Skip to content

The RANDALL SULLIVAN project. A novel technique of slandering Michael Jackson

November 25, 2012

Let us move the discussion of Randall Sullivan’s book  Untouchable: The Strange Life and Death of Michael Jackson into a special post as it has become too big an issue for the comments sections only.

THE HIGHLY ANTICIPATED MEDIA PROJECT

It seems that putting the Sullivan project into the center of public attention was the main idea from the very start of it. The amount of publicity the book is receiving is simply astonishing and is even unnatural if you understand what I mean. One would imagine that another book about Michael Jackson, released also these days should be worthy of this kind of attention – the one written by Lisa Campbell whose accuracy in writing about Michael in her earlier books is unrivalled  – but no, it is Sullivan’s dubious project that is promoted like no other.

This reminds me of the orchestrated media campaigns that accompanied each Michael’s gesture while he was still alive. The word “orchestrated” is the key word here.

The New York Post of November 22 also noticed something of the kind:

“The evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC devoted more than a third of their broadcast coverage for an entire week to Sullivan, who was a contributing editor to Rolling Stone for more than 20 years”.

Their verdict for the book is unrelentless:

“Fans of Jackson, and even readers who are just curious about the onstage phenomenon he once was, would be better off viewing the documentary made from rehearsals for that comeback tour or YouTube clips of the “Motown 25” TV special nearly three decades ago — than reading this bloated, thoroughly dispensable book.”

http://www.mercurynews.com/entertainment/ci_22028255/review-untouchable-shallow-michael-jackson-bio-by-randall

Initially it indeed seemed that the book did not require any of our attention. The first reviews by those who read the 827-page opus showed that it was nothing but a compilation of every single media story ever told about Jackson sprinkled with a little bit of truth and sympathy over this new edition of the old lies.

The usual idiocy intended for the brainwashed public, I thought to myself,  meant to refresh the old lies and correct the tarnished image of the media (not Jackson) by showing that journalists are human too and not that unresponsive to the public feeling towards Jackson.  So human and so responsive they are that now they agree that Michael Jackson was also a human being and allow the public to see a little bit of the humane side of the man.

However from all the fuss around the book it was slowly growing on me that this was meant to be a huge joint media project marking a new step in the media contract with the public over Jackson – after seeing so much public sympathy towards the deceased man and noting that people were becoming suspicious that the media had not told them the whole truth, a new and more attractive version of essentially the same story had to be hurriedly presented to the public in order to save face and retain the public trust, so Randall Sullivan of the Rolling Stone was speedily summoned for the project.

While the media was working on their project Michael’s supporters left them far behind in their examination of lies against Jackson and proving the innocent truth about the man, so for us looking back at what the media finally recognized about Michael Jackson was a decided step back and a mere waste of time.

But then someone said that the book received a positive review from Thomas Mesereau and the controversy that ensued made us look at Sullivan’s story a little bit more seriously. To be frank with you I wavered in my attitude towards it thinking that I dismissed it as garbarge too soon and therefore decided to really have a look.
This way I have admit that the media reached at least one of their goals – they did make us read Sullivan’s book after all (in free copies of course as it is a matter of principle for Michael’s supporters not to contribute a single cent to the Sullivan project).

By now I have struggled through the first 100 pages of it and absolutely do not like what I see. But since I still have a long way to go,  let me give floor to those of us who are already through with reading it.  Thus we will eventually form a common opinion about the Sullivan project adding more and more detail on the way. How long this post can make as a result does not really matter – let it be as long it is necessary.

The comment that cleared up my brains even at this preliminary stage was the one found on Amazon and made by my compatriot Morinen (please don’t think her to be me, she is not). The comment has got the most likes, clarifies a lot of things and contains a conclusion which I consider the key one for understanding the Sullivan controversy.

Morinen said:

I hear complaints that nobody wants to read the book. I have suffered through this book, and let me leave an honest review.

First of all, I have to say that it was incredibly long and boring. I fell asleep twice while reading it, and I barely made it to the end. The book is exactly what New York Times called it – “dreary” and “bloated”. The narrative is sketchy, jumping from last years of MJ’s life to his childhood, then back, then to the 80-s and 90-s, and then to the last years again, making the story really hard to follow. The text is overstuffed with numbers, dollar amounts and loads of minor details that seem to bear little significance for understanding Michael Jackson or his life. I would have never thought that you could turn Michael Jackson – the fascinating, magical, lively Michael Jackson – into such a boring subject, and yet Sullivan managed to do just that.

Which brings me to the main complaint: this book completely misses the point of who Michael Jackson was. If you read memoirs of people who met him – even for a brief period of time – you can’t help but be mesmerized by the image they all paint. By the tangle of contradictions so evident in his persona – his shyness and his sexuality, his kindness and his ruthless business grip, his message of racial harmony and his bold challenging of racial norms, his humility and his larger than life persona. Michael Jackson was the dazzling star who learned his dance moves from wild animals, danced on the fence in Neverland, wrote songs in branches of a tree, loved to explore Disneyland rides at night, compared songwriting to catching falling leaves, believed in magic and made it happen, caused people to cry, scream and pass out and was described by his collaborators as “he changed the structure of molecules in the room.” I dare you to find a single person who met him and wasn’t completely charmed and taken by his wit, charisma and unstoppable creativity. That is what made him one of a kind; that is what kept people interested and engaged in him. In this book, however, you’ll see and feel none of that. His genius is dismissed; his artistic personality is ignored in favor of dull trivia and recycled rumors. The majority of this hefty book consists of re-packaged tales from Taraborrelli’s biography, news articles and other books and publications, while the author’s own contribution, it seems, lies mostly in the area of factual mistakes and speculation. Yawn.

It has already been mentioned that the book is full of embarrassing inaccuracies, and unverified information. The author makes mistakes such blatant as stating that Michael Jackson’s wife was adopted by a millionaire and had no boyfriend till the age of 30 (when in fact she was raised by her mom and married at 24); alleging that Rowe’s lawyers said MJ’s children weren’t really his (never happened); confusing the two MTV VMA events that happened a year apart, and so on. Not to mention an assortment of small misstatements and mixed names of people and organizations that would take too long to list. Such things may not seem very important in the big picture, but they clearly testify to the shallow research and lack of credibility of the author’s sources.

And then there is absolute nonsense. Just when you start thinking the author may have been genuinely misguided in his attempt to write a true account of events, he leaves you stunned by statements such as that Jackson faked his heterosexuality, died a virgin or that he kept a collection of plastic noses in a jar. The passage about the noses seems the most bizarre. The author goes on and on about it for two pages, somehow mixing it with the topic of Bobby Driscoll in the process, and the whole thing is just…. either utterly pathetic if Sullivan really believes in this (which is hard to imagine), or utterly bewildering and makes you question his mental state if he’s making it up as he goes.

(Just in case you have doubts, here is an official response from the coroner’s office:
“As far as Mr. Sullivan’s book information he might have a copy of the [autopsy] report since it is a matter of public record, however I can assure you that he does not have the autopsy photos… I can tell you that Mr. Jackson did in fact have a nose and that it was nothing like described by Mr. Sullivan. I guess he just wants to sell books…”)

Generally, Sullivan tries to play into all hands: he describes that MJ had vitiligo but then speculates that MJ had been bleaching his skin prior to the disease and maybe he just didn’t want to be black; he presents facts pointing to Jackson’s innocence against accusations in improper behavior, and yet he makes sure to list every groundless insinuating tabloid story he could find and gives a free rein to publicity suckers such as Ray Chandler. Why blow up the book by repeating things that have no merit to them, you’d think? For extra sensationalism, I guess. On the other hand, in cases where it would be justified to give different accounts of the story because contradictory versions exist (the relationship of MJ with Debbie Rowe is one example), he fails to do so. Instead he opts for a more sensational version, the one that paints MJ as “abnormal” and a freak. That is not, in my opinion, what a real biographer should do. In fact, I noticed that Sullivan quite often distorted facts and quotes or presented them out of context in order to support his personal reductive opinion of Michael Jackson as asexual, artificial, weird creature, incapable of relationships and unwilling to father children.

Sullivan evidently is no expert on Michael Jackson’s life, and many things that are obvious to any fan were a late-stage “revelation” to him, as he himself admits (for example, how good a father Michael Jackson was). It is understandable then, that in many cases he failed to get through the layers of fiction to the bottom of things. But it is absolutely not excusable for someone who claims to be a biographer.

His list of sources, although seems long and extensive, for some reason does not include any of MJ’s creative collaborators of last years, such as Brad Buxer, Michael Prince, Will.I.Am, or Theron Fimster. I wish Sullivan covered Jackson’s creative side with at least half of the passion he devoted to depicting him as a drug addict. Music and artistry were always central to Michael Jackson’s identity, and I honestly don’t understand how one can claim writing a full account of his life (or even a period of it) without exploring that part of his personality. But, after all, Sullivan freely admits that he got “tired” of MJ’s music after Thriller album. And his tiredness shows throughout the book. He really shouldn’t have written it.

I did appreciate that the author gave the floor to Mr. Mesereau to speak about the 2005 trial and Michael’s state during the ordeal. It’s always a pleasure to hear from Mr. Mesereau, and I found the chapters about the trial to be probably the most substantial in the whole narrative. However, the progress Sullivan had made was swiftly erased by lengthy insinuations and offensive conclusions in the last chapters. Despite the fairly honest trial coverage, I couldn’t bring myself to rate the book even with 2 stars, given how grossly it misrepresents Michael Jackson’s personality.

I’ll also use the opportunity to recommend truly interesting and insightful books about Michael Jackson – books written by people who actually knew the man or understand what “research” implies:
Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson by Joe Vogel – about Michael Jackson the musician;
You Are Not Alone: Michael, Through a Brother’s Eyes by Jermaine Jackson and My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man by Frank Cascio – about Michael Jackson the man;
The King of Style: Dressing Michael Jackson by Michael Bush – about Michael Jackson the icon.

The above was very enlightening but the crucial comment came from Morinen in the follow-up to the initial review.  Over there she said:

This book paints a dull and freakish image stitched together from recycled stories copied off Trarborrelli’s bio, quotes taken out of context, sensationalized groundless tabloid rumors, and author’s imagination. I’m amazed by the amount of innuendos, speculation and inaccuracies in this book.

…Books of this kind, blending grinded facts with fiction, are the most dangerous and harmful ones, because to an unsuspicious reader they seem “legit”. While in truth they distort and obscure the identity of the artist.

It is especially appalling that a music critic would do this to a part of his own country’s culture. Indeed, some people depart from this world leaving it a brighter place, and some will go leaving nothing but stains.

http://www.amazon.com/review/RRSUGI7TI75WM/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RRSUGI7TI75WM

Aha, so here it is!

The point that the book is blending facts with fiction is actually all we need to know about Sullivan’s book.

Now we don’t even need to read it if we feel not strong enough for its 827 pages – all we need to remember is that the greatest harm done by lies is when they come in combination with the truth. Today’s readers know enough of Jackson’s nature and behavior to be able to close the book in disgust in case they face downright lies about the man  – so if Maureen Orth repeats her stories describing sacrificial blood baths allegedly taken by Jackson  few will read her Neverland nightmare horrors any further. The times are different, you know.

However the lies wrapped in the attractive cover of the truth can very well sink in and compromise the best of the truths told even by Thomas Mesereau. Moreover it is actually this very truth which will help to sell all the other lies in the book as it gives them more credibility and makes them easier for consumption by the unsuspecting public. In short the main course of lies is swallowed much easier if it is served with a sauce of truth together with it.

The thing that astonishes me most is that Sullivan makes innocent eyes and pretends he has never heard of the phenomenon. This turns him into either a naïve child who doesn’t know what he is doing or a shrewd reporter who mixes truth and lies and deliberately cooks them in one pot. Since I doubt that a journalist who was a contributing editor to Rolling Stone for more than 20 years is a naïve baby, this leaves us with the second option only, so we could throw the book away with an easy heart and it is only Thomas Mesereau’s involvement in it that stops us from doing it.

Sullivan says that he had a good deal of conversations with Thomas Mesereau and the lawyer praises him in his emails as he feels that Sullivan’s accurate account of the events of the 2005 trial can help the public to finally perceive Michael Jackson as an innocent man he really was. However many of us are in very much doubt as regards the possible effect of the book and our Susanne has put it succinctly in her short comment:

  • “Yes, it’s a mess with this book. ..I have a feeling that Mesereau was mislead in a way by Sullivan. I’m really still looking for a reasonable explanation for his position, but I don’t get it. Perhaps somebody who read the book should inform Mr. Mesereau in detail why the book – and also Sullivan’s interviews – is so counterproductive to his own efforts of clearing Michael’s name.”

I also have a feeling that Mesereau was misled by Sullivan and the lawyer’s best intentions were used by the author to his own ends.

The whole mess started when Sullivan collected under one roof the “sources” of incompatible quality, throwing into one pile highly respectable people like Thomas Mesereau and complete crooks like Adrian McManus, giving them equal credibility in the book.

He didn’t do any research of his own and didn’t even try to distinguish between the truth and lies. At best he reported everything as he was told. Actually with “sources” like that he didn’t really have any need to invent – when lies from the shabbiest tabloids are put next to the real truth about Jackson, it is the lies that gain as they acquire a semblance of credibility. Of course they remain the lies they were before but if they merely sit next to the chapters based on the materials from the esteemed lawyer like Thomas Mesereau, the trust readers develop for his highly credible information rubs off on the lies in the other chapters as well.

Usually things like that never happen in serious publications. A conscientious author carefully selects his sources and presents only those findings which have been checked and rechecked by all the other available sources.

However what is an undisputed rule and obligation for honest journalists is an empty word for Randall Sullivan, as he flirts equally well with the most respectable of lawyers and those whom this very lawyer exposed as the worst liars during the 2005 trial against Jackson.

Mesereau has evidently read “his” part of the book only and since the author relayed their conversations correctly is probably under the impression that the rest of the good is as good as “his” part – only he doesn’t know that the rest of it is relying on sources like Ray Chandler and Adrian McManus or is derived from the tabloids no sane author will ever consider ever looking at.

People like McManus were Michael Jackson’s and Thomas Mesereau’s opponents in life and during the trial, so there is no way these sources could have been expected to tell anything different from their earlier lies about Jackson (which Thomas Mesereau fought at the trial). But as regards Mesereau I suspect that Sullivan didn’t inform him of his other advisors and this turns Sullivan’s indiscriminate flirtations with each and everyone into a special slander technique and unique knowhow of his own.

THE NOVEL TECHNIQUE OF SLANDER

The new technique is simple and easy as a piece of cake. You could even admire this new trash journalism for its simplicity if it weren’t done at the expense of poor Michael Jackson. The main idea of it is that you don’t have to tell lies yourself – all you need is approach both credible and sleazy sources and report their stories as they are,  adding to them the minimum of your own embellishments. It does not matter that as a result of this technique the case will be presented from two diametrically opposite positions simultaneously  – the author can always say that he wanted to be “unbiased”. This is actually what Sullivan is indeed doing as he says one thing on one page and says the opposite thing on the next page leaving the reader wondering what’s wrong with the author as he is totally unable to present a coherent point of view of his own.

What readers do not know is that it is a sort of an interaction game where the journalist tells them both variants at once and they should guess which one is correct. On one page he will say that someone is not a pedophile, while on the other he will leave numerous innuendoes that he is , leaving his readers with the job of doing all the guesswork. Mind you that in cases of child molestation the mere fact that someone’s integrity is being doubted may ruin his life and reputation forever – no one even needs any proof once the doubt arises…

Our Kaarin saw through the rules of the game and said:

  • “A very strange book. Sullivan says one thing, positive, then later he contradicts himself”.

Some will claims that this is what “freedom of the press is all about”. Please don’t let yourself be fooled by this false statement. This type of “journalism” fully contradicts the ethical code of the profession. Journalists’ professional ethics require them to do proper research and tell their readers only the truth of the matter, and not confuse their readers by mixing the proven facts obtained from scientists with the gossip and fantasy told by the first passerby in the street.

Imagine NASA representatives telling the public of their latest space findings and embellishing them with some gossip from their grandmas, and you will realize that Sullivan did just that.

On occasions scientists also have to report some crazy stories, however each and every such case is accompanied by their full analysis meant to establish the truth in order not to mislead the public. However Sullivan is no scientist, and is probably no journalist either as misleading the public is not a priority with him at all.  He is simply an amiable guy who makes friends with different people of opposite views, nods to  everything they say and puts their stories down offering no criticism whatsoever.

The end result is simple and amazing. It is true that he didn’t distort Mesereau’s words and retold them correctly, and this is why Thomas Mesereau praised him, but the problem is that he retold the worst liars’ stories “correctly” too, without ever bothering to find out whether the stories are justified or not. He believes all of them, you know …

This is how those horrible lies about Michael having a “detachable nose” arose – someone said it, and our amiable Sullivan repeated it like a parrot without ever worrying that it could be a lie, and a tremendous one at that. This is of course if we believe that he is doing it not intentionally  (I don’t. I think that he is one of the meanest hyenas among journalists).

The horror of this indiscriminate reporting is that it is something totally novel for the readership.

Up till now there have been some rules  and the reporting was either sloppy or thorough and serious. It was either this orthat – either based on the meticulous research, or on the fantasies and lies of the author. With so rigid a difference between the two variants, that has been a custom up till now, none of us are yet ready for the system when one chapter in the book may be absolutely true as it is based on the brilliant work done by a lawyer, while the rest of it may be absolute trash (or half-trash) based on totally unsubstantiated and even fictional sources.

The worst part of it is that the truth told in the brilliant chapter endorses the lies told in the trash chapters.

This is understandable – readers develop a certain level of trust for the author when they see the brilliance of research done in one part of the book and it is this trust that makes them believe the rest of the story too. This is how human psychology works or otherwise we would mistrustful of our closest friends and would be testing and retesting them on a constant basis.

So if one chapter is the brilliant truth what reasons will a reader have to distrust the remaining part of the book? None at all.

Even if we warn them of the danger, few will still be able to differentiate the truth from lies as Sullivan did not accompany his lies with links to the respective tabloids where they were first told, so even this last little guidance tool has been taken away from the reader.  Now the reader will either have to know the subject inside out to be able to decipher all the materials on his own (but why then read the book if he knows everything himself?) or the reader will be left totally helpless in the face of all that terrible mishmash of truth and lies.

We as Michael Jackson’s supporters do recognize these lies because we’ve spent the past three years struggling through their jungles on a daily basis, and this is why the public sees Michael’s fans exclaiming from every corner – oh, look here, this lie comes from X who tried to deceive but was completely laughed off, or hey, look there, that  lie comes from Y whom Thomas Mesereau reduced to complete humiliation at the trial after which he almost implored to let him go home. This way the truth sought by us for so long is repaying us tenfold for the effort we’ve been making  while looking for it.

In fact Michael’s fans will probably have to write a readers’ manual for Sullivan’s book commenting on every page of it and providing sources where the official disproval of those lies can be found – otherwise ordinary readers won’t make it through that book. The general public does not have the knowledge possessed by Michael Jackson’s fans and this is how and why Mr. Sullivan hopes to get away with his lies.

Whether Sullivan doesn’t know how to do research, or created this terrible mixture willfully does not really matter – in both cases the result is horrendous. It is a nice-looking soup with a good spoonful of poison added to it. Our reader Tatum worded it as follows:

  • “lies mixed with a little truth are as harmful as poison mixed with a little water.”

However despite all the poisonous effect of the book I think I understand why Thomas Mesereau took part in it. If he had not told the truth about the 2005 trial someone else would have told terrible lies about it (and Sullivan would have reported them as the “truth” – he really does not care), so Mesereau reasoned that the book would be not that bad if at least his part was correct. I am afraid that Thomas Mesereau was put into a no-win situation which, frankly, was more of a trap for him. Well, it seems that no Michael Jackson’s supporter is safeguarded from a Bashir of his own…

WHAT GOES ROUND COMES ROUND

However all lies eventually come to their logical end.  As is always the case with liars their stories ultimately become their own ruin. Even before Sullivan’s book really hit the public the truly heavenly process of uncovering his lies has already started – some of Sullivan’s lies erupted in his face and exposed his book for the big and unscrupulous lie it is.

The major blow to Sullivan was delivered by Michael’s supporters MJJ20Girl and Kittycat10100 who contacted the LA County Coroner’s office and asked them if Sullivan’s story about a “detachable nose” was correct (he does tell a lie about MJ’s noses kept in a jar!). The story was reported on the TV Katieshow in full seriousness and was commented by Sullivan as follows:

I have MJ’s autopsy report (which is cited in my Chapter Notes) and have read it closely. I’ve also seen the photos of MJ’s autopsy, which show the condition of his body at death in graphic detail, and I am basing my description to a substantial degree on those. The autopsy report in no sense states that MJ’s nose was intact, merely that he had a nose. That nose was, as I described, so cut away that it was little more than a nub of bone with two nostrils surrounded by ridges of shriveled cartilage. I didn’t say he had no nose, just not much of one. And that is the same description that has been publicly made by several doctors who examined or treated him in the last five years of his life. Anyone who doubts this can find a photograph of himself without a prosthetic that MJ allowed to be taken, widely available online. Compare that photo to photos of him in public appearances and there can be no question that he was wearing a prosthetic.

Since Sullivan claimed that he had seen the photos of Michael Jackson’s autopsy which showed the condition of his body in “graphic detail” and the nose was allegedly “cut away” from the face, the two Michael’s fans mentioned above approached the LA County Coroner’s office for the official reaction and here is the OFFICIAL RESPONSE they got:

“As far as Mr. Sullivan’s book information he might have a copy of the [autopsy] report since it is a matter of public record, however I can assure you that he does not have the autopsy photos or other photos involving Mr. Jackson. The photos have been secured, and the location is only known to two of us that have them. I can tell you that Mr. Jackson did in fact have a nose and that it was nothing like described by Mr. Sullivan. I guess he just wants to sell books…”

Katerina who left her comment on Amazon summed it up beautifully:

  • “In a few days a fan was capable of getting more proper confirmation and information than the 3 years Sullivan spent on this book”.

Here is the full story of the find:

Since I mentioned Katerina already I can’t help quoting her more on the “nose issue” as well as the rest of the book. Her review on Amazon is pretty exhaustive as it covers the whole assortment of the garbage told by Randall Sullivan. Here are only some excerpts:

  • …Any book which now proclaims that Michael did not have a nose, insinuates he bleached his skin recreationally, hems and haws over his innocence, claims Michael hated his race or claims Michael didn’t have relationships with women is frankly anachronistic. There is much publicly available information which sheds light on all of that – none of which is covered here. Michael’s autopsy report is publicly available, why is that not used as a source for the information about his nose and instead misattributed quotes from The Sun are presented as though they are fact? It would seem to me that Randall didn’t even look at the autopsy report but got distracted by some tabloid recreation of it back in the days after his death and failed to research beyond that point. He goes on for pages about this supposed Bobby Driscoll’s prosthetic nose he imagines Michael had, all of it entirely fictional and so absurd that I wondered at the degree of shame the author lacked in its recounting, at no point in this fictional nose nonsense did he seem to stop and reconsider how he was making himself sound ridiculous with this obsession, and not Michael. His nose is right there in his autopsy; and yet here he writes almost 4 pages about a fake nose that never existed. But it goes to show how absolutely anything goes with Michael and Sullivan – it seems there is no tabloid story too crazy or wild that Sullivan doesn’t believe has a degree of truth in it. The Michael here is a monsterized version of tabloid literature come to life.
  • …He uses a quote from Taraborrelli’s biography to claim Michael started bleaching in the 70s with his sister LaToya. Of course no source are named, and it’s easily debunked as Toya has always been naturally very light skinned (their father Joe Jackson has green eyes because his mother is biracial and his father is listed as mulatto, as are all Michael’s grandparents.) These stories about Michael’s skin have been going on since the 80s because of his skin disorder, with the media seeking to fill in the blanks to explain the lightness in his skin for him, but when his vitiligo became public it should’ve illuminated many people on how easy it is to lie and perpetuate the lie about him, but instead Sullivan seems to lack any common sense and can’t see what is obvious in hindsight. Or like the nose, was it that he just liked the idea of Michael hating his race so much he just couldn’t let it go? Does he not ask himself why it’s only the people who have something against Michael who claim he hated his race and bleached his skin (Blanca Francia, Stacy Brown, Bob Jones) and not people he was really close to? That he let his children be raised by an African woman and insisted on ensuring they were raised well versed in African history and that besides his mother he wanted a black woman raising them (Diana Ross)? His daughter even says, “I’m black and I’m proud of it.” Obvious questions go unasked and unanswered here.
  • He claims Michael Jackson was a virgin, a moment in the book where I audibly laughed – a reaction I’m sure his ex wives and girlfriends would also share on such news. Even if he couldn’t find people around them willing to speak, Randall should’ve perhaps taken note of those two G spot articles the police found amongst his things in 2003? Lisa Marie is quoted here as saying Michael was “somewhat asexual”, you’d think with the way he presented this remark that this was a damning comment about their sex life: no, in reality she had been asked about his physical appearance, and that was her description. This is the kind of casual misquoting and omitting of information Randall does throughout his book. If it doesn’t fit in with what he needs, he ignores it or re-contextualizes it. None of Lisa Marie’s other remarks are included here (he made the moves on her, she wouldn’t have married him if the sex wasn’t good). He believes Bob Jones and the Neverland 5 (successfully countersued; exposed as liars on the stand) who claim nothing happened between Michael and Lisa, even though they had obvious agendas against Michael, were seeking to profit from the scandal, had left their jobs before they’d even married and were thoroughly discredited as witnesses (their testimony is like reading a surrealistic comedy); but we must forget, those are his best sources here.
  • He says that only Lisa can say if Mike was a virgin – that’s funny, she’s repeatedly confirmed they’ve had sex.
  • He claims that Debbie has never said she’s had sex with him. This isn’t true. The only reason we know Debbie’s name is because in the News of the World exclusive in 1996 which broke the story, a journalist had befriended her undercover for 2 months while she was pregnant, this is what they taped her saying: “We started by fooling around a bit and the next thing we knew we were doing it. We knew we were going to try for a baby.” And taped again undercover in 1997: “I can’t wait to see him again. We’re going to stay all day and night in bed – I can’t wait.”
  • He claims Michael’s kids didn’t know who Debbie was until after his death. This is untrue, Paris has said that Michael would talk to them about Debbie. She also didn’t only meet him when Michael “spilled bleaching agents on his scrotum,” in early 93, she met him in 1981. The confidentiality agreement she signed after the divorce where she agreed not to talk about him or the kids in public was there to protect him, the kids, in case she wanted to hurt him in the future, and to protect Debbie from herself, as she’d already been caught speaking about both unawares before, it does not say anywhere Michael is not the father – Debbie and Debbie’s custody lawyer have repeatedly stated he was.
  • He claims Sneddon had 5 victims who were going to show up and testify for him, and only one did (Jason Francia; could go down as “the one the jurors laughed at”), Jordan refused to testify against Michael, he was prepared to go to court in order not to have to testify. Randall doesn’t say that the other 3 supposed victims? Absolutely testified. They were the defense’s first witnesses; Wade, Brett, Mac.
  • There are so many other casual egregious errors throughout the book that it gave me a headache reading, just some – … Debbie Rowe didn’t have her first boyfriend at the age of 30, she had already been married/divorced by then (that was another moment of laughter from me)…. Michael didn’t move into Neverland in 1990… Michael was not called “liver lips” by his brothers. LaToya didn’t claim sexual abuse by her father in her book, she claimed it on the book tour…. Michael never said he used any medication for his skin on Oprah. Uri Gellar is about as close to Michael as Martin Bashir. Corey Feldman was the one to ask about the book of skin diseases which involved STDs on Michael’s table, so Michael explained them to him, is Randall really suggesting skin diseases and STD’s were Michael’s hook for kids, really? Mike had many books on skin diseases because he had skin diseases. …The Jacksons contacted Branca 2 days after Michael’s death because they knew he had the will, so how could they also claim they didn’t know they had a will that first week? He quotes Schaffel saying Michael was scheduled to perform in the United We Stand Benefit concert in Washington but Michael failed to show up, that’s odd as he also managed to perform “What More Can I Give?” at this same concert. He says TJ Jackson had 3 sons, he doesn’t. He calls Eddie Cascio by his brother’s name throughout the book. He mentions that Michael stayed with the Schleiter family after the trial and makes it seem like Michael only spent time with the son (who was in his 20s, not a kid), for some strange reason his sister Franziska who was there throughout is completely ignored (all the females in Michael’s life are given this treatment, no mention of any of the female kids he’d befriended too, even in Wade’s testimony Randall never mentions Wade said his sister also slept in the room with him, she testified to that too, so did Brett’s sister and Simone Jackson).
  • He claims here that the Chandler’s attempted to keep a low profile after 1993. Does he know about the book deal they sought immediately after Michael’s insurance settled? How Ray Chandler admitted in court records that Evan moved him in right after the allegations broke just so he could write it? Does he know about how Ray sold stories about Jordan to the National Enquirer throughout the 90s on behalf of his brother? Did he think Evan Chandler’s 1996 lawsuit and demand for a record album to be released was a show of Evan seeking to be low key? Ray claimed he hoped the 2005 trial would bring vindication, why did he not ask why the Chandler’s didn’t seek this in 1994 with a criminal trial instead of book deals and frivolous lawsuits and demands for record contracts? Why didn’t he ask Ray why he didn’t take the stand in 2005? Why didn’t he ask Ray why he claims now he told Jordan to testify in 2005, when in 2005 during his various paid for media appearances he claimed he had no contact with either Evan or Jordan at the time, as well as claiming that in his subpoeanas? Was Ray lying? Which time was he lying? (At the time he also claimed Jordan was out of the country as an excuse for why he didn’t testify, but then he was photographed skiing in the US.) Why does he act like the crazy fans made the Chandler’s stop from going to criminal court (not even in defense of poor cancer victim Gavin), when he can only cite one instance which involved a fan (Pfeiffer) just graffitying outside his dental place in 1994 and making phonecalls? Does he realize that the Arvizo’s, Francia – hell, the most hated of all, Diane Dimond and Sneddon, all have online accounts and recognizable faces and have managed to survive unscathed for years? Does he think it’s a bit strange the only person who’s hurt Jordan and scared him to the point of criminal action in all these years was his own father?
  • He claims Michael was paralytic with drugs almost the entire way through the last 20 years. It seems every drug story about Michael on Earth has been added here as a fact. It amuses me greatly that Michael was such an opiate addict, and yet managed to wean himself off these drugs entirely by the time he died, and the only drugs inside him were non opiate sedatives administered by Murray. Isn’t it a bit ironic that Michael could wean himself off this huge addiction to every drug known to man, but only died because of another non addictive drug? That none were found in his home or autopsy? That none are presented in any medical documents from the last months of his life, besides Demerol for the treatments with Klein, which the drug addict specialist in the trial even admitted did not fall into an addict’s level of use? He even copied and pasted a remark from a tabloid about how Michael shirked away from sunlight at one point as evidence for Michael’s drug use – in reality, Michael was photo sensitive because of his discoid lupus.
  • It makes me wonder if it’s possible to write a book about Michael where almost the entire source material doesn’t come from people who have been found to have lied about him in court cases, lawsuits or found to have stolen from him, considering the sources Randall mainly uses here: Tohme (stole $5,000,000 million from MJ), Schaffel (stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from Michael, planted negative stories about him in the press, Debbie Rowe amusingly recounted Schaffel’s creepiness in her testimony in 2005), Adrian McManus (successfully countersued by Michael; was found to have stolen toys from sick children & from her own nieces and nephews), Mark Lester (claimed to be Paris’s father 4 years before he’d been re-acquainted with Michael, even his ex wife came out and denounced him as a liar desperate for media attention), Matt Fiddes (only met Michael briefly after Blanket was born; known as a “vainglorious attention seeker” by Channel 4 producers) Howard Mann (has lost many lawsuits against the estate, blackmailed Michael’s mother into dodgy deals involving his kids), Ray Chandler brother to Evan (Michael subpoenaed him in 2004 demanding he show up with the evidence he claimed he had in his book; Ray refused and eventually he admitted he had no such info, his book was essentially fiction), Terry George (he wasn’t found out because rumors reached the LAPD, what nonsense, he had a gay sex chat line back then and when the scandal broke he seized on that to sell a story in The Sun for thousands of pounds, this is why anyone knows about him; FBI and DA didn’t find him credible, he’s changed his story a few times since – the one here is a new fancy retelling, he was and is still obsessed with Michael and even he admits Michael refused to take his calls, so much for grooming kids) Stacy Brown (admitted to lying in his book for money in his 2005 testimony; sued by juror’s for plagiarism after that, a habitual liar who admits he never even really met Michael), Bob Jones (admitted he had an axe to grind, admitted to lying about money in the trial, and yet his book is used here as gospel) and so on and so on.
  • Were these the only people willing to speak to Randall? Or, more likely, were these the only people Randall wanted to hear about Michael from? Was he incapable of deducing which things were lies by the amount of evidence, or did he assume the things which were the most ghastly and often repeated (what sells more?) had to be true? Whatever the answer, in the end the result is an almost entirely fictional book.
  • Perhaps the author had the best intentions for this book (though I suspect, not for Michael). Perhaps he really believes the information he presented is fair and objective. Perhaps he felt this was all there was to the story. But I can’t understand why so many problematic sources were used as though they were absolutes, why so much information was not properly researched beyond tabloid articles, and why so much info has been seemingly intentionally misquoted. It comes across intentionally done and I can’t understand why.
  • I find it bewildering really that he will talk about Michael as being a good father – something even the liars and the thieves around him have all agreed upon, and yet people still fail to realize the way he was with his own children was how he was with every other child. It doesn’t take a genius to have to work that one out, but it’s an inconvenient truth for many, so instead we’re left with all the liars and thieves and rehashed The Sun articles, and can now count the willfully uninformed Randall Sullivan among them.

If any of you wish to add their own contribution to the impressive list of the Sullivan project lies and inaccuracies uncovered by Katerina (please see the full list on Amazon here), you are very much welcome to do so.

READERS’ MANUAL FOR SULLIVAN’S BOOK (samples)

Though I am far from finished with the book let me put in my two cents into the reader’s manual too. These are small details only, but these details make me sure that Sullivan is not an innocent bird he presents himself to be but a hyena spreading these lies absolutely willfully.

The details I suggest concern Sullivan’s habit to drop here and there some noticeable innuendoes about Michael’s sexuality, for example:

“At the 1974 American Music Awards ceremony, Michael and Donny Osmond had served as cohosts with six-year-old Rodney Allen Rippy, a child actor who had appeared in several feature films, including Mel Brooks’s Blazing Saddles, but was best-known for a series of sickly sweet Jack in the Box commercials that had featured his frustrated attempts to get a grip on a Jumbo Jack. The boy had been taken aback when Michael asked for his phone number, and was stunned when the pop star began to call him every Saturday morning, at exactly ten o’clock”.

“Taken aback” means surprised and confused, and though the children were indeed greatly surprised by Michael’s attention to them, there was never any “confusion” part, but only joy and excitement.  This  “taken aback” thing is an innuendo though it looks small and may go unnoticed.

The story is accompanied by Rippy’s explanations that nothing out of ordinary  was taking place:

“They were buddies, nothing more, as Rippy would take pains to make clear later: “ Michael would give me advice about how to handle myself in show business, about smiling at people and shaking their hands. It was just stuff like that we talked about. Very ordinary. It absolutely amazed me that Michael Jackson was interested in what was going on in my little world.”

However despite this full clarification from the boy several pages later Sullivan mentions that Michael Jackson continued “phoning the boy”. The text of course  looks innocent and only those of us who have to live in  a MJ haters’ milieu know that if a matter is mentioned by them it is never a chance occurrence:

“Michael was still phoning Rodney Allen Rippy every Saturday morning but longed for someone to share his thoughts with on the other days of the week. Instead, he was forced to substitute the rats and snakes and birds he kept in cages in the playhouse.”

Fortunately due to Rythmofthetide site we know who Michael was sharing his thoughts with at exactly the same period of time and not only once a week (as with the boy) but every night and for a long time too.

It was a girl, Tatum O’Neal as her father recalled in his conversation with Piers Morgan:

Ryan O’Neal mentions Michael and Tatum, on Piers Morgan, June 19th 2011

O’NEAL: She had a career. She had a picture. She had everything she wanted. She danced with Michael Jackson. He called every night. She was a happy camper.

From the same site I know that Howard Stern extracted information from Tatum that they had “made out together” with Jackson. What exactly that means I don’t know but it should be something which points to Michael Jackson having interests other than phoning “boys” or playing with his rats. We also learn that Michael Jackson was very much in love with Diane Ross and it was real:

Tatum O’Neal say she made out with Michael on Howard Stern, June 15th 2011

Howard: Ever make out with…
Tatum: Michael Jackson? Yes.
Howard: So you did make out with Michael Jackson?
Tatum: (laughing) Yes. Uh-huh.
Howard: Now that’s weird.
Tatum: Sorry. That’s not weird, come on, that’s lucky. A lot of people would want to make out with him, it was before had all that face work done, come on.
Howard: But I thought you said he was kind of scared…
Tatum: He was scared… he had a big half… (gets interrupted)
Howard: Of course he was scared, he was a homosexual man.
Tatum: Was he? Is that what you think? He was in love with Diana Ross and I know that that was real.

http://rhythmofthetide.com/category/relationships/1977-1979-tatum-oneal/

What was impossible between the two of them when Tatum was 12 years old (1975) could very well become a reality much later – Michael was friends with her for long if we believe the picture of them together taken sometime around Thriller time (1983).  The pictures and the story behind them should definitely be added to our manual for readers who are struggling with those “presexual” ideas from the Sullivan project.

* * *

On occasions Sullivan’s tendency to believe every lie told about Jackson lands him in really big trouble. The first case of it was the “detachable nose” story of course, which could be easily rechecked by the autopsy report and upon verification indeed proved to be a big and nasty lie.

The second case of Sullivan’s shame is his description of Neverland main house and its “33 rooms”.  Over here Sullivan was probably inspired by Victor Gutierrez who in his BS book about Jackson also said that the ranch had 36 rooms.

Sounds right to those who readily believe those gleeful media stories about Michael Jackson’s “lavish style”? Well, then these people will be disappointed to know that the real number of rooms in Michael’s home should be divided almost by three.

This is what Sullivan says about Michael’s house without batting an eye-lid:

“The 13,000-square-foot main residence, set among one of the most beautiful groves of live oaks in all of California, was a hybrid Tudor mansion and Dutch farmhouse, with brick and masonry walls built around massive wooden beams that framed leaded glass windows, topped by a beautifully gabled roof. There were seventeen rooms on the first floor, sixteen rooms upstairs, and an enormous wine cellar below ground.

And this is what the official sources say  –  the main house had only 5 bedrooms:

“Known for its youthful atmosphere, Neverland’s main residence is over 13,000 square feet with 5 bedrooms.”
http://www.mademan.com/mm/5-largest-homes-california.html

After reading the above the first thing we need to say is that Sullivan should stop reading Gutierrez – it is harmful for one’s brains and general frame of mind.

The second thing we need to do is find out the real number of rooms in Michael’s house.  Our Lynette had already provided the floor plans of the house in an earlier post, but a new detailed version of them is now coming in Enola Lee’s site which I found within a mere half an hour of looking. With maps like these we don’t need “sources” like Sullivan and Gutierrez any more.

The Dining room in the main house. “When the estate was sold to Michael Jackson, the furnishings were included. The singer kept the interiors as they were.”

Enola Lee gives a link to the  Architectal Digest where she found the maps. The Digest says that when Michael Jackson bought the estate “the furnishings were included. The singer kept the interiors as they were”.

Well, if Michael kept the interiors as they were, then the walls should have stayed intact all the more so and we can very well believe the map made by the previous owner.

The map of the ground floor of Michael’s house shows  7 rooms including MJ’s two-storeyed suite and a breakfast room (which is actually part of the kitchen). The ground floor also has an entrance hall, some corridors, bathrooms and the staff quarters (which look like 2 rooms to me).

the foyer

The map of the upper floor shows 5 big rooms plus some open space in the centre of the house where the stairs are. There is a kind of a gallery on the upper floor which is running directly over the entrance foyer.

http://enolalee.blogspot.ru/2012_07_01_archive.html

All in all that barely makes 12 rooms with the exception of the staff quarters. However thinking that Sullivan probably considered every hall, bathroom and closet to be a room too, I thoroughly added them up as well, but even that brought me to the number of no more than 25.

SULLIVAN, WHERE ARE THE REST OF THE ROOMS? We included every closet into the list but are still unable to reach the number of 33!

Randall Sullivan claims the wine cellar was under the main house (it wasn’t). He calls it “enormous”

And why do you also say that the “enormous” wine cellar was in the house?  Our Susanne has not been to Neverland either, but she knows that the wine cellar was under the Arcade and the Arcade was a separate building at the ranch. Shall we send you a map of Neverland?

And by the way, was the wine cellar really that enormous? By the picture of it it wasn’t – it was just as the previous owner built it – no less, no more…

I think we should not only send to Sullivan the Neverland map, but explain to him what an “enormous” house really means.

The examples of enormous properties are provided by the same source which previously described Neverland.  It says that Oprah Winfrey’s house in California, for example,  is twice as big as Michael Jackson’s as it covers 25,000 square feet (and not 13,000) and George Clooney’s villa in Italy has 25 rooms, and not 12 like Michael’s  (excluding closets of course):

Oprah Winfrey. Located near Santa Barbara, California, Oprah’s house is one of the biggest celebrity homes around. Covering more than forty acres and 23,000- square-feet, this property sports more than ten bathrooms, six bedrooms, a home theater, and ten fireplaces. Furthermore, Oprah Winfrey’s home contains the most green space in all of Santa Barbara.

George Clooney. Coming equipped with more than 25 rooms, George Clooney’s huge Italian villa in Lake Como, Italy, definitely makes the list as one of the best celebrity houses. Featuring a gigantic swimming pool, a garage stocked with motorcycles and an outdoor theater, it’s no wonder that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie decided to wed there.

http://www.mademan.com/mm/celebrity-houses.html

Let us consider the matter of Neverland’s fictional “33 rooms” closed.  After all the number of rooms would not be that important if only it didn’t show the number of horrible lies Sullivan used as his sources.

I still have 650 pages of Sullivan’s book to go…

184 Comments leave one →
  1. February 2, 2013 7:48 pm

    “I wanted to add the link to Raven’s latest post about the manipulation of the media in this Sullivan mess, but apparently the link is not accepted.” – Susanne

    Susanne, this worries me – why isn’t the link accepted? I’ll try to check it up. And thank you very much for information about Raven Woods’ article. It is indeed great! Here are some excerpts (please go to Raven’s blog for the full version: http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=7666

    JANUARY 27 2013

    ….

    This week, I have been appalled to see a respectable publication-The New York Times-engaging in one of the most blatantly hypocritical campaigns against free speech that I have yet witnessed.

    Frankly, I had had no intention of addressing the controversial Randall Sullivan book again until I had finished reading it. I have already given the book more than its fair share of attention here, once in response to Randall Sullivan’s Huffington Post interview, and in an article I wrote in response to a similar hit piece which attacked Michael Jackson fans for their right to express their opinions of the Sullivan book.

    http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=7362

    http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=7456

    I had not intended to mention it again until I could write a fair review. While I have read enough to certainly have an educated stance on its contents-and enough to already have a very good grasp of the many inaccuracies for which fans have criticized the book-I realize that I still need to read it in its entirety in order to truly understand all of its contents in the context in which they have been written-not based on hearsay, or isolated excerpts pulled out. But once again, I have become enraged by a glaring injustice. And once again, this has more to do with the right to freedom of speech than the book itself.

    About five days ago, an article by David Streitfeld appeared in The New York Times titled “Swarming A Book Online.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/business/a-casualty-on-the-battlefield-of-amazons-partisan-book-reviews.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Posing as an objective expose on the misuse of the Amazon review forum, Streitfeld singles out Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson” and the response from fans who gave the book negative reviews on Amazon-admittedly, some who had not even read the book. I actually agree, in theory, with part of Streifeld’s article. The Amazon book review forum has become a source of abuse, as authors have been guilty of using sock puppet accounts to either boost their own ratings, or to knock down rivals. While I applaud the effort to expose this kind of abuse, it is really no more or less true now than it has ever been (the poet Walt Whitman, using various pseudonyms, wrote rave reviews for his own self published Leaves Of Grass). The internet has simply made things a lot easier than they were over a hundred years ago in Whitman’s time!

    Also, when all is said and done, we have to take into account how much damage or good is actually accomplished by such campaigns. In the end, all reviews, whether negative or positive, are just opinions. All Amazon ratings, whether one star or five stars, are likewise just opinions. Neither prohibits a buyer from purchasing the book and making their own decision. Neither determines the book’s availability in the marketplace. So to say, in essence, that negative reviews are an attempt by MJ fans to “censor” the book or to make it unavailable to people is absurd. At worst, negative reviews may impact a potential buyer’s decision whether to purchase the book. But intelligent and discerning readers can just as quickly see through an orchestrated campaign of one star reviews as an equally orchestrated campaign of five star reviews, so for Sullivan, Streitfeld or anyone else to whine about fans’ attempts to sabotage the book is really, as I said, absurd.

    Here are just a few things to note regarding Streitfeld’s hit piece:
    He quotes Trevor Pinch, a Cornell sociologist who has “studied Amazon reviews” as saying, ““In theory, a very good book could be killed by a group of people for malicious reasons.” Perhaps very true. But Streifeld then goes on to use this quote as justification for his entire article, without noting that the opposite can be equally true: A very bad book can also be uplifted for malicious reasons. And frankly, something has started to smell mighty fishy regarding the media’s determination to force this book down our throats, as if it is supposed to be accepted as the Holy Grail of Michael Jackson books. Exactly why is that? There are hundreds-thousands, even-of Michael Jackson books out there, both positive and negative; objective and non-objective. Why is this one in particular being championed as a media darling, so worthy of protection that now even The New York Times-a publication that saw fit itself to give the book a negative review back in November-has taken it under its wing?

    Read The New York Times’ original review of Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/books/untouchable-michael-jacksons-life-by-randall-sullivan.html?pagewanted=all

    Next, Streifeld uses this very condescending paragraph to further fuel the flames:

    In “Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson,” Randall Sullivan writes that Jackson’s overuse of plastic surgery reduced his nose to little more than a pair of nostrils and that he died a virgin despite being married twice. These points in particular seem to infuriate the fans.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/business/a-casualty-on-the-battlefield-of-amazons-partisan-book-reviews.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Notice there is no apparent concern here on the part of Streifeld as to whether these statements are accurate; no apparent concern as to whether Sullivan is reporting facts or falsehoods. The implied assumption made by this condescending paragraph is that he believes Sullivan’s account to be the truth, and that these things are simply facts that blinded fans do not want to accept. Therein lies the whole problem, and it is one that I have been seeing with increasing frequency ever since Sullivan started his media blitz for this book. Just because he is a Rolling Stone reporter with media credentials-and because so much of what he is reporting suits the long-held narrative that the media has maintained of Michael Jackson-there is no attempt to even question the validity of his research, or of his conclusions drawn. Instead, it is those who do question them who are singled out for attack. How much good would it do to argue with someone of this mindset that the autopsy report bears no mention of a prosthetic nose, and that the LA County coroner said that Sullivan never spoke with them, and that there was no way he could have had access to any reports or photos other than those released to the media? What good would it do to argue that most of Michael’s closest friends knew him to have had many love affairs? No, actually, we should forget everything we have ever read, learned, or discovered through research, as none of it has validity when pitted against the conclusions of a Rolling Stone journalist (despite the fact that his own bibliography reveals just how much he relied on many fan blogs for his own “research”).

    ….
    If someone is trashing a book they haven’t read, for no reason other than hearsay, that is wrong. But if someone has read it-and has come away with a negative opinion, that is a valid response. And one that is protected by freedom of speech. You can disagree with a negative review; you can refute and debate it, if you want. But you cannot deny the person their right to express it. And attacks that involve name calling, or lumping a person with a valid opinion into categories with labels such as “rabid,” “deranged,” “delusional” and so on is certainly not conducive to free speech.

    As a result of Streitfeld’s New York Times piece, a flood of positive, five-star reviews for the book suddenly began appearing on Amazon. Most of these are from people who are honesly admitting they haven’t even read the book, but are simply protesting this alleged campaign from Jackson supporters. A lot of them sound suspiciously similar in content. Very few of them, even though some are very long, seem to contain any actual specifics as to why they think the book is so good.

    What is even more frustrating is that we now-thanks to Streitfeld and The New York Times!-have a slew of “reviews” from obvious MJ haters who are praising the Sullivan book as some sort of truthful revelation of the child molesation allegations, when in fact, Sullivan himself does not arrive at that conclusion at all, and actually (among the few good qualities in the book) does a pretty good job of breaking down the 2005 trial. It’s clear that these people have not read the book, either, and truth be told, could care less about reading it. They just saw the NYT piece and jumped at a chance to tick off a few fans. But the end result is doing even more damage to Sullivan’s book, since it is now, perhaps, giving many a false impression of the book’s contents. Obviously, though, these people-who will do anything in the way of riling fans, even if it means throwing an author under the bus-could care less about that.


    I imagine the dust will settle on this whole issue in a few days, but for now, this campaign against free speech that Streitfeld has launched stands as just the latest reminder that free speech is NOT alive and well in America. Be careful if you exercise it-you just may be accused of being a rabid fanatic!

    http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=7666

    Like

  2. Susannerb permalink*
    February 2, 2013 5:26 pm

    I wanted to add the link to Raven’s latest post about the manipulation of the media in this Sullivan mess, but apparently the link is not accepted. But it’s worth reading the post, Raven did a great job.

    Like

  3. Truth Prevail permalink
    February 2, 2013 3:53 am

    @Dialdancer

    thank’s for that update🙂

    Like

  4. January 30, 2013 11:58 pm

    Fatima, I am placing both your and my comments in the place where they belong better:

    “this is the sort of trash-talking I meant before http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/jan/26/michael-jackson-online-thought-police“ Fatima

    Thank you for the link. This highly biased Guardian journalist says:

    Beware of Michael Jackson’s online thought police
    Jacko’s vigilante fans have attempted to preserve their idol’s reputation by bombarding a new biography of him with one-star reviews
    Deborah Orr
    The Guardian, Saturday 26 January 2013

    Cyberspace is home to a bewildering number of vigilante groups policing all sorts of perceived thought crimes. Among them is a bunch of enthusiastic Michael Jackson fans, who patrol the internet in search of words that sully the perfection of their idol’s posthumous reputation. Their latest strike is against a biography by one Randall Sullivan, entitled: Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson, which has received 100 one-star reviews on Amazon. One thing is clear, though: it’s not the idea that Jackson was or should remain “untouchable” that they object to. They toil to keep Jackson’s image protected from prying eyes or minds, residing undisturbed in Neverland for ever.

    Well, if Deborah Orr thinks that it is only Michael’s fans who give one star to Sullivan’s book, here is what Roger Friedman (who is no fan of Michael Jackson) has to say about the book. I think it won’t be a bad idea to inform Deborah Carr of her fellow journalist’s views on it:

    Michael Jackson: Correcting the New, and Not Very Good, Book About the Pop Star

    11/13/12 12:47am Roger Friedman

    Randall Sullivan is just overwhelmed by his material, but gets lots of stuff wrong in his new book about Michael Jackson, called “Untouchable.” The book is panned by Michiko Kakutani in today’s New York Times.

    For example, Jackson hosted a Christmas in Bahrain for friends from the U.S. (which I reported exclusively at the time). Sullivan says Michael was thrilled when “Frank Cascio and his family” arrived. Wrong. Frank Cascio never went to Bahrain. He even said so in his book this year. Michael didn’t see Frank Cascio from some time before he was arrested in November 2003 until Jackson arrived at the Cascios’ home in New Jersey (which I also reported exclusively) in August 2007.

    Sullivan’s main problem is that he wasn’t there for any of it, but tried to cash in on Michael Jackson once he died. Imagine someone writing a biography of Batman and only interviewing the Penguin, the Riddler, Catwoman, and the Joker. The writer fails to speak to Robin, Alfred or Commissioner Gordon.

    Sullivan’s sources are a rogues’ gallery of adversaries: Tohme, Raymone Bain, Brian Oxman, Ray Chandler (brother of Evan, uncle of Jordie), Raymone Bain, etc. Former lawyer Oxman was disbarred on July 6, 2012, which Sullivan only mentions as an aside late in his book. He needed him as a legit source.

    Tohme wormed his way into Jackson’s life, and had to be excised in the final months by people who actually cared about Jackson. Apparently, Sullivan and Tohme became quite close. According to his alarming notes in the book:

    “At the time, I was trying to help Tohme settle his differences with both the Jackson family and the Michael Jackson estate (and, of course, collect whatever useful information might surface in the process).”

    Conflicts of interest abound: buried deep in the book is this revelation: Sullivan introduced Katherine Jackson to her new lawyer, Perry Sanders, who was also Sullivan’s friend. Then Sullivan turned around and used Sanders and his associate Sandy Ribera as sources. Sullivan even admits he gave Ribera a first draft of the book to comment on. What is going on here?

    As for Tohme: I’ve never met him, but for a time I listened to his prevarications on the phone. These included that he was a doctor of some kind, and a special ambassador to Senegal. He conceded to me that he was actually not a licensed physician finally. He held on to the ambassador story.

    I received this email on March 23, 2009 from the Senegal embassy in Washington DC:

    Mansour,
    Senegal has no Ambassador at large in that name. the Ambassadors at large
    are senegalese citizen. It is possible to have alien as ambassador for a
    specific reason, fight for women freedom, goodwill ambassador etc..
    But I don’t know this Mr. Tohme.
    Fatoumata B. NDAO
    Counselor
    Health, Environment & Education
    Embassy of Senegal

    Sullivan doesn’t like this piece of information. He says in his notes that I “found someone” with the Embassy who didn’t know Tohme. He says he’s seen Tohme’s Senegalese passport, with the words ‘special ambassador’ written in by the country’s dictator, er, president for life. Well, I have the email chain from the embassy. And unless Sullivan can i.d. the handwriting of the president, I think there’s a problem.

    “Untouchable” is full of assumptions. And to get away with it, Sullivan admits to them in the back of his book. He writes: “I acknowledge that the long plastic surgery section in this chapter could be described as interpretive, perhaps even as opinionated. It was the result of nearly three years of research and dozens of conversations with people who knew MJ. The point of view is my own, but it’s an informed point of view.” Huh? He wrote a 700 page book but doesn’t have the facts. His informed point of view, plus 3 bucks, will get you a copy of the National Enquirer.

    I do take particular exception with Sullivan’s intent to throw Michael’s long time friend and manager, the late Frank DiLeo, under the bus so to speak. DiLeo was a complex man, certainly. But he loved Michael and vice versa. Early on Frank was cheated out of millions that he could have made from Thriller and Bad.

    After he and Michael split, Frank’s life was full of financial difficulties. As others grew rich from his projects, he struggled. Now Sullivan, taking Tohme’s side, thinks he can paint DiLeo as a villain to Tohme’s hero. I won’t allow it. Frank knew a charlatan when he saw one, and he disliked Tohme from the start. Now Tohme gets to exact his revenge against a dead man– and Sullivan is only too happy to help in exchange for his “exclusive” interview.

    Also wrong, wrong, wrong: Frank DiLeo had open heart surgery at Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles on March 21, 2011. He did not “check into a hospital in Pittsburgh.” Frank languished in coma at Cedars Sinai for three months until he was moved to a facility in Pittsburgh.

    And there’s more that Sullivan gets wrong, like how the story broke that Jackson and his kids stayed in New Jersey in the summer and fall of 2007–there’s the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312120,00.html. What Sullivan has done is chop up a lot of pieces he’s found in research, mash them together and put them in a blender on high speed. The result is something that tastes and smells bad.

    http://www.showbiz411.com/2012/11/13/michael-jackson-correcting-the-new-and-not-very-good-book-about-the-pop-star

    Like

  5. Rodrigo permalink
    December 14, 2012 8:15 am

    Trust me to answer the day before that lol

    Thanks for the update Dial🙂

    Like

  6. December 14, 2012 6:31 am

    @ Truth Prevail

    I know your question was directed at Rodrigo, but perhaps I can give you an update. On Dec 8, 2012 Mr. Wagener was asked one more time to take to the airways to address some old and new accusations against him. This time there was an invitation for his accusers or the questioning to address him directly via telephone. Many attended the program over 150 listened in by phone and another 30-40 in the Chat.

    However, none of his accusers came forward to speak to him. Some of the same accusers who would have done a thorough investigation of the Foundation, its license and finances, and whether Sneddon ever had him arrested; accusers who came up with nothing, but continue to label and report in and outside the Fanbase he is a scammer. (how do I know nothing?…. As become habit if there had been a special blog page would have been created just to show & tell with documented evidence of theft or a history of theft.)

    Accusers who used what I call “A Bashir Act” to influence US and particularly European Fans into believe Mr. Messereau was calling WW a scammer by putting out one paragraph from a response to an email sent just….. days before the Affidavit was to be submitted. An act done in my opinion to halt support of the Affidavit and/or donating to the documentary. A message and response that still has not been published in public in their entirety after several requests for both. Accusers who knowingly continue to misinform the Fanbase.

    If you are truly interested you will find what he had to say about the accusations and “possible” next steps concerning Sneddon here:

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cadeflaw/2012/12/08/whats-really-going-on-this-is-it-1

    Like

  7. Rodrigo permalink
    December 7, 2012 9:07 am

    @ Truth Prevail

    Nothing yet unfortunately. I have no doubt he’ll do it though. Watching his stuff on Youtube, he seems extremely dedicated to protecting and defending Michael’s memory. He spreads so much to the fans and public, which is great to see.

    Like

  8. December 7, 2012 8:58 am

    The blonde girl whose number he gets is Joanna Thomae, the French girl who said she and Michael kissed. She was on the defense’s witness list.

    Like

  9. December 7, 2012 8:48 am

    LOL @ Matt Fiddes being cited as someone who had a long term working relationship with MJ. Those 2 days in 2002 must be the longest days in history.

    This man is clueless.

    Like

  10. Truth Prevail permalink
    December 7, 2012 3:07 am

    @Rodrigo

    Speaking of William Wagner has he given an update on what is happening with his project documentary exposing Sneddon?

    Like

  11. December 7, 2012 1:47 am

    “he author declares, on one hand, that he doesn’t think Jackson is a pedophile (while maintaing shadow of a doubt about Chandler). Then, on the other hand, labels Jackson (without proof of course), ” a presexual who likely went to his grave never having had sex with man, woman or child. .. Someone please explain to me — very slowly — how this is helpful to Michael Jackson?” – J.Mason

    Slowly – no, I can’t. But quickly – yes. If Michael did not have sex with anyone he could not molest anyone (and couldn’t have children) either.

    However if Sullivan says it and does it in order to “help” Michael, all I can say to him is “No, thank you”, we don’t need your “help”. Even if it is a well-intentioned lie, it is still a lie which has nothing to do with reality.

    Michael was very much interested in women and after some initial shyness grew very confident with them. And those in his surrounding knew of his ways with women. Look at this, for example – if someone had not deciphered the words said by the man sitting next to Michael I myself would not have noticed it:

    First he makes a fuss over a telephone number of the blond girl and Frank Cascio laughs somewhere under the table over it covering his face with a magazine, and then Michael embraces another girl and one of his associates says:

    Guy with gray hair: ‘I see somethin sticking out’
    Michael: ‘Nastyyyy’

    Like

  12. December 7, 2012 1:07 am

    “Note that he says that his source Matt “I’m Blankets Bio Dad” is a credible source!. Why? Because he has worked longer for Michael jackson’s security than possibly anyone else since Bill Bray. ROTHFLMAO!. I wonder if he has ever heard of Wayne Nagin? Or Mike LePerruque? I’m starting to think that Sullivan must be a drunk or something!”

    Lynande, the Matt Fiddes part is hilarious. This is probably what Matt Fiddes told Sullivan and he believed him. As far as I remember Michael did not even know who Matt Fiddes was.

    Like

  13. December 7, 2012 12:49 am

    Lyn, I have had the thought too,that Sullivan is writing uder the influence ,of something …There are so many inconsistences ,makes you wonder how he didn´t notice.- Now he has put his foot in his mouth with the Chandler case.

    Like

  14. lynande51 permalink
    December 7, 2012 12:31 am

    that was an excerpt from Sullivan’s book on page787. Note that he says that his source Matt “I’m Blankets Bio Dad” is a credible source!. Why? Because he has worked longer for Michael jackson’s security than possibly anyone else since Bill Bray. ROTHFLMAO!. I wonder if he has ever heard of Wayne Nagin? Or Mike LePerruque? If that is the case then Matt Fiddes’ employment with Michael will go down in history as a strange and unusual long term employment of holding an umbrella next to someone. I’m starting to think that Sullivan must be a drunk or something! How can he write that with a straight face?

    Like

  15. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    December 7, 2012 12:28 am

    The author declares, on one hand, that he doesn’t think Jackson is a pedophile (while maintaing shadow of a doubt about Chandler). Then, on the other hand, labels Jackson (without proof of course), ” a presexual who likely went to his grave never having had sex with man, woman or child.”

    So, he’s not a molester (more or less) because of his stunted sexuality.
    A seemingly supportive pat on the back quickly followed by a stab in the belly.
    Someone please explain to me — very slowly — how this is helpful to Michael Jackson?

    Also, with all the resources available to Sullivan, why wasn’t Jordan Chandler found and interviewed? Whatever Chandler said would have made Sullivan’s book a blockbuster.

    Like

  16. lynande51 permalink
    December 7, 2012 12:25 am

    Jackson family awareness that MJ accused Randy of stealing from
    him: my sources; Tohme also told me that MJ warned him that Randy was the
    member of his family he most had to watch out for, and that MJ said Randy had
    stolen from him in large ways and small, and that MJ was especially upset about
    an expensive watch he claimed Randy had stolen. I have no certain knowledge of
    whether Randy stole from MJ or not, but I am convinced that MJ told people he
    had, the 2007 press release notwithstanding. I’ve offered Randy the opportunity to
    respond to the stories told about him, including claims about what took place
    when he tried to get a meeting with MJ in Las Vegas in 2007. Matt Fiddes, who
    perhaps had a longer relationship with MJ than anyone who had worked security for
    him since Bill Bray, told Britain’s Sun that MJ ordered his security guards to
    shoot Randy (see the TMZ story about that below). Randy denied that happened,
    but not to me. Through Taunya Zilkie, he declined the opportunity to discuss
    these matters with me.

    Like

  17. Tatum Marie permalink
    December 6, 2012 9:41 pm

    When even by all accounts, including his own, Ray Chandler was not even present during the time that June, Jordan and Lily were around Michael. Wait until you read those inaccuracies.

    I know, right? Evan himself wasn’t even around when they went on these trips with Michael. Oh my goodness, I will not be reading that book. Honestly, all I hear on my TV screen is that MJ was acquitted in 2005 but he settled with an accuser in 93 blah blah blah blah blah. Skip the Arvisos, this 93 case is where the majority of the media and public are clueless and Sullivan doesn’t do us any favors.

    Like

  18. lynande51 permalink
    December 6, 2012 9:34 pm

    On a happier note I wonder what kind of song the Dragon moment would have inspired?It isn’t everday you get to hear a Dragon.

    Like

  19. December 6, 2012 9:33 pm

    I know helena, but it shocked me because i felt like “couldn’t the author just say something like – They started to have intimacy when Michael went to Arnold Klein’s office for his vitiligo treatments”? he left the sentence that way… Honestly i was even shocked during the whole paragraph regarding Debbie and her relation with Michael, and the part surrounding the the custody battle from 2004 to 2006.
    He wrote Debbie’s pounds…hust for example.

    Like

  20. lynande51 permalink
    December 6, 2012 9:30 pm

    The part of the book about the Chandler case is very one sided. He has extensive quotes from Ray Chandler that aids the ” doubt” in the minds of the reader by allowing Ray Chandler to rewrite the timeline of events in the extortion case. When even by all accounts, including his own, Ray Chandler was not even present during the time that June, Jordan and Lily were around Michael. Wait until you read those inaccuracies. It seems that now we have proven it to be a lie the media and the Chandlers are going to attempt to rewrite history.The next thing you know it will all be an “urban myth” like Diaine Dimond tried to call the case where Michael sued her.

    Like

  21. TatumMarie permalink
    December 6, 2012 8:47 pm

    Yes thats all the media keeps bringing up is that 93 settlement case. Then you have liars like Raymond Chandler family sources who lie continously to the press. I get more pissed off at Jordan every day he stays silent.

    Like

  22. December 6, 2012 8:00 pm

    “Here’s my problem with the Sullivan issue, is Mesereau aware that despite the claims that Michael wasn’t guilty Sullivan still said on interviews that he lives with doubt about the Jordan Chandler case?”

    Tatum, I haven’t read the whole book yet, so don’t know Sullivan’s stance on the Chandler case. But I can assure you that from now on the Chandler case will be in the focus of accusations against Michael. Sullivan’s book sort of drew a line under the Arvizo case and more or less officially proclaimed them as liars or con-artists instigated by a mentally unbalanced mother.

    The Chandler case is becoming the main one and therefore so much effort is being put now into revising all those old lies about Michael through Youtube videos and various fictional “facts about MJ” sites, using Ray Chandler’s words, Peretti’s film, Dworin’s ideas, Jordan’s interview with the psychiatrist, etc.

    It is only starting.

    Like

  23. tatum marie permalink
    December 6, 2012 7:43 pm

    Here’s my problem with the Sullivan issue, is Mesereau aware that despite the claims that Michael wasn’t guilty Sullivan still said on interviews that he lives with doubt about the Jordan Chandler case? I understand where Mesereau is coming from but at the same time Sullivan does more harm than good.

    Those who live in darkness hide from the light. In every other aspect of life, many who provide the truth or want to promote peace are always labeled as crazy. I guess we just have to accept the fact that there are people who don’t want to know what really happened and would rather believe the lying media because it’s what they know.

    It’s no different than Jehovah’s witnesses who try to teach accuracy regarding the bible; people sometimes just want to believe what they’ve been taught all their life opposed to the truth. One man was shown something that clearly contradicted his beliefs and still doubted it then when the witness said “but it’s in the bible” – the man tore the page out and said “not any more”.

    @vmj
    I couldn’t read the book all the way- does he speak about the Chandler case in any detail?

    Like

  24. December 6, 2012 7:16 pm

    “Am I the only one who became angry during the passage of the book where sullivan described when Michael and Debbie started to be intimacy? This is the passage “A certain intimacy had developed between the two when Michael dripped a skin-bleaching agent on his scrotum and Debbie attended to his burns.””

    Zeromarcy, if it were the only problem with the book we could call it a masterpiece. I’m afraid there is much more to the book than that. In fact, this seems to be just a casual way of saying that Debbie indeed had to attend to a chance burn on Michael’s intimate parts.

    I remember reading somewhere that those procedures made her so embarassed or excited that she came out from the room all red in the face after that.

    Like

  25. December 6, 2012 6:10 pm

    @nan….the author said he is not a criminal…but in interviews (in particulary that one at nightline) he said he is not sure that Michael did not molest any child.

    Like

  26. December 6, 2012 6:00 pm

    Am I the only one who became angry during the passage of the book where sullivan described when Michael and Debbie started to be intimacy? This is the passage “A certain intimacy had developed between the two when Michael dripped a skin-bleaching agent on his scrotum and Debbie attended to his burns.”

    Like

  27. December 5, 2012 12:55 pm

    Rodrigo, William is reading the book right now. He told that he will make no further comments until he read it to the end. He just reacted to the video of Tom Mesereau because he felt Mez was attacked by fans. I tried to explain the situation to him and he decided to read the book himself.

    BTW, does anyone know if the Estate made a comment about the book and where I could find it?

    Like

  28. Rodrigo permalink
    December 5, 2012 2:54 am

    I’m sure this is fake…but William Wagener is also supporting the book on Youtube. Really?:/

    Like

  29. nannorris permalink
    December 5, 2012 2:51 am

    I really had a hard time getting through the book, but I think the part that Mesereau is concerned, when he is talking about freedom of speech etc has to do with the chapters when MJ died and after and all the shady characters around him and who is trying to profit etc., as well as the important trial stuff..
    He interviews all the characters ..none of them are good people in my opinion…but they were who was around him..
    He interviews both sides regarding the Jacksons and the estate..I dont know the dynamics regarding AEG, the estate , and the Jacksons really but he includes that , not sure if that has some people involved troubled..
    The estate did make a negative statement regarding this book …,as I recall,,They said it rehashed old stuff and stale internet rumors , something like that..
    He is talking about the Jacksons claims about the will., with the stale internet stuff , I believe..
    I think John Branca is sick of them putting that stuff out there,,tired of people bringing it up… and I dont blame him , because he has done a remarkable job making mj estate solvent , and I can t believe EVER, MJ would want his family in control of his estate…I think the way the will left the dispersement of money to Katherine and the children made sense…That is just my feeling on that , I know some disagree…
    But,..I think Mesereau, thinks they were trying to influence the fanbase against the book , from the beginning,because of the last chapters ,making everybody look bad, and inadvertently , hurting the part of the book that the man , who obviously is no fan, believes MJ was not a criminal..
    But I also think the author comes off badly on tv too, when he is trying to make his points..
    I would have loved to have seen him call out the Chandlers on television, calling them liars , like he dismisses the Arvisos,, but when he says there is a slight shadow of a doubt, ……….. he wasnt in the room ,so an unbiased person can not say for certain , that it didnt happen , once someone makes those kinds of accusations, which is why Evan did it that way…because there is no way of really 100 percent clearing your name unless the accuser recants it.. I think that is what he is trying to say….And frankly, I dont think any tv show really wants to hear MJ was completely innocent and they misjudged an innocent man….
    In the book , he goes over June Chandlers testimony, he talks about Geraldine Hughes book, Ms .Fischers book as well……Goes over the Schwartz-chandler tape and what Evan Says….He talks to Ray Chandler , who imo , comes off badly, says how Evan blew his brains out , because he was sick and nobody even claimed his ashes , much less showed up for a service..nothing…Ray Chandler wasnt even talking to him by that point.Talks about the family saying mj destroyed their lives , but it seems pretty evident that it was Evan that destroyed his family….He concludes Mj was not a criminal.,,I wish he had put the part about Ray Chandler fighting to stay out of court in 2005 in , even as he tells everyone he wished Jordy would have shown up for trial ..That frustrated me..

    Later in the book , he talks about Dave Dave and how he shares all that Michael did for him..That part brought tears to my eyes as it would even someone who might think the worst of MJ..The part about Ireland and Michael interacting with the townspeople and his children is very good and very positive for MJ..There is a lot of things that made my head want to explode, but there was some very compassionate stuff also..
    Lets see if anyone interviews Mesereau or if he has more to say on the subject..One thing I am certain of, is he thinks what he is doing is in MJ best interest..
    He is one of a very few that never sold MJ out no matter how much was offered to him.He goes out of his way to be interviewed even on small town local shows to talk about the trial and what a wonderful human being MJ was..

    Like

  30. nannorris permalink
    December 5, 2012 1:59 am

    The media always clamors to get an interview with Tom Mesereau regarding current events.I havent seen any of them discussing his statement regarding this book ..I am going to wait and see if someone picks this up and gives him airtime or comments on it from the media..
    so far this is the only thing i have seen pick it up..unless i am wrong , because I am not great with the internet…
    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/12/prweb10195621.htm

    Like

  31. TatumMarie permalink
    December 5, 2012 1:55 am

    I know, but the difference is that this author actually took the time out to talk to Mesereau. I believe Sullivans book should not be promoted but I doubt Mesereau has any financial interest in the book, just like Aphrodite Jones book.

    Like

  32. Truth Prevail permalink
    December 5, 2012 1:13 am

    @Tatum Marie

    Yes I understand but that is why i think Tom has been tricked somewhere just because he got one bit right does not deserve to be praised if a hater reads that book they are likely to come away remembering the stupid nose stories being in jars rather than the 2005 trial passage.

    They are other books but why feel so strongly about Sullivan’s it is just repeated BS they have come and gone.

    I have read experts from the book and have seen what that Jackass has said during interviews to come up with a conclusion what he is about.

    I am just shocked at the way Tom described the book “Compassionate view of Michael Jackson” when it is not and i do have to question has Tom read the whole book or just the 2005 trial part because i don’t know why he would say those things especially reading about the stupid nose stories and also the stuff he said about Mike’s kids that they “think” Michael is their father.

    Like

  33. December 4, 2012 11:55 pm

    300 and some years ago,in the aerea where I grew up,many,many more than in Salem. Ti this day people spek of them now and then.And they don´t blame the witches.So, all lies come to an end.

    Like

  34. aldebaranredstar permalink
    December 4, 2012 11:34 pm

    As far as I’m concerned, Sullivan shot himself in the foot on those interviews and angered the fans with his own words. Here is what he said on Nightline:

    “The ultimate question is, did Michael Jackson ever molest a child? My conclusion is I don’t think he did, my answer is probably not, I wish I could say conclusively that NO he didn’t. I CAN’T, there is a shadow of doubt! I have learned to live with that and anyone honest will also have to live with that!” (Randall Sullivan)

    Not content with this, he goes on to talk about Michael wearing a prothetic nose, being a ‘pre-sexual,’ having mental problems, needing therapy, asking for cash in paper bags, etc. In other words, angering Michael’s fans to the point where it almost seems deliberate, unless he is so completely clueless, which I doubt.

    He could do a book signing if he had any courage to stand behind his own words. No one is stopping him. This claim that he can’t is just PR. Sure, he might get heckled and there miught be fans carrying signs, but so what? That is free speech, the same free speech right he has.

    To my knowledge, the only thing the Estate said about the book was to deny the claim that Michael’s funeral was held up by Janet wanting her $40,000 deposit back. I am glad they stopped the auction of Michael’s medical records related to the Pepsi burn and I don’t think they in any way orchestrated that event. They do not need the PR; they are getting Michael’s Estate out of debt and he is the highest paid performer, making $145 M so far this year.

    Like

  35. December 4, 2012 11:32 pm

    This book fails to explore the paradox of the publics reaction to Michael Jackson.
    A great talent of world fame whose music is being seriously studied (outside the US);a
    committed humanitarian, known to royalty and the poorest of the poor. On the otherhand
    subjected to the worst slander and misinformation in the media.The false allegations no
    doubt fuelled the latter.
    At least T.Mesereau described the farce and the drama of the 2005 trial.

    Like

  36. TatumMarie permalink
    December 4, 2012 10:53 pm

    @truth
    I dont think that is possible. Tom Mesereau passionately supported Aphrodite Jones book and was even present during book signings and wrote the forward. Im hearing that the portion about Michael and the 2005 charges are good in Sullivans which is what he is focused on. I wonder if he watched Sullivans interviews though.

    Like

  37. December 4, 2012 10:42 pm

    That’s crap re Tom

    Sent from my iPhone

    Like

  38. Truth Prevail permalink
    December 4, 2012 10:36 pm

    Who cares if he is scared i think he is just making that up to get sympathy or to make Mike’s fans seem deranged just to get back at them for exposing his lies.

    I bet he never thought he would be exposed like this he probably thought i will right a bogus book and then i will walk away with cash and no one will notice my BS because no one cares about what’s truth and what is false.with Michael Jackson.

    Well HA guess again!

    Like

  39. Truth Prevail permalink
    December 4, 2012 10:32 pm

    Also Randall is a liar as well i don’t believe he spent 3 years on the book because if he did actual research he would find out the truth behind his bogus nose stories.

    I saw T-Mez video you would think he was NOT describing the same book that fan’s have exposed not only that but we have seen this Randall in interviews he is not pro MJ at all.
    Tom is talking like this whole book is about Mike’s legal troubles when is is NOT there is more Bogus than FACTS.

    I have a feeling someone might be fooling Tom.

    Like

  40. Truth Prevail permalink
    December 4, 2012 10:20 pm

    I personally do not think this book will change the haters mind i mean there is so much FREE information available here yet they don’t bother researching it so what makes you think they will PAY and read a long book.

    The thing is nowadays if someone genuinely want’s to know the truth about Michael the first place they are likely to try first is online.

    I am not gonna hate on T-Mez but i do find it very odd how he is trying to promote this book yet they are other books with NO sensationalism and he has not promoted them like that and they deserve to be noticed by the public.

    I don’t want to think ill of T-Mez but i will just throw this out there perhaps a deal was made that if Sullivan’s book sells a certain amount and is a success maybe the publishers promised Tom a book deal.

    Like

  41. December 4, 2012 9:39 pm

    nannorris: I read your last post and realized that you have stated an opinion that has been rummaging around in my brain for days. I just wasn’t able to put it together or verbalize it.
    Valid points that, despite distaste for Sullivan’s book, ring true to me to an extent that is very disturbing. Thank you for your blunt appraisal and thoughts on this.

    Like

  42. nannorris permalink
    December 4, 2012 7:38 pm

    If this author is afraid to go to book signings because of the fans , then that is TERRIBLE, to me , even if I am not crazy about the book……Gavin and Starr Arviso walk around like they did nothing ,, they look like they are having a ball.. so does Bashir , Zonen Dimond,,, all the rest.Conrad Murray murdered him , while he was trying to please the higher ups in AEG..He will be out to write his own horrible book and personal appearances or what ever else he wants to do, in a year or so..
    And if they are being left alone after all they said and did to MJ ,and this guy questions his nose , and his sexuality., and some other stupid stuff……., ….. but says he was not a CRIMINAL., and yet, he is the one, that has to be afraid for his safety .???.then they are all laughing …I dont doubt Mesereau on that for a moment, on that one….
    And we shouldnt expect to see any other authors writing books that are somewhat critical of MJ but expose that trial either, because people wont think it is worth it…neither will mainstream publishers..
    We arent going to see Lisa Campbell book getting mainstream exposure or any other book , the media perceives as a love letter to MJ saying he was an innocent guy and they enabled his torture..
    Just a few weeks ago I saw a former FBI criminologist on a program ,sounding very authoritative, and professional, that mj committed criminal behavior and was in love with Jordan and Gavin , and it was a strong case and he knew first hand because he worked with the prosecutors..Not convicted due to celebrity and the jury didnt get all the evidence..pure BS but people eat it up.
    I wrote the lady doing the show ans she essentially agreed about the prosecutors , Yesterday there was another person on her show questioning MJ and she is just sitting there…..
    And if Mesereau sees this guy cant even have a book signing because of fans , then I am not surprised at all that Mesereau would come and speak out about it..
    I dont like this book but it certainly does call out all the people who brought that BS trial, that destroyed MJ life.
    David was just going over Ralph Chacon testimony( another P.O.S, out there anonymously living his life , like he did nothing) where he has the nerve to say mj was caressing a child and then put his penis in his mouth , in open court, and you know everybody ran out and reported it like gospel.
    Can you imagine sitting there listening to that trash ,while people judge whether you actually did that , and you might go to jail over these tabloid stories ..What would that do to your heart and soul?.
    I think that is what Mesereau thinks destroyed him..People thinking he would do that ….
    It was, the estate, that put out a note saying this was a bad book and it says old crap about MJ, and goes over old internet rumors, meaning the will..
    MY own personal opinion, is I think the estate does a good job,I personally dont think they are pulling a fast one, but that notice was more about protecting their own reputation, then MJ, and that is why Mesereau is so upset.
    I noticed the other day,there was something on fb regarding Mj medical records being auctioned off and people were upset and contacted the estate , and of course they swooped down and took care of it.
    I dont see how the estate would have to be informed from fans on fb..I would think they have a few people on the internet themselves looking for people taking advantage of the estate., and could have nipped that in the budd , before it was ever seen by fans..
    But supposedly the fans alerted them to this and they immediately took care of it..I myself think it is like a PR stunt, it uneasily reminds me of some of the testimony or what Mesereau has said about the people around MJ , where they would let a situation arise , so that they would take care of it and look good to MJ.
    I think that is what Mesereau is talking about , regarding this book..
    This is all just big business to me……jmo.
    .

    Like

  43. michael permalink
    December 4, 2012 4:39 am

    I never read the book nor do I care to or care at all, however I will say this, one thing stood out in this article for a reason

    “ALL LIES COME TO AN END” that just answered my question, that was the sign I was looking for

    you reap what you sow and I am not talking about sullivan, the author neither

    Like

  44. December 3, 2012 1:14 pm

    I read that the 50 minutes TM and RS spent on the telephone where all about the 2005 trial.
    And that was reprted correct. Has TM really read the 800 pages?Are there 2 different books.?

    Like

  45. lynande51 permalink
    December 3, 2012 6:39 am

    Tom Mesereaus book looks different. Mine has the title on the cover. So did all the others. Did he get an advanced copy?

    Like

  46. nannorris permalink
    December 3, 2012 6:32 am

    Lyande51
    I absolutely loved how you saw MJ ..I totally agree.Dont quite know how come so many other people found him so hard to understand.
    And I loved his time in Ireland because people didnt criticize him for his imagination.
    I remember one clip where there was a hot air balloonflying overhead… , one of the people said, and it made the noise it does when they do something with the air.
    MJ was inside and came running out because he thought it sounded like a dragon.
    I just love that about him..
    I wish he stayed there, he might still be with us…

    ———————
    .
    As far as The statement from Tom Mesereau , he obviously feels very strongly about this book…He has a lot of integrity and I admire him for standing up for what he believes in…
    I wish he had addressed some of the stuff in it , that I find troubling , though.., but maybe he will put out more later ..I just dont know..He seems adamant, he wants people to read this book……
    He endorsed Karen Moriarty book and when it was criticized he didnt say anything ..
    This one it would appear he wanted not to endorse so that it would seem like it was coming from the authors own conclusions , that he was innocent of that garbage..but speaks out now when it is being criticized…
    It is very confusing …

    Like

  47. Rodrigo permalink
    December 3, 2012 6:14 am

    Tom…what are you doing? Facepalm for me.

    Like

  48. Tatum permalink
    December 3, 2012 3:33 am

    @SANEMJ
    not Hollywood or media elites
    The Hollywood and media elites are trashing this book as well. Even some haters know better than the garbage that was placed in this book.

    Like

  49. Tatum permalink
    December 3, 2012 3:30 am

    No, I would never ever ever go up against T-mez because I appreciate every thing that he has done for Michael, but this is not accurate. T-mez what are you doing?! I’m scared to push play.

    Like

  50. sanemjfan permalink
    December 3, 2012 2:24 am

    Mesereau just released a video to denounce the “vicious, malicious, disgusting” campaign against Sullivan’s book. After watching it, there’s nothing I can do except literally shake my head in utter disbelief and shock that those positive words about Sullivan’s book just rolled off of Mesereau’s tongue! What he fails to realize is that the people who are trashing the book through their “campaign” are FANS of MJ, not Hollywood or media elites!

    Like

  51. December 2, 2012 9:45 pm

    A beutiful comment(if one can call it that only)Lyn. You are 100% right. I have had 100:.ds ,1000 close encounters with children, some of them victims of sexabuse.
    I have tons of expierience of their imagination.You are so right on. And no- I am not a p-f.
    This relates to my work.

    Like

  52. aldebaranredstar permalink
    December 2, 2012 11:31 am

    Good news–Randall’s book is tanking and he is afraid to do a book-signing appearance b/c of ‘security concerns’. I guess that means he is afraid that people will show up and heckle him or confront him.

    Here’s the article, which claims he’s facing ‘angry’ fans and he doesn’t understand why.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/books/index.ssf/2012/12/bookmarks_angry_jackson_fans_a.html

    Like

  53. aldebaranredstar permalink
    December 2, 2012 9:37 am

    BEAUTIFUL, Lynande, just beautiful! Thank you so much. I wish we all could live in the world of the imagination, and never know that we can’t fly. You have explained it perfectly about how Michael needed to keep his imagination and never grow up to be so mathematical. I believe in fairies, elves, and leprecauns too.

    Like

  54. lynande51 permalink
    December 2, 2012 1:59 am

    The booing part mystified me too when he actually gives Charles Thompson a good reference.What?
    I personally found the time in Ireland as fun for MJ. I think he liked it there. As for MJ believing in leprechauns, I still haven’t ruled out Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Yeti’s, Unicorns, Fairies, Elves and Pixies, so I join him in that belief. I believe there are leprechauns too. Just because I haven’t seen one doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
    But guess what, I stopped believing in UFO’s and aliens when Hollywood turned them from ET to Alien and Independence Day. Once they weren’t fun anymore who wants them. My imagination did not need those pictures. Once someone had filled in those pictures my imagination about them was dead. Because, you see, imagination does not come from knowing, it comes from not knowing.
    Michael was an artistic genius. That is the one thing that I think everyone will agree on minus a few die hard haters. As a matter of fact that is exactly what everyone in the press and other places, has been trying to dissect since he first belted out “Who’s Loving You”. I think if they could have they would have dissected his brain while he was alive they were so mystified by it.
    Michael it seemed was the only one that understood the power and importance of his imagination. It is the imagination that is the seat of that miraculous genius that gave us Billie Jean and One More Chance and everything in between. He also understood that genius slowly disappears as we age and the mathematical part of life starts to take over. He understood it because he had lived it. He tried to explain it but few adults got it.
    Michael was all about imagination and its connection to innocence that is why he loved children so much. It isn’t so much that he was innocent in that sense, but it was more about holding on to a part of him that needed to be. It was about holding on to his imagination.
    Very few people can explain imagination and the connection to the innocence of children but I am going to try and pardon me but this is the best example that I have seen so far. That is it’s the best without a long boring explanation of right and left brain function and growth. It’s about remembering when you thought you could fly.
    There is a movie that Tom Hanks narrated called Radio Flyer. The synopsis of the film says that it is about a father telling the story of two young boys, Mike and Bobby. They move to a new area when their father abandons them and their new stepfather begins to beat Bobby. It tells the story of these two young boys and the methods that they use to escape the harsh reality of their lives. In the end Bobby escapes from his stepfather’s brutality by flying away in his Radio Flyer wagon turned airplane. He used his imagination to escape. Tom Hanks final words that he speaks in that movie are:” Somewhere inside every person… someplace inside every heart …is a power that turns fear into courage… and makes dreams take flight…Powered by imagination”.
    Michael knew, and if they are honest people will admit, that there is a light which is emitted by children as the play. You can see it in the twinkle of their eyes and hear it in the bubbling of their laughter as they play together. It is called imagination and it comes from not knowing they can’t fly yet.
    Once a child grows to know the humdrum mathematical side of life that innocence disappears. You can actually see it. It has nothing to do with sex but everything about having to take care of reality no matter what that reality is. That is what kills our ability to fly, it is what kills our imagination.
    Michael loved children because they helped him to remember what it was like when he could fly. With them his imagination and creative genius endured. Michael never would have done anything to a child that would have killed their imagination because it would have killed his as well. It is him and his ability to be the person that he was, the songwriter, the singer, the dancer, and the father that tells me that Michael never M******* a child.
    I also get what Tom Mesereau is saying, as a matter of fact I think I said it about three years before him. It was those charges that killed Michael, so I didn’t need to have him say that to us and I sure didn’t need an 800 page book from someone to tell me he didn’t do it.

    Like

  55. aldebaranredstar permalink
    December 1, 2012 9:09 pm

    I doubt if TMez is being that subtle in his comments, NanNorris. He says the Dimonds, Orths, Sneddons will be happy that fans are trashing this book (b/c he thinks it exonerates Michael from the allegations), but in fact the way he portrays Michael is so negative that I think it actually supports their views; for example, Maureen Orth said in her April 03 VF piece that Michael wore a prosthesis on his nose. As far as the Estate and AEG, since his sources are people who have had legal issues with the Estate (Schaffel, who is apparently partners with H. Mann, Tohme, etc.) this is to be expected.

    The fact that he says Michael was booed in WMA in 06 is just mind-blowing. Why bring up that crap again? As you say, all he had to do is check the youtube video of the crowd going crazy with love for Michael when he appeared. His book is, as VMJ says, a few drops of truth in a big mess of lies and tabloid reruns. He is just stirring the pot of lies that were cooked up by the tabloids and throwing in a sprinkling of truth.

    Like

  56. nannorris permalink
    December 1, 2012 7:42 pm

    There is a whole lot I dont like about this book and frankly, as far as some of the stuff he says ..A quick visit to youtube was all he needed, to get it right. .I am talking about when MJ went to get an award in England in 2006…Charles Thompson was at the event and he said people were going crazy for MJ, showing him so much love , and he couldnt believe it when the next day every newspaper in England said he was booed off the stage…This guy reported that mj was booed off the stage.If he did alittle research, he would have realized there was a world wide smear campaign against MJ.
    Worse then some stuff for me, was he seems to mention Terry George and that he isnt exactly dismissing this BS.The guy says that MJ would call him all the time when he was a kid and something questionable was happening during one call , but he never thought mj was, what they were accusing him of……He says his parents were mad because the phone bill was so high, ( nevermind , the person making the calls , gets the phone bill, so that should have given him a clue to if this guy was truthful anyway)..what a load of self serving crap.
    A quick visit to the FBI files should have cleared it up for him , but instead he then quotes this George guy saying mj called him right as he started to begin rehearsals and apologized for a supposed phone call from back in the day.Honest to God , I thought my head would explode.
    But this stuff with Mesereau….very strange because although he is talking about the author concluding that mj was innocent , he is saying all fans should read this book..
    His fans already know he was innocent , so I think he is talking about other info, but not addressing it directly.
    Reminds me of Brian Oxman talking about Sneddon handing Gavin the magazines during grand jury , but he wouldnt come straight out and call out Sneddon.
    Maybe lawyers dont call each other out publically…
    Mesereau said he thinks that someone has organized the fans against it..
    I think he is talkinga bout the Michaels estate …
    The estate came out with a note sent to fans, worldwide, saying this was a bad book , and that MJ had to put up with this stuff in life and now even in death..It made no mention of the author deciding that MJ was indeed innocent of all that crap
    I think it is more about the stuff about AEG and the business side and how much money is being made , then about old tabloid crap , that they are thinking of…
    ..
    I also noticed that TMZ has called bullshit on this book too , which is unheard of..They have implied MJ was everything , including a nazi, in the past but they arent bring ANY attn to this book , even with all the juicey tabloid crap..That is very strange.
    I noticed in the book that when the Spa episode happens with Katherine, that he says the pro estate people got their message out through TMZ, and Janet used ABC.
    I can believe that because I remember TMZ reporting Janet had slapped Paris and clearly from the own video they showed , it never happened,That was footage they got from Trent who is pro estate..I also remember Harvey Levin really pushing the Michael album too, so I know the estate lawyers are very friendly with him…..Levin is very friendly with the estate lawyers…
    I have always supported the estate , they are making money themselves , but they turned mj estate around….They deserve to get paid well and if the Jacksons were running it, , those kids would be screwed ..They run through money, so it is hard to sort out all this stuff….But Branca is a very powerful person for sure …
    I am just getting the impression from what I have read Mesereau saying , that he thinks people should be reading about who was around MJ when he died and the stuff that people are doing now ..
    The author also goes into the Murray trial and how Pastor would not allow alot of questions regarding AEG etc..I remember watching Randy Phillips testify and he is a real smooth shark imo….
    By the time I got to the end of the book, I was so shell shocked , I really couldnt take in any more info so I am going to reread it, and try and sift through the BS.
    I know he talks to questionable people and some are pro Jackson., but these were the scum surrounding MJ , so these are the people you have to talk to I suppose..
    I just cant help thinking about Mesereau saying that so many people are smiling because people arent reading this book…I think he isnt just talking about the demon and the prosecutors , I think he is talking about AEG and a lot of high powered lawyers too..

    Like

  57. December 1, 2012 6:00 pm

    I agree with you Nannorris. TMez said look for who was not treated kindly and aside from the family, Branca and Estate are another target. As much as I love what they’ve done, if there is any truth to what RS tells us, it is disturbing. Doesn’t change my mind who should be in charge. Family and esp. one of them come off much worse. There are many positive sections also. The whole book is dark. No joy at all. Also missing testimony from those truly friends with MJ. We don’t know who anonymous sources are, however. I chuckled at Malik stating he would have hired Branca to manage anyway.

    Like

  58. December 1, 2012 5:58 pm

    I picked up the book at the library the other day. I wanted to try and give it a read to understand what the fuss was about. It was poorly researched. And the sad fact is that many people want to believe this stuff, even though most of what Sullivan said can be disproved by a little bit of digging. At one point, he seemed to even throw a little, shade if you will, toward Michael Jackson’s kids. He pretty much said at one point that Klein was likely the father, and then later on said that the kids believed they were Michael’s children. IMO, that’s a little bit condescending.

    The guy seems to form many of his opinions on tabloid gossip. While he’s right that Michael Jackson was an innocent man, he seemed hell bent on painting the guy as a virgin freak who couldn’t possibly have had sexual contact with any person. Why is it that in order to show Michael’s innocence, one must portray him as a backward, sex-phobic person? His giant collection of adult magazines ought to show that he was neither grossed out or afraid of sex. If he was, he wouldn’t have magazines and books about it, nor would he have article clippings about the female G-spot.

    Like

  59. lynande51 permalink
    December 1, 2012 5:20 pm

    The parts after his death come from people I consider questionable sources.Howard Mann and Tohme and their lawyers.

    Like

  60. December 1, 2012 1:26 pm

    “The tabloid stuff ???” – nannoris

    Yes, it is a collection of tabloid stuff which will leave you even more confused as regards the real truth than you were before. The drops of truth here and there only make the job of distinguishing it from mountains of lies much more difficult, that’s all.

    Like

  61. nannorris permalink
    December 1, 2012 11:39 am

    I have read the entire book.And believe me , it wasnt easy…..The tabloid stuff ??? I still cant wrap my head around it …….:(((….I dont agree with alot of the assumptions this guy makes but the trial part is good and he does come to the conclusion that MJ never had any criminal behavior..
    I think an interesting part is unfortunately around when MJ was doing his rehearsals and the people surrounding him..Those 02 concerts and how they came about..
    The parts after his death dealing with MJ estate and how closely they seem to be in business with AEG are interesting also.
    I had originally thought that when MJ estate put out word that this is a bad book and it is more garbage , that they were protecting MJ image , but I think I have come to the conclusion that they also protecting their own , more then MJ,, as none of them come off good..
    The Jacksons look terrible , the estate lawyers and AEG look extremely greedy and he also goes into the Conrad Murray trial and how AEG questions were very limited by Judge Pastor.
    I got the impression that the author thought that AEG knew he would not be able to do all the concerts and was hoping to take his assets..And now his estate is protecting them in a way regarding the Jackson wrongful death suit…
    He interviews all the sleaziest characters around MJ , but then there wasnt exactly any decent people around him to interview , I guess…
    I want to see if I can read between the lines of these shady characters and see if there is any truth in any of it while they blame one another for MJ death , while covering their own hides..
    Most of the time I was reading this book, I was torn between whether I should puke or cry..
    But I am going to read it again , trying to not get emotional and see if there is some things the author has said of importance , that I might have missed.

    Like

  62. Mej permalink
    December 1, 2012 8:50 am

    I didnt read the book but I read the reviews in amazon, the posts in this blog and in allforloveblog. By just having a glimpse of some of the tabloid stories and non-evidence-based assumptions being told in the book, I can already imagine how hard and disgusting it would be to read the book. Yet all of you still tried your best to expose RS’ lies told about MJ. I just want say a big THANK YOU to all of you.

    Like

  63. TatumMarie permalink
    November 30, 2012 3:25 am

    I know the feeling, I couldnt make it through the first 10 pages. I started reading it in the book house and almost went into a coma.

    Like

  64. November 30, 2012 12:50 am

    Guys, I am through with the first 200-smth pages of Sullivan’s book and must say that I am completely amazed that there are people who managed to read the whole of it.

    These people deserve a medal for their heroism.

    It is the worst kind of BS I’ve ever encountered.
    The tabloid media madness at its worst.
    A clinical case.

    I will try to make a post about it in the next few days.

    And I kindly ask you to release me of the need to read the remaining 600 pages. It is simply unbearable.

    Like

  65. November 29, 2012 6:38 am

    “I am sorry to have such a poor view of humanity, but when it comes to MJ we know how things stand. VMJ has indeed examined all those human flaws so to speak and more.”– Kaarin

    Kaarin, I am sorry but I also have a poor view of humanity. So many disappointments, so little hope.

    “What Sullivan has done is immoral, among other things leaving out the humanitarian work and MJ´s art.”

    I could not sleep and read some more pages from Sullivan. The chapter about Michael living in Ireland is good.

    The phenomenon of Sullivan is indeed something new – he is like a chameleon changing depending on the sources he uses. A good source makes a good story, a nasty source makes a nasty one. Sullivan is just a mere collector with no opinion of his own. The articles from Ireland were very warm, friendly and humane towards Michael, so Sullivan repeats it all almost without distortion (I’ve read those articles). However in the next chapter some crook will come and tell complete BS and Sullivan will repeat it too.

    He produces the impression of a person who is unable to tell lies from the truth. Poor media – they have told so many lies about Jackson that now they have lost the ability to recognize the truth at all. But they are definitely intrigued by Jackson and are trying to “understand”. Only imagine them trying to “understand” on the basis of sources like Schaffel, Maureen Orth and Thomas Mesereau taken together.

    But there is one important conclusion I need to make. All those clumsy Sullivan’s explanations about Michael being “presexual” is the impression he formed about Michael even after reviewing the own media lies. Sullivan did not try to do his own research – he just took everything written by his colleagues, but even those lies taken in their entirety did not convince him that M. was what they accused him of. Instead Sullivan started a theory that MJ was “presexual” – meaning that Michael was like a child and there was no sexual component in his relations with children. This is probably what Thomas Mesereau values about the books.

    If I have an opportunity I will write about that Irish part.

    Like

  66. November 29, 2012 2:27 am

    I know it’s not about Sullivan, but it’s about his medical record.

    http://twitition.com/75288

    Like

  67. Maria permalink
    November 28, 2012 11:42 pm

    Michael has been dehumanized by the media.

    Like

  68. Susannerb permalink*
    November 28, 2012 11:30 pm

    Oh Jesus Christ, has anyone seen this:
    https://www.pristineauction.com/auctions/index/details/id/72650

    It’s a different topic, but shocking to me!

    Like

  69. November 28, 2012 5:02 pm

    TM remarked that the jury in 2005 were probably not fans of MJ. At that point VMJ did not yet exist.Following MJ´s death there has been even more division among people over him.
    TM has to deal with all kinds of juries and being seen as a MJ-fan could spill over to juries.
    I am sorry to have such a poor view of humanity, but when it comes to MJ we know how things stand. VMJ has indeed examined all those human flaws so to speak and more. And it is great that VMJ has done this. What Sullivan has done is immoral, among other things leaving out the humanitarian work and MJ´s art. For now it is best to leave TM to see and sort things out as he sees fit. VMJ is great and should continue without undue attention to this drivel of a book.
    Respectable newspapers have given it low marks, so lets wait a while till more of the public has read it. That is if they even will spend the money for it.

    Like

  70. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 28, 2012 5:56 am

    Yes, VMJ, TM is a busy lawyer and you are right that he does not have time to read websites of Michael’s supporters, BUT he is bringing up the subject of the fans himself and so it is legitimate to remark that he is not properly aware of their hard work to vindicate Michael and to confront the lies head on with facts. I agree we always will have enormous admiration and respect for him b/c of the trial vindication and his subsequent defense of Michael. (I wish he himself would write a book about it and perhaps he will one day). But IMO he is not reliable as a reviewer of books or in terms of how the public will react.

    He seems to be separating issues–the allegations on one side, and all the other issues on the other. He doesn’t see that Michael needs complete vindication, not just on the charges alone, but vindication of all the other lies (such as he wanted to be white, he was a pre-sexual virgin nonsense). We need the complete truth, and IMO any partial truth will not cut it. Michael was a perfectionist, and we should want the most perfect truth for him. RS is not a vehicle for that kind of truth b/c the truth in his book is blended with too many lies.

    I guess we have to let it go, and see what happens. On the other hand, what is valuable is that we seem to be at a point where the allegations in 03-05 are viewed as false but the allegations in 1993 are still creating doubts. Maybe we need to do more work to discredit the 93 case as clear extortion, a case supported by many shady characters with a fantasy story that does not add up.

    Like

  71. November 28, 2012 5:40 am

    It sounds to me like Mesereau is only dwelling on the sympathy and factual information that was given to Sullivan to conclude Michael wasn’t a pedophile. I don’t believe he’s watched Sullivan’s interviews promoting the book, because it clearly contradicts Mesereau’s beliefs on what he wrote. He used a good illustration about how he approached the bed sharing issue in the trial but it stresses what we’ve been saying here if anything that avoiding facts or telling lies will not to defend Michael.

    Mediocre lawyers, on the other hand, either run from such evidence or present slick, sleazy explanations.
    This statement was interesting to me because that is exactly how Sullivan approached the research and promotion of his book. I feel bad for Tom because I honestly think that he was bamboozled.

    Like

  72. November 28, 2012 5:38 am

    “How do you know she’s a girl? Is it in Ray’s book?”

    Facebook

    Like

  73. November 28, 2012 5:31 am

    How do you know she’s a girl? Is it in Ray’s book?

    Like

  74. November 28, 2012 4:51 am

    “Really, Emmanuelle is a girl?”

    Yes.

    Like

  75. November 28, 2012 4:38 am

    Lynande, I understand what you mean about the general public.The mentality is really low, ignorant and meanspirited.It is obvious that TM has not followed this blog.Contrary to this I believe RS may have got some ideas from it to twist.TM has to meet the general public through his work and it would(unfortunately) be a disadvantage for him to be taken for a fan or even a fan supporter of sorts.People can be so opinionated and judgementaL
    We can only hope that plain boredom overtakes them after reading a few pages.They sure
    know all the collected dirt from before.It is hard to believe someone would read 800 pages for the pleasure of it. Ordinary trashbooks have, I think, something of a plot at least..

    Like

  76. November 28, 2012 4:27 am

    He also claimed Evan had 2 others sons, well Emmanuelle is a girl.

    Really, Emmanuelle is a girl?

    Like

  77. November 28, 2012 4:08 am

    Helena, your thoughts about the general public vs. those of us who know more…some more than others in various areas….is very insightful. I agree that Mr. Mesereau approaches his position from a different perspective than we do. He really has no idea of the volume of research that has been done or of how much we are aware of almost every aspect of Michael’s life. He would be floored I think.
    Because of my personal respect for him I am keeping an open mind towards his viewpoint, realizing at the same time that so much of Sullivan’s book is sheer nonsense. At some risk here, I will say that there are sections in the book that are very sympathic toward Michael and paint a fair picture of who he was and what influences affected him. Problem is, the next page or chapter reads like any tabloid of your choice over the last 25 years. Still reading..

    Like

  78. November 28, 2012 2:31 am

    “these are the first graders that have not learned a single thing other than Mesereau is on their side”

    Lynande, all this is very sad. Time will show whether Thomas Mesereau’s optimism about the effect of the book was justified. We will have to wait and see. It does not mean that we should support the book if we do not like it – we need to be honest about it and say what we think. However we should avoid the possibility of boycotting Thomas Mesereau by some fans. Haters are sitting and waiting for a rift between us and Thomas Mesereau and we should never, never, never allow it to happen.

    “Oh and of course you, David and me are once again mentioned by name over and over again. It is like starting all over again.”

    It seems they are unhappy that all of us are back together again.

    Like

  79. November 28, 2012 2:20 am

    “Helena you should send him a link to this blog to show him that: 1) You were someone that was not a Michael Jackson fan until after his death. 2) There is nothing that you/we have not confronted. Maybe he could tell us one of the topics he thinks has not been covered.”

    No, no, no, Lynande, Thomas Mesereau is so busy a man that I would never want to distract him with these things. Probably someone’s freedom or even life depends on his state of mind and the time he spends on preparing for the case – and instead of letting him do it I will engage him in these discussions? No, no, no – if he finds out one day that we are handling all these issues about MJ let it be just a big surprise for him.

    However his ignorance of what fans really do explains why he is praising the book. He probably thinks that no one except Aphrodite Jones has yet tried to speak up for Michael and therefore thinks that Sullivan is the only one!

    Like

  80. lynande51 permalink
    November 28, 2012 2:14 am

    Helena I feel differently than you about the general public. I, like Tom Mesereau, knew exactly what they were thinking. David and I live here in the US and we know what is said about him. We know what is said about us as supporters.
    Not to bring up a non issue but here is what has happened in the last five days since he endorsed the book. Those particular people on T***x have once again returned. It was very quiet for awhile having only 30- 40 readers on it at a time.It has now tripled in the last couple of days. Why it has tripled is of course just what I said before. To them wierd=___ and ___=weird. This is the general public he is talking about and these are the first graders that have not learned a single thing other than Mesereau is on their side.
    Oh and of course you, David and me are once again mentioned by name over and over again. It is like starting all over again.

    Like

  81. November 28, 2012 2:08 am

    “WHAT???? How can Mez say this? This makes no sense at all. Fans, in videos, websites, etc., have done a great, great deal to talk about his surgeries, the vitiligo–and lupus, and his interaction with children, his humanitarianism. Fans are NOT avoiding these issues at all. I think TM does not know much, if anything, about the fans.”

    Aldeberan, please don’t be so surprised. Thomas Mesereau is a lawyer who has no time to read blogs or follow the fans’ forums. He defends people and often does it as pro bono work. He prepares himself very well for the trials and if he had not shut himself out of outside life when he was defending Michael and had “socialized” instead, no one knows what the outcome could have been.

    He may be under the impression that we avoid these “sensitive” issues. Let it be this way – there will come a day when he will know.

    Like

  82. November 28, 2012 2:01 am

    Hi, vindicatemj (Helena), there a new 5star review on amazon.com, where you are mentioned! – appleh

    Appleh, thank you. I’ve found it and they say that Katerina and I are one and the same person – which is absolutely wrong. I am not.

    And Katerina has read the book while I am still struggling with it. But it does not mean that I don’t agree with her – I do. The part of the book that I’ve read gives me the right to make some conclusions.

    Like

  83. November 28, 2012 1:52 am

    David, thank you for the letter. Thomas Mesereau has the full right to have an opinion of his own and I respect it very much. Moreover his opinion may be more balanced than ours as he sees the effect of the book on the general public.

    The problem here is that we and the public have different levels to start with in respect of MJ. For us Sullivan’s book is a decided step back, while for the public it is a step forward. Their perception of Michael was SO bad, that if Sullivan helps them to realize that Michael was human after all, it will already be some progress for them while for us the very same idea will be an insult.

    Let me repeat – while we go back with this book, they go forward.

    We and Thomas Mesereau have different levels of expectations of the public.

    Thomas Mesereau is happy to see these first-graders learning to read their first letters on how to love and appreciate Michael Jackson, while we expect the same public to be finishing school, so to say. In short we expect of them TOO MUCH.

    As to Sullivan’s grave lies, inaccuracies and indisriminate reporting all of it is true. But again, all these inaccuracies are painful for us, as we know how far Sullivan is from the truth about Michael. But for them, it may be a breakthrough book as in comparison with what they think about Michael his “not having a nose” is a minor thing.

    Let us regard Sullivan’s book as a half-illiterate book for those who are totally illiterate. Sullivan speaks to them in their language and they seem to be able to understand it. So let them read it if it helps them to warm up to Michael.

    Like

  84. lynande51 permalink
    November 28, 2012 1:42 am

    Helena you should send him a link to this blog to show him that: 1) You were someone that was not a Michael Jackson fan until after his death. 2) There is nothing that you/we have not confronted. Maybe he could tell us one of the topics he thinks has not been covered.

    Like

  85. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 28, 2012 1:39 am

    “My perception of the Michael Jackson fan community is that, for the most part, supporters of Michael Jackson want to avoid addressing issues like his sexuality, interaction with children, plastic surgery, vitiligo, etc. I understand this. However, in my opinion, you will never persuade others about Michael Jackson’s humanity and decency without confronting them.”

    WHAT???? How can Mez say this? This makes no sense at all. Fans, in videos, websites, etc., have done a great, great deal to talk about his surgeries, the vitiligo–and lupus, and his interaction with children, his humanitarianism. Fans are NOT avoiding these issues at all. I think TM does not know much, if anything, about the fans. And Michael’s sexuality avoided by fans–that is hysterically funny–what about all the youtube ‘sexy Michael vids’ and the “Michael’s Manhood’ forum discussions. As far as the deviant sexuality accusations, that is extensively discussed by fans all over, including, of course, here.

    What is TM talking about??? Obviously, he doesn’t get it.

    Like

  86. lynande51 permalink
    November 28, 2012 1:35 am

    What Michael Jackson fans apparently don’t realize is the need to confront certain aspects of Michael Jackson’s life and explain them. If you don’t explain these realities and utilize them to humanize Michael Jackson, you will never persuade others that he was not a pedophile.

    My perception of the Michael Jackson fan community is that, for the most part, supporters of Michael Jackson want to avoid addressing issues like his sexuality, interaction with children, plastic surgery, vitiligo, etc. I understand this. However, in my opinion, you will never persuade others about Michael Jackson’s humanity and decency without confronting them

    I guess Mr. Mesereau has never read this blog. I can’t see anything in Michael’s life that we haven’t confronted can you guys think of anything.

    Like

  87. sanemjfan permalink
    November 28, 2012 1:19 am

    I don’t know if me or anyone else has already posted this, but here is Sullivan’s “response” to his critics on the Katie Couric website. He answered the tweets of fans who called him out on his lies! http://www.katiecouric.com/features/untouchable-author-randall-sullivan-critics/

    Like

  88. sanemjfan permalink
    November 28, 2012 1:11 am

    Here is Mesereau’s most recent email to a fan, that was reprinted with permission on the Reflections on the Dance FB page, and he asked that it be spread throughout the fan community.

    While I agree with his overall message of confronting uncomfortable topics about MJ’s personal life in order to convince non-fans that he wasn’t a pedophile, I vehemently disagree with his assertion that Sullivan’s book is the best way to achieve this goal. If Mesereau wants MJ to be “humanized” to non-fans, he should recommend that they read the books that were written by Jermaine & Latoya Jackson, Frank Cascio, Michael Bush, and the upcoming books by Raymone Bain and Arnold Klein.

    And if non-fans want to investigate the allegations only, then of course they should read Mary Fischer, Geraldine Hughes, and Aphrodite Jones’s respective books. (Fischer released her GQ article as a paperback book and eBook a few months ago.)

    Another thing that bothers me is that Mesereau STILL has not addressed Sullivan’s statements in recent interviews that MJ “may have” been guilty in 1993, or the fact that Sullivan didn’t challenge the Chandler’s version of events in his book.

    Here is Mesereau’s email:

    Thank you for your recent emails.

    The Los Angeles Times book review appeared in hardcopy on November 19, 2012. As I prepare this email, I have it in my hand.

    This book review was prominently featured on the front page of the Los Angeles Times “Calendar” section. This section is widely read by people in the entertainment industry.

    Following the publication of this review, I received a number of phone calls from people who I do not consider to be part of the Michael Jackson fan community. They were affected by the reviewer’s comments in the first two paragraphs. As you know, he immediately states that Mr. Sullivan believes that Michael Jackson “could not possibly have been a child molester.” In the second paragraph, Mr. Lee comments on Mr. Sullivan’s believe that the Chandler case in 1993 was an “extortion case”. Mr. Sullivan also says that Mr. Jackson should not have paid money to settle this case.

    What Michael Jackson fans apparently don’t realize is the need to confront certain aspects of Michael Jackson’s life and explain them. If you don’t explain these realities and utilize them to humanize Michael Jackson, you will never persuade others that he was not a pedophile.

    My perception of the Michael Jackson fan community is that, for the most part, supporters of Michael Jackson want to avoid addressing issues like his sexuality, interaction with children, plastic surgery, vitiligo, etc. I understand this. However, in my opinion, you will never persuade others about Michael Jackson’s humanity and decency without confronting them.

    What do I mean? Consider one of my strategies in Michael Jackson’s criminal trial of 2005.

    I began the defense case by calling three witnesses whom the prosecution claimed had been molested. They were Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes and Wade Robson. The prosecution had presented witnesses and evidence in their attempt to prove that these young men were sexually assaulted by Michael Jackson.

    All three denied that Michael had ever touched them improperly. They were indignant that anyone would suggest that they were molested. However, all testified that they had slept many times in Michael Jackson’s bed. They all claimed that they were friends and that nothing illegal ever happened.

    I decided that evidence that these young men had slept in Michael’s bed needed to be explained. I also decided that allowing in such evidence was a price worth paying in order to illicit their strong denials that any molestation ever happened.

    Roger Friedman and others criticized my decision to let in evidence that these young men slept in Michael’s bed. I also called female witnesses who had slept in Michael’s bed. I wanted to explain the innocence of this behavior.

    Following the trial, I spoke to the jury foreperson. He said that Michael Jackson might not have been acquitted of all counts if I had not called these witnesses and explained Michael’s behavior.

    I have always believed that top criminal defense lawyers do not run from evidence that appears troubling. They directly and courageously confront and explain this evidence. This must be done in a way that protects and humanizes their client. Mediocre lawyers, on the other hand, either run from such evidence or present slick, sleazy explanations.

    In the trial, I was not addressing a jury of Michael Jackson fans. I assumed that these twelve jurors were pro-prosecution and prepared to convict. Fortunately, they were persuaded otherwise.

    Again, you will never convince numerous segments of the general public that Michael Jackson was not a pedophile unless you confront, explain and humanize certain aspects of Michael’s life that these people find troubling or unusual. In my opinion, Randall Sullivan’s book does this very effectively.

    Randall Sullivan’s book is already changing people’s perspective on Michael Jackson. Mr. Sullivan portrays Michael in a very sympathetic light. He shows how he was continually exploited and misused. He humanizes him by addressing issues that must be explained. In the process, he explains Michael very effectively. He is changing people’s perspective on Michael Jackson in a positive way because he doesn’t appear biased towards Michael.

    I repeat, the Dimonds, Orths, Chandlers and Sneddons are ecstatic that Michael Jackson fans are trying to bury this book. To me, these fans are doing a great disservice to the legacy of Michael Jackson. Michael was no pedophile or criminal. He was one of the kindest, nicest people I ever encountered. He was also the greatest, artistic genius of my time.

    You are welcome to circulate this to anyone you chose.

    Kind regards,

    Tom Mesereau

    Like

  89. appleh permalink
    November 28, 2012 1:07 am

    Hi, vindicatemj (Helena), there a new 5star review on amazon.com, where you are mentioned ! That crap book hast lost in ranking a lot and is now under review, don´t know why, but this is very good news !
    “He also talks of the stairs down into the “secret room”. As you can see …””I’ll surely add the “secret room” story to the main post too, only with so much incriminating material against …”
    The thing with that “secret” room sounds also familar, many accusers seem to have all made the same “expieriences” Have you read the book of Dorothy Rabinowitz “No crueler tyrannies” ? I think it was mentioned here on the blog, it´s about false accusations. When you hear about the accusations in the book, it is like a dejavu or like a movie script, all the things that happened were alike, most of the time there was always a “secret room” or any other hidden place, where the crime did happen !

    Like

  90. shellywebstere permalink
    November 27, 2012 10:58 pm

    He also claimed the part that was redacted in the settlement aggreement is how much June and Evan were paid. In fact it’s the répartition of the money which is redacted.

    Like

  91. November 27, 2012 10:57 pm

    Guys, I’ve added the maps of the house to the text of the post, so that they do not get lost in the comments section. And I also added Enola Lee’s site to our blogroll. It contains exceptional information about MJ and Neverland. http://enolalee.blogspot.ru/2012_07_01_archive.html

    Note: I am going through some of the posts there and see that a lot of them are the articles from … Rolling Stone, only they are written by Michael Goldberg, not Sullivan. Considering the reputation of Rolling Stone I really don’t know what to think of those articles (and the site) as I have not read them all yet – so please decide for yourselves.

    “He also talks of the stairs down into the “secret room”.” – Lynande

    With detailed maps like these we will be able to do a lot now, Lynette! I’ll surely add the “secret room” story to the main post too, only with so much incriminating material against Sullivan (and the media) we will probably need a series of posts about their new project against Michael.

    These are not just “inaccuracies” – it is simply another reality which the media created for Michael Jackson! He lived in his reality, while they invented a parallel world for him where they distorted him and his real life beyond recognition.

    Like

  92. shellywebstere permalink
    November 27, 2012 10:04 pm

    He also claimed Evan had 2 others sons, well Emmanuelle is a girl.

    Like

  93. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 27, 2012 9:28 pm

    When RS says after THREE years of research “Who Knows” whether Michael molested a child or not, or that there’s a ‘shadow of doubt’ we are back to square one, no progress has been made, thanks to RS anyway. This is where his book is a complete failure, on top of all the other tabloid content and sources. He spoke with Mesereau 50 times and came to that conclusion? Why did he need to spend so much time with T.M.? He had the court transcripts and that’s really all he needed. 1993 is where he has the problem with the ‘shadow of doubt’ and T.M., of course, was not involved in that, but should have been able to tell him that Jordan’s account was suspicious, to say the least, that he had his own testimomy from friends of Jordan who said he told them nothing happened and he was forced by Evan to lie, and that Ray Chandler was not a believable source, and that neither Ray nor Jordan would testify in 05. How could RS believe the account Jordan gave Dr. Gardener, and how could they believe that a person would molest a child once and never again? As I understand it, this is a sickness that gets worse (not better) with time (unless there is treatment) and that involves many victims (not one only).

    Looks like the claim that there was 3 years worth of research here is total bs. He can’t even get the basic, non-controversial facts right.

    Thanks for the math details on the cow sacrifice, VMJ. LOL. I must say I never read before that Lee made those bad, unathorized investments before and that Michael lost a fortune as a result–maybe there are a few, very few pieces of info in RS’s disaster book? It’s hard to know what they are though b/c of all the misinformation.

    Like

  94. lynande51 permalink
    November 27, 2012 8:47 pm

    He also talks of the stairs down into the “secret room”. As you can see when you enter the Master Bedroom you can either go to the right or straight ahead to the Ladies Bath. The first door on the right hand side is the door to the ladies closet. It is at the end of that closet that the so called ” secret room” is. It is on the main floor. There are no stairs down to it from the loft sleeping room. Michael used the main floor as a family area with couches and chairs. The stairs that go up to the sleeping room were the ones that had a doll collection on them.He has a daughter so why would it be strange for him to give her dolls?

    Like

  95. November 27, 2012 8:30 pm

    “Well, and the wine cellar was under the arcade and not the main house. He obviously didn’t research the most simple things.” – Susanne

    Of course he didn’t. His standards are indescribable. I am speechless.

    Like

  96. Susannerb permalink*
    November 27, 2012 8:25 pm

    Well, and the wine cellar was under the arcade and not the main house.
    He obviously didn’t research the most simple things.

    Like

  97. November 27, 2012 8:22 pm

    Helena, re Cilie, she is most likely a mental case.I just did not want to elaborate more.

    Like

  98. November 27, 2012 7:49 pm

    Here is another of Sullivan’s crazy stories – this time about Neverland:

    “The 13,000-square-foot main residence, set among one of the most beautiful groves of live oaks in all of California, was a hybrid Tudor mansion and Dutch farmhouse, with brick and masonry walls built around massive wooden beams that framed leaded glass windows, topped by a beautifully gabled roof. There were seventeen rooms on the first floor, sixteen rooms upstairs, and an enormous wine cellar below ground.”

    So all in all according to Sullivan the number of rooms in the main house was 33.

    Gutierrez said there were 36 rooms (though he speaks about the ranch, probably meaning all its buildings there):

    “Notably, the ranch has more than 36 rooms available”.

    I don’t know how both of them calculate the number of rooms in Michael’s house – they probably include all the corridors into the total number – but the official sources say Michael’s main house had only 5 bedrooms:

    “Known for its youthful atmosphere, Neverland’s main residence is over 13,000 square feet with 5 bedrooms.”
    http://www.mademan.com/mm/5-largest-homes-california.html

    Sullivan should be advised not to read that much of Gutierrez – it is harmful for one’s brains.

    We can calculate the real number of rooms in MJ’s house ourselves. In addition to the floorplans earlier posted by Lynette here are the floor plans from great Enola Lee’s site which contains the pictures I’ve never seen before:

    So the ground floor had 7 rooms including MJ’s double suite and breakfast room (which is part of the kitchen), plus the entrance hall, plus Neverland’s staff quarters (2 rooms there?).

    And the first floor has 5 rooms plus some space in the centre which looks like a gallery with a staircase in the middle.

    http://enolalee.blogspot.ru/2012_07_01_archive.html

    Even when I tried to add up all the corridors and bathrooms I still came to the number of no more than 25.

    Sullivan’s maths are indescribable. Something is wrong with the heads of all these people.

    Like

  99. November 27, 2012 7:48 pm

    There are 96 1 star reviews,11 5 stars and 7 sprinkled inbetween..Another,Rosemary S.
    thinks minus 100 stars. “Raven”:” He is so out of touch with his own words that he contradicts himself in the same sentence.”This makes me think that also the quality of writing
    disregarding the content needs to be assessed.

    Like

  100. November 27, 2012 6:28 pm

    Dr. Treacy was alerted to his inclusion in the book and entered his comment himself
    yesterday on Amazon.

    Like

  101. November 27, 2012 6:12 pm

    I just found out that Dr. Treacy wrote this on his FB page so it was probably copied to Amazon by someone else.

    Like

  102. November 27, 2012 6:05 pm

    @shelly:
    This was posted as a comment of Dr. Treacy:
    “Author Randall Sullivan, whom I respect as a journalist appears to have two major confrontational issues with the fans- that of Michael’s vitiligo and the other regarding his alleged prosthetic nose. There were other less controversial issues relating to Michael’s financial situation and his sexuality. He states above ‘I interviewed many people who were close with Michael Jackson including his criminal attorney Tom Mesereau, personal attorney Dennis Hawk, former business managers, Tohme Tohme and Dieter Wiesner, Michael’s mother Katherine Jackson, many of her advisors and many more. You can also read the 173 pages of notes found in Untouchable that list my sources and how I vetted them’. The author never once asked me a question even though I could have quite easily answered all the issues above. Rather he chose to participate in idle newspaper speculation and also chose to quote me third-hand from other articles. As the fans know, I certainly would not have broken Michael’s confidentiality but I am surprised in an almost 800 page novel there was never even one call- to me that appears to be really poor research. I will reserve my overall judgement until I have properly read the book.
    Dr. Patrick Treacy Friend and personal physician to the late Michael Jackson.”

    It was posted by a person named peege so I don’t know if Dr. Treacy posted that himself.

    Like

  103. lynande51 permalink
    November 27, 2012 5:54 pm

    Shelly here is a link to Dr. Treacy’s review or statement on the book at Amazon.
    http://www.amazon.com/Untouchable-Strange-Tragic-Michael-Jackson/product-reviews/080211962X/ref=cm_cr_pr_top_recent?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

    Like

  104. November 27, 2012 5:33 pm

    “Cilie is either sarcastic or is one of those “death hoax” believers.The latter will give a second chance for writers like Sullivan”

    Kaarin, I am afraid that Cilie is serious and she is not a Michael Jackson supporter, as she calls him names. This is good for us as we don’t have to feel ashamed for what she is saying and the word “crazy” is not to be associated with the word “a MJ fan”.

    I cannot help it, but I increasingly perceive Michael’s detractors as senile people, because what can only be regarded as a joke is taken by them in full seriousness. Look at all those TV hosts listening to Sullivan with their mouths open – it is a hilarious sight.

    By the way when I was speaking about his book I said it too soon that no one will repeat these days crazy things like Maureen Orth’s story about the bloodbath of 42 cows MJ allegedly took – Sullivan does repeat it! He doesn’t say that he beleives it, but on the other hand does not indicate that he thinks it crazy either.

    And crazy it is. For those readers who have not yet made the necessary calculations here they are:
    – one cow has 40 litres of blood, and
    – one bathtub holds the most of 75 litres of liquid (if there is no body inside).
    So the blood of 42 cows would be enough for more than 21 baths.

    Do Maureen Orth and Sullivan mean to say that MJ supposedly took all those baths and no one, I mean no one, noticed the sea of blood emerging after that? Or the mountain of dead cows lying somewhere in the valleys of Switzerland? Each cow weighs something like 600-700 kgs, so 42 dead cows are 28 tons! And this is at least 4 trucks 7 tons each!

    Instead Sullivan repeats the story almost as it was told by Maureen Orth:

    “Michael complained to those around him that Lee had made unauthorized and disastrous investments in various dot-com ventures (most notably the gaming company Tickets.com) that cost him a fortune when the boom went bust. Lee answered by collaborating with Maureen Orth on an article for Vanity Fair that convinced hundreds of thousands of upscale readers that Jacko really was Wacko. In the summer of 2000, Lee told Orth,
    Jackson had paid an African witch doctor named Baba $150,000 to conduct a “ voodoo ritual” in Switzerland that was intended to result in the deaths of twentyfive people on an “ enemies list” topped by the names of David Geffen and Steven Spielberg. Though Orth didn’t report it, quite a few people in the entertainment industry knew that Jackson had fallen out with Geffen and Spielberg and this added an undercurrent of credibility to the story Baba’s curses had been sealed with the blood of forty-two ritually sacrificed cows, according to Lee, who claimed to have wired payment for the slaughter to a bank in Mali”

    What was the point of repeating this big lie? None at all except portraying MJ as “wacko”. The reviewers of Sullivan’s book are right – it is rehashing of the worst National Enquirer stories about MJ collected for 25 years.

    By the way as regards those cows it is well known that Michael was unable to hurt even a fly.

    Like

  105. November 27, 2012 4:15 pm

    For those of you who haven’t seen this already, here’s Sullivan’s interview with Nightline from a few weeks ago” – David

    TRASH! It is an almost unbelievable sight of two grown-up men discussing some idiotic ideas and pretending to be “intellectuals” at that!

    Like

  106. Maria permalink
    November 27, 2012 3:57 pm

    …….This statement is proof. This description of his suffering. Michael refers to the accusations. He expresses his outrage at the behavior of the media. He also mentions about skin disease vitiligo.
    Media and the prosecutor (“cold man”) should now hear this statement every day. They should also hear words of Michael from the year 2009 (Murray tape) These slow words Michael. Michael last time last strength expresses his concern for children. Statement by Michael from year 93 and the tape with the voice of Michael a few days before his death. This all closes a big buckle.

    Like

  107. shellywebstere permalink
    November 27, 2012 3:46 pm

    What did Dr treacy said?

    Like

  108. Maria permalink
    November 27, 2012 3:11 pm

    Year 93 is a breakthrough. Sneddon and journalists consistently over the years destroyed the lives and health of Michel.
    Michael in that statement, he expressed all his feelings.

    Like

  109. lynande51 permalink
    November 27, 2012 9:58 am

    Oh and before i go to bed I should tell you that the Prosthetic nose originated with…. Blanca Fancia via Victor Gutierrez who said Michael had a small metal u shaped device that he put in his nose to keep its shape. Ta da!

    Like

  110. lynande51 permalink
    November 27, 2012 9:21 am

    You know Sullivan had to know that one of us or many of us would go ask that Coroner if it was true. That is why he called us “crazy” to try to discredit us and our research. Funny though that he actually references those very same “crazy” fans.

    Like

  111. November 27, 2012 7:28 am

    I went to check Dr. Treacy’s review and see that for the moment at least Amazon has stopped selling Sullivan’s book; no real reason given, just says “under review”; maybe too many negative reviews – tee hee.

    Like

  112. November 27, 2012 5:30 am

    FYI Dr. Treacy commented on Amazon re: Sullivan.

    Like

  113. David permalink
    November 27, 2012 5:19 am

    For those of you who haven’t seen this already, here’s Sullivan’s interview with Nightline from a few weeks ago:

    Like

  114. November 27, 2012 3:58 am

    I don´t understand the publisher of Sullivans compouneded dirt on MJ. At least here the publisher bears some responsibility for his/her publications, they have their reputation to uphold.

    Like

  115. November 27, 2012 3:54 am

    Dang, I wish we could edit our comments here. The one I wrote below sounds really crazy.lol

    Like

  116. November 27, 2012 3:53 am

    I wonder if that drawing wasn’t done only by Evan, He admitted he knew what MJ’s ass looked like. Maybe he was just tatking note for the book.

    Evan probably was so fed up with being a dentist at that point in his life. I’m sure when Evan met Michael he probably felt it was a match made in heaven. He probably was thinking Michael wants to produce movies and I want t o a writer this is awesome.

    Like

  117. November 27, 2012 3:07 am

    This Sullivan sick fantasy book is such a mish mash that it will be a big labor to reveal all the lies. No rhyme or season to the story.Cilie is either sarcastic or is one of those “death hoax” believers.The latter will give a second chance for writers like Sullivan; to report on crimes and surgeries after 6.25 2009.

    Like

  118. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 27, 2012 12:11 am

    Here is the Spanish version of What More Can I Give, called Todo Para Ti (Everything for You). In this version, the uplaoder shows all the famous singing stars who sang, and Michael sings a verse in Spanish, and so does Mariah Carey and Celine Dion.

    I LOVE this song and wish it would be released.

    VMJ: The magic is back!

    Like

  119. November 26, 2012 11:56 pm

    “ask God” – cilie

    Dear me, are you channeling?

    Like

  120. cilie permalink
    November 26, 2012 11:43 pm

    first of all the book probably was boring as it was the truth, Mj was not anywhere near magical or loving, ask God

    second of all he is still alive and probably going to have sexual charges on him again, excpect this time it will look worse like the perfect crime,do in hiding

    He is about to be revealed by a young boy

    stay tuned, I can tell you where he is, he has become Satan (Gods words) with followers that make them selves look so stupid standing out side they dont even know they are being laughed at idiot, never worship an idol , God is angered

    Like

  121. November 26, 2012 10:47 pm

    “I didn’t think Michael looked terrible or sad in What More Can I Give. He looked fine and happy to me in the few shots of him that were in the video” – aldebaranredstar

    I am ashamed to say that it is the first time I hear What More Can I Give. Its beauty grows on you as you keep listening to it.
    As to Michael’s looks he amazed me by having some belly. But his voice sounds superb.

    The lyrics are beautiful. The words “why do they keep teaching us such hate and cruelty” should be addressed to the media:

    How many people will have to die before we will take a stand
    How many children will have to cry, before we do all we can
    If sending your love is all you can give
    To help one live, mmm

    How many times can we turn our heads
    And pretend we cannot see
    Healing the wounds of our broken earth
    We are one global family
    Just sending your prayers
    Is something you feel
    Helping one heal
    What have I got that I can give
    What have I got that I can give, yeah, oh
    To love and to teach you
    To hold and to need you
    What more can I give (what more can I give, yeah)

    brother to brother, lay down our fears and reach out and make a pact
    Show him the love that is in our hearts, let us bring salvation back
    Just sending your love has the power to heal
    So let’s all give

    What have I got that I can give
    (It’s not a lot to give, just a little bit)
    What have I got that I can give
    (Everyone should be a part of it)
    To love and to teach you
    To hold and to need you
    What more can I give

    Say the words, I’ll lay ’em down for you
    Just call my name, I am your friend
    See then why do they keep teaching us
    Such hate and cruelty
    We should give over and over again

    What have I got that I can give
    (We should give over and over again)
    What have I got that I can give
    (Oh my God, oh my God)
    See, to love and to teach you
    To hold and to need you
    What more can I give

    What have I got that I can give
    To hold and conceal you
    To love and to heal you
    What more can I give

    What have I got that I can give…

    * * *

    The song was performed at “United We Stand: What More Can I Give”, a benefit concert held on October 21, 2001 at RFK Stadium in Washington D.C.

    Like

  122. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 26, 2012 10:18 pm

    Why does Howard Mann have the video of “What More Can I Give?”–why isn’t it in the possession of the Estate? What about the Spanish version, does H. Mann have that too? It was supposed to be a charity work like Heal the World, so what’s going on?

    I didn’t think Michael looked terrible or sad in What More Can I Give. He looked fine and happy to me in the few shots of him that were in the video. Where he did not look so good to me was in the You Rock My World video.

    Like

  123. November 26, 2012 10:16 pm

    “What is listed here are a bunch of INCREDIBLY suspect sources and his opinion” – lynande51

    All his sources were analyzed in this blog, only Sullivan used them to pursue his own goals.

    A quote from Sullivan’s bibliography:

    MJ’s first two plastic surgeries, Dr. Hoefflin: Taraborrelli. Arnold Klein work on MJ: billing and medical records, Dr. Wallace Goodstein to People (“ Michael Jackson’s Plastic Surgery”). What I write about MJ’s plastic surgery and his feelings about race are, ultimately, my own conclusions, based on my reading of the evidence. “ If he couldn’t erase Joe from his life”: Marcus Phillips to Taraborrelli; I heard more or less the same thing from Schaffel, Wiesner, and Tohme years later.

    Goodstein worked in Hoefflin’s office, and though he never worked side by side with Hoefflin he claimed in a nasty two-hour Dateline program that Michael had as many as 50 operations. To Washington Post he said something different – that he saw MJ only four or five times in the Hoefflin office having his nose done. He himself never operated on MJ (he was a liposuction specialist). The fact that he saw MJ 4 or 5 times does not mean that each time Michael had an operation – it could be just some treatment that Michael required for his cartilage that would not heal or would get thinner due to his lupus.

    Interesting that Sullivan used Goodstein as a “source”. According to a petition to the Medical Board of California cited in the Washington Post he is a chronic cocaine abuser who has had sexual relations with patients, threatened people with guns and employed a “questionable liposuction technique”. More about him and Hoefflin here: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/doctors-around-michael-jackson-dr-arnold-klein-and-dr-steven-hoefflin/

    Sullivan used Dr. Klein’s records? But he could not have any access to any of them. The most he could get were the papers presented by Chernoff at Murray’s trial (we looked into them too – they show that Klein and his assistants used Demerol to ease MJ’s pain during their work on his scars from previous plastic surgery).

    However Dr. Klein had other records which he submitted to Dr. Richard Strick who was asked by the prosecution to make a full review of them. But instead of using the conclusions of the best independent specialist Sullivan spoke about MJ’s plastic surgery with Schaffel, Wiesner and Tohme (???). If he had talked with Dr. Strick instead he would have learned that Michael had only TWO nose operations and all the other procedures were due to his problems with the cartilage. These problems arose due to LUPUS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CxyRGJ1latc

    Another quote from Sullivan’s bibliography:

    “MJ playing Hoefflin and Klein off against one another: both doctors in interviews; lawsuits against each other. Klein trying to prevent MJ from more Hoefflin operations: affirmed by Schaffel.”

    First, Michael never played Hoefflin and Klein off against one another! Klein simply didn’t allow Hoefflin to do any more stretching of his scalp to treat Michael’s baldness after the burn, because each new operation only worsened the problem. The skin would not heal due to lupus and Hoefflin did not care. Eventually Michael refused Hoefflin’s treatment, stayed with Klein and wore a wig foreverafter. All of it is in this post: http://wp.me/pIuKO-1Ha
    Also in Klein’s interview with Levin: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/impressions-of-arnold-kleins-interview-with-harvey-levin-of-tmz-nov-5-2009/

    Another quote:

    Klein-Hoefflin rivalry: Seal/Vanity Fair, Ryan/LA Times on Klein’s lawsuit against Hoefflin. Nurses’ lawsuit vs Hoefflin: People, LA Times “ Ugly face of beauty”/Independent. Hoefflin claims of vindication: his Web site. Court documents showing $42,000 payments to nurses: Diane Dimond/Daily Beast.

    Those nurses had nothing to do with Michael Jackson! They claimed they were sexually harassed by Hoefflin. In fact ALL the sources Sullivan uses here are provided in the post already mentioned above (is this where he took them?): https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/doctors-around-michael-jackson-dr-arnold-klein-and-dr-steven-hoefflin/

    Another quote:

    Hoefflin and Klein withholding law enforcement access to files: People v. Jackson court file.

    This is a lie. Hoefflin never obstucted the authorities as far as I know and Klein didn’t withhold anything from law enforcement either in the 90s, or recently after Michael’s death. In 2009 he simply delayed provision of some records and when they finally reached the prosecution TMZ immediately turned them into a sensation as they contained that Demerol issue.

    Another quote:

    “Prosthetic noses: multiple sources; Adrian McManus comments: Daily Mail. I heard the story about MJ’s nose falling off long before it was published in Rolling Stone, from Will Dana.”

    Oh my God, Sullivan used Adrian McManus as a “source”! It is actually good that we have evidence from Sullivan that he presented her as credible source. Now we have proof that Sullivan put Adrian McManus on a par with Thomas Mesereau!

    As regards the story about the “falling-off nose” it was indeed published by the Rolling Stone staff in July 2009. The article is nasty. Sullivan used his book to publicize the gossip circulating among themselves – they believed it so much that they never checked it: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/michael-jackson-what-went-wrong-20090730

    Like

  124. nannorris permalink
    November 26, 2012 8:50 pm

    Tatum..I saw that interview with Paul regarding the Beatles catalog after MJ died too.He didnt want to pay the money to get his catalog back but he wanted MJ to give him higher royalties..Naturally since MJ was winning to pay the higher price, why should he give Paul the break..MJ said it was just business and it was.
    Too bad he didnt make that more clear when MJ was living , but I think there was a competitive nature to it..
    I always found it interesting that the public saw nothing wrong with Paul owning peoples music, but MJ was a different story.
    I am pretty sure that when he bought that catalogue, it came with Little Richards music and he promptly turned around and gave it back to Little Richard , which I think I remember was worth about 3 million a year..
    I have never heard of Paul doing that , but it wouldnt surprise me at all , about MJ

    Like

  125. November 26, 2012 8:30 pm

    “This is what Sullivan says in the bibliography about Michael’s nose and where he got his information and drew his conclusions. It seem to be decidedly different from what he has been touting all over the globe in his interviews” – lynande51

    Lynette, that bibliography requires a separate study. I will say just a couple of words.

    Quote from Sullivan:

    “I acknowledge that the long plastic surgery section in this chapter could be described as interpretive, perhaps even as opinionated. The point of view is my own, but it’s an informed point of view. Among those things that informed me was the footage for the “What More Can I Give?” video that was shot by Marc Schaffel in 2001 and is now in the possession of Howard Mann. I doubt that MJ ever looked worse than he does in those harshly lit scenes, and his discomfort with himself and with being seen in person for the first time by some of the musicians and singers he had chosen as collaborators was palpable to me. I actually found his onscreen sadness almost unbearable to watch.”

    The information about the 2001 footage as “sad” may be true. I also noticed that at the time Michael didn’t look his best. And to me it is also almost unbearable to watch. The reason for Michael’s condition wasn’t his plastic surgery but the Demerol he took and fought at the same time. Michael’s pictures of that period aren’t my favorites and this is actually the worst:

    But already by the year 2003 when he was shooting “One More chance” he looked much better. He was recovering from his drug addiction and the injuries of the 90s, and even the title of the song says it – the darkest period is over, he is still very frail but is getting on his feet again and is trying to make a new start:

    And in 2004-2005 even despite the strain of the period he looks even better than in 2003. From the photos of that period it is clear that the drug addiction problem is in the past:

    What’s disgusting about people like Sullivan, Hill and others in the media is that when they criticize Jackson for drugs and the way he looked they totally absolve themselves of their guilt. However it is due to them and their callousness that Michael was suffering from this unbearable pain. The burn on his head was how it started, but he could have coped with it if it had not been for the media madness of the 90s. The media was making millions out of his anguish and it was due to all the pain they inflicted on him is why he began to look like that.

    Instead of showing at least some signs of remorse the media simply coldly registered these changes for the worse and laughed at them. Now even the sight of all these journalists and TV people gives me shivers. They have the cheek to call themselves human. They are not. They lack the main feature distinguishing human beings from animals and robots – they lack conscience as they have never tasted the bitterness of its pangs.

    Like

  126. November 26, 2012 7:42 pm

    “Here’s Raven Wood’s take on the Sullivan mess! http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=7362 – sanemjfan

    David, Raven Wood is making a very important observation. She points to Sullivan’s and Hill’s condescending and arrogant ignorance. The observation is very true – while reading the book I feel it very much too:

    One thing is for sure: If an MJ biographer doesn’t respect his subject, it will come through loud and clear. It will come through in what he/she chooses to emphasize; what facts they purposely choose to omit, and the overall, general tone of the book […].

    I certainly do not need all of the books I read to be warm and fuzzy love letters to Michael. But I do expect them to be knowledgable, well researched, and accurate. I expect a certain level of journalistic integrity in which the author does not simply rely on tabloid sources. And one thing that turns me off quicker than anything is when writers who never knew Michael attempt to psychoanalyze him. At best, such attempts come off as a kind of arrogant projection (this is who/what I think Michael Jackson was, and I will do my damdest to make every “fact” suit my agenda). At worst, they can do irrefutable damage by sometimes creating false perceptions and myths about an individual that can then take years to undo”. […]

    ..”what I intended this piece to be is not so much a review of Sullivan’s book per se, as a rebuttal of his recent Huffington Post interview by Dr. Marc Hill. Now that I am perfectly qualified to speak out about, and all I have to say is … this interview is, by far, the biggest exercise in condescending, smarmy, arrogant ignorance I have seen in some time. And that isn’t directed at only Sullivan, but Marc Hill as well. Dr. Hill could certainly do well to take some lessons in journalistic integrity, but sadly, he is the norm rather than the exception.

    Once again, I find myself cringeing through an interview where some arrogant, clueless author (just because he has journalistic “credentials” with some big name magazine) sits and spouts decades-old misinformation about Michael Jackson, while he and the suck-up host (as equally clueless about Michael) sit and scoff at the fans who are actually providing credible facts and correctly calling this person out on their errors. Even if Marc Hill called himself being “balanced” or fair by allowing the tweets from fans and by allowing the other interviewers onto the show (even though sanemjfan was the only one with anything of substance to say) his smirking, condescending attitude toward the fans spoke volumes.

    Obviously, this had nothing to do with a genuine interest in presenting factual information or allowing viewers to actually challenge Sullivan’s egregious errors or motives. It was, as one viewer aptly commented, nothing more than a “fratboy gabfest.”

    Well, not only the interview but the book is like that too. Ignorant, but arrogant and condescending. It is a story told by someone who lives in the Middle Ages, thinks that the earth is flat and condescendingly laughs at everyone who says that it is not.

    Like

  127. November 26, 2012 7:32 pm

    @VMJ

    In 2011 she was no longer angry with Michael, more mature and more sober. The interview also came after his death, so she knew that out of the two of them she was the only one who could tell the truth now – and she did tell it. Her words in 2011 are more valid that those said in 2004.

    Another person who has also changed their tune after Michael’s death was Paul McCartney. I like McCartney but in previous interviews he would wine about how Michael took the Beatles catalog and how that disconnected their friendship. Wrong… he told Letterman the story in more detail. It wasn’t that Michael actually purchased the catalog, he wouldn’t give Paul higher royalty fees or something along those lines.

    Like

  128. November 26, 2012 7:16 pm

    Tatum Oneal…another brawd that didn’t deserve Michael. It’s amazing that in the photo, Tatum is only 12 but she and Michael look the same age. He always did look younger than he actually was.

    Like

  129. November 26, 2012 4:28 pm

    Who stands to gain the most by perpetuation of distortions….? When Frank Cascio and Jermaine were about to release their books…both positive, first witness accounts of certain times in Michael’s life (some may not agree with that statement totally) what occured? Emphasis on drugs(Cascio) and fleeing after trial(Jermaine). Portions of each taken out of context and highlighted in print. It is not a big step to extend the same treatment to RSs book. Tom M. spoke of ‘powerful forces’ attempting to manipulate Sullivan’s readership, etc. Who was he speaking about?

    Like

  130. November 26, 2012 2:57 pm

    “on her 2004 book, she said that the close she ever got to Michael was when he asked to go to her bedroom and they kissed. She contradicts her story many times”

    Nathy, the truth is relatively easy to decipher. Tatum’s reply you’ve mentioned was in 2004 and the story about them “making out” together came in 2011 or seven years later (http://rhythmofthetide.com/category/relationships/1977-1979-tatum-oneal/).

    In 2011 she was no longer angry with Michael, more mature and more sober. The interview also came after his death, so she knew that out of the two of them she was the only one who could tell the truth now – and she did tell it. Her words in 2011 are more valid that those said in 2004.

    In fact what she was describing in 2004 didn’t contradict anything Michael was saying to Bashir. Both were speaking of the time when she was very young. She said: “I was just 12 and not at all ready for a real-life encounter. So I said,’I can’t.’ Michael, who was sweating profusely, seemed as intimidated as I was. He jumped up nervously and said,’Uh, gotta go.’”

    And to Bashir Michael talked only about his own intimidation: “I took my hands like this (Michael covers his face with both hands) and I wouldn’t let them down… and she… just walked away.”

    Now that we recall that Tatum was only 12 YEARS OLD at the time we understand very well why Michael closed his face not to be even tempted (though he was). Their relations lasted for quite a long time as their pictures together show it, and if they ever “made out” together it was much-much later.

    Look at this picture:

    And at this one:

    You can see it by Michael’s skin, face, hair that this was much later and was probably the time.

    Like

  131. November 26, 2012 1:56 pm

    “The other thing I did happen to notice is I went to amazon and looked up all that glitters by Ray Chandler and there is a 5 star review from the end of October of this year” – nannoris

    Oh, then it is clearly a NEW campaign against Michael launched by the people we all know so well. They call the book “great” and Michael a “ped-le”:

    Quote:
    A great book and a book that has Michael jackson fans screaming because it leaks out suppressed facts about Michael Jackson`s personal life. The best way to stop child abuse is to expose it and not to reward the offender. This is something michael jackson fans need to learn. Most michael jackson fans are too young to understand and so they blindly defend michael. And the older male michael jackson fans that defend michael are obviously pedos themselves. Praise must go out to the author of this book, Ray Chandler, for having the courage to expose the truth despite massive pressure and opposition. The author is a very courageous man and with this great book, we can continue the fight against pedophiles no matter how rich and powerful they are.

    “Great” book? Then why didn’t Ray Chandler take the chance to prove his lies in court given to him by Michael Jackson’s DEFENSE?

    Those of us who are registered with Amazon please go there and explain that Michael’s defense lawyers SUBPOENAED Ray Chandler to testify at the 2005 trial against Michael Jackson and Ray Chandler FOUGHT this chance tooth and nail!

    In short he was bold only to tell his lies in a book, but when it came to answer for them he hid in the bushes!

    In case you don’t know the story here is a link to a special category in this blog where you’ll find all the details:
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/category/ray-chandler-was-subpoenaed-to-prove-his-all-that-glitters-lies-in-court-why-did-he-fight-it/

    The respective defense motions and Ray Chandler’s answers to them are all provided there.

    Quote, explain, give the necessary links – do EVERYTHING to fight this new devilish lie! And let all of us give only 1 star to this sh*t!

    Look at it this way: Every LIE they tell about Michael is a good chance for us to tell the TRUTH!

    Like

  132. lynande51 permalink
    November 26, 2012 1:44 pm

    This is what Sullivan says in the bibliography about Michael’s nose and where he got his information and drew his conclusions. It seem to be decidedly different from what he has been touting all over the globe in his interviews;

    “I acknowledge that the long plastic surgery section in this chapter could be
    described as interpretive, perhaps even as opinionated. It was the result of nearly
    three years of research and dozens of conversations with people who knew MJ. The
    point of view is my own, but it’s an informed point of view. Among those things
    that informed me was the footage for the “What More Can I Give?” video that was
    shot by Marc Schaffel in 2001 and is now in the possession of Howard Mann. I
    doubt that MJ ever looked worse than he does in those harshly lit scenes, and his
    discomfort with himself and with being seen in person for the first time by some of
    the musicians and singers he had chosen as collaborators was palpable to me. I
    actually found his onscreen sadness almost unbearable to watch.
    MJ’s perfectionism: multiple reports, including from collaborators such as Lenny
    Kravitz, Akon, and others who worked with him in the last year of his life. Making
    Bad “ as perfect as humanly possible”: MJ to Rolling Stone, Taraborrelli. Bad
    “ over-produced”: Rolling Stone managing editor Will Dana in 2009, summarizing
    critical reaction at the time. MJ’s first two plastic surgeries, Dr. Hoefflin:
    Taraborrelli. Arnold Klein work on MJ: billing and medical records, Dr. Wallace
    Goodstein to People (“ Michael Jackson’s Plastic Surgery”). Klein diagnosing
    vitiligo: Klein to Seal/Vanity Fair (see Chapter 12 notes), and elsewhere. Vitiligo
    and lupus background, emotional implications of treatment, link to childhood
    trauma: my research, in particular, “What is Vitiligo?”/National Institute of
    Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases pamphlet; Deepak Chopra to
    People. Porcelana, “ I do want to be perfect,” third nose job/comparison to Diana
    Ross: Taraborrelli. Reaction to old photograph: Hilburn/“ The wounds, the broken
    heart (see Chapter 4 notes).”
    Hoefflin has never acknowledged the extent of the surgeries he performed on MJ
    (perhaps to protect his patient’s privacy), but there is a substantial public record
    (incl. information from nurses’ lawsuit against Hoefflin, Dr. Goodstein to People).
    Cleft in MJ’s chin: stories I recall from LA gossip columns from living there in
    1986; MJ acknowledging it: Taraborrelli.
    What I write about MJ’s plastic surgery and his feelings about race are,
    ultimately, my own conclusions, based on my reading of the evidence. “ If he
    couldn’t erase Joe from his life”: Marcus Phillips to Taraborrelli; I heard more or
    less the same thing from Schaffel, Wiesner, and Tohme years later. MJ on
    separating from the Jackson 5 to “ become me”: Steven Howell in Secret
    Childhood. “ Big, tall mean guys”: MJ to Boteach; although MJ wasn’t
    specifically speaking about Joe, I think it’s pretty clear that’s where the fear he was
    talking about originated. Stacy Brown observations: Man Behind the Mask.
    “ Splaboos” to do more with class than race: Schaffel, Tohme. MJ disturbed people
    thought he wanted to be white: Gotham Chopra in People’s “ Deepak Chopra:
    Michael Jackson Had Lupus.” Admisions he’d gone too far with plastic surgery:
    Rolling Stone’s 1991 “ The Making of the King of Pop” (cited earlier).
    MJ playing Hoefflin and Klein off against one another: both doctors in
    interviews; lawsuits against each other. Klein trying to prevent MJ from more
    Hoefflin operations: affirmed by Schaffel. Klein-Hoefflin rivalry: Seal/Vanity Fair,
    Ryan/LA Times on Klein’s lawsuit against Hoefflin. Nurses’ lawsuit vs Hoefflin:
    People, LA Times (by two different women with very similar names); “ Ugly face of
    beauty”/Independent. Hoefflin claims of vindication: his Web site. Court
    documents showing $42,000 payments to nurses: Diane Dimond/Daily Beast.
    Hoefflin and Klein withholding law enforcement access to files: People v. Jackson
    court file. Chopra on MJ’s “ poor body image”: Time’s MJ commemorative issue.
    MJ weeping when Us magazine editor “ could no longer put him on the cover”:
    AS1. Werner Mang claims: “ Jackson’s Nose Patched Up”/Daily Mail; Hoefflin
    denial of Mang claims: contactmusic.com. Sinnreich/”blow holes”: vitals.com (see
    Chapter 12 notes). Prosthetic noses: multiple sources; Adrian McManus
    comments: Daily Mail (may have run first in the Mirror). I heard the story about
    MJ’s nose falling off long before it was published in Rolling Stone, from Will
    Dana. MJ on Bobby Driscoll: MJ to Boteach. Driscoll life story: Beck, Larson.
    That the nose MJ wore during the last years of his life was Bobby Driscoll’s
    should be obvious to anyone who looks at side-by-side pictures of the two.”

    Now where exactly do those autopsy photos come into play?What is listed here are a bunch of INCREDIBLY suspect sources and his opinion

    Like

  133. sanemjfan permalink
    November 26, 2012 10:33 am

    Here’s Raven Wood’s take on the Sullivan mess! http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=7362

    Like

  134. November 26, 2012 9:28 am

    One thing is crystal clear – The relevancy of Michael Jackson is now even MORE important than ever before. The intent to keep the false premise of Michael’s life seems CRITICAL enough to some to have Sullivan highly inaccurate tome circulated and promoted. We can analyze books like Sulllivans until the cows come home but the big Question remains – Who stands to gain the most by the perpetuation of distortions even though they have been proven false by FBI files, autopsy, CCP files, court transcripts, depositions etc?

    Like

  135. November 26, 2012 7:30 am

    Helena, I’m not sure if it is appropriate to put this link here. It is a new review of Sullivan’s book. It is interesting in the sense 1. That the writer refers to the book as Revisionism.
    Ummm…since when is the very idea of Michael’s innocence revisionist history? I would suggest that the revisionism is in fact the lie that Michael was guilty as supported by media for all these years. And 2. Makes me consider what Tom has said. That the book will be looked at as just that…a neutral writer concluding that MJ was innocent. Which is exactly what this writer does…call Sullivan to task for proposing that fact that, God forbid, the man actually WAS innocent. Interesting.

    http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20121125/NEWS0107/211250322/By%20Chris%20Lee%20/%20Los%20Angeles%20TimesPublished:%20November%2025.%202012%204:00AM%20PST

    Like

  136. lynande51 permalink
    November 26, 2012 6:58 am

    His book is just another way to introduce more lies to an already big lie. He quotes Schaffel 408 times. He quotes Myong Ho Lee 10 times.He quotes Bob Jones 22 times. He quotes Stacy Brown 10 times. He quotes Ray Chandler 46 times.

    Like

  137. lynande51 permalink
    November 26, 2012 6:48 am

    I don’t believe that Tom Mesereau read this book. That is my final say on his endorsement. Then we see that someone writes the only positive review of an out of print book in October of this year written by the accusers father?

    The errors in Sullivans book are so numerous it is impossible to start to list them. For instance he has the allegations surfacing because in a session with Jordan’s little 5 year old half brother revealed to Stan Katz that he had seen MJ touching Jordan??????
    Just how many times do we have to put up with a rewrite by these people in his book?

    Like

  138. Nathy MJ permalink
    November 26, 2012 6:38 am

    Great post! I just want to point out that Tatum is not a trustworthy person. After Michael’s death she claimed that she make out with MJ, but on her 2004 book, she said that the close she ever got to Michael was when he asked to go to her bedroom and they kissed. She contradicts her story many times. From Rythmofthetide website:

    “He was a huge star, but it seemed he barely even dated & knew little about life. He once came to my house and asked to come upstairs because he’d never been in a girl’s bedroom before. He sat on thebed, and we kissed very briefly, but it was terribly awkward. For all my passionate crushes on people like Dustin Hoffman, I was just 12 and not at all ready for a real-life encounter. So I said,’I can’t.’ Michael, who was sweating profusely, seemed as intimidated as I was. He jumped up nervously and said,’Uh, gotta go.’

    That’s the closest I ever got to Michael, which is why I’m amazed by his recent claim on national TV that I’d seduced him but he was too shy to carry it through. I absolutely adored Michael–as a friend–and I admire him to this day. I believe that he fell in love with me. I’m told that he wrote the song “She’s Out of My Life” on his album Off the Wall for me. What an honor.”

    Like

  139. nannorris permalink
    November 26, 2012 6:06 am

    I still havent got to this book yet..I think I might need a trash basket next to me in case I heave :((
    But I am going to try and see what Mr Mesereau point is.
    To be honest , I think sometimes the media is trying to subtly discredit him.
    so I hope he is careful..
    He commented on all the drama going on with Katherines “spa vacation”
    I thought that was a mistake , because that entire thing was ridiculous , and when you try and defend that junk, it takes away from his adamant defense of MJ..
    So I hope he doesnt do that and just sticks to defending the one particular Jackson that I care about LOL
    The other thing I did happen to notice is I went to amazon and looked up all that glitters by Ray Chandler and there is a 5 star review from the end of October of this year
    http://www.amazon.com/All-That-Glitters-Raymond-Chandler/product-reviews/0954197380/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
    I thought that was kinda weird because that book has been out for a long time..Made me wonder if it might have something to do with this book coming out ….

    Like

  140. November 26, 2012 1:39 am

    Guys, since I myself don’t want to make any mistakes please give me time to fully assess the book after I read the whole of it. One of my friends liked it for some reason, and though the “detachable nose” part remains to be a complete outrage of course, I still need to check up the rest.

    Like

  141. Julis permalink
    November 26, 2012 12:58 am

    Thank you for your dedication to the truth about Michael Jackson. RS and his co-conspiritors will not give up and neither shall we. MJ said ” lies run sprints, truth runs marathons” and thanks to your hard work and dedication and that of many others, generations to come will know who Michael was.
    I think TMez got Bashaired by RS but I respect him and will wait to hear his response to the questions being asked. I also think the timing of this book is not a co-incidence.

    Like

  142. November 26, 2012 12:15 am

    “Such books are destroying big effort of his fans. It is a Sisyphean task. How to fix everything?”

    The only way is to turn their own lies against themselves and spread the real truth about Michael among the general public. We shouldn’t despair and dread what tomorrow brings – we should simply work and do what we need to do. All the rest will be taken care of by the Almighty. The only condition is to never use the weapon of the enemy – I mean lies.

    Only the truth, no matter how “inconvenient” the truth seems to be for this particular moment – this “inconvenience” is a mere illusion. Only the truth.

    Like

  143. Maria permalink
    November 25, 2012 11:56 pm

    Such books are destroying big effort of his fans. It is a Sisyphean task. How to fix everything?. Journalists are unpunished.

    Like

  144. November 25, 2012 11:56 pm

    “It´s clear that we have nothing good to expect” – appleh

    This is why we should go on with our research and develop an immunity to lies. Learn how to distinguish them from the truth and try not to fall into the traps which will be set for us by the media and haters. And we shouldn’t waste our time on unnecessary fighting over matters of no importance. And go after those who have made mistakes – in such a hostile and devilish environment none of us are safeguarded against mistakes.

    Instead we should spread as much truth about Michael as we only can. This is all that matters at the moment.

    Like

  145. Maria permalink
    November 25, 2012 11:20 pm

    @ Vindicatemj (Helena)
    Of course. These are concrete people, names. For me they are the servants of Satan. They killed the man and the truth about him. Damages are difficult to repair. Everything about MJ was manipulated. That’s why so many people still do not know the truth about MJ. This is the result of their “work”.

    Like

  146. appleh permalink
    November 25, 2012 11:16 pm

    Thank you for your post. I don´t believe in all these “coincidences” either and wonder who is behind all this beside the known culprits ! This is just the beginning of what we have to expect in the future, think about Raymone Bain, who is going to write a book of MJ’s last 4 years, even when she was fired in 2007 ???. It´s clear that we have nothing good to expect, same with AK, both are in serious financial trouble and are desperate for money ! I cannot bear to think about, when CM will be released from prison, hope he will not find an editor !

    Like

  147. Maria permalink
    November 25, 2012 10:33 pm

    Michael Jackson was and still is a victim of the media. His death is still not enough for them. The truth about Michael is still hidden. Journalists are not afraid of God. Quite the contrary. They do not have any remorse.

    Like

  148. November 25, 2012 10:28 pm

    “Journalists – the servants of Satan.”

    Maria, let us not throw everyone in one pile – there are journalists and “journalists” and in every profession, nation, race, etc. around us there are human beings and “human beings”.

    According to what I’ve read and studied, Evil manifests itself mostly through LIES. Therefore those who succumb to it most are the biggest manifestation of evil on earth. All of us give in to it, and it is only the degree that varies. No wonder Christ told us to seek for the truth and it will make us free.

    Journalism is a dangerous profession in this respect – lying there is too big an attraction and is sometimes a requirement from their bosses. Journalists often have to lie in order to survive in the profession. It is no excuse of course as they can always do something else – just an explanation.

    The ancients also said that the other force through which evil manifests itself (and works) is … FEAR.

    Like

  149. Maria permalink
    November 25, 2012 10:07 pm

    Human life, the life of an innocent man served them to play. Their work led to his death. Death did not stop the perpetrators. Media (executioners) continued to hurt his victim.
    This is their main hobby.
    First they killed him, and now continues to play his cost.
    Human life is the highest value. They tortured him without remorse. Journalists – hell awaits.

    Like

  150. November 25, 2012 10:00 pm

    “I would just hope that, if Mesereau has more to say on the entire issue, that he personally addresses the disparity between Sullivan’s printed statements and his interviews, and the fact that Sullivan was not honest with him.”

    Juney, I hope that one day Thomas Mesereau says all he thinks about it, but he is human too and at the moment it can very well be an unpleasant shock for him, so let him recover from it. It is one of those extremely rare moments when Thomas Mesereau needs our help, our support and even our protection. There should be no reprimands, no questions like “How could you get into a joint project with a hyena like Sullivan?”. NOTHING of that sort.

    Thomas Mesereau is a great person, great lawyer, great friend of Michael Jackson. A great human being. STAND BY HIM no matter what.

    Like

  151. November 25, 2012 9:37 pm

    Yes, I agree completely that Mesereau could have been misled by Sullivan, i.e., disparity in Sullivan’s statements in printed version vs. media interviews. I would just hope that, if as was posted here by another, Mesereau has more to say on the entire issue, that he personally addresses the disparity between Sullivan’s printed statements and his interviews, and the fact that Sullivan was not honest with him. Sullivan=Bashir.

    Like

  152. November 25, 2012 9:28 pm

    Yes, I should thank everybody who has put time and energy into this most unpleasant task.

    Like

  153. November 25, 2012 9:27 pm

    Helena, I hadn’t thought of an intent to discredit Tom. That’s a scary thought. However, Tom carries so much respect behind him, not just from us but from outside folks, that the task of actually dismissing him is a quite difficult one. Tom’s input in the stupid book is impeccable….I’ll have to think on that one a bit.

    Like

  154. November 25, 2012 9:20 pm

    “I don´t know whether to present you, Helena ,with my condolences or congratulalations for the unpeasant work of having to wade through all this dirt and trash.”

    Kaarin, dear me, it wasn’t only me! I’ve read only 100 pages of it (and frankly had more than enough) and used the reviews of other people. Their detailed accounts made me slowly realize what was going on. I do think that it is a big provocation, a sort of a retaliatory blow from the media who were looking with some amazement at the public’s sudden sympathy for Michael and didn’t know what to do.

    Imagine their nailbiting horror – they thought they had done away with Michael Jackson, and here he is, re-emerging in all his glory! Moreover despite all their efforts he managed to debunk all their myths from beyond the grave – by every new interview released, every new tape we hear (even in court, even under sedation), by the footage of his rehearsals, by his admirable attitude towards people.

    When those who harassed Michael all his life recovered a bit, they thought of the Sullivan project trying to kill two birds with one stone – Michael Jackson and his staunchest supporter Thomas Mesereau. I urge each and every one of us to stand by Thomas Mesereau like a wall. No matter what we hear or are told.

    Like

  155. Maria permalink
    November 25, 2012 9:16 pm

    Journalists produce lies. That’s why Michael is dead. He was tortured by the media. These tortures him killed. Now they have money and power and deceive people. Do they think about their souls?. Journalists – the servants of Satan.

    Like

  156. November 25, 2012 9:06 pm

    The visual image this book brings to mind is trampling around in a huge garbage dump with a few written pages whirling in the wind,those with the 2005 trial notes.I don´t know whether to present you, Helena ,with my condolences or congratulalations for the unpeasant work of having to wade through all this dirt and trash.

    Like

  157. November 25, 2012 9:05 pm

    “Also, how can Mesereau square his opinion that, in the book, Sullivan exonerates Michael Jackson, with Sullivan’s own words expressed in these interviews that there is a shadow of doubt” – Juney

    Let us take Thomas Mesereau out of this false equation. What Sullivan says in the interviews now may be different from what he said in the book. And what was printed in the book may also be different from what he showed Thomas Meserau before releasing it.

    Even if Thomas Mesereau read the book at some point in time he will probably have to reread it now because with sleazy guys like Sullivan there is no guarantee that the two variants are equivalent to each other. And surely the book is no equivalent to the interviews Sullivan is goint to TV shows now.

    This book was meant to compromise Thomas Mesereau in the first place, it is a HUGE PROVOCATION against Michael and his lawyer, so we should stand now by Thomas Mesereau as if he were Michael himself.

    Like

  158. November 25, 2012 8:52 pm

    In reply to the question is TMez has seen RS public interviews, he was sent a few to see for himself how RS is presenting his book. I believe he has also been sent Helena’s discussion.

    Like

  159. November 25, 2012 8:49 pm

    I’m muddling through this book simply because I want to speak from a place of information about it myself. What I see so far is a lot of positive input about Michael. For example, how very well read he was and how knowledgeable about many areas…However, that is followed by a lengthy discussion of his drug use (who knows how much is true?); RS is very sympathic to MJs abuse by his father and later by his whole family and then proceeds to discuss spending habits that paint MJ as a clueless, naive and spoiled superstar. Back and forth like that throughout. I’m reading this on Kindle and not even 1/3 thru it. Sullivan just got through trashing MJs marriage to LMP as a total PR stunt. And leaves it at that without mentioning her most recent Oprah interview. Perhaps he brings it up later…don’t know yet.
    Based on what I’ve read so far, Helena’s input is spot on. Very dangerous technique and, I believe, purposely crafted this way.

    Like

  160. November 25, 2012 8:40 pm

    “You were kind in trying to give Sullivan the benefit of the doubt but he certainly knew what he was doing in presenting fact versus fiction.”

    Oh, then I must rewrite it and make myself more clear! I think Sullivan is the worst of liars and the meanest of creatures. But I am sure that he is not alone in this – it is a joint media project, involving many people. Like Charles Thomson says it: “It was clearly sent to print in the knowledge that it was false.” And now the book is clearly being promoted in the full knowledge that it is false.

    So many interviews, so much publicity, so much coverage in the press! And all these people do not know that the whole thing is false? So many people making innocent eyes and pretending that they believe this trash? It is indeed SINISTER.

    Like

  161. November 25, 2012 8:31 pm

    This is Charles Thompson’s contribution to the issue: http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.de/2012/11/another-tom-mesereau-endorsement.html

    Susanne, the piece written by Charles Thomson is great as usual. I am glad that he says the situation with Sullivan’s book is not only disappointing, but it is getting sinister.

    Excerpt:

    Randall Sullivan’s new Michael Jackson biography is causing a lot of controversy. It’s not hard to see why. Last weekend I spotted a feature in the Mail on Sunday, taken from Sullivan’s book. It included an allegation that Jackson’s years of plastic surgery had left him with no nose and he had to wear a prosthesis. The story said Jackson kept a jar of fake noses and a tube of glue beside his bed.

    The story is absurd, of course. Jackson’s full autopsy report leaked after his death. Autopsy reports contain anything and everything about a body which is considered to be unusual. Jackson’s mentioned scars behind his ears caused by his plastic surgery. It mentioned black tattooing on his head to disguise his baldness. It mentioned his dental work. What it didn’t mention, though, was anything about Jackson not having a nose or anything about him wearing a prosthesis. Ergo, story is demonstrably false.

    I haven’t read Randall Sullivan’s book yet so I won’t comment on it as a whole, but the Mail on Sunday article was a travesty of journalism. At first I found it disappointing, but when I realised that it was not only Sullivan who had let the prosthetic nose nonsense into print but also his publishers’, their legal team and subsequently the Mail on Sunday’s editorial and legal staff, I thought it stopped being disappointing and started being sinister.

    There is no way the story could go through to many legal checks without somebody realising it was deranged. It was clearly sent to print in the knowledge that it was false. And if it wasn’t, every staff member who checked it before it went to print should be sacked with immediate effect because they are incompetent. On the other hand, if they sent it to print in the knowledge it was false then they should still be sacked. Either way, they are unfit to do their jobs.

    Like

  162. November 25, 2012 7:43 pm

    @Layne4: you said that Mesereau has agreed to answer some questions on this matter. Personally, I would like to know if he has seen any of Sullivan’s talkshow circuit interviews wherein he ends with (paraphrasing) we will never know for sure (about the allegations). Also, how can Mesereau square his opinion that, in the book, Sullivan exonerates Michael Jackson, with Sullivan’s own words expressed in these interviews that there is a shadow of doubt. I believe these are simple questions asking for simple answers.

    Like

  163. Solveig permalink
    November 25, 2012 7:27 pm

    Thank you, Helena, for this analysis. I was tempted to read the book after I learned about T. Meserau’s involvement, but now I know and feel confident, that it would be a huge waste of time to do so. The timing of its release cannot be a coincident and who knows who is behind it all. (3 years of research – what a joke). I really cannot understand T.M’s support of the book. Did he read the whole book or only the part with himself in it? But he must have heard the interview, where Sullivan says, that he doesn’t think that Michael was a pedophile, but some doubts remain!!! Maybe T.M. was set up as you say.

    Like

  164. November 25, 2012 7:13 pm

    Very excellently done! You have managed to piece together the truth about Michael in one narrative far better than Sullivan did in three years and 800 pages! God bless you for sorting through this garbage. I can usually read some of the opposing books about Michael to objectively hear the other side, but I can’t bring myself to read this gross distortion. The excerpts I have seen online were enough to tell me what I needed to know. I don’t want to waste precious time that I can’t get back rehashing tabloids. I hate that Mr. Mesereau has been dupped by Sullivan. That was my thoughts took when I read his statements about it. I saw the video made by the two fans a copy of days ago on You Tube that you mentioned to debunk Sullivan’s claims about Michael’s nose. It again proves that the truth is there for those who want to find it. You were kind in trying to give Sullivan the benefit of the doubt but he certainly knew what he was doing in presenting fact versus fiction. He is no writer in my opinion. He’s more like a “fertilizer specialist” if you know what I mean!

    Like

  165. Susannerb permalink*
    November 25, 2012 7:08 pm

    This is Charles Thompson’s contribution to the issue:
    http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.de/2012/11/another-tom-mesereau-endorsement.html

    Like

  166. November 25, 2012 6:01 pm

    FYI TMez has agreed to answer some questions regarding this issue. I think his comments will be posted soon as he is receiving questions today (per intermediary). I have been informed that Tom did indeed read the book…he has his reasons and I’m hoping they are made clear. Personally, I don’t agree with his misguided decision but I do respect his opinions and will consider them carefully. In the process of reading the stupid book and it is quite a chore to muddle through. Ugh.

    Like

  167. November 25, 2012 5:21 pm

    “It seems to me that Mesereau fell for Sullvan the same way Michael fell for Bashir. It is strange to me though that Mesereau would be like this” – Jovana

    Unfortunately this seems to be the case. Thomas Mesereau didn’t actually “fall for” Sullivan, he just tried to use what looked to him like a good opportunity to once again tell the truth about Michael Jackson. We don’t know what Sullivan was telling him. Most probably he told him tales about the need to portray Michael as a human being and finally “tell the whole truth” about the man – just the same words Bashir used to pursuade Michael.

    Sullivan probably told him that Thomas Mesereau would have the right to edit and endorse all the pages he wrote under his guidance and he even kept his word as we see by the excellent result of the respective pages, BUT there was no way for Thomas Mesereau to know that Sullivan would use unspeakable trash as his other “sources”. And Sullivan used some of those very people who were fully demolished as witnesses by Mesereau himself at the 2005 trial. He put them on a par with him thus allowing them their subtle revenge on TM.

    The situation is totally incredible but understandable in hindsight. Thomas Mesereau had absolutely no control over who Sullivan would use as his “sources” within these 3 years. He could start with Thomas Mesereau in the first year of writing it and could approach others two years later – how could TM know about it? There was no way to know!

    From the way Sullivan behaved he evidently looked like a serious journalist. He used to be a contributing editor of the Rolling Stone and is sometimes called an “investigative reporter”, so Thomas Mesereau must have checked up his background very well before consenting to the project and was satisfied with his record.

    However the Sullivan project is exceptional in its devilishness. A person must be totally lacking conscience to be able to do a thing like that. No one before Sullivan ever combined the pure truth with pure lies. Generally it never happens, at least I’ve never heard of such cases. And Thomas Mesereau probably never did. Sullivan betrayed his trust in the same way Bashir betrayed Michael’s.

    But we can also make a very important conclusion out of all this. If these devils were able to lure even Thomas Mesereau into their net of lies, how much more defenseless Michael Jackson was in the face of the same people? How can we accuse him of being “reckless” for involving himself with Bashir now that we know what tricks they are capable of?

    No, we should not accuse anyone! We should never accuse Michael, never accuse Thomas Meserau and we should not accuse Arnold Klein, Aaaron Carter, Corey Feldman and Anthony Pellicano. In most of the cases these people acted out of their best intentions and wanted to tell the innocent truth about MJ, and it was absolutely beyond their control to foresee what the media would do to them. This is why I always urged you to be tolerant to these people and never believe what the media says us about them.

    In very many cases it is the intentions of the person which count more than the actual result. And the intentions of these people were good. Let us not go into the details now, but with time you yourselves will find proof for it.

    Like

  168. November 25, 2012 4:33 pm

    “The only credible source in this book is Tom Mesereau, and he is the only reason I decided to plow through it. The whole section worth reading is about the 2005 trial. It trots out every tabloid lie as if it is the gospel truth with frequent inaccuracies that can easily be debunked. It is like a large bound volume of the last 25 years of National Enquirer, Star, People, Sun, Daily Mirror, etc stories that are not worth the paper it is printed on.”

    Theresa, well said! I don’t know whether it will be the same in the remaining 700 pages, but I noticed one more thing in the first part I’ve read.

    Sullivan declares at the very beginning of the story that he worked in cooperation with Thomas Mesereau and then does not say which “fact” (=lie) comes from which source. The story reads just as a story with the facts being enumerated there without any reference to the sources. As a result readers may form an impression that some of those “facts” come from Thomas Mesereau. They can even assume that ALL of it comes from him and unless readers are unable to “recognize” those lies in their face, such an assumption will be only natural.

    I imagined myself in the place of an ordinary reader and was appalled. Among many of its goals I think the Sullivan project was also a very shrewd way to set up T.Mesereau.

    Like

  169. November 25, 2012 4:19 pm

    “Is it just a coincidence that it comes out and gets all that network attention right before the Spike Lee documentary airs?”– aldebaranredstar

    If it is a coincidence then it is the same type of a coincidence which took place when the November 18 raid was arranged right on the day the Number Ones album was released.

    Or when Diane Dimond’s two TV crews had flown all the way from New York to accidentally find themselves at the gate of Neverland and the Santa Barbara police departement just on the day of the raid in Neverland.

    Or when Scott Thorson’s and Bartucci’s stories surfaced when the Grand Jury was deliberating in April 2004 whether to indict MJ or not. Those stories just surfaced and raged within a couple of days from each other exactly during the week of those deliberations. Afterwards the media more or less forgot about them, at least about Bartucci as he could not qualify for a “child victim” (he was practically the same age as MJ).

    Or when Jordan Chandler’s declaration made 12 years before that surfaced the very next day Bashir’s documentary aired.

    All these and other coincidences actually have a status of a law in Michael Jackson’s life. We can pride ourselves on opening a new scientific phenomenon – what is generally a coincidence is a law when it comes to Michael Jackson.

    Like

  170. November 25, 2012 4:02 pm

    “what Sullivan has done, purposefully I believe, is devious, underhanded and damaging. He is not a stupid man I presume and perhaps the disjointed nature of his prose is done specifically for a reason(s) and intended for a specific impression from the reader. Mix lies, half truths and personal opinions in with those of integrity and truth and one tends to view it as a believeable tale. A poisonous brew. “

    Layne, it is impossible to believe that mixing lies with half truths can be done ‘accidentally’. One should be a complete half-wit to use Thomas Mesereau’s information and mix it with the lowest tabloid lies as if these things were of the same value. And Sullivan is not a half-wit. It is done absolutely purposefully.

    I’ve also been thinking about the reason for his disjointed manner of presenting the “information”. It may be a literary trick but in the case of MJ the right timeline is often more eye-opening than anything else, so the Sullivan project uses this trick to confuse his readers even more. Also intentional, I am afraid.

    Like

  171. November 25, 2012 1:43 pm

    “I did not watch the Nightline interview of Sullivan until a few minutes ago and in there he even overinflates the amount that was delivered to Michael in an Arby’s bag. In his book it was 500 thousand or round about. In the interview it was 7.5 million.” – lynande51

    It is another interesting phenomenon. In his book he does not allow himself total absurdities like that because books are printed matter and they stay, but in his interviews, seen today and lost tomorrow, he makes up absolutely incredible stories. It is trash journalism at its best.

    “He like all other media does not want to let go of THEIR version of Michael because it sold so very well for them.”

    What is especially meaningful is that all major networks are promoting his version of things on such a big scale. For us as researchers of the problem it is a very important fact. ALL of them are in it against Jackson. And I am not sure that the matter of money is primary here – they can make money on Lisa Campbell’s book as well. I am sure that her book contains lots of sensations too, because we all know that the true Michael Jackson story has a great number of real, not fake sensations, only no one wants to report them.

    Like

  172. November 25, 2012 1:31 pm

    “Thanks so much for confirming my original thought that this was not a book worth reading. When a book already starts out with words like “Untouchable, Strange and Tragic” in the title my radar goes up” – yours4ever

    I am very happy that all of us are slowly developing immunity to lies. It we manage to do it then it will take only a very little thing to know in which direction to go and which path is dangerous (and useless) to take.

    Like

  173. lynande51 permalink
    November 25, 2012 1:12 pm

    I thought the exact thing when I was watching the Bad 25 documentary: This is why Randall Sullican wrote this book.
    Also this book was put together very quickly. You can’t tell me it was a long work because he actually references the leaked emails in it. That happened in August. He probably got emails from Howard King ( Mann and Schaffel’s attorney).
    I did not watch the Nightline interview of Sullivan until a few minutes ago and in there he even overinflates the amount that was delivered to Michael in an Arby’s bag. In his book it was 500 thousand or round about. In the interview it was 7.5 million. Obviously this man has never seen that amount of money or he would know it would not have fit in an Arby’s bag.
    The connection that he makes throughout the book to all of the tabloid stories do just what his intention was. He like all other media does not want to let go of THEIR version of Michael because it sold so very well for them.

    Like

  174. yours4ever permalink
    November 25, 2012 11:12 am

    Thanks so much for confirming my original thought that this was not a book worth reading. When a book already starts out with words like “Untouchable, Strange and Tragic” in the title my radar goes up – just like “Michael Jackson: The Magic, The Madness, The Whole Story, 1958-2009” by J. Randy Taraborrelli, which seems like it’s in the same vein.
    Thank you to those of you who had to wade through the mess.

    Like

  175. November 25, 2012 7:37 am

    Helena, thank you for this excellent analysis. I’ve been vacillating back and forth and trying to understand Sullivan’s intent and TMez’s involvement. Your rather scary assessment of what Sullivan has done, purposefully I believe, is devious, underhanded and damaging. He is not a stupid man I presume and perhaps the disjointed nature of his prose is done specifically for a reason(s) and intended for a specific impression from the reader. Mix lies, half truths and personal opinions in with those of integrity and truth and one tends to view it as a believeable tale. A poisonous brew. Perhaps, as stated, a reader’s guide is quite a good idea.

    Like

  176. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 25, 2012 6:13 am

    Great job, VMJ!! I agree it needs an accompanying book to point out all the errors and unreliable sources. As Theresa says: “It is like a large bound volume of the last 25 years of National Enquirer, Star, People, Sun, Daily Mirror, etc stories that are not worth the paper it is printed on.”

    Is it just a coincidence that it comes out and gets all that network attention right before the Spike Lee documentary airs? Reminds me of other ‘bad timing’ in Michael’s life with the media, such as his compilation album Number Ones coming out the same day as the raid on Neverland (November 18, 2003).

    And why does the media keep saying Sullivan is a ” highly acclaimed journalist”?

    It would be good to credit NYTimes reviewer Michiko Kakutani for the ‘bloated, dispensable’ review she wrote.

    Like

  177. Theresa Biggerstaff permalink
    November 25, 2012 5:47 am

    Well done. I have read nearly the whole book, free copy, of course, and you tell it like it is. The only credible source in this book is Tom Mesereau, and he is the only reason I decided to plow through it. The whole section worth reading is about the 2005 trial but Aphrodite Jones already wrote an accurate book about this. It is a big fat mess of a book that is not even well written and skips around in chronology of time. It trots out every tabloid lie as if it is the gospel truth with frequent inaccuracies that can easily be debunked. It is like a large bound volume of the last 25 years of National Enquirer, Star, People, Sun, Daily Mirror, etc stories that are not worth the paper it is printed on. It gave me a headache just to slog through it. After reading it, I stand behind my initial reaction to the book. May it be consigned to the depths of hell for all time.

    Like

  178. Jovana permalink
    November 25, 2012 5:16 am

    It seems to me that Mesereau fell for Sullvan the same way Michael fell for Bashir. It is strange to me though that Mesereau would be like this,, when Aphrodite was wanting to write a book about the trial it took a lot of persuading on her part to show Mesereau that she will write the truth.
    I can’t imagine people wanting to read this many pages considering its mainly based on tabloid trash. If you take Conspiracy, Redemption, Moonwalk, Dancing the Dream all these books together don’t have that many pages and are based on the truth,, why waste time on such big book of tabloid stories.
    I will never understand.

    Like

  179. November 25, 2012 2:24 am

    I have been waiting for this post for a minute. This is gonna be good!

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. John Branca; Was He Really Fired In 2003? If So, Was He Rehired? A Documented Time Line | mjjjusticeproject
  2. Sullivan’s “Untouchable” Part 2 «
  3. Sullivan’s “Untouchable” Part 2 «

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: