believved he said those things, but to each their own.

    Like

  12. July 12, 2011 9:43 pm

    I’ve just looked up the earlier video with Carter where he raises his hand in an oath and says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtURiWjGM8o&feature=related (at ~2:25):

    “I never smoke(d) weed with Michael Jackson”.

    It was very easy to turn this phrase into: “I .. smoke(d) weed with Michael”.

    I’m pretty sure she took that phrase, edited it and inserted into this tape.

    And in that tape they are talking about something (and someone) different. Probably not about Michael at all.

    Like

  13. July 12, 2011 9:05 pm

    Folks, I’ve listened to the tape and think that it is a fake – not the whole of it, but the key phrase about the “weed”. The sound is poor of course but not that poor for us not to notice a decided contrast between the loudness of the first part – then comes a pause – then he mumbles something about the weed and then again comes a louder part.

    What I mean is this (Suzy’s transcript):

    AC: Theres…theres another story. Something else (must)/that happened…Um

    DB: All sorts of stories from you today (laughs/coughs)

    AC: And it involves drugs

    DB: (hard to understand) thats bad news…thats sooo bad (I think)

    AC: And I’ll..I’ll tell you this

    DB: (again hard to understand) that I feel, that I feel all the weight of this

    AC: Me too, and I dont know if this is something that I ever want to talk about maybe…maybe not, but……………… me at 15 ………. I smoke weed with Michael.

    DB: (coughs)

    AC: Hands down, swear to God. You know he could always trust me obviously but

    DB: (mumbles)

    AC: this happened it really did…it really did.

    If he really wanted to stress that it did happen he would have clearly made his point. But instead he seems to be drawing back and saying it in a highly unnatural, toneless manner from some far-away distance. The intonation is all wrong and out of place. He could have drawn himself closer to Daphne Barak and say it to her in a hushed manner – but then it would have been louder, because her cough is very loud.

    And again – why does she cough here? When you hear a revelation like that you sit with baited breath knowing that you are recording and not a single morsel of the revelation should be lost.

    NO, something is terribly fishy here. It does look like a fake to me.

    Please listen again (I am not finding excuses for Aaron – I just want to know the truth):

    Like

  14. Julie permalink
    July 12, 2011 8:12 pm

    @lynande51 – I agree with you. The recordings are very grainy and it sounds as though they are eating or something and you never hear AC specifically state Michael Jackson did anything. You hear him say certain things, but never flat out stating it was Michael who did these things. It is all left to the imagination and has Michael’s name tagged to it by Barack. Now on the E! interview he did specifically state that there was wine at Neverland, but never said Michael gave it to him or forced it down his throat or anything. With all of the activity going on during the party, how would Michael be able to keep up with everyone and who was doing what?

    Like

  15. Julie permalink
    July 12, 2011 8:09 pm

    @lynande51 – I agree with you. The recordings are very grainy and it sounds as though they are eating or something and you never hear AC specifically state Michael Jackson did anything. Now on the E! interview he did specifically state that there was wine at Neverland, but never said Michael gave it to him or forced it down his throat or anything. With all of the activity going on, how would Michael be able to keep up with everyone and who was doing what?

    Like

  16. lynande51 permalink
    July 12, 2011 8:01 pm

    I have a word here that everyone is overlooking, it’s called editing. The fact that it took so long for Barak to release part 3 tells me that her editors just needed more time to do the right editing job. SInce the very beginning this whole thing has been a non story in my opinion. The orginal story was from a tabloid, given to them by a tabloid gossip writer. Unless I hear the original tape without editing and AC has said the things that he said I choose not to believe any part of it.In reality it is just another story about how tabloids and their contributors work. Nothing else.

    Like

  17. nan permalink
    July 12, 2011 6:29 pm

    http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20460048,00.html
    we all know Aaron is in a financial bind..desperate to kick start his career,owes the i.r.s. etc…..The weed story sounds like pure B.S. to me…He sounds desperate to impress this woman , …..Has to repeat twice that it is true etc……..Just sounds like he is trying to sound like some kind of insider..He was not, imo..
    I am not even commenting anywhere on this clip because of this article on Daphne..I dont want to give her attn..
    I really think he has painted himself into a corner with this thing because if he is going to have to go out to promote this cd, people will probably ask him about this garbage…….and it is garbage………Stupidly he trusted this woman to help him with his self promotion… .. he inadvertently threw himself under the bus as well…….Michael Jackson reputation and legacy will survive this latest attack……Wonder who in the music business is going to want to be affiliated with Aaron…..

    Like

  18. July 12, 2011 6:07 pm

    I had a bad feeling about this Aaron guy from the start.Both he and his older brother Nick have a history of drugabuse.Nick stopped after he was diagnosed as having cardiac(if I recall correctly)myopathy.It is not too long since Aaron completed his latest rehab.
    The question is who brought the marihuana to that party.I do not think Michael had any for his guests.Once out of sight from the adults Aaron may have pulled out a joint to share.Michael could not go to a dealer and buy it, neither do I think he would have had any of his staff do it.
    Aaron must have known how to get the stuff.And did Michnael share the joint?

    Like

  19. anniedomino permalink
    July 12, 2011 4:35 pm

    What I find strange is that Barrak waited so long to release this third tape…Surely the best time would have been when this debacle was at its peak about a week ago! If she had released this recording first it would have given her some kind of credibility as far as accurately reporting what Aaron said. Because it arguably boils down to the same thing morally. I personally think there is a huge difference between pot and cocaine, and so do most people I know. I have friends from decent homes and from various, strong, religious upbringings who have tried pot – but would be horrified if someone did a line in their presence. But no responsible adult would give either to a minor. So – let’s see what happens next…This does not look right to me.
    And I would love to hear from the other adults who were present – Rodney Jerkins, Mike Tyson and Chris Rock. They need to step up for Michael! He was not the only adult present at this party.

    Like

  20. July 12, 2011 4:12 pm

    So do I, VMJ, so do I.

    Like

  21. July 12, 2011 4:02 pm

    “He spent the last 8 years kissing MJ’s ass ( sorry for the language, but it’s really how I feel) and now he is doing that probably because he had a new album coming. Yes the transcript is right.”

    I feel sad because I saw those videos of Carter speaking about Michael when he was very young. And over there he never said a bad word about him – Aaron sounded genuine, sincere and even incredulous at the not-so-nice questions asked about him. And I believed him because you simply cannot fake things like that.

    I don’t know what happens to people when they grow older. Probably they begin to value their interests more than the truth or learn to compromise with their conscience for money reasons. Evidently it is the prize which matters to Aaron now – publicity for his new album or the money paid by Daphne Barak.

    Whichever case it is, out of the two Aarons I choose the younger one.

    Like

  22. shelly permalink
    July 12, 2011 3:11 pm

    @vindicate

    I agree with you it’s very sad and he looks like an idiot. He spent the last 8 years kissing MJ’s ass ( sorry for the language, but it’s really how I feel) and now he is doing that probably because he had a new album coming. Yes the transcript is right.

    Like

  23. July 12, 2011 3:06 pm

    “This is the last part from Barak’

    Shelly, I will listen to it when I am home (over here I have no sound). If the transcript is correct and this is what he indeed said it is deplorable. It looks to me like some stupid bragging of someone who has probably drunk too much. What is clear is that this Aaron Carter himself doesn’t know the truth from lies any longer and is as credible as Daphne Barak.

    You can’t imagine how tired of lies I am.

    Like

  24. shelly permalink
    July 12, 2011 1:39 pm

    @Alison,

    I was speaking about the Andersen book. I thought that book was at my post office but in fact it was the Dimond’s book, which I started reading. Dimond made me laugh when she said we don’t know what was the result of the Chandler second suit against Jackson.

    Like

  25. Alison permalink
    July 12, 2011 1:17 pm

    i have the darwin porter book, got it a few months ago for pennies. i got a little way in but it was exhausting! on every page it is a stream of drivel, and the incorrect “facts” and very questionable “facts” are so numerous i was running out of post-its. i was so annoyed it wore me out and i put it aside to finish another time and never have.

    But the stupidest thing that proves he did absolutely NO proper research at all is that he claims Michael wrote She’s Out of my Life about Tatum O’Neill.! It would have taken nothing to find out he never wrote that song but porter never bothered to check.

    its just one lie after another for maximum effect.

    So Shelly, if you do get it, get a lot of post – its too and sit comfortably to read it, make sure you have plenty of tea in and plenty of snacks available!

    Like

  26. shelly permalink
    July 12, 2011 12:52 pm

    From Carter twitter account

    Aaron Carter

    @DLovatoGossip I see your tweets!😉 I Love you too!! Are you getting ready for my new album? Cause it’s almost done!!

    Like

  27. anniedomino permalink
    July 12, 2011 12:30 pm

    Aaron sounds like he is trying to impress her. He is behaving like a typical 23 year old who thinks it’s “cool” to boast about getting drunk and high. I just think that when it comes to Michael Jackson people lose all sense of proportion. I have heard lots of theories about how fame drove MJ mad. Stand up Schmuley!! I actually think it is the other way around. Michael Jackson’s uberfame drove the people around him mad. Even his family. I believe that most people are essentially good – and that most of the people who worked with Michael probably started off with the best intentions. And then the Enquirer starts calling and offering thousands of dollars for the pictures MJ throws in his trash, etc…A lot of people cannot handle that.
    I am currently reading Leonard Rowe’s book.I believe that in between the crap one finds a few unintentional nuggets of truth. Rowe says he wanted the family to intervene about Michael’s “drug use” in 2007. His evidence that MJ was drugging? He was “frail”. As if Michael was ever all that big! No dilated pupils, or slurred words, or track marks. Leonard was not even in his company for that long! Then Leonard starts rallying the family for this “intervention”. And then he lets something slip. He speaks of Whitney and Natalie Cole’s mothers taking charge of them to help them get over their addictions. You know which parent I think he was really thinking of when he cited these two good women – Jamie Spears! He even says that they needed Michael’s mother on board to have him “committed”. I think Joe and Leonard were plotting a conservatorship. Hence all the talk about drug addiction and interventions. He also lets slip that Michael and Rebbie had “no relationship” in 2007 – even thought they were both living in Las Vegas.And then he shows us a copy of the letter Michael signed that he claims as proof that Michael retained him. What strikes me is Michael’s handwritten amendments. And the fact that the letter is not signed by a notary public. IMO that letter was not legally binding – and Michael knew it perfectly well. Our MJ was no-one’s fool.

    Like

  28. Suzy permalink
    July 12, 2011 7:14 am

    The transcript. No excuses for Aaron any more.

    AC: Theres…theres another story. Something else (must)/that happened…Um

    DB: All sorts of stories from you today (laughs/coughs)

    AC: And it involves drugs

    DB: (hard to understand) thats bad news…thats sooo bad (I think)

    AC: And I’ll..I’ll tell you this

    DB: (again hard to understand) that I feel, that I feel all the weight of this

    AC: Me too, and I dont know if this is something that I ever want to talk about maybe…maybe not, but me at 15 I smoke weed with Michael.

    DB: (coughs)

    AC: Hands down, swear to God. You know he could always trust me obviously but

    DB: (mumbles)

    AC: this happened it really did…it really did.

    Like

  29. Julie permalink
    July 12, 2011 5:25 am

    Hopefully by now both sides have lost their credibility. So far I haven’t seen he update with the new revelations anywhere else. Hopefully Aaron will just go away!

    Like

  30. Teva permalink
    July 12, 2011 5:00 am

    Oops I forgot not crack just dope.

    Like

  31. July 12, 2011 4:59 am

    He looked stupid the last time he did this too, when he said MJ gave him a car for doing What More Can I Give in an interview on ET. Then MJ’s rep denied it and MJ denied it to Aaron’s mother, then Aaron’s rep said it was true and in 2006 Aaron said “no, never happened” when asked about the car on Howard Stern.

    He doesn’t know which way around he is.

    Like

  32. Teva permalink
    July 12, 2011 4:53 am

    Plus he made himself look stupid. Going on E! and all that BS knowing what he said all along.

    Like

  33. shelly permalink
    July 12, 2011 4:47 am

    I know he has 0 credibility and he was on the defense list, but I still lile to read it, he seems to exagerate his friendship with MJ and it’s why I’d like to know how many times did he met him.

    Like

  34. ares permalink
    July 12, 2011 4:36 am

    Since Carter was in the defence list you can realise by yourself that he didn’t say the crap that he is telling now. And you can take an idea of what he might have told them by watching the videos of his talking about MJ before he died.Carter said what he said for attention and my strong belief is that he was also trying to impress Barak. Is time for this stupid story to fade away.Carter got the attention that he wanted but on the expence of MJ’s reputation. Let it go.

    Like

  35. Teva permalink
    July 12, 2011 4:26 am

    Shelly, the guy is not credible. Does it matter what he said anymore?

    Like

  36. shelly permalink
    July 12, 2011 4:20 am

    Because the police interviewed Carter and I’d like to know what he told them. By the way, how many times did he met MJ.

    Like

  37. Teva permalink
    July 12, 2011 4:16 am

    @Shelly,

    Why would Mez have something to say?

    Like

  38. ares permalink
    July 12, 2011 4:09 am

    Why should Mesereau has to say something about this?

    Like

  39. shelly permalink
    July 12, 2011 4:02 am

    I really wonder what Mesereau jas to say about that.

    Like

  40. Teva permalink
    July 12, 2011 3:51 am

    Hmmm Shelly!

    I don’t believe a word of it! But that’s just me. Smoking dope with a 15 year old is so anti-MJ. I don’t know why Aaron Carter is saying this, or if he believes this through some hallucinogenic state. Well at least it wasn’t crack (cough). He is really making himself look stupid, but now we know why he didn’t deny the allegations when they first arose: because said it.

    Like

  41. shelly permalink
    July 12, 2011 3:24 am

    This is the last part from Barak

    Like

  42. shelly permalink
    July 11, 2011 11:06 pm

    I think the third leg of the Dangerous was supposed to be in the US. That didn’t happen because of the allegations.

    Like

  43. anniedomino permalink
    July 11, 2011 10:34 pm

    I also went into Amazon to check out the comments. The 5 star reviews are mind-boggling. My pet hate is when they call US out for being out of touch with reality. We fans are always portrayed as being mindless. Y’know I started researching Michael when I was about 17/18 – around the Bad era when all the “W%cko J&cko” stuff started coming out. I got into terrible fights with people about Michael – including my own family. But even at that age I just knew that that stuff was a load of garbage. It was also during that era that the media started trying to diminish his career – Bad did not sell as much as Thriller therefore it was a “failure”, that narrative. I remember being pleasantly surprised reading a Q Magazine review of the Bad tour – they were actually saying positive stuff for a change. In fact they were positively gushing. I hate to admit this – but I am actually qualified as a journalist, though I have never worked as one. Michael inspired my final dissertation. It was about the tabloidisation of the press.
    One of the things that I think Michael could have done differently in his career – and I say this in all humility – is to tour the US more extensively. The last real US tour he did was Victory. Bad only did a few US cities, and Dangerous and HIStory did none. I know he and his managers must have had their reasons – and they know the business, I don’t. But a massive US tour to support Dangerous would have left a lasting impression and maybe offset some of the hate he had to face in the US. Just my opinion!

    Like

  44. ares permalink
    July 11, 2011 3:31 pm

    -This comment shows how the hater mind operates. This reviewer knows the book is trashy, sleazy, mean-spirited, extremely ugly – yet he/she praises it! Because that’s exactly what he/she wants! Not the truth, but something to “justify” his/her initial irrational hatred of Michael. – Suzy

    Suzy you were spot on with this comment. This is what i thought when i read some of those comments. People who hate MJ know that some of the dirt that they are reading are exactly that, dirt and lies, but they don’t care because it feeds their hate and twisted opinion that they have about Mike. And that’s exactly what they want. Reasons to hate, not facts and truth.

    Like

  45. anniedomino permalink
    July 11, 2011 1:43 pm

    Your posts have just brought back some of that Darwin Porter book. In his book he not only seems obsessed with the idea that Michael is gay, he basically brands almost everyone else in Hollywood as gay or bisexual. He glosses over Michael’s wives. According to him – if memory serves – both Vincent Price and Leonard Bernstein tongue-kissed Michael. I have heard the Bernstein story somewhere else. But that is the tone of the book. The whole of H’Wood is gay and in the closet. He portrays Michael in his late teens and early twenties as extremely effeminate – the “high voice” being the starting point.I think this portrayal of Michael at this stage of his life started with JRT’s book. JRT does not describe Michael as effeminate per se – but shy, timid, lacking confidence, naive, thin-skinned, etc… And I think authors build on this and add their own embellishments and interpretations. I think the period between 1976 – 1981 is a very significant area in his life that is misrepresented. I don’t believe that “timid, naive” stereotype. The evidence does not support it. He was partying at Studio 54, hanging out with Warhol and Liza M, there are at least three girls (Tatum, Stephanie and Teresa) who claim to have dated him during this time. In 1981 he attended the AMA’s and Oscars with Diana Ross. If the Diana Ross relationship ever happened it was at this time. I DO think there were lots of gay men who were interested in Michael – David Geffen, Andy Warhol possibly and either Halston or Calvin Klein, and we have all heard the Quincy Jones and Eddie Murphy stories – but the evidence is conclusive that he turned them all down.
    One clear factual error I remember in Porter’s book – he claims that Michael threw a tantrum at the 1980 Grammy’s when OTW did not get best album. Of course we know the album was not nominated and Michael did not attend the ceremony.

    Like

  46. July 11, 2011 12:52 pm

    “Some more I found on Darwin Porter. All of his books are like that apparently”

    Suzy, it was a very good idea to have a look at what Darwin Porter has written about others. There seems to be a pattern – being what he is, he is simply unable to write anything good about others. Everyone projects his own mind and thinking onto other people – so if he is a mug of dirt, everyone else should be too.

    The more we look around the more sick madmen we see – and why do all of them think they can write books? Why don’t they take a shovel and go to dig up a ditch? It is the same dirt which they like so much.

    Like

  47. July 11, 2011 12:32 pm

    The Estate Message To Fans Regarding Aaron and Latoya

    Shelly, thank you very much for the message. I’ll add it to the post if you don’t mind.

    Like

  48. July 11, 2011 12:28 pm

    “the reviewer means the Quindoys “diary”.

    Suzy, thanks. Now I see that all those crazy people wrote their fairy tales about Michael. It is surprising that with so much “incriminating information” neither the police, nor DCFS and FBI could find anything against Michael for two decades. Must be a global conspiracy initiated by Michael Jackson against the world’s population.

    Like

  49. Suzy permalink
    July 11, 2011 7:46 am

    His book on Humphrey Bogart: http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Life-Humphrey-Bogart-1899-1931/product-reviews/0966803051/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

    And some comments:

    1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
    1.0 out of 5 stars A pack of slanderous lies, July 9, 2010
    By
    Hardwicke Benthow “hbenthow” (Ms.) – See all my reviews

    This review is from: The Secret Life of Humphrey Bogart: The Early Years (1899-1931) (Paperback)
    This book is pure trash. It includes disgusting lies about just about ever actor and actress of the 1930s. Even if the trash in this book were true, it would be impossible for the author to have included it in such detail. He writes as if he knew every thought in the back of every actor or actress’ head at any given time. As if he was there at every event big or small, that happened in the book. As if he memorized every word spoken. Not to mention that many of the things he has these people saying are so long and obviously written for the book that no person could have possibly spoken them in conversation. Don’t waste your money.

    5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
    1.0 out of 5 stars A truly hateful book, May 9, 2009
    By
    Nellie Steen (Santa monica. CA. USA) – See all my reviews
    (REAL NAME)

    This review is from: The Secret Life of Humphrey Bogart: The Early Years (1899-1931) (Kindle Edition)
    This was the most nasty, filthy book I have ever read. Well, I only read half of it and could not stomach any more. I recently removed it from my bookcase and shredded every single page. I ran the Bogart/Bacall fan club from 1946 to 1951, Bogie would have sued this author if he had written this before his death. For all Bogart fans….DO NOT BUY OR READ THIS TERRIBLE BOOK.

    3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
    1.0 out of 5 stars Beaten to a Pulp Fiction, September 10, 2007
    By
    Richard Adkins (Toluca Lake, CA USA) – See all my reviews
    (REAL NAME)

    This review is from: The Secret Life of Humphrey Bogart: The Early Years (1899-1931) (Paperback)
    I stumbled upon this book with its extensive online excerpts while researching Eva Von Berne, a Viennese actress-model discovered by Irving Thalberg and Norma Shearer on their 1927 honeymoon. Miss Von Berne was brought to the U.S. and MGM publicists immediately began releasing press stories for fear they would repeat their earlier mistake of believing that little would become of another MGM import, Greta Garbo. But in this case the 17 year old Von Berne couldn’t act and was slightly overweight (120 lbs.!) She was sent back to Europe on a boat where she made three more films before she passed away. The point being that she was only in the U.S. a short time, that it is unlikely that Thalberg would have been having sex with her on his honeymoon, and even less likely that Von Berne would have been around to commment on the Jean Harlow-Paul Bern nuptials since she died before the engagement was announced. Hollywood is FULL of people who like to trash stars – both dead and alive – and writers who believe these unreliable stories and use both the tellers of the tales and the dead celebrities to make money. This includes marginally more responsible writers who have axes to grind and want all stars to be ambisexual. I’m not suprised no one has sued him because doing so would give this book waaaaay more publicity than it deserves. Its a word version of the 1930’s “Tijuana Bibles” that used the same content, only pictorially.

    4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
    1.0 out of 5 stars Skip this one unless you love the tabloids!, June 20, 2007
    By
    A. Rinderer “adr6276” (St. Louis, MO, USA) – See all my reviews
    (REAL NAME)

    This review is from: The Secret Life of Humphrey Bogart: The Early Years (1899-1931) (Paperback)
    Totally agree with all the negative reviews about this book! I’ve gotten up to chapter 6, after about 2 weeks of reading, and I’m not sure I can go on. Porter barely talks about Bogie’s early career except to say which costar he had his eye on. The detailed conversations included make me wonder if everyone in Hollywood was also wearing a wire besides sleeping with everyone. Even if this is based on part of the journals kept by MacKenna and others, no one I know writes in that much detail. Especially when they weren’t there to witness the event in the first place. I’m torn between finishing this book to see if anything remotely interesting about Bogie’s career is revealed, and my pride of always finishing a book I start, or just tossing it back onto the bookcase to await the next book drive at the YMCA. I wonder if it’s took late to my money back? I feel dirty contributing my money to this kind of sleazy so-called biography. And to those who rated this 5 stars, did you copy your review straight from the book’s back cover or the publisher’s press release? If you’re die hard fan of the supermarket tabloids and need some juicy gossip, filled with some soft core porn, then this book is for you. Otherwise, skip it!

    9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
    1.0 out of 5 stars Laughable at best!!!!, January 24, 2006
    By
    REPO (minneapolis mn) – See all my reviews

    This review is from: The Secret Life of Humphrey Bogart: The Early Years (1899-1931) (Paperback)
    I will issue this caveat,I am hardly homophobic and a very liberal person to say the least,that said:This book can only be looked at as a joke.It would seem Mr.Porter needed to write out a gay fantasy where everyone beds eachother regarldess of sex,and our characters inhabit a world where every male is well endowed,and they all know this because they (as Mr.Porter writes time and again)”did the obligatory pecker check while standing at the urinal”.As other reviews have stated,this book has phoney dialogue that the author could never have been privy to and no bibliography to back it up.It’s a bad game of sexual telephone at best,to be looked at as historical fiction for the Tom of Finland crowd.At worst,it’s a lousy attempt to cash in on Bogart and the nostalgia of his day.It is no wonder no big publisher picked this up.And that not being for a lack of couth on the major publishers part,it is just that even if Mr.Porters claims could be backed up his juvenile prose still sinks this ungodly tome.Enjoy!!!!!!!

    13 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
    1.0 out of 5 stars The Ed Wood of Books, October 21, 2005
    By
    Gabriel Levin “Bookman” (Toronto) – See all my reviews
    (REAL NAME)

    This review is from: The Secret Life of Humphrey Bogart: The Early Years (1899-1931) (Paperback)
    This is perhaps the worst book ever written. Porter pretends to have written this book through thorough documentation (from interviews, tapes, etc…). Hilariously, not only is he privy to intimate conversations, he also claims to have the inside information on what people were thinking…and not in general terms. This book also contains some of the funniest (albeit filthiest) lines in the history of prose. It’s zero stars for quality and 5 stars for enjoyability. Truly an anti-masterpiece that will live on for decades.

    Like

  50. Suzy permalink
    July 11, 2011 7:39 am

    Some more I found on Darwin Porter. All of his books are like that apparently:

    “Hi everybody,

    Just read that a new book will be released by some author named Darwin Porter. It’s called “Steve McQueen, King Of Cool” and the following is in the product description:

    The drama of Steve McQueen’s life far surpassed those that unravelled on-screen. His mother, a prostitute, seduced him as part of an Oedipal fling. He’d been brutally molested by some of her customers, endured gang rape at school and worked as a porn performer and escort to the rich. When stardom eventually arrived, he in turn treated his lovers (Marilyn Monroe, Faye Dunaway et al.) with contempt whilst other sexual liaisons with men developed. He lived life at top speed and defied categorisation. His death still remains a source of lurid speculation.

    If this isn’t bad enough, this so-called writer has also written a book on Paul Newman entitled: “Paul Newman, The Man Behind the Baby Blues”. Check out this synopsis:

    Porter began his research on screen legend Paul Newman in 1959 and continued collecting stories about Hud, Cool Hand Luke and Butch Cassidy until the day the star died. Newman was remarkably different to the public face he showed the world, and filled with contradition: Macho hetersexual, closeted bisexual, loyal companion, heartbreaking lover. Revealed here for the first time are Newman’s clandestine relationships with Marylin Monroe, Jacqui-O, Steve McQueen, Tom Cruise and Judy Garland. From pitfall to pinnacle, Porter exposes the darkest secrets in Newman’s life.

    Can’t we start a petition to prevent this garbage from being released? It’s a shame that a company like Amazon is lending its good name to this.”

    Someone answered to that:

    “Darwin Porter is a sleaze obsessed star-biographer whose books are considered “fiction” by most educated readers. From my understanding of him, his books are based mostly on two things 1) gossip and 2) his own imagination. I’ve never read one of his books, but I have read reviews of them.”

    Another comment:

    “Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s much of a legal basis upon which the McQueeen family can sue – certainly not libel, since that is, by definition, a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person.

    This guy’s just on a mission to “out” celebrities and fuel his own fantasies. It’s another part of the dark side of fame.”

    Another:

    “Unfortunately in America, there are more laws geared towards protecting the fractionalized profits of corporate entities, copyrights and “intellectual property” than there are to defend the truth about anyone or anything. It’s pretty much a given that if the McQueen family objected in any way to these slanderous lies publicly, it would send sales of the book through the roof. And there’s no way to pull it unless it can be proven to be racially inflamatory. These books are tossed out there like bait. Porter would love nothing more than to see the media announcent of a family objection and His book plastered on the background of every news story. You know the saying here “There’s no such thing as bad publicity”
    Especially when it’s FREE.

    But I’m with you!! That’s why it’s important at least for us to speak up. Getting the word out “underground”, so to speak, at least among fans could hurt his sales a little if they are united.”

    http://www.mcqueenonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1678

    Like

  51. Suzy permalink
    July 11, 2011 7:32 am

    “I wondered whether Porter is some kind of sexual deviant.”

    It would not surprise me. People usually project themselves, their own issues onto Michael.

    “Yet he is put down for not being sophisticated, well read,”

    Anybody who says Michael wasn’t well read, clearly knows nothing about him! If he meant he wasn’t well-read as a child. What the heck! He was a child!

    “Michael Jackson Unauthorized” is everything a trashy “unauthorized” show-biz biography should be: sleazy, mean-spirited, and extremely ugly. It will definitely offend most of his fans, but if you’ve ever been skeptical about the Michael Jackson “phenomenon” (like I have), the book is a highly entertaining dissection of this pathetic, pretentious, and terminally freakish pop star.”

    This comment shows how the hater mind operates. This reviewer knows the book is trashy, sleazy, mean-spirited, extremely ugly – yet he/she praises it! Because that’s exactly what he/she wants! Not the truth, but something to “justify” his/her initial irrational hatred of Michael.

    “And from this comment we learn that Chris Andersen used a certain DIARY – which is of course that non-existent diary which laid the basis for Gutierrez’s book. What is interesting is that Andersen wrote his book in 1994 while Gutierrez in 1996. Did Gutierrez supply him with his “diary” and was it their first joint attempt to test the idea of it?”

    Helena, the reviewer means the Quindoys “diary”.

    Like

  52. shelly permalink
    July 11, 2011 2:45 am

    The Estate Message To Fans Regarding Aaron and Latoya

    The Estate of Michael Jackson Message to Fans – RE: Aaron Carter & Latoya Jackson
    Fans have asked the Estate to elaborate on its decision to respond to some of LaToya Jackson’s comments as she promoted her new book, as well as its decision not to respond formally to a false and erroneous report out of Australia that allegedly quoted Aaron Carter as saying he and Michael used drugs together.

    If someone severely misrepresents the facts surrounding Michael’s Estate and makes serious, reckless and false accusations that go unanswered, it demeans and maligns Michael’s memory and legacy, and may also potentially hurt the business of the Estate, thereby affecting the future earnings that benefit Michael’s beneficiaries.

    When a tabloid report like the Aaron Carter story occurs, involving claims made by people who knew Michael during his life, the Estate always must ask the same questions: how credible is the source; can it be verified; and would issuing a public response only put an unwarranted spotlight on a questionable, negative story about Michael the Estate has no desire to publicize?

    In this case, the Executors knew the account came from a marginal celebrity gossip site, and was conducted by a journalist with a long history of controversy involving Michael and his family. Furthermore, the Executors also knew Aaron Carter had previously denied the allegations to People magazine, something that was noted to any media who asked the Estate about the report. In the end, the Estate believes the story took care of itself: Aaron Carter’s decision to refute it himself was the best solution, in that it called the most attention possible to the credibility of this story. Any benefit from the Estate calling out irresponsible media reportage could then possibly be outweighed by the detriment of even more media spotlight on a bogus story.

    As for LaToya Jackson, the Estate felt compelled to respond to irresponsible and untruthful statements that were defamatory, and which grossly misrepresented facts that are in the public court record. LaToya was going on many television shows, repeating some of the same bogus info, and the Estate felt it important to try and contain any additional/future damage beyond that which had already been done, and, sadly, which had already started to be repeated as fact by other media to promote their sites or sell their news reports.

    It’s probably an impossible task to make decisions that everyone likes. Some will agree, some will disagree, but in the end, it is the ultimate responsibility of the Co-Executors to fulfill their obligations per Michael’s wishes by doing what they think best in each and every instance, to protect, preserve, and grow Michael’s legacy and memory for Michael and his fans, and to protect, preserve and grow the Estate for its beneficiaries.

    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/michael-jackson-news/the-estate-message-to-fans-regarding-aaron-and-latoya

    Like

  53. shelly permalink
    July 11, 2011 2:10 am

    I am going to start reading that book tomorrow.

    Like

  54. July 11, 2011 2:08 am

    I’ve just found out that there is no limit of hate people would go to in respect of Michael Jackson. You think Chris Andersen’s book is the worst? No, it seems that there are a lot more of them. To cite only a few:

    Jacko, His Rise and Fall: The Social and Sexual History of Michael Jackson by Darwin Porter (Hardcover – August 17, 2009) (QUICK JOB!)

    Some comments:
    1.0 out of 5 stars “Terrible Book On Michael Jackson Look Elsewhere”, February 3, 2010
    By
    Tommy Morais (The Great White North) – See all my reviews
    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER) (REAL NAME)
    This review is from: Jacko, His Rise and Fall: The Social and Sexual History of Michael Jackson (Hardcover)
    I read many books about Michael Jackson because I loved what he did for music and he was a great person. Unfortunately this book is not what any fan wants to read and proved to be another bunch of lies and an attempt at getting money. I could stop right there but it would be too easy to say unflattering things about Darwin Porter’s work “Jacko, His Rise and fall: The Social and Sexual History of Michael Jackson” without giving a deeper explanation. I should have known better the name alone Jacko is not respectful .The book starts with Michael’s youth and seems quite positive at first and seemed like a good read. However, it didn’t take too long for the author to give his annoying and unbiased comments on nearly every page, and then he comes up with tabloid subjects and he goes into each of them unsuccessfully trying to prove something bad about Michael.

    I didn’t like that author was focused on Michael’s sexuality even at a very young age, after reading this book I can say that he clearly thinks Michael is homosexual and doesn’t even make you think that he could be hetero for just one second. But he goes in details as he says writes like “Michael is a Jehovah’s Witness and homosexuality is against his religion” and offers that Michael went to some bars in New York where he met homosexuals who were interested in him but he denied them because of his religion and he doesn’t approve of their choice. He also writes that Michael might have been sexually abused when he was just a child and many other subjects without any true sources or much to prove that some of the things he wrote here were really said or true which is sad for him.

    The only positive thing about the book is that it covers Michael’s entire life from his childhood to adult, and that there are many, many pictures of the celebrities he mentions in the book so you have an idea of who said what according to Darwin. Not that it’s exactly positive but it’s the best thing about the book. There were not any pictures of Michael (except at the beginning of the book) though for a book in which he’s the subject there aren’t many. The book dates from 2007 but the 2009 edition has a new chapter after the death of Michael not that it matters much.If you’re looking for collection of the tabloids subjects over the years, this is the one you’re looking for but I don’t know why you would want that unless you’re not a fan of Michael. He writes that Michael is the one who was behind the story of the Elephant Man and wanted to gain extra publicity, while that may seem like an interesting theory he has NOTHING to demonstrate ANY proof at all! Oh and the author’s adds in the end were terrible! I’m giving this a one star rating. I don’t recommend it to any fans of Michael.

    1.0 out of 5 stars Just a compilation of tabloid rumors, January 5, 2010
    By lachu “lachu 79932” (TX USA)
    This review is from: Jacko, His Rise and Fall: The Social and Sexual History of Michael Jackson (Hardcover)

    I was hoping to read an objective book about Michael Jackson, not a compilation of tabloid gossip. The author seems obsessed with MJ “homosexuality” and doesn’t leave any room for the possibility that he was a heterosexual man. There were several women in MJ’s life and the most important for him were not even mentioned in this book. There’s no cronological order in his story and he jumps from one subject to another which I found very annoying. What bothered me the most is the fact that the author doesn’t give MJ any credit for hardly anything, and when he does, he does so reluctantly. This book is the typical fast-money-maker opportunistic publication. It seems like the author thought: “Whatever money I make out of it, is OK, I didn’t have to make any effort writing it anyway, I just put all the tabloid garbage, mix it with a few real facts, and that’s it.”

    3.0 out of 5 stars poor English, poor “documentation”, April 9, 2010
    By J. Debelkadi (santa cruz, CA) –
    This review is from: Jacko, His Rise and Fall: The Social and Sexual History of Michael Jackson (Hardcover)

    Porter is not a good writer at all, and because of this, it’s difficult to get through the book, which is filled with choppy, small paragraphs, not always written in time sequence. The pace of the book feels like a stumbling journey through a high-schooler’s report.

    Unsubstantiated “facts” are the main meat of the tome; sensational stories are preceded by such credibility-shatterers as, “a source says…” “an ex-employee reports…” “a music industry source claims…” “one irate manufacturer said…” “Michael was said to have…” “One reviewer said…” “Reportedly…”

    So few of the “facts” and stories are documented with names or footnotes that it’s evident from the start that what you’re reading is -unless properly documented – is complete fiction. Whole conversations are shared; how does anybody share entire pages of dialogue and expect to be credible?

    Should you be someone who has fun reading crap – as I sometimes am – this book is OK. If you’re someone looking for well-documented pieces on Jackson, check out Taraborelli’s fat biography, or something else. This is fiction, as far as I see it. Sort of fun if you can get past the poor writing.

    1.0 out of 5 stars Don’t waste your money!!!, August 28, 2009
    By Fuschiaqueen “Fuschiaqueen” (Australia)
    This review is from: Jacko, His Rise and Fall: The Social and Sexual History of Michael Jackson (Hardcover)

    Including ‘Jacko’ in the title should have warned me this book would not show MJ favourably at all. It is full of ‘well informed sources’ who don’t wish to be named and who generally have a ‘bone to pick’ over some issue or other. Early into the book the writer comments on how Michael Jackson in spite of being old enough to have a girlfriend, showed no interest in sex. Porter then proceeds to make negative comments about this. And then he says Michael was 13 at the time. I found this disgusting. He was merely a child. I wondered whether Porter is some kind of sexual deviant.

    The book shows no matter what Michael Jackson did, he would be crucified from every angle possible and from many ‘players’. He simply couldn’t win in the end. He is one of the greatest, if not the greatest entertainer of all time, clearly demonstrated by his phenomenal record breaking sales. Eccentric yes but he was a creative genius. Yet he is put down for not being sophisticated, well read, aware of all the classic movies, who starred in them, that he wasn’t politicised, that he wasn’t very articulate, on and on it goes – all this when he was in his late teens and early twenties. These skills take time to develop. When was he supposed to have ‘clocked up’ expertise in all these other areas as well is what I’m curious about. Porter’s tone throughout the book is one of mockery and sarcasm rather than objectivity. Considering MJ came from a poor Afro American background where he was severely abused, the guy should be hailed as a miracle rather than put down and demonised as he is in this book. He must’ve had a phenomenal amount of inner personal strength and spirit to have merely survived as long as he did let alone reach such heights of creativity and success.

    Michael Jackson was acquitted of molestation charges. What I am baffled about is why didn’t ALL the boys and their parents come up and give evidence against him before, during and even after the hearing or start their own new prosecution against him if he molested them? Virtually every page however, shows Porter’s biase towards Michael Jackson being a pederast or gay or both.

    I felt incredibly frustrated and angry reading this book. I can honestly say I had one of Michael Jackson’s CD’s prior to his death but wasn’t a passionate fan prior to his death but since his death, I have become rather curious about him. I have purchased a number of books and other reading material. After buying 4 DVD’s and another 4 CD’s I am now a passionate fan and can’t believe what I have missed for all these years. What this book shows is that no matter what he did, he couldn’t win. Virtually everyone he came in contact with wanted his money and would try to get it from him in any way possible.

    If you’re a Michael Jackson fan, don’t read it. It is very upsetting. Go for Aphrodite Jones instead. Much better writer. Respectful, clear thinking and has a conscience.

    1.0 out of 5 stars save your money!!!!, September 25, 2009
    By Unique (Washington, D.C.)
    This review is from: Jacko, His Rise and Fall: The Social and Sexual History of Michael Jackson (Hardcover)

    The disrespectful title alone tells you that this so called book is based on media propaganda and fiction! As MJ said himself, his name is JACKSON. This is nothing more than an expensive tabloid magazine. It doesn’t deserve one star!

    ANOTHER ABOMINABLE BOOK IS:
    FREAK!: Inside the Twisted World of Michael Jackson by David Perel (Mass Market Paperback – February 1, 2005)

    Some comments:

    1.0 out of 5 stars Laughable Attempt by the National Enquirer, January 23, 2011
    By ~*Rainbow Heydrich*
    This review is from: FREAK!: Inside the Twisted World of Michael Jackson (Mass Market Paperback)

    For those of you who are not blinded by facts this is worth reading.

    Yet for those of us who think facts are relevant, this book will prove itself to be a waste of time–time which we will never get back. We’re in an economy which does not allow for the average Joe to spend his hard-earned cash on useless trifles such as this… (to call it a book would be an insult to the great masterpieces of the printed page.) If you absolutely must read something Michael Jackson-related, I advise you to pick up Aphrodite Jones’ great book instead. At least you’ll know that book came from a reputable source, since Jones is a recognized journalist whose sources are reliable. Her book is titled “The Michael Jackson Conspiracy.” It’s a better use of your money than this rag here.

    Anyone who buys this book is an idiot who loves to part with money. In these trying times, we have no such luxury. Seriously, this is nothing more than an overly lengthy tabloid rag.

    …Shame on you. True murderers!

    1.0 out of 5 stars GARBAGE!!!!, February 17, 2006
    By E. Dan “Ema21” (Toronto, Canada)
    This review is from: Freak: Inside the Twisted World of Michael Jackson (Mass Market Paperback)

    I cant believe that as a fan I was curious and actually read this book. I have never in my life read anything this filthy. This is not a book, this is right out of the National Enquirer and is only full of complete and utter crap. I have never sworn so much while reading a book. Everything was maniputated and so many of the “facts” presented were wrong, completely false, pulled out of someones behind, I swear. It seemed unedited also, as the grammer was bad at times… I still cant believe that some people believe this absolute rubbish. This book, is a horrible insult to the greatest musician the world has ever known and ever will know. THIS IS GARBAGE!!!
    DO NOT READ IT!!! THIS BOOK IS TABLOID CRAP!!!!
    Just BURN IT!!!!

    1.0 out of 5 stars You can’t be serious., March 24, 2003
    By Jocelyn
    This review is from: Freak: Inside the Twisted World of Michael Jackson (Mass Market Paperback)

    One important detail readers of this book might be missing is on page 2 where the following is written: “From the Tales of the NATIONAL INQUIRER.” C’mon people, this is the same company that puts out headlines like, “J-Lo Visits Psychic and Reaches Dead Lesbian Lover.” True, Michael seems to be doing a lot of fibbing here lately -like about the plastic surgery- but most of the context in this book is so far-fetched it is hardy believable. I feel bad for the poor guy when stuff like this is put out. Do yourselves a favor and don’t buy it- I wish I hadn’t.

    3.0 out of 5 stars Kind of repetitive, March 11, 2003
    By Thomas Joy (Centralia, il USA)
    This review is from: Freak: Inside the Twisted World of Michael Jackson (Mass Market Paperback)

    The book has a lot of good points and makes the reader wonder why Michael Jackson wanders the free world. It borrows heavily from Michael Jackson-Unauthorized. It keeps repeating the fact that he didn’t have a pleasant upbringing and he is trying to relive his childhood. I think most of us knew that; fan or non fan. I am not a fan but believe he is talented and puts on a good show for his fans. I do not believe that MJ should be free to keep up the sick type behavior he seems to revel in. Why does anyone that gets into his inner circle need to sign confidentiality agreements? I think the answer is pretty obvious. I hope the guy gets help and I think his career is pretty well over. He gets caught up in a lot of lies too, which are pretty obvious, i.e. plastic surgery. He likes to put his spin on things to build himself up but the sad thing is that he is spinning out of control.

    4.0 out of 5 stars Freak Insie the twisted world of Michael Jackson, April 15, 2003
    By A Customer
    This review is from: Freak: Inside the Twisted World of Michael Jackson (Mass Market Paperback)

    First of all it says From the files of the National Enquirer. They have been sued so many times for writing false stories. And I don’t think Nick Bishop did his research very well about Jehovah’s Witnesses. Because on pg.114 it says Michael could have heard voices of angry preachers calling hellfire for his sins. Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in a Hellfire. Also it says where his mom Katherine took him to a nun to get help. No way would a devout Jehovah’s Witness take someone to a nun to talk to. This shows me that if you didn’t do your research on Jehovah’s Witnesses than you didn’t do an accurate research on the rest of the book.

    AND THIS COMMENT SHOWS THAT THE BOOK WAS PUBLISHED JUST ON THE EVE OF THE TRIAL, THUS PASSING A VERDICT BEFORE THE JURY DID:
    5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent read, February 2, 2005
    By QuickReads
    This review is from: FREAK!: Inside the Twisted World of Michael Jackson (Mass Market Paperback)

    This is an excellent and fascinating book. With Jackson’s trial about to start I couldn’t resist picking this up and I wasn’t disappointed. Even if you think you know everything about Michael Jackson and his career this book will provide you with new information. There’s so much I had forgotten and so much I didn’t know and it was all here in a very well written format. I highly recommend it.

    AND NOW A RECENT ONE: Michael Jackson, Backdoor to Neverland: Exposing the King of Pop’s Secret Mindsets by Yves Gautier (Paperback – May 3, 2010)

    Some comments:
    1.0 out of 5 stars a absolutely waste of time., June 28, 2010
    By Ben (CA)
    This review is from: Michael Jackson, Backdoor to Neverland: Exposing the King of Pop’s Secret Mindsets (Paperback)

    It’s quite obvious that the author knows nothing about Michael Jackson.

    You think the Jackson family is exploiting Michael Jackson? Buying this book is even worse.

    This book should be called “Backdoor to exploiting Michael Jackson”, because this is exactly what it is.

    This is yet another “author” trying to cash in on the Michael Jackson name.

    1.0 out of 5 stars Possibly the worst book I ever read, December 12, 2010
    By Sara Etten (Niagara Falls, ny United States)
    This review is from: Michael Jackson, Backdoor to Neverland: Exposing the King of Pop’s Secret Mindsets (Paperback)

    One day I was surfing YouTube and some Michael Jackson conspiracy video (possibly how the Illuminati killed him, or how he predicted 9/11) had a link to the web page for this book, and I thought “Ok, I’ll bite.” I found the website to be entertaining, and I figured, why not. I was hoping the book would be terribly amusing, but instead it was just terrible.

    Where to even begin? I could point out inaccuracies, or pure idiocy on every page. Let’s start with something that I just found irritating. Mr Gautier claims that Michael Jackson was nicknamed “Bambi”…I’ve been a Jackson fan for over half of my life, and do not remember him ever being called Bambi. But that’s ok, maybe I just missed that along the way, no big deal. But Mr Gautier insists on calling Jackson “Bambi”, “The Thriller”, or just “MJ” throughout the book which is not only disrespectful but completely unprofessional.

    As for the content, Mr Gautier bases his arguments about Jackson’s “secret mindsets” on single lines from interviews out of context, information from Jackson’s ghost written auto-biography, and questionable books from supposed associates of Jackson. Not only are his theories about Jackson’s mental state completely “out there” with no evidence, and no basis in real psychology, his facts are sometimes COMPLETELY wrong (see also: page 120, writing about the 2005 criminal trial and describing Janet Arvizo’s testimony regarding how she urged her children to lie in a previous lawsuit, suddenly he claims it’s the Chandler family, which is incorrect).

    Really, this book is a joke. I find it hard to believe that Mr Gautier has any formal training in psychology, as claimed. He insists that Jackson thought of himself as an orphan, the son of a king, that he WAS a king, that he was suicidal and murderous, and that he hates his family and worked to ruin their careers (all with zero evidence). He claims Jackson bought the ATV music catalog, which includes The Beatles catalog, and others for ego reasons (it couldn’t possibly have been a good business move) and he married Lisa Marie Presley to symbolically “dethrone” the King.

    Lines such as “And with his shortened pants, MJ seems to tell us: My body has grown too fast, but my heart is still that of a child! These shortened pants similarly reflect an asexuality common to fairytales, comics or cartoon characters.” make you think to yourself, “seriously??” And it only gets worse, with the author trying to make a comparison between Jackson and Elvis Presley based on the fact that Elvis had a twin who died, and Jackson had a brother with a twin who died, and comparing Jackson to Aleister Crowley.

    I would love to get into more of the insane and idiotic things in this book, but it’s making my head hurt and I don’t want to have to read it again to find the choicest paragraphs to speak about. I can only warn you that the book doesn’t even deserve 1 star. It was in no way amusing or entertaining, definitely not enlightening or educational, and while reading it I just kept thinking, “Really? Seriously? How did this even get published?”

    Please don’t waste your time on this garbage.

    ******************
    YOU KNOW, THEY ARE TRYING SO HARD THAT IT IS EVEN BORING.

    Like

  55. July 11, 2011 1:09 am

    “I have a hard copy of the Chris Andersen book. I have had it since the 90′s. Christopher Andersen makes you appreciate JRT!

    Anniedomino, though I am more focused on other things now your account of Chris Andersen’s book sent me looking for what others say about it. Here are some very illuminating comments from Amazon.com:

    1.0 out of 5 stars Absolute trash. World’s Longest Tabloid Article. DO NOT BUY!, February 19, 2006
    By Colleen Liebrich

    I bought this book at a flea market for 2 dollars. I want my money back, the whole thing is this guys opinion. Great for toilet paper, very absorbant. No valid sources at all, its all lies. The pictures are good but he tries to turn them into something they aren’t. ALSO, he took the smooth criminal music video and the Thriller music video and tried to convince the readers that Michael Jackson has an obsession with “The mafia and the occult”. I mean what the –c-?! This guy tells you Michael Jackson enjoys relieving himself in his pants. Seriously, how does somebody find that out!? He also tries to convince you that Michael Jackson was the cause of Benny Hills death, but gives no explanation at all!!! As I said earlier, unless you WANT to waste 5 days of your life then go ahead but I am utterly disgusted at the perversion that this man substains. Some of the “sources” that are the people he asked ARENT EVEN REAL PEOPLE. Don’t waste your time effort or money on this world’s longest tabloid article. It’s garbage, and so is the author that wrote this.

    1.0 out of 5 stars This is one book I *AM* glad went out of print., September 6, 2000
    By A Customer

    Christopher Andersen needs to get a life. Very much a literary vulture, he loves to prey on celebrities–especially when they are at a particular controversy in their lives–and write tabloidish, gossipy books on them that are no more reliable than The National Enquirer and are created solely for the purpose of making him a fast buck. This is another one. The nonsense written in this book has already been proven false after its publishing by police reports and other releases, but that obviously isn’t going to bother Andersen since he made his cash when the moment was ripe. Many of the accusations range on the flat out cartoonish, such as claiming that the Jackson family threatened the life and limb of anyone who dared “catch” Michael. But even if you know the book is ridiculous, Andersen will STILL have made his cash off of your disgust by the sheer attention it gives his publication (and that, unfortunately, includes this comment). Honestly, it should be illegal to create and publish something like this. The book is not in the least sympathetic, on the contrary it is horribly mean-spirited. Like Albert Goldman, the author clearly hates his subject and devotes the entire volume to mercilessly whipping poor Michael in public, as if he hasn’t been through enough! More than anything else in the world, I would love to see another author just as bad write this sort of junk about ANDERSEN and butcher his life to pieces as much as he’s done with others. Any volunteers?

    1.0 out of 5 stars Garbage!, October 23, 2003
    By B. Struk “mjfan” (Charlotte, NC)

    I felt that this author just wanted to nail MJ to the wall!! He obviously hates MJ with such passion, I could feel it in the way the book was written. It was the first book I have read that I burned! Freedom of the Press had nothing to do with this book, it was totally abusive and very unfair to MJ. If I had my way, I would find every single copy out there and have an official book burning. I wouldn’t even rate it as a 1 star!! Anderson is a very cruel person and I strongly feel that this garbage should not have been published in the first place.

    Someone who gave 5.0 out of 5 stars to this book calls it: Mean-spirited, sleazy fun!, September 3, 1998
    By A Customer

    “Michael Jackson Unauthorized” is everything a trashy “unauthorized” show-biz biography should be: sleazy, mean-spirited, and extremely ugly. It will definitely offend most of his fans, but if you’ve ever been skeptical about the Michael Jackson “phenomenon” (like I have), the book is a highly entertaining dissection of this pathetic, pretentious, and terminally freakish pop star.

    1.0 out of 5 stars Why was this published?, May 7, 1999
    By A Customer

    If you think Michael Jackson is a joke and all his success in the music field (and mostly “Thriller”) was a fluke, you’d like this book. Reading this was like reading a book about all the tabloid reports about MJJ. It’s filled with lies about his life and doesn’t have any substantial evidence to back up its claims. For all those who think MJJ should be the joke of the industry, see if you can justify these two remarks with your sleazy trash about the King of Pop: one, why did Sony sign him to a 15 year $1 billion contract (and said they would stand by him in 1993), and second, there’s no such thing as selling over 200 million albums (as a solo artist) and being called a fluke (he’s in fact a shining example of pop music at its best). This book was just a waste of paper.

    1.0 out of 5 stars horrible!, July 1, 2009
    By Wooland – See all my reviews

    It is one of the most disgusting book I have read. Just cheap. I got through about more than a half of this book, tried to finish it, but at some point it got so bad than I just put it down, luckily I didn’t buy it, borrowed from the library. Don’t waste your money! Only gossip, only scandal, like reading tabloids.

    1.0 out of 5 stars Possibly the biggest joke of a “book” ever, August 12, 2004
    By Z Diddy “Zabba Dabba” (Pennsylvania)

    This may very well be the most poorly written,least well thought out,blatantly built on lies book that has ever been published. I mean,making up things about Michael Jackson seems to be a favorite past time of losers like this that have no life of their own to attend to,I understand that and all,but where’s the payoff? I mean,seriously. A guy that has no more idea of what goes on Jackson’s personal life than the table setting here in my living room goes out of his way to write a fictional book about someone he has no clue about. But what’s the point exactly? I’m in the dark to it,if there is one. Sadly,there are many out there who are as thick as this author and will eat it all up with a shovel. Whatever gets them through the day I suppose.

    Basically,the point is,the only thing this entire waste of natural resources got right about Michael Jackson was the spelling of his name,and if the author himself penned it,I’d lay down even money that even that needed to be cross checked.

    And from this comment we learn that Chris Andersen used a certain DIARY – which is of course that non-existent diary which laid the basis for Gutierrez’s book. What is interesting is that Andersen wrote his book in 1994 while Gutierrez in 1996. Did Gutierrez supply him with his “diary” and was it their first joint attempt to test the idea of it?

    1.0 out of 5 stars Be cautious!, March 16, 2000
    By Maria (Sweden)

    I read the book. Yes, it DOES give much real information… The Jackson family tree, how to find Neverland if you’d like to see the gates of it…
    But IT`S DISCUSTING! It’s mentioning the Curdoys (did I spell it right?)the garden keepers, as “good wittnesses” in the case. In truth the police interviewed them, and read their “MJ’s questionable acts”-diary, but found it (diary) VERY questionable in itself.

    Brett Barnes, Wade Robson, Jimmy Safechuck and Sean Lennon were all appearantly “victims” of MJ according to the book. None of them have accused MJ of wrongdoing, no-one, has except for the Chandler-FATHER, not before and not to this date accused jackson of ANY wrongdoing against minor juveniles! Keep that in mind! Peace.

    Like

  56. shelly permalink
    July 10, 2011 3:16 pm

    “The worst was that book called “Jacko”. I cannot even remember the author.”

    It’s Darwin Porter.

    Like

  57. anniedomino permalink
    July 10, 2011 2:28 pm

    I have a hard copy of the Chris Andersen book. I have had it since the 90’s. Christopher Andersen makes you appreciate JRT!Every single damaging thing that was ever said against Michael is in that book without any kind of qualification – Blanca, the Bodyguards, LaToya, EVERYTHING. I re-read it again about 4 months ago. He even accused MJ of bestialism with Bubbles, he extensively quotes some “business associate” of Michael – Bob Michaelson, who clearly has an axe to grind – he even hints that Michael was guilty of plagiarism, specifically in the Chrystal Cartier case. He chucks in everything including the kitchen sink. He basically reports the ’93 case as if he was Sneddon or Evan Chandler. EVEN implying that Michael orchestrated the meeting with Jordy! In other words Michael first had contact with Jordy when he was four through the infamous fan letter, then waits eight years and engineers a car breakdown near Jordan’s stepfather’s business to meet Jordan. CA does not explain how Michael knew that the RAW belonged to Dave Schwartz or how Michael fixed it that Dave would call June and Jordy to meet him. Or why Michael did not simply request a meeting with Jordy! As he usually did when he wanted to meet someone. This is the second worst book I have ever read about Michael. The worst was that book called “Jacko”. I cannot even remember the author. I left that thing in the UAE when I moved back to SA. Even Halperin’s book is better. At least Halperin makes an attempt to find a new angle, interviews some people who actually knew Michael, admits that Michael is not a p&do, and we get some info about the girls that Michael befriended. Chris Andersen is right up there with Dimond!
    I also think we give Maureen Orth too little “credit”. That woman is just as evil – if not more – because she claims to be legitimate and writes for “good” publications. What I really dislike about this madam is that she maintains her lies in the face all evidence to the contrary, was judgmental enough to call Michael a “failed human being” and is in league with Sneddon. Roger Friedman accused her outright of plagiarising some of his reports and twisting them.

    Like

  58. shelly permalink
    July 10, 2011 5:21 am

    Did anyone of you have read the Christopher anderse’ book?

    Like

  59. lynande51 permalink
    July 10, 2011 2:53 am

    I have the book by Stacy Brown. I for one don’t find any value to refuting it’s content like you said it is all taken from stories that were created by tabloids.
    Many of the early fabrications about Michael like the Elephant Man’s Bones, the Hyperbaric Chamber and a Shrine to Liz in his bedroom were from him. He admitted it in an interview in Ireland and even had it placed in his obituary. He said ” I saw him a a mad genius” so he initiated the original weird stories and the tabloids took it from there.
    His job was originally to do PR releases for Michael’s music so he went way out of his way to create the weirdo personna. The tabloids like to say that Micahel leaked his own stories but that just wasn’t true. he actually started the whole mess and the tabloids just ran with it as usual.

    Like

  60. anniedomino permalink
    July 9, 2011 5:01 pm

    I know I am always off-topic, but I think this person is more despicable than Barrak. Stacy Brown is my current “favourite” “journalist”. I have been reading his book on Jetzi. It is so awful – it actually starts getting fascinating. In the same way a car-wreck is fascinating. Stacy Brown’s book makes me wish I was rolling in $ and could spend the whole day researching stuff like this. Firstly that book is SHORT – less than 200 pages and padded with a prologue and an epilogue and even copies of the damned indictment. Now Bob Jones worked for MJ for 30 years – there should be at least a 1000 words dammit! JRT’s 1991 edition was almost 1000 words long. And that was before Jordy, Lisa, Debbie, Gavin, HIStory, LWMJ, Invincible, etc…So it is almost a corroboration of what he said at trial – that he did not have much face to face time with Michael. Then the content. Jones – a PR guy – constantly quotes sources such as the New York Post and even JRT’s book. He was an employee so his book should be chock full of first hand info. I want to get a hardcopy of this book and fact check each paragraph. I bet that 95% of that book comes straight out of the tabs or JRT. And it follows the “self-hating black man, drug addict, post Thriller career a disaster, only interested in young boys” narrative.
    My LOL bits – a rabidly jealous Michael “pulling” Rebbie’s 1997 album because she was getting too much attention. That’s right – Rebbie was challenging Michael! And then LMP dumping Michael but then inexplicably wanting him back. It seems that Michael’s entire staff were waiting with baited breath to see if Debbie would get pregnant – if she did’nt Lisa would have a chance. But remember folks – Michael only liked young boys. What was LMP thinking?!
    I would love to know EXACTLY what Bob Jones role was. I sometimes think Michael kept him on the pay role out of loyalty – but did not really involve him in anything important.

    Like

  61. July 9, 2011 4:39 pm

    vidicate,mj.,Baroness Williams put it all together on the Question Time Clip posted by you.

    Like

  62. July 9, 2011 3:56 pm

    Thank you vindicatemj for all the info on the Murdoch Empire.As has been
    said;Behind Every Great Fortune There is a Crime, and this should be considered as such.No internal checking or cosmetic changes will be
    enough,only a full judicial investigation.

    Like

  63. Teva permalink
    July 9, 2011 3:13 am

    @Everyone who wants to write Bill O’reilly,

    Don’t bother. You will never be able to change this fool’s mind, and he will use it as fodder for his pompous self-aggrandizing show. You can and should only argue with people who are reasonable, and Bill O’reilly is not. You know my feelings: Never negotiate with terrorists.

    Like

  64. July 8, 2011 8:58 pm

    “one cannot even compare Michael Jackson’s trial with either OJ or Casey Anthony.”

    Julie, the people who compare them are heavily brainwashed by the tabloids and are unable to think for themselves (or are probably part of the tabloids themselves).

    The very first and big difference is that in those murder cases there were victims and in Michael’s “molestation” case there were none. It is simply impossible to believe that the alleged “molestation” took place AFTER all the havoc started in the press and the whole world’s attention was drawn to Neverland ranch. But according to the police timeline and Arvizos’ accusations this was exactly what happened!

    This is so absurd a situation that even if we disregard all other absurdities and lies which were revealed during the trial this alone is enough to prove that THAT TRIAL DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE PLACE AT ALL.

    Consequently comparing the behavior of the jury in OJ and Casey Anthony trials with the jury in Michael Jackson’s case is HYPOCRISY IN ITS UTMOST. In Michael Jackson’s case the trial should have closed the very next day it started. Or better never started at all.

    Like

  65. July 8, 2011 6:58 pm

    Deborah, thanks a lot!

    I’ve found more videos with Hugh Grant speaking. That McMullan clown said to him that it wasn’t only the News of the World, but all the tabloids. And money regularly passed hands between News International and officers of the Metropolitan police. All of it is amazing.

    By the way, Hugh Grant produces the impression of a ready-made journalist. He does a splendid job and finally advises McMullan: “You could try real journalism. You could probably do it”.

    Great video:

    And here is another radio interview with Hugh Grant where he gives a remarkable answer to the following question (at ~1.50min):

    – Do you have confidence in Rebekah Brooks’ ability to clean up the stables?
    – It would be like asking if I thought Hitler would be able to clean up the Nazi party, which would be completely absurd.

    [sorry if the transcript is not too accurate].

    Hugh Grant again stresses that it is not only the News of the World but all the tabloids:

    “We need a full public inquiry into all the methods and culture of the British tabloid press, because one of the things that will emerge is that it wasn’t just News of the World. It was all the tabloids.”

    Another brilliant video where Hugh Grant is saying:

    ” It’s not one, but all tabloids have been shockingly out of control in this country. … People can vote very much with their wallets. They just need not have to buy those newspapers, especially the News of the World. And advertisers have to look at themselves very hard in the mirror and say “Do we really want to be advertised in newspapers like the News of the World”?

    [This is why the Murdochs are closing the paper – it is no good for them any more in terms of making money. Ordinary people who worked for it do not worry them in the least. Their senior editorial staff will be safely transferred somewhere else]

    When answering a question if Hugh Grant expects the full wrath of tabloid journalism against him now, he says:
    “YES. That will happen….This moment – when the British and international public has seen how repulsive these people are – is the moment when I am hoping more people will come out and say “This’s got to stop”.

    Hugh Grant is absolutely fantastic in saying what all of us think about tabloids and what Michael was hoping for. I wish he were alive to hear these words said on TV:

    Hugh Grant:

    ” We are talking about very nasty people”
    ” It was on an industrial scale and for a very long time”
    “A lot of people will think, “Well, it is celebs… I don’t care”. But the big story today is that it is not only celebs – this is what I’ve known for a long time. It was a lot of ordinary people, very vulnerable people, whose privacy and dignity was stolen for someone’s commercial gain”

    BRAVO, Hugh!

    It seems that the scandal is gaining momentum. Baroness Shirley Williams says about Murdoch’s influence:

    “Telling the Minister that he won’t be elected again unless he manages to square himself with Murdoch – that’s a desperately dangerous situation…. And the Press Complains Commission is a joke”

    [We know that the commission is a joke because we tried to complain to them about journalists slandering Michael but all we received was a cold and formal dismissal. I wish honest British people every success in handling this Murdoch hydra and his tabloids]

    Like

  66. July 8, 2011 4:52 pm

    Both, and probably a lot more in between Chris!

    Like

  67. Chris permalink
    July 8, 2011 4:02 pm

    @ Deborah

    The level of incredulity now exhibited by the British public, IMO, only serves to reflect the degree of induced ignorance the power elite has encouraged — and is still attempting to — in the domestic population.

    Ignorance of arrogance? Or both.

    Like

  68. July 8, 2011 3:48 pm

    Your post is outstanding VMJ.

    Hugh Grant: on Question Time in youtube format:

    Like

  69. July 8, 2011 3:28 pm

    “Hugh Grant, on Question Time, the BBC’s political question and answer program, was outstanding. Regardless of the fact he clearly has personal bruises from NI, his points were valid. * Question time can be seen here. Its excellent viewing *
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012hfpq/Question_Time_07_07_2011/

    Deborah, thank you so much for the insightful comment which does indeed allow us to peer behind the UK media curtain. Unfortunately the video won’t play for me (and probably others) so we will wait until it appears on Youtube to be posted here.

    In the meantime let me quote the article by Hugh Grant published in New Statesman. It does prove the truth of the saying that “History repeats itself – first as tragedy, second as farce”. The irony of it is that same as Michael Jackson’s tragedy Hugh Grant’s story also started with his car breaking down in the street: http://www.newstatesman.com/newspapers/2011/04/phone-yeah-cameron-murdoch

    Here are some quotes from his interview with Paul McMillan. We learn that they have been doing phone-hacking for a long time and it was not only News of the World, but others too:

    McMullan: in the early days of mobiles, we all had analogue mobiles and that was an absolute joy. You know, you just . . . sat outside Buckingham Palace with a £59 scanner you bought at Argos and get Prince Charles and everything he said.
    Grant: Is that how the Squidgy tapes [of Diana’s phone conversations] came out? Which was put down to radio hams, but was in fact . . .
    McMullan: Paps in the back of a van, yes . . . I mean, politicians were dropping like flies in the Nineties because it was so easy to get stuff on them. And, obviously, less easy to justify is celebrities. But yes.
    Grant: And . . . it wasn’t just the News of the World. It was , you know – the Mail?
    McMullan: Oh absolutely, yeah. When I went freelance in 2004 the biggest payers – you’d have thought it would be the NoW, but actually it was the Daily Mail. If I take a good picture, the first person I go to is – such as in your case – the Mail on Sunday. Did you see that story? The picture of you, breaking down . . . I ought to thank you for that. I got £3,000. Whooo!

    We are surprised to learn that Rupert Murdoch is a puritanical type of a guy though he owns the Sun (there seems to be a pattern here – we know of another “devout Christian” who ruthlessly brought to death an innocent man two years ago):

    Grant: Do you think Murdoch knew about phone-hacking?
    McMullan: Errr, possibly not. He’s a funny bloke given that he owns the Sun and the Screws . . . quite puritanical. Sorry to talk about Divine Brown, but when that came out . . . Murdoch was furious: “What are you putting that on our front page for? You’re bringing down the tone of our papers.” [Indicating himself] That’s what we do over here.

    Rupert Murdoch wants to live a clean life while others are covered with dirt by his employees. He simply doesn’t worry about ruining others :

    McMullan: So I was sent to do a feature on Moulin Rouge! at Cannes, which was a great send anyway. Basically my brief was to see who Nicole Kidman was shagging – what she was doing, poking through her bins and get some stuff on her. So Murdoch’s paying her five million quid to big up the French and at the same time paying me £5.50 to fuck her up . . . So all hail the master. We’re just pawns in his game. How perverse is that?
    Grant: Wow. You reckon he never knew about it?
    McMullan: [pause] I don’t even think he really worried himself too much about it.

    These journalists think that if you are a celebrity it is part of your profession to put up with the dirt splashed at you – the only other alternative they leave to you is giving up and leaving the stage:

    Grant: But celebrities you would justify because they’re rich?
    McMullan: Yeah. I mean, if you don’t like it, you’ve just got to get off the stage. It’ll do wonders.
    Grant: So I should have given up acting?
    McMullan: If you live off your image, you can’t really complain about someone . . .
    Grant: I live off my acting. Which is different to living off your image.
    McMullan: Yeah, but you’re still presenting yourself to the public. And if the public didn’t know you –
    Grant: They don’t give a shit. I got arrested with a hooker and they still came to my films. They don’t give a fuck about your public image. They just care about whether you’re in an entertaining film or not.
    McMullan: That’s true . . . I have terrible difficulty with him [points to pap shot of Johnny Depp]. He’s really difficult. You know, I was in Venice and he was a nightmare to do because he walks around looking like Michael Jackson. And the punchline was . . . after leading everyone a merry dance the film was shot on an open balcony – I mean, it was like – he was standing there in public.

    These people are so immoral that even when we learn some truth from them it is only because it gives them some financial gain:

    Grant: I tell you the thing I still don’t get – if you think it was all right to do all that stuff, why blow the whistle on it?
    McMullan: Errm . . . Right. That’s interesting. I actually blew the whistle when a friend of mine at the Guardian kept hassling me for an interview. I said, “Well if you put the name of the Castle [his pub] on the front page of the Guardian, I’ll do anything you like.” So that’s how it started.

    In short Hugh Grant did a fantastic job of an interviewer and will make a brilliant journalist if he ever quits his brilliant actor’s career.

    Please read the full story here: http://www.newstatesman.com/newspapers/2011/04/phone-yeah-cameron-murdoch

    Like

  70. July 8, 2011 1:45 pm

    “I don’t know but i have this strange feeling that the attacks that MJ faced in his life and death by the media and especially the UK tabloids was or is orchestrated by someone. I can’t explain it otherwise. Yes, other celebrities were and will be target of the medialoid but the viciousness that they demostrated towards MJ is beyond comprehension and it crossed all the lines. I strongly believe that there is something else , something that we don’t know yet. This Rupert Murdoch is the president of tv station Fox in the US, right? And he is the owner of the majority of UK tabloids such as News of the World and Sun, right? Is it a coincidence that those were the media that MJ was and is receiving the majority of attacks, even now that he is dead? Maybe i am being paranoid here but something doesn’t seem right to me. There has to be something else.”

    Ares, you are not being paranoid at all. Of course it was orchestrated. I also noticed – with a great surprise – that practically all papers were saying one and the same thing about Michael simultaneously and their stories were identical almost to the letter of it.

    I found it when browsing the Internet in the hope to get various views and information on Michael Jackson’s case and therefore diligently followed every link, page after page, in the results shown by the search engine – but all I found was one and the same story published in various places of the world and in different time zones but which were essentially identical!

    It was a VERY rare occurrence when I came across something different and something “individually” written. And the only explanation which may explain this strange phenomenon is either irresponsible copying or publishing the information supplied from one source.

    By the way, Roger Friedman’s articles were always individually written though he was reporting for the Fox News. It is clear that he was standing up to this corrupt system of reporting and up to a certain time enjoyed some liberty there. But is it also why he was eventually fired under a ridiculous pretext?

    Like

  71. July 8, 2011 1:30 pm

    We have peered behind the curtain here in the UK. Those of us who have been aghast at the media for some time are, of course, not suprised at what has been discovered.

    The level of incredulity now exhibited by the British public, IMO, only serves to reflect the degree of induced ignorance the power elite has encouraged — and is still attempting to — in the domestic population.

    Now, that the shining journalism of Nick Davies and the Guardian who refused to let this story go, has catalysed this hacking story into the car crash it now is — will the UK take steps?

    How far can we really go with a prime minister like David Cameron in charge, who without pause, told a press conference today 8/8/2011 that he ” took on Andy Coulson” after he resigned from NOTW, in order to give Coulson a ” second chance.”

    What?

    If this lie is accepted by the press and the British public, it will be a very good indicator of how far the change people are talking about will actually extend.

    Hugh Grant, on Question Time, the BBC’s political question and answer program, was outstanding. Regardless of the fact he clearly has personal bruises from NI, his points were valid.

    * Question time can be seen here. Its excellent viewing *

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012hfpq/Question_Time_07_07_2011/

    In my opinion the apparent collusion between the various leviathans of British society; press, parliament and police directly mirrors the power corruption in the US that allowed the persecution of Michael Jackson to happen.

    It is interesting that in every single discussion I have listened to about this topic since the story broke on July 4, that all the commentators, pundits and comment, all make a distinction between the level of concern we should afford to “ordinary people” as opposed to ” celebrities.”

    Unbelievably, until the hacking story started talking about “murdered schoolgirls” and ” families of service men and women” — no-one cared whether or even how the lives of celebrities being ransacked.

    So right there, the self-interested, twisted reasoning is exposed. If you’re famous, you have no rights, you’re fair game, you somehow ‘deserve’ what you get.

    How ironic — and how totally, totally unfair.

    Like

  72. July 8, 2011 1:28 pm

    Folks, there is a deep symbolism in the fact that the news of a conversation between Daphne Barak and Aaron Carter whom she secretly taped (as is clear from the videos) is almost immediately followed by the news of Hugh Grant also secretly taping his conversation with a certain McMillan, the former employee of the News of the World, where he says much more damaging things than Aaron.

    Of course it remains to be yet seen how much of his story is true but it nevertheless does look like an impressive Heavenly retribution for the many years of the media’s shameless behavior. God is on our side?

    The only thing I am surprised about is that this was published on April 15, 2011 (so it seems the taping had taken place well before the present scandal started):
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/56662.html

    Like

  73. July 8, 2011 12:44 pm

    Cynicism is still going strong. I hear that though the News of the World newspaper is closed the key person in this scandal Rebekah Brooks retained her job!
    Rupert Murdoch ruined a newspaper with a 168 year-old history and he and his son will go on with their lies in the remaining media they have – bringing all of them to their eventual ruin too:

    Hugh Grant: ‘News Of The World Closure Is A Cynical Managerial Manoeuvre’

    Hugh Grant has blasted publishing mogul James Murdoch’s decision to shut down British tabloid News of the World over a phone-tapping scandal, as a “cynical managerial manoeuvre”.

    The British star, who played a journalist in the Bridget Jones’s Diary films, called for a complete overhaul of the U.K. tabloid newspaper industry earlier this week (beg04Jul11) after it was revealed the families of murder victims and those affected by the 2005 London Underground bombings may have been targeted in the headline-grabbing scandal.

    On Thursday (07Jul11) Murdoch announced this Sunday’s (10Jul11) issue of the News of the World would be its last – after 168 years in print.

    But Grant is annoyed because the move has left hundreds of innocent employees out of work, while former editor Rebekah Brooks has kept her job as a chief executive at the newspaper’s parent company News International.

    Appearing on Britain’s political debate show Question Time on Thursday evening (07Jul11), Grant said, “I think we should see this for what it is – it is a very cynical managerial manoeuvre which has put several hundred not evil people… a lot of certainly non-editorial staff out of work and has kept, in particular, one woman, who was the editor while (murdered schoolgirl) Milly Dowler was being hacked in a highly paid job.”

    Meanwhile, another victim of the U.K.’s tabloid media, Lily Allen, took to Twitter.com to comment on the decision to close the News of the World and keep the newspaper’s former editor employed at News International. She writes, “Rebekah Brooks must have something on the Murdochs, or she gave them a really nice christmas (sic) present.”

    Reports emerged this week (beg04Jul11) claiming journalists at the tabloid, under the editorship of Brooks, interfered with the police investigation into Dowler’s death in 2002 by tapping the phones of her family. The 13 year old was abducted on her way home in Surrey, England, before her body was found six months later. Last month (Jun11), Levi Bellfield was found guilty of her murder and sentenced to life in prison.

    http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/hugh-grant-news-of-the-world-closure-is-a-cynical-managerial-manoeuvre_1231633

    Like

  74. ares permalink
    July 8, 2011 12:41 pm

    I don’t know but i have this strange feeling that the attacks that MJ faced in his life and death by the media and especially the UK tabloids was or is orchestrated by someone. I can’t explain it otherwise. Yes, other celebrities were and will be target of the medialoid but the viciousness that they demostrated towards MJ is beyond comprehension and it crossed all the lines. I strongly believe that there is something else , something that we don’t know yet. This Rupert Murdoch is the president of tv station Fox in the US, right? And he is the owner of the majority of UK tabloids such as News of the World and Sun, right? Is it a coincidence that those were the media that MJ was and is receiving the majority of attacks, even now that he is dead? Maybe i am being paranoid here but something doesn’t seem right to me. There has to be something else.

    Like

  75. July 8, 2011 12:28 pm

    “People really need to wake up and take a look around. But if this can only hold peoples focus for 2 weeks what will it take to make people to really take notice and hold their focus?”

    It will take a lot of time for all people to wake up to reality, but I am thrilled to see that the process has at least started. I was also asleep and in the dark as to Michael Jackson only two years ago.

    Like

  76. July 8, 2011 12:01 pm

    “I remember News of the Week wrote a lengthy article quoting VG’s book just a couple of days after MJ’s death! They also presented it as fact. They didn’t mention the Chandlers denied the truthfulness of VG’s story and said Jordan never had a diary! They didn’t mention the lawsuit MJ won against VG. They didn’t mention any of that. They acted as if it was really Jordan’s diary, not a piece of fiction. And that only a couple of days after MJ’s death! What was the point? The book was over 10 years old, it was discredited by BOTH Michael and the Chandlers, so what was the point in bringing it up in the wake of Michael’s death?”

    The point was to make sure that no one felt a natural compassion for a man who died at the age of 50 leaving three children orphaned. Publishing Gutierrez’s horrendous lies was a way to say to the public that they shouldn’t feel sorrow or remorse when reading about his death. News of the World prompted them to say “good riddance” instead.

    “Our job is to give people not what they want, but what WE decide they ought to have.”– Richard Salent, Former President CBS News.

    Like

  77. July 8, 2011 10:55 am

    Examples of cynicism and proof that Rupert Murdoch is projecting his own cynical self onto his newspapers (http://earthblognews.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/a-citizens-guide-to-understanding-corporate-media-propaganda-techniques/):

    “Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”- Richard Salent, Former President CBS News.

    “News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising” – former NBC news President Rubin Frank

    “For better or worse, my company is a reflection of my character, my thinking, my values” Rupert Murdoch

    “We are here to serve advertisers. That is our raison d’etre” [reason for existence] – CBS C.E.O. Michael Jordan

    “We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective” – Michael Eisner, CEO, The Walt Disney Co

    Money is important for everyone’s life, I agree. BUT it is possible to make money in a different – honest – way! This happens only if ethical values come first and money comes second. And in their case money comes first and ethical values are not considered at all.

    Like

  78. July 8, 2011 10:34 am

    “I just have to ask what kind of person does this for a living? What kind of person invades someones life at the a time like that?”

    CYNICAL

    World English Dictionary
    cynical

    1. distrustful or contemptuous of virtue, esp selflessness in others; believing the worst of others, esp that all acts are selfish
    2. sarcastic; mocking
    3. showing contempt for accepted standards of behaviour, esp of honesty or morality

    “I’m really sorry but I have no compassion for them. They worked there by choice. As far as I’m concerned they should not be allowed to work anywhere especially a reputable newspaper.They were after all a party to the crime.”

    I have no compassion either (for the editorial staff). It was their own choice in life. The road of betrayal, cynicism and no respect for ethical norms is very easy and does bring wealth and success, but not everyone takes it – some people still prefer a life of clear conscience even if it doesn’t give that much money.

    And don’t listen to them if they say they had no choice – there is always a choice.

    Like

  79. Suzy permalink
    July 8, 2011 8:01 am

    @ Sara

    “,they even published some lines of that pervert sly Victor Gutierrez’s book over and over.”

    I remember News of the Week wrote a lengthy article quoting VG’s book just a couple of days after MJ’s death! They also presented it as fact. They didn’t mention the Chandlers denied the truthfulness of VG’s story and said Jordan never had a diary! They didn’t mention the lawsuit MJ won against VG. They didn’t mention any of that. They acted as if it was really Jordan’s diary, not a piece of fiction. And that only a couple of days after MJ’s death! What was the point? The book was over 10 years old, it was discredited by BOTH Michael and the Chandlers, so what was the point in bringing it up in the wake of Michael’s death?

    @ Chris

    You are right, this probably won’t stop Murdoch and the tabloid industry in general. People’s attitude needs to change the tabloid situation. It’s people who are buying this trash and as long as they want it it will never change.

    Like

  80. lynande51 permalink
    July 8, 2011 7:00 am

    It seems that NOTW was not just hacking celebrities and politicians phones but ordinary citizens phones. They went as far as hacking a young girls phone and deleteing messages so it gave her parents false hope that she was still alive. I don’t know about the UK but here in the US that is obstruction of justice a crime. They involved themselves in a terrosist case by hacking into phones of the bereaved family members of the victims of the London terroist attacks.
    I just have to ask what kind of person does this for a living? What kind of person invades someones life at the a time like that? The employees (reporters) are all out on the street asking what kind of person closes them down and puts them in the unemployment line. I’m really sorry but I have no compassion for them. They worked there by choice. As far as I’m concerned they should not be allowed to work anywhere especially a reputable newspaper.They were after all a party to the crime.

    Like

  81. July 8, 2011 5:08 am

    Rupert Murdoch’s empire is going down finaly,this terrible gigantic creature will put to sleep at last.
    Michael’s wish was answered,I’m happy to see Murdoch useless existence and tabloids machine fade away,he and his disgraceful business ruined many lives .
    The news of the world and the the Sun went haunting after Tom Cruise sexuality calling him gay and stuff , claiming disgusting things about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie relationship.
    But the hideous and cruel crime is what they did to Michael Jackson and his children,they even published some lines of that pervert sly Victor Gutierrez’s book over and over.
    I just hope this Murdoch went bankrupt.

    Like

  82. Chris permalink
    July 8, 2011 3:19 am

    @ Rockforeveron

    I thought at first with the public outrage something might change but theres 2 problems.

    1) The general public hasn’t got the attention span as it has been fed this stupidity so long they can’t be bothered to keep going past a week or 2.

    2) They keep saying that politicians and celebs phones been hacked is bad but this was what pushed over edge. Well yeah ok these are seriously sick behaviour but what does it tell us if the public say well its acceptable hacking phones to some but not others.

    That is a dangerous point of view and 1 that concerns me greatly. Who decides where that line is? Schools have CCTV and DNA machines in Britain and USA, a child can be body searched from age 10 by a teacher ( I’m a security guard by law you are not allowed to search anyone under 16 without parents consent and that’s just their bag and pockets).

    People really need to wake up and take a look around. But if this can only hold peoples focus for 2 weeks what will it take to make people to really take notice and hold their focus?

    Like

  83. July 8, 2011 12:58 am

    Another note about Hugh is after he exposed one of these telephone hackers one of Rupert’s papers started a campaign about him – they made it seem like it was to do with something else he’d done (I’d had no idea about his involvement until an interview on the BBC yesterday), and they started printing posters using his mugshot photo over the area he lives in London.

    If you go against these people they will never let you rest without trying to take you down with them. They will try and discredit and humiliate you until you play the game the way they want you to or until you go away.

    Like

  84. July 8, 2011 12:46 am

    Chris, you’re right, it’s now no longer NOWT but “The Sun On Sunday.”

    He’s going to let a few of his little people go to prison, and they’re going to just try better at hiding their evilness for a few more years until another scandal breaks. The most annoying thing about stuff like this is that the papers never go that hard on this, not like they do with government scandals or even MJ/Britney scandals. They hate having to be as accountable as anyone they exploit. Even though when the heck has MJ or Britney or even Lindsay Lohan’s vagina or Janet Jackson’s breast done anything as insane as tampering with the evidence of missing school children so much so that the parents and police believed that the child might still have been alive and THEN getting interviews with the parents who talk about how because of what the papers have done they still believe their child is alive and THEN paid the police off? Just for a story. Just to sell papers. The whole thing is surreal. The amount of power and politics and secret agendas involved.

    I thought it was sad that out of all people it was Hugh Grant who reminded me that the only way to get power in the UK is to stay in bed with Rupert’s people. When he got caught with that prostitute he said Rupert was upset because they put his picture in the second page of one of his papers, Rupert said it made them seem trashy – Hugh said that was only because the movie he had just released was a Fox picture and obviously that was what upset Rupert, not the trashiness.

    That’s how the media works. It makes me wonder about MJ’s place in it all, why the British tabloids started with Whacko Jacko in 1985 and went nuts over him in 1991/2 over his nose/skin/absolutely everything he did.

    Anyway, it’s interesting seeing those pieces lined up, it makes everything seem so personal and strategic.

    Like

  85. July 8, 2011 12:45 am

    “No-one comes out smelling of roses that’s for sure.”

    Deborah, what a wonderful way of saying it! I love it!

    “I wonder if the reasons for this interview extend even beyond Barak?”

    Quite probably. If we half-believe her stories about how “influential” she is, we’ll see that her deeds may not be solely her caprice – but a kind of a social order from her influential friends, probably from the same Rupert Murdoch or his kind, who want to put all the blame for Michael’s death on own shoulders. They may be backing up Murray in his anti-Jackson PR campaign now and even paying for Murray’s very prolonged and expensive defense.

    Like

  86. July 8, 2011 12:23 am

    “That interview with Grace was on the front page of the London Times – I cannot remember if it was the ME edition. So I believed it! It was the Times for goodness sake.”

    Anniedomino, this article ( http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/07/uk.phonehacking/index.html) says that the Times is also part of Rupert Murdoch’s empire. So when the Sun and the Times lied about Grace there wasn’t much difference between them – only the manner of presentation looked more reserved and respectable in the Times, that’s all. But the essence of it was the same big lie.

    Like

  87. July 7, 2011 11:54 pm

    Here’s what happened: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/07/05/rivers.uk.dowler.phone.hack.cnn

    What fantastic news! It looks like the tabloid sins are getting back at them! They say that they are now closing the paper and settling numerous civil suits to avoid litigation and more negative publicity … Good. I hope they have to pay a lot and Rupert Murdoch goes bankrupt.

    Funny it happened when we raised that Daphne Barak’s issue and her similar methods and achievements. Looks like a kind of a general retribution for her (and other media) outrageous lies.

    I’ve just started reading about this ugly scandal and found out that Rupert Murdoch is an Australian (and Australian newspapers seem to be very much anti-Jackson, see the OK! magazine as an example) and that he bought lots of British papers which displayed the same aggressive attitude towards Michael. It cannot be a coincidence and is clearly the expression of Rupert Murdoch’s own views.

    I don’t believe that they employed those methods only in the News of the World, while in all the rest of his newspapers their behavior was impeccable. The hypocrisy of it and the amount of new lies they are telling now is unbelievable – now they say that the chief executive didn’t know what was going on (as if it was possible! Those private detectives were paid for their services – who allotted those funds if not the chief executive?):

    In an interview for UK media, James Murdoch said he, his father and the company felt “regret” over what had happened.
    He insisted he was satisfied that Rebekah Brooks — the current chief executive of News International and former editor of the News of the World who has been the target of calls to step down — “neither had knowledge of nor directed the activities.”
    He said the company was committed to doing the right thing, by cooperating with police and putting in place a process to make sure such practices did not happen again. All revenue from the paper’s final edition will go to “good causes,” he said earlier.

    To charity? Funny that what they accused Michael of – giving away money to improve his image – is being done by themselves now! And it is also nice to hear them having to explain themselves… Will it teach others a lesson, I wonder?

    I see that Rupert Murdoch has a lot of newspapers and find it impossible to believe that none of them ever employed the same methods:

    “News of the World was the first British Fleet Street newspaper Rupert Murdoch bought, in 1969, as he began to propel himself from Australian newspaper proprietor to international media magnate. In addition to owning News of the World, News International owns the Sun, the Times and the Sunday Times in Britain. Murdoch’s News Corp. also encompasses Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and Harper Collins publishers”.

    Like

  88. Chris permalink
    July 7, 2011 10:31 pm

    @ Suzy

    It isn’t good news it’s a smoke screen.

    He is shutting it down to clear the way to purchase BskyB.

    He will also just make The Sun a 7 day newspaper.

    Him and his son should both be questioned in the police inquiry.

    Imagine NOTW as a infected foot you can survive as long as you cut it off. That is what is happening hear. To protect his Evil EMPIRE!
    I hope journalists who can prove they didn’t break the law turn around and sue him for wrongful termination. Add to his problems.

    Like

  89. Suzy permalink
    July 7, 2011 10:10 pm

    Good news folks!

    “Murdoch’s scandal-hit News of the World to shut down!”

    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/07/uk.phonehacking/index.html

    Of course, it’s a long way to go until all tabloids do the same, however I can’t help but smile at these news!

    Like

  90. Julie permalink
    July 7, 2011 8:08 pm

    @Suze, sadly they don’t. My mother and her sister watch Bill O’Reilly and hang on every single word. I told them that good old Bill was a tabloid reporter before his stint on Fox and they were shocked, but not enough to quit watching the moron. He spouts out a bunch of garbage about the democrats (my family is staunch republican) so therefore, in their minds he must know what he’s talking about regarding everything. It’s disgusting. If he’s republican, then I do not wish to be one.

    Like

  91. Suzy permalink
    July 7, 2011 7:35 pm

    I am on a forum and somebody there too brought up this Casey Anthony case and said: “OJ, MJ, Casey Anthony. Am I alone in my disgust for our “justice” system?” I wrote that MJ’s case doesn’t belong in that line. And guess what? People agreed with me!

    I have to say on most news sites I have been to the commenters didn’t bring up the MJ case, they rather likened it to the OJ case.

    I’m not American but I have seen clips of this Bill O’Reilly on YouTube. I can’t believe idiots like him are taken seriously in the US. I’d like to believe people only watch him for a comic relief.

    Like

  92. anniedomino permalink
    July 7, 2011 7:26 pm

    So how do we write a letter collectively? I am a bit of a computer idiot so don’t know the most practical way.

    Like

  93. Julie permalink
    July 7, 2011 6:51 pm

    Also, one cannot even compare Michael Jackson’s trial with either OJ or Casey Anthony. I listened to Joan Rivers just go on an angry diatribe about how stupid those jurors were, etc. and singing Nancy Grace’s praises, which is absolutely disgusting. Well, did anyone actually witness Casey Anthony kill her child? No! Do her actions cause major suspicions? YES! But beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of murder is a hard thing to do. Joan was babbling on about how stupid the jurors were but had to admit that she had never served on a jury and her reason was that she would not be able to take several months off from work to do it because a lot of people depend on her financially and she stated she couldn’t afford to. Well, then she needs to shut up! The major thing that struck me about Casey Anthony is the fact that knowing her child was “missing,” she continued life as if nothing had happened. That’s the major tell tell to me that she is not right. OJ Simpson had motive and a severe anger problem to boot. Back when that trial happened, I just couldn’t believe that he was so stupid that he would commit murder being a famous celebrity and I have to admit I didn’t follow the trial every single day. After watching Aphrodite Jones’ show on OJ, apparently there were things that were not brought out in the public that clearly implicated him. He got it in the end though when his severe anger problem proved to be his downfall and he now sits in jail. How on earth does that compare with Michael Jackson when it was proven the families were after money — all of them!

    Like

  94. Julie permalink
    July 7, 2011 6:43 pm

    anniedomino, I emailed Bill O’Reilly after MJ’s death because I was outraged hearing the crap he was saying. He went above and beyond the hateful comments that were spewed by other commentators. When he asked the two idiot blondes that were calling Michael freak and weird if conservatives really care about MJ, that’s when I sent him an email letting him know that yes conservatives care about Michael Joseph Jackson. I was happy that at least Geraldo defended Michael, but even Geraldo had to make a derrogatory comment about Michael’s appearance. O’Reilly hounded him about the inappropriateness of Michael with children until Geraldo agreed that Michael’s behavior was inappropriate. it made me sick and still does. It doesn’t matter how big of a joke the trial was or the grifters that were after Michael’s money, the only thing they care about is that Michael slept in the same vicinity as children (even though nothing happened- they don’t care). However, O’Reilly must think it’s acceptable to sexually harass a female subordinate who went on to extort money from him and he paid to settle the case. He never denied doing it (basically because she had tape recordings of him), but was angry because she filed a lawsuit. What a jerk – he and Dennis Miller.

    Like

  95. ares permalink
    July 7, 2011 6:35 pm

    @anniedomino

    Writting at him is a very good idea but i think that a collective effort would be more effective. If we wrote a letter and send it to him as a group or individually maybe, maybe we would have some result. Assossiating Mike’s name with the likes of OJ and this current woman is very damaging in my ipinion. Michael was innocent and his name should never be mentioned in the same sentence with the previous two. It would be also very interesting if we send him David’s post and especially the part where he talking about O’Relly’s out of court settlement.
    Anyway,I believe that is very crutial to not have Mike’s name mentioned again the way O’Relly did.

    Like

  96. anniedomino permalink
    July 7, 2011 5:24 pm

    Was watching the O’Reilly Factor this morning and was furious when that damned idiot lumped MJ in with OJ and Casey Anthony. His conversation was with that fool Dennis Miller and they were lamenting how “stupid” juries are. O’Reilly said something like “what does a jury need to convict these days” and cited OJ and MJ. Now I know it is not a popular opinion – but I think the jury were right to acquit that girl. I think she’s guilty – but I don’t think the prosecution proved it. So I accept the verdict as the only one possible and wave her on her way. Case closed. Maybe someday we will know what happened to her poor child – but you do not convict someone of capital murder because you don’t like their behaviour.
    What annoys me is that O’Reilly has a huge audience, is colleagues with Aphrodite Jones and Geraldo, claims to be an intelligent well-informed man and he is on TV lumping MJ in with accused murderers and perpetuating the myth that MJ was acquitted because the jury was “dumb”. What an ass. I am thinking of writing to him – but how do you reason with someone so prejudiced? Is it even worth trying?

    Like

  97. July 7, 2011 4:21 pm

    Deborah Ffrench,there does seem to be more behind the story than meets the eye.The timing, and how it slowly develops.
    This Barak woman needs to be branded as very malignant and dangerous.
    Best for everyone to keep away from her however much of her psychophatic charm she showers on you.Aaron Carter should have known and I don´t think he is totally innocent either despite the belated damage control he now exercises.

    Like

  98. Susanne permalink*
    July 7, 2011 2:26 pm

    This is a perfect investigation, Helena, though I am not yet through with reading. I already thought someone should do it. Thanks for that. This woman seemed dangerous to me immediately when I heard her first story she created about MJ. She’s very, very unscrupulous. This is like the News of the World scandal in Britain, she fits in this category.

    Like

  99. July 7, 2011 11:48 am

    what a trash “career”

    Like

  100. anniedomino permalink
    July 7, 2011 9:56 am

    And once again we find the Jacksons involved with shady people who defame Michael for a living. Rebbie and Stacy Brown comes to mind. If you read this carefully you see that this woman gets her “credibility” from her association with Joe and Katherine and it has resulted in several awful stories getting out there – Kit Culkin, Grace, Aaron. I was living in the UAE when Michael died and bought every newspaper and magazine I could get hold of. That interview with Grace was on the front page of the London Times – I cannot remember if it was the ME edition. So I believed it! It was the Times for goodness sake. My current policy is that I only believe news on Michael if it is independently verified by independent sources who have no vested interest.

    Like

  101. Suzy permalink
    July 7, 2011 7:38 am

    You know, if he mentioned there was wine, he should have elaborated on that, because it’s still misleading. If you are truly a friend you have to be very clear on this, since some of the charges against MJ in 2005 were giving alcohol to a minor.

    So Aaron saying there was wine but not elaborating is still not very good. He should have put that in a context, because not everybody knows it was a birthday party, like we fans do. Based on the Jesus Juice stories in 2005 in the media most people will associate the wine comment with that. So Aaron should have pointed out very clearly that there was wine because they celebrated a birthday where there were hundreds of guests!

    Like

  102. July 7, 2011 6:01 am

    Daphne Barak is a snake. She would drop a dime on her mama, her daddy… if she thought she could make a profit off it.

    Watched the enews snippets. I still find it strange that Aaron didn’t call Daphne Barak out. He only referred by saying “someone” to the rest of the public they are not gonna know or even question who “someone” is. Aaron is noting the that this “someone” slandered MJ and himself. I’m sorry, a person who is doing the slandering needs to be called out (put on blast as I would say) by name (Daphne Barak) and held accountable, just like the way Sanam Bhutto called out Daphne in that London press conference. Also, that was a mighty long pause before AC replied no to Ken Baker’s question when he asked if MJ gave him these things. It may just be me, but from that interview I still get a sense of AC implying that MJ gave him wine. Yeah, he called the cocaine bit absurd, but what about the wine bit. The way he answered still left that wide open. Other people could say “well, ok he didn’t give cocaine,but he still gave him wine blah blah blah” The whole thing is absurd and AC should have said the whole thing is absurd point blank.

    Like

  103. shelly permalink
    July 7, 2011 5:33 am

    At least that story just blow up at the haters faces. Anyone who believed that story is stupid.

    Like

  104. shelly permalink
    July 7, 2011 5:26 am

    @TatumMarie

    Mj had a wine cellar and I think the only Carter went to Neverland was during the September 2003 party.

    Like

  105. July 7, 2011 5:26 am

    No-one comes out smelling of roses that’s for sure. I wonder if the reasons for this interview extend even beyond Barak?

    Like

  106. shelly permalink
    July 7, 2011 5:19 am

    ” It didn’t blow up until the OK story”

    Yes, and the OK story was posted on Internet the 23rd of June. It took that story a week to become out of control. Anyway, Carter had 3 weeks to say what he said today. It makes the whole story very suspicious.

    Like

  107. TatumMarie permalink
    July 7, 2011 5:18 am

    Aaron benefit of the doubt? In this interview he says there was wine at Neverland, he never says Michael didnt give him wine which sucks – but admits there was wine at Neverland. I don’t trust Aaron.
    http://tinyurl.com/3olb8xe

    Like

  108. July 7, 2011 5:01 am

    3 weeks ago, it was a twitter rumor.

    There was only one story about the OK story and Jezebel picked it up and fans on twitter reacted. It didn’t blow up until the OK story involving the word cocaine appeared and then that went everywhere, most MJ forums I went to got that info last.

    About Roger Friedman going really hard on Grace – this is because one of his sources is very anti Grace, you should be able to tell who or at least where that source comes from by what Roger says. The waters are very muddy about Grace, including nonsense about voodoo and all of that, because of that person.

    Like

  109. shelly permalink
    July 7, 2011 4:59 am

    I don’t know if it was already posted, it’s from barak twitter

    Daphne Barak

    So glad, my friend Aaron Carter is joining me, for a charity gala in Marbella. What a perfect place, to kick off his upcoming record?!

    Like

  110. shelly permalink
    July 7, 2011 4:51 am

    @Deborah Ffrench

    I know that Vindicate is trying to stay objective, but I find that very hard. Now, to be honest, I find that story very interesting, not the story in itself but the way it developped in the media. 3 weeks ago, it was a twitter rumor.

    Like

  111. July 7, 2011 4:44 am

    Yes, there is something furtive about the way this AC interview came about.

    Like

  112. July 7, 2011 4:34 am

    Interesting about Kit Culkin and Dieter Weisner – Dieter is releasing or has released a book about Michael and is working with Joe Jackson now.

    You shuold also mention Barak’s Al Fayed disaster of an interview which actually ended up with her on the run from the law:

    http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-first-department/2007/2007-03353.html

    The factual allegations contained in plaintiff’s affidavit pursuant to CPLR 3215 (f) sufficiently support the claims against defendant. Having failed to answer the allegations, defendant is deemed to have “admit all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegations of liability” (Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King, 63 NY2d 728, 730 [1984]), and since plaintiff, by reason of defendant’s failure to answer, does not have the benefit of discovery, “the affidavit or verified complaint need only allege enough facts to enable a court to determine that a viable cause of action exists” (Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 71 [2003]; see also Joosten v Gale, 129 AD2d 531, 535 [1987]).

    The overwhelming evidence from the hearing establishes that defendant deliberately evaded service of process, and actually received the mailed summons, but rejected it. Under these circumstances, defendant was not entitled to have her default vacated

    Perhaps this is why she conducted the interview with Aaron in Spain and then had it printed in OK Australia. You’d think a big scandal like Michael Jackson giving Aaron Carter cocaine at 15 would’ve been a topic worthy of a million dollar deal by a British tabloid. But instead it was a few short sentences in OK Australia.

    Like

  113. July 7, 2011 4:26 am

    Vindicatemj clearly intimates she is keeping an open mind on this story. Speaking for myself, I posted the link so people could see the trail of events on this story.

    Like

  114. shelly permalink
    July 7, 2011 4:19 am

    Sorry, but I strongly believe he was promoting himself. The stuff he said on E newss, he could have said it weeks ago.

    Like

  115. July 7, 2011 3:26 am

    AC calls Barak story “absurd”

    http://tinyurl.com/3olb8xe

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Transcript of Matt Drudge’s vehement defense of Michael Jackson in 2005, part 2 of 3 « Vindicating Michael
  2. DAPHNE BARAK vs. AARON CARTER. A beastly game around Michael Jackson’s name « Vindicating Michael

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: