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

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):

Submitted on 2011/07/11 at 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