Skip to content

An Insider’s Letter About Michael Jackson’s Women. SEX, LOVE AND JEALOUSY

January 9, 2013

Recently one reader said that I was wrong about Michael’s sexuality and this surprised me very much – I never really discussed it in this blog.  However now it is time we did as new and important facts have surfaced on this engrossing subject.

 1. THE LETTER

First it is necessary to publish the letter about Michael’s love life from someone who claims to be his long-time employee. To be more exact it wasn’t a letter but a message sent to a message board of the National Enquirer.

Part of it was mentioned in a post about Scott Thorson, however it turns out that it is not the full text. Though I’ve known about it for some time now I could not post it earlier as there was no way to prove its authenticity. Now the situation has changed and therefore the message should receive our utmost attention.

Let me remind you what letter we are talking of. It appeared on the message board of the National Enquirer as a reply to their “sensational” story about the alleged gay affair between Scott Thorson and MJ published sometime in spring 2004. I memorized the time as it as it ‘coincided’ with the grand jury deliberations on whether to indict Michael Jackson or not in that crazy Arvizo case.

The ‘gay affair’ with Scott Thorson allegedly took place when Michael was working on Say Say Say with Paul McCartney in London in 1984, so you can imagine how devout a Jehovah’s Witness Michael was at the time.  The author of the letter called the story trash and said that that those who had written it had no idea what they were talking of – Michael was ‘old school’ and straight ‘almost to the fault of himself’. He was very uncomfortable about passes from males and was ‘thoroughly heterosexual’. He didn’t like men. He didn’t like boys. He liked women.

The author explained Scott’s move to slander Michael by a very true statement that “Poverty brings forth all sort of “memories” and now we know that this was exactly Scott Thorson’s case.  Journalist Roger Jacobs who helped Scott contact the National Enquirer described Thorson as a hopeless drug-addict who at that time was in a terrible hole. He simply took advantage of the Arvizo allegations and hoped to make some money by concocting a fictional story of the events which had allegedly taken place twenty years before that. When I wondered if Scott Thorson would ever be able to understand that blood money never did anyone any good, Roger Jacobs simply said “No” in reply (see here please).

The gay story was pure fiction of course. Nothing of what Scott described happened. Scott made two passes on Michael. The first time Michael ignored him and the second time he told him to back off in a very polite language as he was still very sweet and innocent at the time. Since then they never spoke with each other. And this is all. This boring truth and the colorful soap opera around it are described in much detail in this post.

The story about Scott was in the first part of the message in the National Enquirer, however it had a second part to it and over there the author went over Michael’s numerous affairs with women.  The authors broke down the subject to counter balance Scott’s lies with the accurate truth and said he would not repeat it twice – though Michael was no longer his boss, he would still hate his former employee “putting it out like that in public”.

On the other hand the author did not care –  “He ain’t my boss anymore, so he’s just going to have to put up with it”. It was more important for the author to establish the innocent truth about Michael, and the innocent truth about Jackson (if you can decipher it of course) is this:

  • “Scott is full of s.hit, Michael isn’t gay and he sho’ as h.ell ain’t a pedophile”.

I deciphered it as “Scott is full of shit, Michael isn’t gay and he is sure as hell isn’t a pedophile”.

Among the names of women mentioned in the second part of the letter one name is the most captivating for us. This name is a key to the closely guarded secret of the first 1993 so-called “child molestation” case in Michael’s biography and tells the actual truth behind those accusations.

The name of that woman is June Chandler and yes, the author claims that Jordan’s mother had an affair with Michael Jackson, and that “punk bitch” Jordan Chandler just got jealous of mommy’s relationship with Michael.

June Chandler, Lily and Michael Jackson in Monaco, May 1993

June Chandler, Lily and Michael Jackson in Monaco, May 1993

Strange as it might seem now, in the year 2004 not a single detractor of Michael Jackson, not a single reader, journalist or even a fan questioned the official version of June Chandler’s involvement in the case. Everyone looked at her as either a poor trustful woman who overlooked the “molestation” of her son right in front of her eyes or a greedy parent who was callously “selling her son to a predator”.

No other versions were ever considered and therefore the story described by the anonymous author almost ten years ago sounds so unique to us today. It is the singularity of the author’s statement and its difference from the general trend that makes this news so interesting to us – of course in addition to the fact that the revelation about June Chandler having an affair with Michael Jackson  is extremely interesting in and of itself.

Before you read the letter let me explain what “punk bitch” and some other slang words mean.  I looked them up in the Urban dictionary and find that their interpretation adds a lot of color to the narration.  For example, “Punk Bitch” with reference to Jordan Chandler points to him being a cowardly and mean figure (however who can expect a 12-year old to be brave enough to stand up to corrupt adults around him?)

In fact all interpretations of “Punk Bitch” would apply to Jordan:

  • An ass lying to impress.
  • Someone who runs from a fight and someone you are hostile toward.
  • Someone who smiles in your face pretend yall are cool, but shitting on you behind your back.
  • Someone who is fake but try to act like they’re hard.
  • Someone who play phone warrior and talk hella shit over the phone but never to your face.
  • Someone who takes a person kindness for weakness.

Another word used is “Hussy”. It means “a brazen or immoral woman”. The term is applied by the author to no other than Diana Ross.

And the last word is “Sprung”. It refers to Michael Jackson (“that boy was sprung”) and to the way he felt about Lisa-Marie Presley. The word is so special that it inspired the Urban dictionary to whole chapters of explanation:

  • Sprung is when you’ve gone two months without seeing her face, yet her smile still lingers in your dreams. It’s when you can’t get her off your mind, no matter the time or distance apart. It’s when everyday that goes by without her is a bad day. It’s when you can’t help but be a hopeless romantic, waiting for the day she comes around and picks you. It’s when every song, movie, and special moment you shared sparks a flood of memories, of the better times. It’s when you’d trade it all to go back in time, to live it all over again. It’s when you hate yourself for not taking that chance, for letting that fleeting window of opportunity slip by. It’s when you long to tell her everything, about how you felt, how you still feel. It’s when the pain is unbearable. Your time spent with her each day plummets from 80% to a miserable 0% overnight….
  • Sprung is falling in love with someone to the point that they are constantly on your mind and you cannot live without them.. and your everyday is either good or bad, depending on how it went with her. When you’re so infatuated with one person that you feel almost as though you’re in love with them, yet you can’t quite define it as love. When you’re sprung, you’re stuck on one person; suddenly, no one seems to matter quite as much as they do; when you don’t see them all day, it feels like you’re missing something, like the day didn’t even count as a real day.
  • Sprung is when you have no control over how you feel for someone; you feel almost obsessed with them. Yet, somehow, it’s still not quite love. Eventually, it will turn into love, though, given enough time.
1995

“That boy was sprung”. Michael and Lisa-Marie Presley in 1995

So it is an infatuation with a person, though not exactly love?

Interesting.

Now that we know how Michael Jackson felt about Lisa Marie Presley during their marriage and even after their divorce, let us proceed to the letter itself.

Please read it with an open mind trying not to fall into the extremes of euphoria or total disbelief. Before we pass our final judgment on the letter we still need to check up a lot of things.

Also please note that the author of the letter mentions June Chandler in a very matter-of-fact way (the bold type is mine) with no special goal to rub into our minds the idea that the allegations were false and that the case was very much different from what everyone thought it to be. This matter-of-fact attitude makes the revelation about June Chandler all the more valuable to us:

Nor gay or phedofile [sic]

2004-06-12

You people are so gullible! I love it, it’s hilarious.

Anybody who genuinely knows Michael (which is none of you), knows that Michael is straight – almost to a fault of himself, considering that he doesn’t look like the most masculine of brothas. You’re so quick to believe Scott, which is hysterical because if you knew their history, you’d know how weirded out Michael was by Scott’s advances. Michael’s not overtly homophobic, but he is old school and isn’t completely comfortable with it. However, given the nature of his profession, he has tried his best to be accepting and because he tries to be a good Christian, he does not judge, he leaves that to God. He still gets incredibly uncomfortable by advances by anything remotely male….which brings us to Scott. Scott made a pass at Michael. Michael ignored it, initially. The second time, Michael told him to back the #### off (in more polite language, of course…Michael was still quite young and sweet and innocent back in the ’80s, if a dude tried something similar NOW, he might get punched in the face). They haven’t spoken since then. The closest he ever got to Michael after about ’84 was that his boyfriend was friends with Priscilla Presley’s makeup artist. The two haven’t spoken since Scott tried to get all up on Mikey.

One may ask themselves, if his motive for coming forward now was out of some sort of moral obligation and a desire to crush MJ’s “strategy” of declaring himself heterosexual, why didn’t he come forward in 1993? Maids, cooks, ex-guards, everybody and their momma was coming forward with “claims,” why not then? Or, if the motivation behind this is genuine concern for the welfare of children and not money, why not go to the police with the things you’ve seen (i.e. Scott claiming to have seen child porn on Michael’s nightstand)?

Simple, none of it happened and Scott was still livin’ the life with all of Liberace’s dough. Poverty brings forth all sorts of “memories.” Isn’t it convenient that just as soon as his cash stash is running dry, he tells the world he had sex with Michael Jackson?

Please.

Let me break this down for you people and pay attention because I don’t like doing it more than once. Michael Jackson is thoroughly heterosexual. He does not like men. He does not like boys. He likes women over the age of 18. Shiiiiit, even before he was 18, he liked women well over the age of 18. It’s no secret within certain circles that Diana Ross was his first. The poor guy thought he was going to marry her but she fucked him over with Gene Simmons and Arne Naess. He was pretty naive back then, so he chose not to see the obvious. Then he was celibate for about 3 years, before becoming involved with a pretty, blond employee of his, an actress from a popular ’80s/early ’90s sitcom, a singer that nobody cares about anymore but was the sh.it back in the day, some groupie/secretary, June Chandler (the mother of punk bitch Jordan who got jealous of mommy’s relationship with Michael) and, of course, Lisa Marie. Lisa Marie was the only one he allowed himself to become more than just sexually involved with since Diana, that boy was sprung. Lisa Marie, however, led him to believe they would have a family of their own, but stayed on the pill anyway because even if she said she was a rebel, the little bitch didn’t want mommy dearest to get mad at her for having a lil black child. Mike found the pills, split, messed around with a couple of other women with the goal of getting one pregnant just to hurt Lisa (he can be an as.shole sometimes, true) and eventually knocked up Debbie, which, (if I didn’t love and adore his children and think they saved his life) I would say was probably one of the biggest mistakes of his life. He was never faithful to Debbie after they married, never even wanted to marry her but Mike doesn’t like to break his mother’s heart. He and Lisa continued having sex until 1999 (they weren’t “together,” they were just fucking), until he met his third child’s mother, fell very much in love with her, but he is his father’s son, so he wasn’t entirely faithful to her, which is why they split up shortly after she found out she was pregnant. From that time, up until right before these new bullshit allegations broke, he was pretty much a dog. No attachment, just sex. He has no time to get attached to somebody and then depressed again after they part ways now that he has his children. I doubt he has time for anybody other than his children and his lawyers now.

There, you have it. Take it or leave it, but it’s the truth. Mike would hate me for putting his business out here like this, but at least it’s accurate, unlike all of the other trash going around now. He ain’t my boss anymore, so he’s just going to have to put up with it.

Summary: Scott is full of s.hit, Michael isn’t gay and he sho’ as h.ell ain’t a pedophile.

Here are the same man’s answers to questions on the National Enquirer message board:

1. He’s weird, he’s rich, he’s black and he never bows down to anybody. He doesn’t fit any stereotypes of what a black man “should” be, which makes people uncomfortable and enables them to believe anything sinister about him. If you need proof of that, just look no further than this very message board.

2. I think I outlined most of the girlfriends for you, if you think hard enough you could probably figure out names, but it’s not my job to spoon feed this to you. He kept Diana a secret because that’s what the hussy wanted and by the time he got his sh.it together enough to move on and get with other women, he was so obsessed with his privacy that he didn’t want the public to know anything about him that didn’t have to do with music or business (and rightfully so, everything he does is misconstrued, manipulated and taken out of context).

3. Can’t help you there, that’s something you don’t really discuss with Michael. All I can say is that it got more out of hand after he and Diana were officially no more. Nobody around him ever condoned it, I know I certainly didn’t. In all fairness to the kid, most of it is exaggerated. He’s had a lot, but to a fairly localized area, none of this crazy cheekbone, eyebrow, eyelid, forehead stuff. But what does plastic surgery have to do with whether or not he’s a pedophile or a homosexual? Nothing. He’s got a good heart, I don’t give two sh.its about his face.

I’m about through here, maybe a repeat performance or two, but probably not. Just keep all I’ve said in mind before you jump to conclusions about Mike.

==

This post took place on June 12, 2004

http://reclaimingafallenking.blogspot.ru/2010/03/was-michael-jackson-womanizer.html

These messages are smashing to say the very least. And by that I don’t mean that news that Michael wasn’t gay. This is no news to us – we’ve known it all along as this was confirmed by everyone who knew him (except Scott Thorson), and many times over too. Not that I have anything against gay men, it is simply that this allegation about Michael was not true and I see no reason why we should sustain a lie instead of keeping to the truth.

By smashing news I mean the rest of the story. Let us not pretend – of course it is interesting to read all those details, though I personally absolutely do not care how many women Michael had and when his sexual experience started – it was solely his business and not ours. All I can say is that I am happy that at least in this aspect of life he had a little joy to comfort himself with.

However the fact that the author named June Chandler as Michael’s love is really ground-breaking news. I suspected it all along from the various small details which did not fit into the official version of the events presented by the media and prosecutors. The land had been cleared by them of all the debris long before we came, but some small traces of evidence were still left here and there. And the news of June Chandler’s affair with Michael Jackson explains those traces very well indeed.

2. JUNE CHANDLER’S AFFAIR – THE TRACES LEFT

June Chandler’s affair with Michael Jackson will explain, for example, the mysterious phrases she said at some point which were quoted by Thomas Mesereau at the 2005 trial:

  •  “I’ve had males in my life that, you know, have disappointed me. How can I have you in my life and you’re saying that you’re going to take care of us, that you’re so wonderful, everything’s going to be okay, how am I going to do that?”

It may also explain why Thomas Mesereau asked her similarly mysterious questions whether she had ever dropped her clothes off in Michael’s bedroom or ordered food there. While reading the transcripts of the trial I don’t remember a single other instance of Thomas Mesereau asking such quesition of any other woman  – Brett Barnes’ mother, Joy Robson or anyone else.  And lawyers don’t ask questions without any reason at all. When the witness is non-cooperative they use their questions to actually tell the story.

At the 2005 trial

June Chandler at the 2005 trial

June Chandler’s possible affair with MJ can also explain why her maid, who lived in June Chandler’s house when Michael Jackson stayed there for allegedly 30 days, was never seen or heard of by the public (her name was not reported by the press) and why she wasn’t asked to testify at the 2005 trial.

Wasn’t she the first person to be summoned by the prosecution to testify against Jackson? Then why wasn’t she? Is it because her truthful testimony could have fully absolved Michael of any guilt and could have painted a totally different picture of his stay at June’s house?  You know, maids are very knowledgeable people when  it comes to washing someone’s clothes or seeing who stayed in whose bedroom, for example…

June Chandler’s past affair with Michael can also explain why she was all smiles at the 2005 trial. She had not seen her son for eleven years and was supposed to be sad about it, as Michael Jackson had “broken up her family” and had allegedly done some wrong to her son, so it was in her best interests to present a picture of  a distraught mother –  but she nevertheless looked confident, unaffected and glamorous. Is it because it is soooo typical of a woman to use every opportunity to try and impress her former lover by the way she looks many years later and show how attractive she still is?

"Pellicano found damning info about accuser's family" [The Daily Beast]

“Pellicano found damning info about accuser’s family” [The Daily Beast August 7, 2011]

http://web.archive.org/web/20110809130148/http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/pellicano-s-reach. tml

This affair will also explain what Anthony Pellicano had in mind when he said that back in 1993 he had found damning evidence about the boy accuser’s family.

This is a secret that still needs to be disclosed by Pellicano – of course if he ever leaves the prison where he was put almost forever for a mere wiretapping.  And what can be  more damning than finding that a mother first had an affair with a man and then betrayed him by coaching her son to say the sexual things she herself had engaged in?

The affair with June Chandler could also explain why Jordan was sure that Michael was circumcised – so sure that he ventured this information to the police himself and insisted on it.  How come he was so confident of what he was saying? This confidence seemed to be one of the things that impressed the investigators most, so where did it come from?

The possible answer is that if June Chandler really had an intimate love affair with MJ this information could easily come from her (a little later I will explain why in contrast to men a woman can make such a mistake). So what was meant to be only between her and Michael could have been shared with Jordan and former husband Evan – I mean things like MJ’s short pubic hair and the patches on his scrotum, for example.

We can imagine what a devastating effect such a betrayal could have had on Michael – the shock, disappointment and humiliation of it must have changed his attitude towards women once and for all since then.

If we suppose that June Chandler had a relationship with Michael we will understand why Jordan didn’t want to associate with his mother years after the events – first he was jealous of her relations with Michael and then she let him down by supplying the wrong description of MJ’s genitalia, thus creating a real mess and leaving Jordan to bear full responsibility for it.

Jordan must have felt as someone who was thrown under the bus by both of his parents – the father sacrificed him for the millions he sought for his film-making career, while his mother was the one who was involved most, but nevertheless managed to get out of it innocent as a baby while her son had to handle the most dirt and was scarred for life…

But am I contradicting myself when I say that June Chandler could make a mistake by taking a non-circumcised man for a circumcised one? I was saying in all earlier posts that such a mistake was simply impossible, so does it mean that I am recanting on my words?

No, it doesn’t.

I will clarify what I mean, only first I need the underage youngsters, who may be reading this, to close their eyes and skip the next few paragraphs marked by gray font  – the answer to this question will be a very graphic one.

To the rest of you I will say that Jordan could indeed get information about Michael’s so-called “circumcision” from his mother as this mistake can be made only by a woman, especially under certain circumstances.

In his interview with Dr. Richard Chandler Jordan claimed that he masturbated MJ ten times or so. But by saying it he made a big mistake, a really big mistake.  During masturbation the foreskin moves, even in the erect state, so it is impossible to overlook this movement and therefore not to notice the foreskin and the non-circumcision state.

However if a woman is not involved in masturbation of a male and has a “traditional” intercourse she will neither notice nor feel any difference  at all – it is all the same to her whether he is circumcised or not.

Neither will she notice if she sees him only just “before” or “after”, and always in the erect state, because the erection seen from a distance does look like circumcision. Neither will she notice if he wears a condom  in which case  no woman on earth will be able to tell a non-circumcised man from a circumcised one. Nor will she notice if everything is happening in the dark, for example.

In short there are lots of circumstances under which a woman may take a non-circumcised man for a circumcised one.

With males engaged in sex with each other it is different and over there the mistake is totally impossible. The basic difference is in the movement of the foreskin during masturbation (even when erect). And this “punch bitch” Jordan claimed that he had masturbated MJ.

If his story had been true he should have seen it. But me made a mistake here, so he didn’t see or feel it.

See the animation made for medical purposes please: http://www.circumstitions.com/Works.html

No one will tell you these things, and it is only me who is risking all these graphic details. I really wanted to spare you, but there is simply no other way to explain, so please forgive me – it wasn’t easy for me either.

For those who have skipped the explanation let us just make a conclusion that under certain conditions a woman can make a mistake about a male’s non-circumcision state, while a man can never make such a mistake, and the answer to this difference is in the foreskin. The foreskin always moves, and this fact is easily noticed by a male partner but not always noticed by a female partner, and this is all there is to it.

This is why the above letter is so important to us. June Chandler could also be involved in the scam against Jackson and this version will dot all i’s and cross all t’s about the intentions of the Chandlers in the 1993 case:

  • Evan wanted money
  • June wanted money, love and sex, but when Even shattered everything and deprived her of the chance to marry she settled at least for the money and cooperated with the others. However she let her son down by supplying him with wrong information about MJ
  • Jordan wanted to derive some benefits from the terrible situation he was facing. He was the one who suffered most and evidently wanted  a compensation for it.

To make sure that the above more or less accurately shows the disposition of forces in the 1993 scheme all we need to do is prove that the letter above is authentic. If we manage to prove it we can consider the job of uncovering the truth about the Chandlers’ story done. The points that actually need to be clarified are:

1)     Was the letter really written by Michael’s employee?

2)     Could it be written by a fan who simply wanted to whitewash MJ?

3)     And was that employee indeed so well-informed that his story could be fully trusted?

3. CHECKING UP THE LETTER

Checking up the authenticity of the letter is a really big  job. The first thing to do is compare the story described there with independent information we know from other sources. Now we are in a more favorable position than the author of the letter as much has been uncovered since the year 2004 when it was written.

When checking up the story one of the factors to always keep in mind is whether the author could or could not know this information at that time unless he knew Michael very closely. The letter describes a succession of events, so it is top important to check whether the timeline provided there fits the real chronology.

If all the other facts of the letter are proven correct than there will be no reason to doubt the whole of it, including the information about June Chandler.

For a start I’ve selected this quote:

Quote 1.

… that boy was sprung. Lisa Marie, however, led him to believe they would have a family of their own, but stayed on the pill anyway because even if she said she was a rebel, the little bitch didn’t want mommy dearest to get mad at her for having a lil black child. Mike found the pills, split, messed around with a couple of other women with the goal of getting one pregnant just to hurt Lisa (he can be an asshole sometimes, true) and eventually knocked up Debbie.

The fact that Lisa led Michael to believe that she wanted children but never kept her word blasted the media after Michael’s death, when Rabbi Shmuley published “The Michael Jackson Tapes”. However a similar story had earlier been told by Taraborrelli, so a fan could have known or guessed at it after connecting some dots. So we will disregard this point.

However as to Michael finding birth control pills and splitting from Lisa Marie as a result and then “messing around” with someone else, this information I hear for the first time and this could be provided only by a true insider. 

The closest to what is described here is found in Lacienegasmiles blog which is the first place to go to if you want to know about Michael Jackson’s personal life – the blog collected every little bit ever said by the media about Jackson in this respect. This piece from Lacienegasmiles seems to refer to the period when the split between Michael and Lisa-Marie took place.

The 6 weeks period started sometime in July-August 1995:

July 31-August 6, 1995

The fact that while being formally married Lisa Marie, Michael had close association with Debbie Rowe is again confirmed by the same blog which quotes “Magic and Madness” by Taraborrelli. Lisa’s friend, Monica Pastelle speaks there about Lisa’s anger with Debbie and how incredulous she was of the need to act like the jealous little wife in order to handle Michael’s ‘wet’ nurse.

It looks like these two women were tearing him apart between themselves:

Magic/Madness, 1995

Lisa Marie’s friend Monica Pastelle says: ‘I recall Lisa telling me that Michael was trying to make her believe he was interested in a white nurse who worked for his dermatologist. Lisa just laughed it off. She thought Michael was trying to make her jealous, just playing games.’

‘But it was true, just the same: Michael was seeing Debbie Rowe while he was married to Lisa,’ says Monica Pastelle. ‘And Lisa knew it. At one point, she and Debbie had a tense telephone conversation during which Lisa said: “Look, nursey. I’m sorry that you’re in love with my husband. But he’s mine. So get lost”.

‘Afterwards, Lisa burst out laughing. She said: “Can you imagine? Me acting like the jealous little wife because Michael’s wet nurse -or whatever she is-  is in love with him. What is this craziness?” ‘

http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/1995-1999-debbie-rowe/

I don’t know what Michael “seeing” Debbie Rowe stands for and whether it is the same as “messing around” described in the letter, but the very least we can be sure of is that the Debbie Rowe factor was introduced into the marital picture of Lisa-Marie and Michael at the time when their marriage was not over yet – and this is exactly what the author of our letter claimed.

In another interview Lisa Marie confirmed that the conversation about Debbie possibly giving Michael a baby was taking place while they were still married and she actually gave her okay to it herself,  never really expecting him to follow her advice:

Lisa, Playboy, June 2003

PLAYBOY: Did you and Michael discuss having kids?

PRESLEY: Yeah. [Laughs] I got out of that one. “I just don’t think it’s a good idea right now.” But I knew that’s what he wanted. And I knew Debbie Rowe was offering to do it for him while we were married, according to him. She was a nurse who had a crush on him and offered to have his babies.

PLAYBOY: Was he trying to leverage you into agreeing?

PRESLEY: Kind of. “Debbie Rowe says she’ll do it.” Ok, have Debbie Rowe do it! And it’s funny, when I imagined having a child with him, all I could ever see was a custody battle nightmare.

Wiki also adds to it that Debbie Rowe was impregnated while Michael and Lisa were still married:

  • While separated but still married to Presley, Jackson impregnated Rowe but she suffered a miscarriage and lost their baby in March 1996.

If this was the case I wonder if there is a way to know when Debbie was first impregnated? It would show when Michael split from Lisa and started “messing around” following the wording of the author of the letter. Remember that we are asking these questions not out of idle curiosity (well yes, out of curiosity too) but in order to check up the credibility of its author and learn whether we can trust his other information, especially the one concerning June Chandler.

For an answer about Debbie’s first pregnancy I again refer you to the Lacienegasmiles blog which managed to find out that the pregnancy started in December 1995 (so the messing around must have begun even earlier for obvious reasons). This date was taken from a story which is openly tabloid but claims that its journalist befriended Debbie Rowe and she blabbered away some very intimate details to her, one of which was that she had a miscarriage in March 1996 three months after conception, which indeed takes us to December 1995.

By the way Lisa Marie Presley’s announcement that she wanted out of her marriage with Michael came also in December 1995 and this suggests to us that our timeline is correct. Every detail of it is fitting in – if she had learned the news about Debbie’s pregnancy in December her pride would have been wounded so much that she would not have tolerated the situation for a single minute and would have immediately stamped her foot in indignation.

Well, up till now the information from the letter is being confirmed in every little detail of it!

4. ANGER AND JEALOUSY

In her interviews Lisa-Marie admits that she was extremely angry with Jackson during their separation, only when she speaks about their divorce Lisa-Marie usually displaces the focus from real events to a version which is less hurtful to her pride.

She claims that the divorce was partially due to Michael taking drugs, and it is usually after this statement that the conversation habitually flows into standard talking about Michael’s “drug-addiction” and theories about her “saving” him and her (or his)  fears that “he would die like her father”, and then it goes all the way down to her unhappy childhood experience of seeing her father die, etc.

This is a regular pattern of her interpretation of the events and it is nothing new to us. However Lisa-Marie’s is not quite sincere in her version of the story and we know it from her own statement to Oprah, where she said that she had not seen any drugs in Michael’s life except the moment immediately prior to the divorce. As an example of the only instance when she thought that it was drugs she refers to the incident when Michael collapsed on stage and was rushed to a hospital.

Moreover, if you listen to her attentively you will find that even during that Michael’s collapse drugs were only a supposition on her part – she thought of them (and for the first time too) because when she arrived at the hospital no one could explain to her the reason for his condition, which is why she assumed the worst. And the word assumed is central here.

Isn’t it interesting how she and the media always focused on the so-called MJ’s “drug issue”, while a careful reading of Lisa’s own words reveals that the suspicion arose only on one occasion,  just prior to the divorce and it was nothing but a supposition on her part?

Debbie and MJ 10

Michael did try his marriage to Debbie work. He was so serious about it that he even wore a wedding ring….

What I mean is that all these drug stories are a mere pretext used by Lisa-Marie to explain why she was so terribly angry with Michael. The real reason for it was most probably her anger with the fact that she had lost Michael to another woman and an ordinary nurse at that.

The added insult of it was that the nurse was lacking her glamor, beauty and fame, and still Michael preferred her to Lisa-Marie and all of it because she was giving him a child.

Doesn’t it put things in a different perspective and suggest that by all that talk about “drugs” Lisa was simply having her little revenge on Michael?

This is what Lisa-Marie said to the media:

On Jackson’s drug problem, she claims she didn’t notice until the very end of their marriage.

“I didn’t really suspect and catch on until just before I filed for divorce. There was just an occasion, an incident where he had collapsed and he was in the hospital,” she described of the scene in 1995 when Jackson collapsed while rehearsing for an HBO concert and doctors blamed it on a viral infection.

“It was very confusing what was wrong. Every day there was a different report. And I couldn’t tell what was happening,” she added. “I couldn’t really get a straight answer about what was happening with him and I think we were all a little bit in the dark. At that point, I think I got from various indications that that was going on then.”

“Were you angry with him before?” Oprah questioned.

“I was very angry. I was so angry. I felt that we were so united and then at some point he pushed me out.

http://www.popeater.com/2010/10/21/lisa-marie-presley-michael-jackson/

After Jackson’s death in June 2009, Presley said she’s “come to have all this love again and understanding for him. I don’t know why it had to take all that to have this happen. That upsets me a bit.”

But Jackson’s ex-wife admitted she didn’t always have such warm feelings for the King of Pop, whom she divorced in 1996.

“I was very angry. I was so angry,” she revealed. “I felt that we were so united, and then at some point he pushed me out.

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-body/news/lisa-marie-presley-didnt-understand-michael-jackson-relationship-20102110

He pushed her out? So this is what it was really like… And how could we think that a mere suspicion that Michael was “taking drugs” could drive a street-smart girl like Lisa Marie into an indignant state like she is describing? No, it was the pain, jealousy and fury of an abandoned woman that made her turn on him.

All this talk about drugs was only a pretext for Lisa-Marie to file for a divorce and a plausible reason to explain to the media why they were separating – it enabled her to save her face in public and hide the deep wounds to her pride. How could she admit to everyone the real reason for the divorce –  that Michael pushed her way and her place was taken by a nurse, a sheer nobody who was also ten years older than Lisa?

I can very well understand how Lisa’s jealousy, rage and self-pity were suffocating her, however all she had to do to avoid all that pain was giving Michael a child – and then he would have surely stayed and there would have been no happier family on earth. What a mistake she made…

Lisa Marie’s jealousy was so terrible that Karen Faye who wrote a tell-all girlie tweet in 2007 called Lisa Marie Presley an “evil little princess”. Here is Karen’s tweet:

Date: Apr 1, 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: The Real Lisa Marie – Karen Faye.

Hi Angie…..everyone has a part of their mind that will always doubt. We must learn to trust our hearts,
not our brains. Lisa Marie is a very evil little girl. She was horrible to Michael, myself, and anyone who
was around Michael. She was even jealous of her own children when they adored Michael. She was the one
trying to manipulate Michael and his world. I never saw Michael so miserable as I did when he was married
to Lisa. No one should start beleiving the tabloids now……Lisa has her album coming out, she wants as much publicity as she can, What better way than to jump on Michaels popularity….everyone else does.
KF

Lisa is an evil little princess.

Michael is an angel by comparison to LM
she was so jealous of anyone that came near Michael
she hated me…..so jealous, she didn’t want me touching him

LM has an album she wants to sell…what better way than to use Michael…..

she was a lovely person before they married
she pursued him with a vengence even when she was still married
she did not smoke or drink
as soon as they got married, she drank, smoked, wanted to fire everyone around Michael, and demanded he become a Scientologist
he bent over backwards to please her…..he never could, she was just too miserable

Lisa is just seeing the situation through her eyes, which is from a very confused individual. I viewed the relationship from a more objective point of view. Lisa was a miserable, jealous, and treated Michael unfairly in
every situation when I was around. He was so unhappy during his marriage with her, and he tried so hard to
make it work. You must also understand she has an album to sell right now, and again people are more
interested in Michael than they are with her…..what would you say? You would twist everything to support
yourself and your record sales…this is very predictable. Also, remember the media twists the words
of the people they interview also (didn’t we just see that?) Do you think they don’t do it with Lisa too?

KF

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/6krvo5

Karen Faye confirmed what we thought –  it was jealousy, anger and fury at Michael that motivated Lisa Marie to file for a divorce. She took this official step on  January 18, 1996.

5. NO DRUGS

But how can we be sure that Lisa Marie was wrong in her supposition about the reason for Michael’s collapse and that no drugs were really involved in that incident on stage? Earlier there were none either as even Lisa-Marie had not seen any instances of drug use.

We have independent proof that at the time of Michael’a collapse during a rehearsal in New York in December 1995 there were no narcotics in his system. The proof comes from a doctor who was working at the Beth Israel Medical Center in New York and examined Michael after his arrival at the hospital.

Michael was dehydrated, his blood pressure was abhorrently low (70 over 40) and he had a rapid heart rate, but there were no narcotics involved in his condition. The doctor said that he was so critically ill that he was actually near death.  When Michael left the hospital he thanked the doctor for saving his life.

This shortened version of the article is providing the details:

Michael Jackson leaves the New York Beth Israel hospital, Dec.1995

Michael Jackson leaves the New York Beth Israel hospital, Dec.1995

Dr William Alleyne about MJ and saving him in 1995

Published: Wednesday, Jul. 08, 2009

By Andrew Dys, Columnist – adys@heradonline.com

In December 1995, Alleyne was the critical care director at Beth Israel North Hospital, on the Upper East Side in New York City across the way from the mayor’s Gracie Mansion. He was the guy in charge when one of the nurses told him, We have Michael Jackson coming here.

Alleyne didn’t believe it then.

“I said, ‘Ha, ha, very funny,’ Alleyne recalled.

He had seen patients who were stars, or spouses of stars, but this was different. Thousands of people started clamoring outside the hospital. The place was turning into bedlam.

“Ten minutes later, they rolled Michael Jackson in on a stretcher, Alleyne said Tuesday from his Rock Hill office where he’s one of the partners at Carolina Pulmonary Physicians. But in 1995, Alleyne was the doctor to the King of Pop. Jackson had collapsed after a rehearsal for an upcoming HBO special at the nearby Beacon Theater.

Alleyne and his wife had seen Jackson before in concert, on television, and now, in 1995, Jackson was waiting, unconscious, for Bill Alleyne to save his life.

“Mr. Jackson was in critical condition, Alleyne said. He was dehydrated. He had low blood pressure. He had a rapid heart rate. He was near death.”

After about an hour or so that December dusk, Alleyne said he had Jackson stabilized with intravenous fluids and other treatment, and transferred Jackson to intensive care. But in the meantime, the crowd outside had become massive, a mob scene.

Jackson soon was stable, and Alleyne and Jackson started a doctor/patient relationship similar to all in theory but unlike any relationship Alleyne had ever had in practice. As people were climbing trees to get pictures of inside the hospital, as Jackson’s fans sang his songs outside and the world press invaded the sidewalks and street for information about the condition of this most-famous man, Bill Alleyne tried to keep Michael Jackson alive with intravenous food and care.

Michael Jackson was the most soft-spoken, least demanding guy you would ever want to meet, Alleyne said. Everything he said was a whisper. His biggest concern was could he perform.

Alleyne told Jackson no way could he perform anytime soon.

Alleyne had to get permission to release information to Jackson’s family. Jackson gave it. Alleyne had to deal with other doctors who came to watch his every move, and a world that wanted information that Alleyne would not give to anybody but those Jackson said to give it to.

After about 72 hours, Alleyne and Jackson’s publicists and others realized they had to give a press conference. So Alleyne worked with Jackson’s people to go over what could be said, what to stay away from but still tell the truth. Alleyne was blunt with the world, saying Jackson did not have any immune system problems because rumors about AIDS were swirling. He was blunt that Jackson had no drugs in his system.

News accounts from 1995 show Alleyne and his then-partner, Dr. Bob Glennon, talking about Jackson’s condition to convince the world that Jackson was, in fact, critically ill.

“Michael Jackson was unconscious when he arrived, Alleyne said. I had to make that clear.

Before Alleyne left the hotel that day, Alleyne recalled Jackson telling him: Thank you for saving my life.

Then Jackson told Alleyne he understood how difficult it had been for a black man to get to such a distinguished position within the medical world, that Alleyne’s accomplishments were inspiring to Jackson.

“It was very touching, Alleyne said. I will never forget that.

The full story is here: http://mjjdreamworld.yuku.com/topic/2838/Dr-William-Alleyne-about-MJ-and-saving-him-in-1995#.Vowgr_mLTcd

So it wasn’ t drugs as Lisa Marie told the whole world. Then why did Michael collapse?

He was preparing for a “One Night Only” show in New York which was his first in eight years. He rehearsed even on the days when he was not scheduled to and the dancers noticed him to be exhausted.  The concert was to be televised and shown to the audience of 250 mln people worldwide. On the day of the collapse he was rehearsing without any breaks from morning until 5 p.m. when the incident actually took place.

By that show Michael was putting very much at stake. After the 1993 case settlement his reputation was ruined. The History album was not doing very well and Michael was trying to straigten it out. This was a very stressful period of his life:

Michael Jackson Collapses At Rehearsal

By DAVID STOUT
Published: December 07, 1995 (shortened)

Michael Jackson collapsed while rehearsing on a Manhattan theater stage yesterday, casting uncertainty over plans for a highly publicized national cable television special to be telecast on Sunday. Tests showed that the entertainer was suffering from low blood pressure.

Mr. Jackson, 37, was admitted overnight to Beth Israel Medical Center North at 170 East End Avenue on the Upper East Side, where he was taken after being stricken at the Beacon Theater, 2124 Broadway at 74th Street, just before 5 P.M. He had been rehearsing for the Home Box Office special, which HBO officials say they hope will be watched by 250 million people worldwide.

Nancy Lindeman, a hospital spokeswoman, said that Mr. Jackson was in stable condition. His blood pressure was found to be an abnormally low 70 over 40 by an Emergency Medical Service crew that arrived at the theater four minutes after the collapse, said John Hanchar, an E.M.S. spokesman.

Quentin Schaffer, an HBO vice president for media relations, issued a brief statement last evening, saying, “Michael is stabilized.” He added that rehearsals were continuing last night, when Mr. Jackson was not scheduled to be rehearsing anyway.

Mr. Schaffer said the entertainer’s personal doctor was being flown in from California — a sign of concern not only for Mr. Jackson’s well-being but also for the huge sums of money that could be at stake.

The HBO special is to be taped at the theater tomorrow and Saturday. Mr. Schaffer and others at HBO acknowledged that the status of the Sunday telecast was uncertain. “The concern right now is his health,” Mr. Schaffer said.

Mr. Jackson was scheduled to receive an award last night at the Billboard Music Awards, which also took place in New York City.

HBO representatives declined to say how much they had spent on preparations for the concert, which have included renting the theater for two weeks. But they said they have had high hopes for the event, titled “One Night Only,” which was to be Mr. Jackson’s first in New York in eight years.

For that matter, Mr. Jackson himself could have a lot at stake. His latest album, “HIStory,” has languished on the charts, ranking No. 55 after 24 weeks, according to Soundscan, a company that monitors retail sales of recorded music. If the HBO concert were a success, Mr. Jackson would no doubt hope for a carry-over effect on his album sales.

Kevin Barwick, an E.M.S. technician who went to the theater after the singer collapsed, said, “We treated him as if he was anybody else.” He and a fellow technician, La-Shunn Knight, said the entertainer was lying on his side, clad in jeans and a T-shirt, and looking lethargic.

Colin Carew, a dancer not associated with the show, said colleagues participating in the production at the Beacon had told him that Mr. Jackson seemed exhausted from rehearsals. “They said he was rehearsing and he collapsed,” Mr. Carew said. “He’s been rehearsing since this morning. They asked him if he wanted to take a break, and he had said no.”

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/07/nyregion/michael-jackson-collapses-at-rehearsal.html

So the reason was the strain of a first concert in eight years to be seen by the whole world, Michael’s exhaustion from hard work, severe dehydration and a critically low blood pressure.  And in addition to all that Michael was going through very much trouble in his personal life – he desperately wanted a child and had to break away from a woman he loved but could no longer live with and rely on, and was making a choice in favor of a friend who was ready to give him this precious gift.

While Michael was ill Lisa-Marie made a visit to the hospital and had a big quarrel with him there. Several weeks later, on January 18, 1996 she filed for the official divorce. Michael answered her by going on January 25 to Motown Cafe in New York with his make-up artist and friend Karen Faye. According to some sources Lisa Marie later called Karen and said that she was a “bitch”. Now they have made up and agreed that both made mistakes in the past.

In February 1996 Michael went away to Brazil to shoot “They don’t care about us”. A month later, in March Debbie Rowe had a miscarriage which she took very hard but said that Michael was there to console her. In May 1996 she was pregnant again with Prince.

Going into all this detail was necessary to make sure that the letter written by our mysterious author was correct – Michael did “mess around” with Debbie with the goal to make her pregnant. Whether it was in order to hurt Lisa (“he can be an asshole sometimes, true”) or simply for a reason that he wanted a child, we don’t know, but he finally did “knock up” Debbie while he was still formally married to Lisa,  just as the letter claimed it.

September 1998. Outside the Ivy restaurant in Beverly Hills

September 1998. Outside the Ivy restaurant in Beverly Hills. She is crying by the way

This is how and why the divorce took place at all.

It is clear that if Lisa-Marie had agreed to give Michael a baby he would have been the happiest person on earth and none of the events that followed would have taken place.

The author of the letter was right   as for Lisa-Marie that boy was indeed sprung.

The four years they saw each other after the divorce are proving it.

(to be continued)

197 Comments leave one →
  1. September 28, 2015 3:37 pm

    “BTW, I know the woman that Michael was involved with, the whole time he was with Lisa, she was his public love, and the non-famous woman was his real love. So the insider does not know it all.”- MissM

    By the way I’ve also read about Michael’s numerous girlfriends. And the only person who knew it all was Michael himself. The insider knew some as he was probably in charge of Michael’s security. Though the fan who contacted this insider is calling him a “promotional guy”. She and others discussed some other details they got from this insider. It was amusing to read it:

    “Ok, so the information that I am going to tell you is a combination of what the promotional guy told me and what he told the fan that I chatted with. This is all going by my memory and some things that I have made documentation of.

    He said that Michael was conservative during the 1970s because he was really into his religion and that his flings with Theresa and Stephanie were more puppy love than anything else. He stated that to his knowledge, Michael did not have any sexual relationships with Stephanie and Theresa. However, he made one exception and that was Diana Ross. He stated that she was his first time. He said that Michael was involved with a beautiful employee of his but was being cutesy with Brooke. He stated that Brooke was more into Michael than he was into her.

    I did not get into the whole thing about MJ being celibate for three years. I do not know the actual time frame of that. However, I can guess that MJ was celibate probably between the time he had his little fling with Theresa in 1977 to 1980.

    The actress from a popular 1980s/early 1990s sitcom was Jasmine Guy who was on the show, A Different World. As we all know, she is also on the Liberian Girl short film. Now, I figured this out when I had to think of three shows that would fit that category: The Cosby Show, A Different Story and Empty Nest. I had to crossed out Empty Nest because MJ was friends with Kristy McNicol but she is rumored that she is a lesbian. I had to cross out The Cosby Show because the show was done in Brooklyn, NY.

    The singer that was hot back in the day but not anymore is a mystery to me because I never got a chance to ask him who exactly was this woman. I am telling you, when I first read this part, I thought of every female singer from that was on fire in the 1980s except Michael’s sister Janet. However, here are the clues that he gave me: the promotional guy stated that she is redbone. Redbone is a term that is used to describe people who are very light skin, almost can past for being white. He also stated that the initial of the woman’s name is the letter “P”.

    The promotional guy stated that the groupie secretary was a woman of asian descent. She was not Shana because Shana was never a secretary, she was an assistant to Michael’s manager at the time, Sandy Gallin.

    Shana- He said that her claim that she had a relationship with Michael from 1990 to 1997 was true but it is not what she was making it out to be. To Michael, she was flavor of the month. Michael liked the woman, thought that she was very pretty and they fooled around a bit. I want to also state that Flo Anthony, some gossip reporter who is friends with the family, talked about the time Shana found out that MJ married LMP. All I can remember was that Flo stated that Shana was so upset and she (Flo) had to pick her up (from the floor, I am guessing) and calm her down. The promotional guy thought that Shana was not a bright person.

    Tatiana- *sigh* where do I begin? LOL. This woman is such a mess. Basically, the promotional guy stated that her and Michael were hot and heavy for some time. Michael was discreet about the relationship but Tatiana was not. Whenever he (the promotional guy) saw them together, she was always kissing up on Michael. The promotional guy did not want to know about the sexcapades that Mike was having with the woman. LOL. Now, Michael broke it off with her because he found out that she was a ho, the one that gets paid for it, yeah, that one. She hid that secret from Michael and Michael’s people were not happy about that. The promotional guy stated that Michael was sad when he broke it off with her but he was seeing an actress. Now, I am not sure if the actress was Jasmine Guy. The promo guy did met Tatiana and he thought that she was “borderline stupid”.

    In regards to Grace, Lisa Marie, Debbie Rowe and June Chandler- I was not interested in asking him about these people and I do not really care to ask him about these woman. The fan that I chatted with did ask him about these people except June.

    Since Debbie, LMP and Grace are discussed at length on the MJ boards, I figure that I am not going to discuss them.

    Personally, I can’t stand any of these heifers. Real talk.

    Now, the promo guy stated that when Michael found out about the birth control pills and split with LMP, he messed with a couple of other women before he messed with that Debbie person. He stated that the women that Michael messed with were successful career women who worked in the industry. That these relationships are never serious, in other words, no strings attached.

    Blanket’s mother- The promo guy stated that MJ met the mother in 1999 and had a two year, off and on relationship with her.

    The woman is not an American but lives in the US. He stated that she is very attractive, very smart, light skinned black woman. She is multi-racial and considers herself a black woman. The age group of the woman was between mid to late 30s. She is a career woman who is quite successful, independent, has her own money, etc. She was Michael’s type of woman, successful, attractive and wild – sexually. Michael likes his woman to be wild in that way because he was that way himself. The promotional guy stated that Michael and the mother had a crazy relationship. They would fight, i.e. throw things at one another, scream, and kick one another. The promo guy even stated that anyone that ever got close to those two knew how crazy their fights can get. Michael was just like his nutty father, Joseph, when it came to being unfaithful with women. He did cheat on the mother with other women. Michael had a lot of liasions, according to the promotional guy, when Michael was making Invincible and when he was with the mother. Remember the Yvette story – she stated that she had a fling with MJ in 2000. Well, if she is telling the truth, that means that when they had this fling, it was around the time MJ was doing the CD and seeing the mother.

    So, when the mother found out that she was pregnant with Blanket, she did not want to patch things up with Michael. The promotional guy stated that the mother did not strike him as a maternal person and that she had joint custody of the child, that she hired a nanny to help with the child but he was not sure, at that time, if she was hands on with the child. He also stated that while Michael was with the mother, he also had a liasion with a very attractive woman from that Islands (Trinidad). SMDH. He also state that MJ tends equate fighting with passion. Yeah…..

    Grace Rwamba – The guy stated that when he was there, Mike and Grace was playful. He did not think they had something going on because Grace was very conservative. But then he stated, “you never know”. LOL.

    The promotional guy said that Mike’s women are usually not fans. Women who are successful women/career women who work in the industry who when they met Mike and show an interest in him, he takes it from there. Mike does not make a big deal about getting women like a lot of men do. Mike does not brag about it and he is not too proud that he is like this, by the way it looks, a womanizing guy. It is just something that he often finds himself in. As we all know, Mike is a gentleman, who appreciates feminine beauty and respects women a lot. He is affectionate, thoughtful and always try to keep the women happy that he is with.

    Anyway, that is all the information that I know. So, I am done with this and I am never doing this stuff again. LOL. I am more interested in what some of you guys know.”

    “LOL. Why are you guys doing this to me? LOL. Let me see…… Blanklet’s mother left, according to what the promotional guy stated because of the women. Mike had a lot of liasions when he was with Blanklet’s mother. Now, MJ did something to some woman that a producer walked into a room and saw. The mother found out and ended it with Mike. That is all I am going to state”

    http://www.lipstickalley.com/showthread.php/247385-Ladies-in-Michael-s-Life-V/page95

    Like

  2. September 28, 2015 3:20 pm

    “it was a sham marriage!!” – MissM

    It always surprises me to see people who know better about that marriage than Lisa-Marie herself.

    I’ve just come across a quote from Ebony magazine of 1994 telling us how their friendship developed into love:

    Michael said their relationship reached a new plateau. “We went out together. Then we would talk on the phone… I noticed that we had come closer. We went to Las Vegas for The Jackson Family Honors [in 1993]. We later traveled to Atlanta for (former) President Jimmy Carter to visit children, but no one knew that she was there with me.
    “The brilliant thing about us is that we were often together but did not let anybody know about it. We got to see each other that way over the years. We were really quiet and comfortable with each other. That’s pretty much how the dating started happening.” It was during this period that Michael said their relationship changed from being good friends to lovers.
    “It kind of unfolded,” he said of the moment of truth. “We spent a lot of time on the ranch [Neverland] and just walked around and talked. It happened! It unfolded all natural. We could feel the feeling we had for each other without even talking about it. It was all in the vibrations, the feelings and the look in our eyes.”

    Like

  3. MissM permalink
    September 25, 2015 7:03 pm

    I believe there was a friendship with Lisa and Michael, a joke they tried to play on the whole world. He was in love with another woman, who he kept very private, he loved her before and after Lisa, So, the informant does not really know the whole story. Lisa was for the public, and the other woman was his real love.

    Like

  4. MissM permalink
    September 25, 2015 6:59 pm

    Of course he and Lisa remained friends, after the divorce, it was a sham marriage!! Just enough time for Michael to handle his bad public relations!!
    BTW, I know the woman that Michael was involved with, the whole time he was with Lisa, she was his public love, and the non-famous woman was his real love. He shared things with her that no other woman shared, and if he were alive I am sure he would say that about her. If ever there was magic, it was there relationship, it was extremely rare and beautiful! So the insider does not know it all.

    Like

  5. Ebonique permalink
    March 10, 2015 6:54 pm

    @nancy Why are you here?

    Like

  6. September 18, 2014 9:23 am

    @ Nancy

    He wasn’t into women? Ok. And how do you know that for 100% certainty?
    You can claim we’re in denial, but we’ll do the same to you if you’re persistent on believing the opposite without any sort of concrete evidence to suggest it’s the actual truth.

    Like

  7. nancy permalink
    September 14, 2014 2:10 am

    He wasn’t into women

    Like

  8. nancy permalink
    September 14, 2014 2:02 am

    Oh you people are in such denial. The man had sleep overs with little boys not grown women. Michael jackson as lady’s man is absurd.

    Like

  9. May 18, 2014 4:03 pm

    people are so confusing about Michael.. I think nobody here really understand the true nature of Michael’s sexuality… yes he was totally normal and liked only women… but… he never found the right woman.. the right woman that he would permit her to unite his body to her body… that’s what people dont and can’t understand…. Michael was not like most men… his mentalily was different… that’s happen when you grow up in a dirty world since 6 and you are a sensible person…

    Like

  10. May 7, 2014 2:17 am

    All of Michaels children have had therapists since his death.They must have seen both truth, rubbish and a lot of speculation. Certainly the issues you Cole address have been dealt with
    Personally I have noticed Blanket smiling on some more recent pics and he is no longer only home scholeed I unferstand..
    Still: the damage to them By AEG can not be underestimated. I cannot undrstand how Murray can lve with what he did.

    Like

  11. OffTheWall5 permalink
    May 6, 2014 5:25 am

    Lisa Marie Presley briefly mentioned Michael in an Australian interview (2014)

    Article titled : “What I Know About Men” – Sydney Morning Herald, March 16, 2014.

    I don’t regret any of my marriages [to, in order, musician Danny Keough, pop star Michael Jackson, actor Nicolas Cage and current husband, music producer Michael Lockwood]. They were all incredible, fun experiences. Some were marriages of whim – I was wild, they were wild, and we did wild things, but I don’t regret them. Each one ended for different reasons. Some I wished didn’t end the way they did, but they weren’t failures; we just weren’t partnered right.

    With MJ [Michael Jackson], unfortunately, too much happened, too much got between us. There was a very deep strong love there; intense. But people got in the way, on my end and his end. We had so many people telling us what to do and intercepting and speaking on behalf of the other. Had it been just he and I, towards the end, I don’t think we would have divorced.

    Like

  12. December 24, 2013 4:33 pm

    – I realize the purpose of this article was to explore and try to verify (to the extent possible) a letter written by a Michael Jackson insider. Yet, these last two newspaper articles (though published some time ago) made me very sad today. Yes, they support the proposition that Michael and Lisa Marie’s relationship clearly included vigorous and satisfying sex. But, when I think of all he suffered between then and now — including the continuous, brutal and unrelenting invasion of his privacy and his private parts — I question the helpfulness of these graphic details though they are reported to come from Lisa Marie herself. Rather than subduing rumors about Jackson’s sexuality, they seemed to whet the public’s insatiable appetite for more and more. Even now, four years after his death, Michael is resurrected time and again as the object of merciless smearing, innuendo and gossip.

    – I referred ONLY to the two newspaper articles (written in the past) that saddened me because they made made me recall the suffering Michael Jackson experienced and the deliberate mis-characterization of just about everything he did and said — and how it has continued over the years by the press to this day. Obviously, my comments were not written well enough to clearly convey that one point without causing confusion. I wish I’d not written them at all now, but will not make the same mistake in the future. Judith Mason

    Judith, why do you wish you had not written them? I didn’t even say a word of criticism of your comments and just explained why I thought that LMP’s recent interview about MJ (2012) and the gossipy article about their sex (1995) were pertinent for this post.

    Like

  13. December 24, 2013 3:56 pm

    “I refer ONLY to this particular post which explores the authenticity of a letter written by a Jackson insider that discusses his observations about Jackson over a long period of time.” – Judith Mason

    This post is indeed part of a series about the Insider’s letter about MJ’s women. Actually it wasn’t a letter, but a message on the message board of the National Enquirer.

    For those who have not read the series let me say that the facts described by this insider were unique – for example, he said that Michael “became involved” with June Chandler and “this punk bitch Jordan got jealous of mommy’s relationship with Michael”.

    This cast a totally different light on the Chandlers’ story but to believe this man we needed to make sure that the message was authentic and was written by someone who was really privy to Michael’s most guarded secrets.

    The authenticity could be checked up only by the facts from other sources. The circumstances of LMP and MJ’s separation in January 1996 that became known only later and from LMP’s own accounts of it were one of the ways to do it.

    Now I am almost one hundred per cent sure that the insider was Bill Bray though by the time he wrote the letter he was very old and was no longer working for MJ. However he speaks of Michael as his former employer, so things perfectly add up here too.

    After checking almost every detail of the letter now we can safely say that the message was authentic and this means that Michael was indeed “involved with June Chandler” and Jordan was “jealous of mommy’s relationship with Michael”.

    So in her testimony at the 2005 trial June Chandler did not say the main thing about that 1993 story – it was she who was involved with Michael in 1993, and not her son Jordan.

    Lisa Marie Presley was still married to her first husband at that time, and had just had her second baby by him. Michael always liked LMP, but he was a God-abiding and a family-oriented man, and it wasn’t his style to break up other people’s families, so he could easily be looking at June Chandler as a possible marriage partner.

    Actually with the exception of his two wives June Chandler is the only other woman with whom Michael ever travelled.

    There are four of them here – Jordan, Lily in Michael’s arms and June Chandler (Monaco, May 1993):

    It seems to me that June Chandler is even carrying the Love bracelet which Michael presented her with at the time:

    Lily is always in Michael’s arms. Jordan is sitting next to him:

    June Chandler in 2005:

    Like

  14. Judith Mason permalink
    December 24, 2013 3:40 pm

    I referred ONLY to the two newspaper articles (written in the past) that saddened me because they made made me recall the suffering Michael Jackson experienced and the deliberate mis-characterization of just about everything he did and said — and how it has continued over the years by the press to this day.

    Again, I did not mean that you or anyone else (with or without a blog) should stop trying to set the record straight whenever and however you can. All efforts to do so should be encouraged and applauded. It is the unrelenting tabloid press (with the very big voice) that tries, even now, to perpetuate myth and lies..

    Obviously, my comments were not written well enough to clearly convey that one point without causing confusion. I wish I’d not written them at all now, but will not make the same mistake in the future.

    Like

  15. December 24, 2013 3:13 pm

    “Helena. I did not say your blog was about sex. I refer ONLY to this particular post” – Judith Mason

    Judith, you’ve made your observation clear enough for me. But you know, it sounded to me like “Michael’s privacy has been invaded so much that it’s time we stopped invading it even more”. I may have misinterpreted your statement, but if I did not let me say what I think of it.

    Michael’s privacy was indeed invaded in the most horrendous way possible, however as long as the internet is full of dirty and fictional stories about Michael’s private life, I see it as my duty to counter balance them with the truth about it – no matter how shocking it might seem to my readers.

    In fact this never-ending state of shock is what Michael was forced to live in the major part of his life, and now we are at least beginning to have a feel of what it was like.

    Seventeen years ago when Lisa Marie was divorcing Michael these articles were a norm and absolutely no one was shocked by them – this was regarded as the ultimate truth. However it is a shock to read them now and this is what I want people to see and realize:

    LISA-MARIE TO DIVORCE JACKSON; End of ‘sham’ marriage.

    MICHAEL Jackson’s bizarre marriage was officially declared over last night when his wife Lisa-Marie Presley filed for divorce.

    Her claim – made in Los Angeles – blamed “irreconcilable differences” for the end of a relationship that lasted less than two years and was dubbed the strangest in showbusiness.

    Now Jacko, 37, may have to pay up to pounds 10million as part of a split-up settlement with the 27-year-old daughter of Elvis and Priscilla Presley. Priscilla, the tough-as-nails widow of The King, emerged as the woman who engineered the parting.

    She was horrified when her daughter wed Jackson. Advisers told her he had his eyes on a big slice of the Presley empire.

    Priscilla was determined he wouldn’t get a penny and is said to have worked relentlessly to untie the knot.

    Last night a source close to Priscilla said: “Nothing will delight her more than to see Jackson take a moonwalk from this sham marriage.

    “He was after the Presley publishing rights and the Graceland profits from day one.”

    The couple wed in secret in the Dominican Republic in May 1994, the year after Jackson faced allegations of sexually abusing young boys.

    He was never charged, but settled a civil case involving 13-year-old dentist’s son Jordy Chandler by paying a reputed pounds 10m-pounds 15m.

    It was claimed the marriage to Lisa-Marie was an attempt to deflect attention from the scandal that almost wrecked Jacko’s career.

    But last night it was pronounced finished as Lisa- Marie’s lawyers went into action.

    Her publicist Paul Bloch confirmed the news when he said: “Yes, yes – it is true. There have been papers filed in Los Angeles and she is citing irreconcilable differences.”

    If Jackson does not contest the action, they could be divorced within weeks.

    But they could squabble over money for months.

    It is expected Jackson will have to pay at least pounds 10m of his huge wealth

    The couple signed pre-nuptial agreements to protect both their fortunes at the time they tied the knot 20 months ago.

    But any money earned since could be deemed common funds.

    Divorce lawyer Jerry Silver said: “If either side wanted to be bloody-minded, they could certainly start a fight over earnings made during the time they were together.”

    Since the marriage Jackson has released his greatest hits CD HIStory, which despite flagging sales is expected to gross more than pounds 50m.

    Earth Song, from that album, was also the Christmas No.1 in Britain.

    It was a photograph in the Daily Mirror last August that was the final nail in the coffin of the marriage.

    The picture showed Jacko, his face covered by an anti-pollution mask, arriving in Paris with two boys aged 11 and 14.

    Jacko took the two brothers to Disneyland in Paris and then Switzerland just as new child abuse allegations surfaced in America.

    Lisa-Marie, who has two children by her first marriage to musician Danny Keough, complained: “How come he can find time for other people’s children, but not mine?”

    Their empty marriage had already been exposed when they gave a live TV interview in June.

    Despite Lisa-Marie’s claims that they had sex, they were cold and distant towards each other.

    And last week mother Priscilla said in a US magazine: “Lisa-Marie should come to her senses and kick this freak out.”

    Copyright 1996 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/LISA-MARIE+TO+DIVORCE+JACKSON%3b+End+of+'sham'+marriage.-a061326664

    SO Michael and Lisa Marie have admitted it was all a sham.

    A final cynical attempt by one of the shrewdest manipulators of people I have come across to win back flagging public support.

    Michael Jackson’s 20-month marriage to Lisa Marie Presley was never going to work.

    It was as farcical as the 15- minute ceremony in a judge’s front room on the Dominican Republic which united them as man and wife in May, 1994.

    The cold, emotionless service left the judge who conducted it, Hugo Alvarez Perez completely bemused. At the time it was seen as a marriage of convenience to paper over Jacko’s tattered reputation following the battery of child abuse allegations.

    Anyone who knows Jackson, and I have spoken to many former staff and assistants, will tell you he simply doesn’t fancy women.

    The only role they can play is as a mother figure to his demanding, temperamental, petulent and highly neurotic character. Liz Taylor is the perfect example.

    There was no room among the life-sized toys, which fill Jackson’s bedroom, for the curvaceous Lisa Marie Presley.

    As his former personal maid Blanca Francia told me: “He’d moonwalk backwards out of the bedroom window if he was expected to make love to a woman.” But Jackson’s head of a multi-million pound empire. Behind the syrupy sweet voice and diatribes of “I love you all” is a sharp business brain.

    After his $21million pay-off to Jordy Chandler he knew he had to convince the world he wasn’t a sex abuser.

    And what is more normal than a young man marrying. Especially the daughter of the king of rock, Elvis Presley.

    They went on TV last June to try and convince the world they had a healthy sex life. But the body language between them was as warm as that of Charles and Diana on a bad day.

    Jackson likes computer toys and little boys. With a new No.1 hit now firmly under his belt, Lisa had served her purpose and was no longer needed.

    Copyright 1996 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

    Like

  16. Judith Mason permalink
    December 24, 2013 11:25 am

    Helena. I did not say your blog was about sex. I refer ONLY to this particular post which explores the authenticity of a letter written by a Jackson insider that discusses his observations about Jackson over a long period of time. I’m sorry if I did not make that clear in my response.

    Like

  17. December 24, 2013 11:08 am

    “Yes, they support the proposition that Michael and Lisa Marie’s relationship clearly included vigorous and satisfying sex. But, when I think of all he suffered between then and now — including the continuous, brutal and unrelenting invasion of his privacy and his private parts — I question the helpfulness of these graphic details though they are reported to come from Lisa Marie herself. Rather than subduing rumors about Jackson’s sexuality, they seemed to whet the public’s insatiable appetite for more and more.” – Judith Mason

    Judith Mason, this blog is not about anyone’s sex at all. The blog is more of an investigative kind and is set to prove Michael’s innocence and show the craziness of allegations against him.

    By now many have already forgotten how people were laughing out loud when Michael and Lisa-Marie married. It was a matter of non-stop jokes for millions of people – ‘he is distracting attention from his “boys”, ‘it is a deal and will not last a month’, ‘he is using her for publicity sake’, etc.

    But for Michael and LMP it was real. Like for many of us ordinary people it was a marriage filled with love and hope that they would be able to make it. And like all people in love they hoped they would live together ‘until death will part them’. But instead they got the whole world ridiculing them and looking into their bed.

    Diane Sawyers incredulously asked them in a TV interview whether they really had sex and Howard Stern demanded from Lisa-Marie how his penis looked like. Oprah asked Michael if he was a virgin and Michael looked at her in disbelief that a well-respected interviewer would be asking him such questions. Martin Bashir asked something similar in his filthy film and the only thing the shocked Michael could say was that he was a gentleman.

    YES, Michael was a gentleman, while all those around him were not. These people were sort of drunk with freedom to ridicule and interrogate him over most intimate matters in the most insatiable and shameless way.

    They asked their offensive questions because they wanted to take him unawares, were checking his reaction and hoped to make him open up some “dark secret” this way. Never in their life did they believe that the most eligible girl like Lisa Marie would choose “this freak” and would be even in love with him. This matter was regarded as a joke and was laughed off in many corners of the world throughout their marriage.

    It is impossible even to imagine what kind of “marital bliss” they could have together if all they saw around them was a laugh thrown in their faces. This is why in one of the photos Lisa Marie actually cries while trying to present a bright smile to the media and Michael’s eyes reflect the endless sadness of their love story ruined by all those who meddled with their lives.

    September 1998

    The public is still insatiable for stories about MJ and LMP?

    Well, we all heard that they “never had sex” and “all of it was just pretence”, so I see no harm why I can’t present the reports contrary to that. Remember that it isn’t me who is telling these stories, I’m simply the one who found them:

    Like

  18. Judith Mason permalink
    December 23, 2013 6:02 pm

    I realize the purpose of this article was to explore and try to verify (to the extent possible) a letter written by a Michael Jackson insider. Yet, these last two newspaper articles (though published some time ago) made me very sad today. Yes, they support the proposition that Michael and Lisa Marie’s relationship clearly included vigorous and satisfying sex. But, when I think of all he suffered between then and now — including the continuous, brutal and unrelenting invasion of his privacy and his private parts — I question the helpfulness of these graphic details though they are reported to come from Lisa Marie herself. Rather than subduing rumors about Jackson’s sexuality, they seemed to whet the public’s insatiable appetite for more and more. Even now, four years after his death, Michael is resurrected time and again as the object of merciless smearing, innuendo and gossip.

    Salon published an article today about rape accusations leveled against R. Kelly by young girls. While the story was NOT about Michael Jackson, nor was his name in the headline, I scanned the very long article and — sure enough — found the following sentence.” And, abuse of boys isn’t enough to hinder a promising media career, either: Michael Jackson remained the reigning King of Pop until his death despite legal battles and tabloid fodder over charges that he molested as many as two dozen boys and paid millions to cover it up.” The article proposes that famous, rich artists are somehow given a ‘free pass’ by The Press for their heinous sins. Contrary to this sweeping generalization, we know for a fact that Michael Jackson was NEVER given a ‘pass’ by the press for anything — good, bad, or indifferent. Nor was he EVER given the benefit of the doubt.

    In this season of Peace, Goodwill Toward Man, I’m reminded that Michael Jackson was never allowed to live in peace. Nor, it seems, is he allowed to rest in peace — at least not yet.

    Like

  19. December 23, 2013 3:50 pm

    Let me also add here a little story from the National Enquirer, October 10, 1995:

    MICHAEL’S A SQUEALING LOVER, SAYS LISA MARIE NATIONAL ENQUIRER, OCT 10, 1995

    A sizzling new book that dishes up sensational details of Michael Jackson’s love life with Lisa Marie Presley claims sex with him is a scream – literally! She told a pal that Michael starts singing when he approaches the height of ecstasy – then lets loose with his trademark high pitched screeches, according to author Anthony Gregoreli. And Lisa Marie LOVES it! Hard to believe?

    You might question whether Michael is really Mr. Macho. But the new book, “Dark lady: The Unauthorized Biography Of Lisa Marie Presley-Jackson” is undeniably fascinating. It’s due for U.S. publication early next year. But in scouring the world to bring you hottest gossip, I discovered some preview tidbits in Great Britain. Is Michael Jackson really a red-hot lover?

    Here are some of the eye-popping revelations in the book: Lisa Marie had wild sex with Jackson before marrying him – because she wanted to make sure he could perform his husbandly duties. They were spending a weekend at Donald trumps Florida mansion when she pulled him into bed.

    She claims they were intimate all night – and oddly enough, he preferred making love while standing up!

    After that Thriller sex session with a real stand-up guy, Lisa Marie told a pal: “It was absolutely wild. He was slow getting started, then he just wanted more and more”.

    She said that when Michael began screeching, she couldn’t help laughing.

    Despite all the racket, Elvis’ daughter later told her pal it was the best sex she’d ever had. In fact, she called Michael “a hot little number”.

    Lisa Marie moved into Michael’s Neverland Valley Ranch while she was still married to unknown musician hubby Danny Keough. The relationship grew closer when Lisa Marie stood by Michael after he was accused of child abuse in 1993. Slowly, the friendship turned to love.

    But not for Michael’s house hold staff. They thought she was rude and snotty to them, sort of a Leona Helmsley in training.

    Lisa Marie and Elizbeth Taylor fought like cats and dogs over Michael. After he began overdoing drugs during his child abuse scandal, longtime pal Liz wanted him to check into a rehab clinic. When Lisa Marie said she wanted to be there to give Michael support, Liz Objected. The two women had a HUGE catfight. But Lisa Marie won the round and escorted Michael into treatment in London.

    Round two erupted when Liz pressured Michael to sing a big solo number on a Jackson family TV special in 1994. He didn’t want the spotlight, but she said he owed it to his fans. Lisa Marie exploded and screamed at Liz “Leave him alone! He knows what he’s doing!” Once again, she won. Although Michael joined in a family chorus at the special’s end, he didn’t sing by himself.

    http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/michael-jackson-and-lisa-marie/articles/193900/title/squealing-lover-lisa-marie-national-enquirer-oct-10-1995

    That autobiography of Lisa Marie Presley was never published.

    Like

  20. December 23, 2013 3:14 pm

    He was loveable? “Very.” – Lisa Marie Presley

    Offthewall5, thank you very much for the text – I had only the picture of the magazine cover but not the text. Now it is complete and is great – as of today it is the most sincere of all Lisa Marie’s accounts of her love for Michael and reasons for separation:

    Lisa Marie Presley, The Times UK, October 2012 :

    Why did Presley marry Jackson in 1994?

    “Because I fell in love with him,” Presley says briskly.

    A lot of people found the union odd.

    “I don’t know why, because we were actually similar in a lot of ways. We didn’t have conventional lives. It made sense to me.”

    He was loveable? “Very.”

    Was she acting out some desire to “save” Jackson in a way she couldn’t her father?

    “I’m sure there were things about Michael that reminded me of my dad. I don’t think it’s unfair to say I’m still a sucker for a father figure. I think I always have been. There were probably things they shared that intrigued me. Both were incredibly dynamic and iconic. My father set the precedent for me early. There were some big shoes to fill.”

    Was Jackson gay?

    “Absolutely not, not in any way shape or form. Not, not, not, not.”

    She was with him when the first child molestation charges were made.

    “I always maintain it’s not anything I was around for and nothing I witnessed.”

    Did she want to have children with him?

    “In the beginning, yes.” They divorced after two years in 1996. “I hoped it would be the one that would last, but that was a messy situation. Too many people got involved between us.” She means entourages. “We both allowed that, which was a mistake.”

    Jackson’s death in 2009 “was really confusing and really, really painful. Our relationship was something I had parked away, pushed away. It brought it all back in a way I was not prepared for, things I hadn’t dealt with. Some of the things that we went through could never be fixed or resolved. It was devastating.”

    They last spoke in 2005. She spent time alone with his body after the private funeral: “Not an easy thing.” Now she has found “some peace, it can quiet but never go away”.

    She remains close with matriarch Katherine, presently in reported dispute with her son’s children.

    “They’re really sweet, incredible people,” Presley says of the Jacksons. “I’ve always had a relationship with them. All I can do is wish them the best.”

    Like

  21. OffTheWall5 permalink
    December 23, 2013 2:39 am

    Lisa Marie Presley, The Times UK, October 2012 :

    Why did Presley marry Jackson in 1994? “Because I fell in love with him,” Presley says briskly. A lot of people found the union odd.
    “I don’t know why, because we were actually similar in a lot of ways. We didn’t have conventional lives. It made sense to me.” He was loveable? “Very.” Was she acting out some desire to “save” Jackson in a way she couldn’t her father? “I’m sure there were things about Michael that reminded me of my dad. I don’t think it’s unfair to say I’m still a sucker for a father figure. I think I always have been. There were probably things they shared that intrigued me. Both were incredibly dynamic and iconic. My father set the precedent for me early. There were some big shoes to fill.”

    Was Jackson gay? “Absolutely not, not in any way shape or form. Not, not, not, not.” She was with him when the first child molestation charges were made. “I always maintain it’s not anything I was around for and nothing I witnessed.”
    Did she want to have children with him? “In the beginning, yes.” They divorced after two years in 1996. “I hoped it would be the one that would last, but that was a messy situation. Too many people got involved between us.” She means entourages. “We both allowed that, which was a mistake.” Jackson’s death in 2009 “was really confusing and really, really painful. Our relationship was something I had parked away, pushed away. It brought it all back in a way I was not prepared for, things I hadn’t dealt with. Some of the things that we went through could never be fixed or resolved. It was devastating.”

    They last spoke in 2005. She spent time alone with his body after the private funeral: “Not an easy thing.” Now she has found “some peace, it can quiet but never go away”. She remains close with matriarch Katherine, presently in reported dispute with her son’s children. “They’re really sweet, incredible people,” Presley says of the Jacksons. “I’ve always had a relationship with them. All I can do is wish them the best.”

    Like

  22. December 4, 2013 4:28 pm

    “where can we get more info about his goodness and near to his death if he wanted or did he revert to islam after staying in the arab places” – yunus karbanee

    Yunus, I think that all information in this blog is about Michael’s goodness. I suggest that for a start you read Michael’s speech in Oxford – it shattered me to my very foundation: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/michael-jacksons-speech-at-oxford-university/

    As to islam, Michael did not revert to it. My personal opinion is that he was above religious confessions and had a different kind of a relationship with God – he spoke and reported for his deeds directly to the Almighty without any mediators in between. You can see it even in his songs.

    Like

  23. December 4, 2013 2:36 pm

    you are giving a lot of good factual info but where can we get more info about hjs goodness and near to his death if he wanted or did he revert to islam after staying in the arab places

    Like

  24. October 24, 2013 2:24 am

    @Concerned, please tell this someone that this ‘problem’ was thoroughly discussed in the comments to the post about Scott Thorson and was thrown away as non-existent.

    Thorson and Liberace did indeed see Michael once in England and they invited him to a motor museum of Lord Montagu there. And the piece from this video is about their joint visit to that museum. I’ve written a comment about it with respective pictures.

    If you look at Michael’s face and how far he is trying to sit from Scott Thorson you will realize his general mood about that visit and his general lack of enthusiam in associating with these people:

    The text to this photo says “Lord Montagu, Liberace, Scott Thorson and Michael Jackson, at Beaulieu in 1981”, Beaulieu Motor Museum (UK)

    The Beauleu vehicle museumAt the Beaulieu motor museum

    So what? So what that they went to a motor museum and are driving an old car from the museum’s collection?

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/lies-about-michael-jackson-will-scott-thorson-understand-that-blood-money-has-never-done-anyone-any-good/#comment-24821

    P.S. I’ve updated the post about Scott Thorson with your video and my picture.

    Like

  25. Concerned permalink
    October 23, 2013 11:37 pm

    Someone said that this clip is proof that Michael had ties with Scott especially when they were in England.

    Like

  26. OffTheWall5 permalink
    October 11, 2013 3:53 am

    Joe Jackson wrote about Lisa Marie Presley in his autobiography (2004)

    “Michael never had to be afraid of Lisa marrying because of money. She had enough herself. He knew that all she wanted was his love.”

    “Lisa Marie was and still is Michael’s big love of his life. When I think about them I always have to smile to myself. Her love for him warmed my heart.”

    “Contrary to all the rumors they are still near to each other. During the time Michael had two children with Debbie Rowe she was a good friend to him. But of course the media just reports the bad stuff and so nobody could read about Lisa Marie and Michael meeting in South Africa (in 1997) or that they were going out very often. Debbie too, knew that Michael will always love Lisa Marie, and I see it the same way. We never met Debbie, but with Lisa the family stayed in contact even after the divorce. She has a special place in Michael’s heart.”

    Like

  27. September 29, 2013 3:24 pm

    “I have a feeling the letter is from a bodyguard.” – Myuu

    Later on I had some correspondence with the girl (owner of http://michaelandthetruth.blogspot.ru/) who contacted the person that left the message and though she did not tell me who the man was I got the impression that it was Bill Bray. This is what I thought from the very beginning of it. He calls Michael a “kid” and sounds like a father to him, and Bill Bray was indeed like one to Michael.

    As regards Diana Ross I collected lots of information about her and nearly made a post but then thought better of it as it is too private a matter and is none of my business. But my attitude to Diana Ross changed very much. The affair was real and Michael was completely taken aback by her sudden marriage to a Norwegian billionaire which she kept a secret from him (she didn’t even tell him she was already married).

    But the last straw for me was her affair with that awful guy Gene Simmons. And though I hear it was before Michael it does not change much – Gene Simmons is a complete opposite of Michael and I cannot imagine how she could fall in love with this vulgar monster. She thought it necessary to attend his birthday celebrations together with Cher many years later but did not bother to speak up for Michael when he needed her support very much. It seems that her career was always much more precious to her than her association with Michael, and Michael most probably knew it.

    Lisa Campbell is writing in her book:

    The October 23 [1993] issue of Billboard celebrated thirty years in show business for Diana Ross. A special section of the magazine devoted to Ross contained many congratulatory ads, including one that read, “Congratulations! In much love, MJJ Productions” with Michael’s Moonwalker logo. This seemed surprisingly cool in comparison to one placed earlier in the same publication for Berry Gordy. Also, it was signed “MJJ Productions” and not by Michael. Ross would be among Michael’s close friends who were conspicuously silent during Michael’s media hanging. Even while making public appearances to promote her new book, album, and TV movie, she never once even mentioned Michael’s name.

    In short, I am afraid that though Michael was madly in love with her and they had an affair, she did not turn out to be a real friend to him. It seems to me that “Who is it” was written by Michael about Diana Ross. She made him suffer a lot and in my opinion didn’t deserve him.

    Like

  28. Myuu permalink
    September 29, 2013 9:33 am

    I think this is one of the posts I was looking for after I had encounters on “Gossip” sites regarding Scott Thorson where almost every hater just jumped in for the “haterade” bandwagon. But boy, I never thought the letter will have a lot of bombs to drop. Though, this post can somehow illuminate some truth from tabloid junk, I can’t help, but feeling like I’m learning too much info. By that, I mean I felt like intruding someone else’s business. Well, it’s just something that I feel, but I think we can’t help it. We have to learn some stuff to debunk some lies. The Diana Ross part was sad. It’s not surprising, but still sad. The June Chandler part actually makes some sense. A lot of sense. The LMP part was not a surprise.

    Truth be told, reading this also made me feel sorry for Debbie. I think she knew everything (despite being very much in love with Micheal), but in the end she decided to walk away from all the mess which in her words “like walking out from a friend”. But I think, Micheal did not make a mistake from having kids.

    I have a feeling the letter is from a bodyguard.

    Like

  29. Nan permalink
    September 21, 2013 1:12 am

    I agree with Lynettes assessment of June Chandler..Pretty sure it was Joy Robson who said June wanted to be mistress of Neverland.
    My impression of June is she never let go of one mealticket until she had hooked another and she was aiming for MJ to be her next husband by inviting him over for dinner, having him help her kids with homework., making him part of her family, inviting him to meet her relatives etc..
    When she realized, they would have to be out of MJ life after these nasty accusations, she might lose her son on top of it , and MJ was hanging with LMP all the while , I think she just figured she might as well do a cash grab herself.
    Very interesting , how Evan remarked about MJ being in love with LMP, to Mr Schwartz, and yet he is getting ready to accuse MJ of all these terrible things with his son.
    I think at that point he was demanding money for MJ breaking up his family.
    If only he never met these people..His life might have been so much more different.

    Like

  30. August 26, 2013 11:16 am

    “MJ was sprung on Diana, not LMP. You interpreted that incorrectly.”– OH
    “Debbie said in an argument with PearlJR on Twitter that Michael loved Lisa with all his heart. Diana Ross might have been a ‘first love” in the sense of a very young man but Lisa, it would seem, was the love he looked for as an adult.” – Lynande

    Hello Lynette, thank you for answering OH. It never ceases to amaze me how easily these matters are decided by Michael’s fans. I mean whom he loved more or less. They speak as if they know it better than anyone else.

    In this post I didn’t write about Diana Ross only because it was not the time period I was interested in, but I did my research and realized that Michael was madly in love with Diana, that she was indeed his first as the insider said, but she let him down very much too and this was a huge trauma for Michael. He probably never stopped loving her, because I remember his shining eyes when he attended some ceremony many years later (in 1996) and she sat on his knee.

    Princess Stephanie who was sitting next to Michael had a look of total increduility at the intimate scene she was witnessing. It looked like a declaration of love made in full view of everyone.

    Here is one of the videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNwi9KGcIv4

    But all this does not rule out Michael’s big love for LMP. The first love is rarely forgotten, but with LMP he was also infatuated. But why should it be one or the other, why couldn’t he love both? MJ wasn’t monogamous and said about himself with much sadness (to Rabbi Shmuley) that “he was such a rolling stone” and that he “couldn’t be completely married all the time”. He envied old couples who lived together until their last day.

    Here is my collection of MJ’s quotes about women from Shmuley’s book. I am no fan of Shmuley and consider his then comments on MJ disgusting (they are omitted here) but Michael’s views on women are very interesting and very often true. He says women are like cats while men are like puppies, and I agree. Another point is that women are not as playful as men, and this is true too. I cannot imagine a whole stadium of women going crazy over some football match, while men for some reason are never tired of it, no matter what age they are.

    SB: In trying to preserve childlike qualities in your life you Michael, you have shied away from talking about overt sexuality. Like when Oprah asked you about your sex life, you responded something to the effect that, “I’m a gentleman and I don’t talk about that”. ……. So you were brought up to be shy and modest about things pertaining to love and romance?

    MJ: Yes, we don’t talk about it.

    SB: You have been married twice. Michael. Do you still believe in romance or have you had some negative experiences and it is therefore more difficult to believe?

    MJ: No, I believe in it, but I am shy about it. None of us have invited our parents to our weddings. We don’t believe in it. We are too shy. I wouldn’t dare in a million years to have my mother at a wedding of mine. I can’t have myself walking down the aisle and my mother sitting there. That’s why we all ran off and got married secretly and my mother reads it in the paper and she doesn’t mind. Because we are just like her. She would have done the same thing.

    SB: So love has to be something hidden and concealed?

    MJ: It’s like private, like mushy stuff.

    SB: And mushy stuff is always private?

    MJ: Yeah.

    SB: Well, I also believe that romantic love thrives through mystery and concealment. But we can’t overdo it. Your parents should definitely be at your wedding. So romance is something you believe in but you have been taught to be shy about it?

    MJ: I am shy. I don’t know how good I am at it because I am shy. I am very different in that way. I have heard guys be really poetic with girls and, “Oh baby, this and that.” I am not like that. I am like straight to the point and say it simply.

    SB: So what do you do in things like music videos when you’re expected to portray romance and do love scenes and things like that?

    MJ: That’s why it is my job to cast the girl, because it is my job to think they are cute. So I can do it if I really like them, like some of the girls you see in my videos. I have cast them because I really like them and it caused a problem afterwards because they start to really like me, and I don’t want to get that serious, and it becomes a problem sometimes.

    SB: You probably face this all the time because not only are you famous, but you are the kind of guy who women want to be around—soft, gentle, not afraid to express his emotions. Women die for guys who aren’t afraid to show vulnerability and softness, whereas a lot of the guys in Hollywood are stereotypically self-absorbed, self-obsessed, and can’t commit. So do you often find that this happens, that women get clingy?

    MJ: What do you mean?

    SB: Like you said, it is supposed to be a professional thing. You just film something with a female costar, but afterwards they become attached.

    MJ: Yes, it happens.

    SB: How do you break the news to them that you don’t reciprocate?

    MJ: When they see me running the other way. Yeah. Some of them follow me around the world and it is so hard.

    SB: That probably makes them chase you even more because they probably are drawn to that boyish shyness. To be sure, many women like “bad” boys. But for the same reason, a lot like shy guys. In the same way they believe that they can redeem the bad boy and polish up this coarse diamond, they believe the same thing about the shy guy. They think, “Only I can bring him out of his shell.” But I guess after a while, with you running halfway around the world from them, they get the message. But you never tell them directly?

    MJ: No, because it would hurt them too much.

    Shmuley Boteach: What did Cindy Crawford want from you last night?

    Michael Jackson: I have seen Cindy from afar several times, and she was with other guys, and we have met up at other functions . . . from afar. I think she felt this was her chance to really meet me. She probably admires me. A lot of the people come over. What you saw was nothing.

    SB: You have seen celebrities behave like that, like a pack of dogs, chasing after someone who is more famous than them? It was so degrading.

    MJ: Yes! It’s worse.

    SB: What did she talk to you about?

    MJ: [Imitating Crawford] “How are you?” I go. “I’m all right’ “Oh, you sure you are okay? Oh. I just love your work, and I love what you do. How long are you in town?” I said, “I am working here. I’m recording’

    SB: Do you think there was a romantic interest?

    MJ: Yeaaah. I kinda think so.

    SB: Was she asking you out?

    MJ: Those girls flirt. . . they flirt. She is pretty.

    MJ: A woman I really liked and respected was Princess Diana.

    SB: Why?

    MJ: Because she was classy and sincerely cared about people and children and the plight of what was going on in the world. She didn’t do it for show. I like the way she made her kids wait in line to get on a ride for something.

    SB: Was she a feminine kind of woman?

    MJ: Very feminine and classy. She was my type for sure, and I don’t like most girls. There are very few I like who fit the mold. It takes a very special mold to make me happy and she was one of them. For sure.

    SB: Because of her love of kids?

    MJ: It takes a lot to find a mirror image, a mirror image. People always say that opposites attract and I think that is true, as well. But I want somebody who is a lot like me, who has the same interests and who wants to help and they gotta go to hospitals with me and care. .. That’s why you saw Lisa Marie and me at those kinds of things. She cared about that stuff, too.

    SB: Did you ever think of asking Princess Diana out?

    MJ: Absolutely.

    SB: So why didn’t you have the nerve to ask her?

    MJ: I have never asked a girl out in my life. They have to ask me.

    SB: Really?

    MJ: I can’t ask a girl out.

    SB: If she would have asked you out?

    MJ: Absolutely. I would have gone. Brooke Shields asked me out every time you saw us out together. It was her idea to go out and do it every time. I sincerely liked Brooke Shields too. I liked her a lot.

    SB: Does she like kids?

    MJ: Yes. My first girlfriend. Tatum O’Neal, she’d won the Academy Award for Paper Moon … I was sixteen, she was thirteen. And was I naive. She wanted to do everything and I didn’t want to have sex at all, because there were a lot of values associated with being a Jehovah’s Witness. I said, “Are you crazy?” One of those was to be kind to everyone.

    When I held Tatum’s hand it was just magic, better than anything, kissing her, anything. Her, Ryan Q’Neal and myself went to this club and were watching a band and underneath the table she was holding my hand and I was melting. It was magical. There was fireworks going on. It was all I needed. But that means nothing to kids today. She grew up too fast. She wasn’t into innocence, and I love that.

    Now Brooke Shields, she was one of the loves of my life, we dated a lot. Her pictures were all over my walls and mirrors. I was at the Academy Awards with Diana Ross and she just came up to me and said, Hi, I’m Brooke Shields. Are you going to the after party?” I said “Yeah, and I just melted.” I was about twenty-three. . . during Off the Wall. I thought, Does she know [that photographs of her are] all over my room?” So we get to the party and she says, “Would you dance with me?” And we went on the dance floor. And man, we exchanged numbers and I was up all night, spinning around in my room, just so happy. She was classy. We had one encounter when she got real intimate and I chickened out. And I
    shouldn’t have.

    Lisa. . . we’re still friendly, but she’s running around. She just changed her number and we don’t have the new one yet.

    SB: Can you immediately tell innocence?

    MJ: Right away, although I find it harder to tell with women because they’re so smooth. But with men, I can usually tell, because they’re more open and like puppies, while girls are more like cats. You know how if you’ve been on vacation and get home and a puppy is all over you, while with a cat, it’s, “Hey, I don’t need you. You walk over to me and pick me up.” They give you attitude. They’ll walk right by you even though they haven’t seen you in three months. Women are very smart. Walt Disney always said they’re smarter than men, and [he] always hired more women.

    ……

    Shmuley Boteach: The same principle of not being overexposed. Would you advise women in relationships to do the same thing? Would you say to people today who get bored of one another, You know, fifty percent of marriages end in divorce and so much of it is that husbands and wives just get tired of one another. They get weary and bored. Would you say that if there was more – mystery, if they learned to hold back and leave room to discover one another, then there would be more adventure in their relationship?

    Michael Jackson: Yeah, yeah. I think going away is good. Like they say, “Absence makes the heart grow fonder” I totally believe in it. Going away is really important. I don’t understand how people can be together all day with each other and be totally fine. I think it is sweet and beautiful. . .

    SB: Have you seen marriages like that?

    MJ: I have seen couples, yes. I don’t know how they do it. Because creatively they have to do so many things.

    SB: So the women you have dated, the ones who were smart enough not to throw themselves at you, were they the ones that you were more interested in, the ones who weren’t always available and you had to chase them a bit?

    MJ: The ones who were classy and quiet and not into all the sex and all the craziness because I am not into that.

    SB: They are the ones that you are more interested in?

    MJ: Aha. I don’t understand a lot of things that go on in relationships and I don’t know if I ever will. I think that is what has hurt me in my relationships because I don’t understand how people do some of the things they do.

    SB: Mean things?

    MJ: Mean things and vulgar things with their bodies. I don’t understand it and it has hurt my relationships.

    SB: So for you love is something very pure?

    MJ: Very pure. It shocked me some of the things.

    SB: What was it about Diana, that kind of a woman, her dignity, that kind of innocence? Do you see that often in people where they have a regal bearing to them?

    MJ: No. we don’t see it and that’s what I love. I think she truly cared about people’s feelings and really tried to make the world a better place. I really believe that her heart was out for other people. You could see it in some of the photos where she is touching those little baby’s faces and they are sitting on her lap and she would be holding them. That is not faked. You could see it. When you see the queen come out she has got these gloves on and she is waving from a distance, you can see the heart. You can see.
    You put your money where your mouth is and you go in those huts and go in those ditches and sit with them and sleep there. That’s doing it, that’s what I do. Remember when you said you saw my picture in China in some hut, some lady’s hut. I go in there and I touch the people and I see them.

    SB: When you are in a meeting, are you able to see who is the hard-nosed businessman, bottom line is everything, he’ll manipulate, lie, whatever it takes, and the ones who are pure, more innocent, who you want to do business with? Can you see immediately? Or, on the contrary, do you see with a child’s eyes and see goodness in everybody, which is why you have sometimes ended up with people who aren’t the nicest people?

    MJ: That’s true, too. It works both ways, but you can detect it and feel it in another person. There is this man in LA and he works in a vinyl record shop and he has got to be in his fifties and he has the spirit of an eleven-year-old boy. I always stare at him and he stares at me and there is like this telepathy going on. He talks like a kid and the way he moves his eyes. I say to myself, “This is so interesting.” I’d like to get to know him better and find out what is this. I mean it. It’s amazing. I feel it. I feel it in children right away, of course. I pick up on it like that and children can tell it in you.

    SB: It’s almost like a relief. Here is someone who understands me?

    MJ: Ye all. Their eyes light up when you come over and they want to play and they feel it.

    SB: Michael, have you never met a woman like that who loves those same things: who’d play hide and seek with you, who’d love the water fights with you?

    MJ: Not yet. The ones I have had are jealous of the children. All of them. They get jealous of their own kids and start competing with them. That rubs me in a bad way.

    SB: Theoretically, if you were Adam in the Garden of Eden and you found an Eve like that, would that be your ideal woman?

    MJ: Absolutely. I haven’t found it [women who want to play]. . . I think more guys are more apt to goof off. Even when they are much older, their thirties, and a woman will come in and say, “What are you doing? Don’t do that. Are you crazy?” The guy will go. “What, we are just having fun?”

    SB: Women almost feel that it is immature if they behave that way, no?

    MJ: Yes, but if you look in history you never see real serial killer women.

    SB: Yes, but they don’t play the way boys do.

    MJ: I know they don’t.

    SB: Even at a younger age they are playing with dolls and they are marrying Barbie and Ken. In other words, the quintessential thing is – that if boys are shooting spit balls at each other, the girls will say, “Stop doing that.” Even then they want to be older. It is almost against their gender. Have you ever found girls who like the practical jokes that you like? Have you ever found a woman who collects comics?

    MJ: It is a rarity. If I find one I will go nuts. Especially, if she has those qualities and is beautiful inside. It would be a home run for me. That’s why guys hang out. Because they can do that.

    SB: Thinking about mothers and fathers, mothers are really good at doing homework with their kids and being more nurturing. But the rough playing is what the fathers do. They get on the floor and get dirty, wrestle, build castle with them in a sandpit. Isn’t that interesting? It creates an imbalance in the book to an extent. On the contrary, it is the girls in school that are always ridiculing the boys for being immature. “Loоk at those boys. Look at the way they are behaving.” Maybe the women need to be taught the art of playfulness as much as the men.

    MJ: Do you not think it’s embedded in them biologically? Biologically, as a breed, don’t you think women are just a different species?

    SB: They are definitely different, but the question is, “Why don’t they want to play?” The funny thing is this: when they play, it’s when they flirt. In other words, if you chase them round the room and there is something romantic going on, then they will run around with you and laugh and giggle. But it’s specifically when it is romantic. They don’t do it with each other. You don’t see two girls running round the room, playing hide and seek or wrestling each other, the way they’re prepared to suddenly when it’s a boyfriend. A lot of fans — the women who are interested in you — would do all these things just to make you happy. But you don’t know if they were doing it because they are really enjoying it. It seems that it’s only romance that makes women playful. But then, sometimes it bothers men, because the women become like a tease and, you know, they have this power over you with these little games they play. I have got to find four or five women who fit into this opening chapter who are very successful but who have retained child-like qualities and, so far, we have come up with one. When you think of Bill Clinton don’t you think of a guy as being pretty playful? He goes to McDonald’s and he jogs and. . .

    MJ: Riding his bike at the White House. Did you see it? He was riding his bike in the White House to get him to the next meeting. A great shot of him In Vanity Fair. Can you think of Hillary doing that? Nope, not in a million years. I can think of little girls who would join in with play. Girls who are tomboys.

    SB: Okay, when they are tomboys. But when they get older, do they still play to the same extent?

    MJ: Do you think it is in their heart that they can just be themselves and be dignified?

    SB: What women seem to look forward to more than anything else is falling in love. They don’t look forward to the playfulness in the same way. But once they’re in love a carefree playful side is released.

    MJ: I have to play.

    SB: Is there a difference in how your male fans and female fans relate to you?

    MJ: Sometimes. But I am finding today, and it is so true, that guys today are really changing and I have watched it happen through my career. Guys scream with the same kind of adulation that girls do in a lot of countries. They are not ashamed. They are shaking, “I love you.” We have guys chasing us around.

    SB: But die fanatics are the women.

    MJ: Yeah, they are loyal, women. They have been loyal. They are activists. They will fight you about me.

    SB: Do you find it easier to be closer to motherly figures in your life like Elizabeth Taylor, your own mother, who you always praise, and your sister Janet? Do you find that women are more child-like than men? Are they gentler, are they less competitive, less mean? You have been around some mean women, as well, who behave in a masculine – aggressive way, like Madonna. You told me -that she can be mean. Is that a feminine trait or do you feel that she has a real masculine streak in her? Do you find it easier to be closer to women?

    MJ: In some ways, yes, and some ways, not. It depends on the age. I have seen some women who are very bitter and mean and they become ladies later. They come into their own and they become good people. I have seen it in my brothers’ ex-wives who were horrible. They were like nightmares when they were young. With time and age they become good people. But they were horrible, just horrible. Then with time they just level out, that’s what I like when they become truly good.

    SB: But, intuitively, do you find women easier to get along with? Are they softer than men? I mean. I personally find women more naturally nurturing, more refined, possessed of a greater nobility of spirit. I have to tell you.

    MJ: I am trying to be real honest with you.

    SB: But many of your closest friends seem to be women.

    MJ: Women are softer than men. Yeah, that’ true.

    SB: Do you think that a child star as cute as Shirley Temple, do you think a boy star could be that cute?

    MJ: Yeah, but he wouldn’t have the same. . . Shirley Temple just had something that was meant to give us bliss and make us smile.

    SB: Are you more protective of Paris because she is a little girl?

    MJ: Paris can stand [on] her own sometimes – much more. Prince won’t stand up for himself. People can push him about and he won’t stand up. She won’t take anything from anybody. She fights. She’s tough, very tough. It’s true, man. Prince will let people take complete advantage of him and won’t say anything.

    SB: He is more like his father, like you.

    MJ: I was like that. My mother always told me. “Don’t let people hurt you. You are too much like me.” She would cry. “You are too much like me. I don’t want you to be like me. I hurt so much.” Because people take advantage.

    SB: But you never toughened up. It seems that you would rather be taken advantage of than do the taking advantage of. It hurts to be taken advantage of. But it doesn’t hurt as much as being a mean and aggressive person. Mean- spiritedness is a form of internal corruption and it makes it impossible to be happy. Notice that evil people never seem happy. They are miserable and they seek to make other people just as miserable as they are.

    MJ: Yeah. I’d rather suffer…. I hate to say it because I suffered a lot. God, have I suffered. But I would rather suffer.

    SB: You have seen the ugly side of people.

    MJ: I have seen the worst… the nightmare of the human condition. I would never even think that common man would be capable of behaving in such a way.

    ………

    MJ: Lisa was great. She was a sweet person. But it is hard to tie me down. I can’t stay in one place one time so that’s why I don’t know if I [can] really be completely married all the time.

    SB: Did you want to be a father to her kids?

    MJ: Yes.

    SB: Do you still stay in touch with the children?

    MJ: Yes, and with her.

    SB: But marriage is too confining?

    MJ: Yes. I don’t know whether I am disciplined enough because I am such a rolling stone. I have such a life when I am always on the move and women don’t like that. They want you to be settled in one place all the time but I have to move. I have been in the same city as where my house is and still check into a hotel just to feel like I am going somewhere. My house is right there. I guess I am just moving all the time, moving.

    SB: You have gotten used to it. That’s your lifestyle.

    MJ: I love being on the move, love it.

    SB: It impresses me that everywhere you go you take your children with you. So you are on the move but it is almost like your household moves with you. Prince and Paris aren’t unsettled because of it because their source of security is always with them. But what about the families who don’t have the resources for that, and most don’t? They don’t have enough to be able to fly the kids around here and there. Businessmen who have to travel, they fly economy just to afford their own fare, and they can’t possibly bring their kids along every time. Should they not travel?

    MJ: I feel bad for their children. I feel bad for their children. I always ask pilots and stewards “How do they do it? The children suffer. Absolutely. They suffer’.

    SB: You wouldn’t be doing this if Prince and Paris were going to suffer as a result. You are doing it because you have the resources to bring them where you are.

    MJ: I couldn’t hurt them like that.

    SB: Do you want to find them a Rose Fine kind of figure, a bit of a motherhood figure?

    MJ: That would be nice. That would be sweet. If the person is completely sincere, like Miss Fine was, who would read to them and teach them and give them the right values and teach them that there’s no difference and that we are all the same people. She used to always rub my face and I never used to understand why. She used to say I had beautiful hands. And I used to say, “Why, don’t all hands look alike?” But now I see what she means because now I do it to my kids. I rub their face like that because they are so sweet. [Laughs] I never understood why she did it to me. Then you grow up and you realize that it is an endearing thing to do, to say, “I love you.”

    SB: I asked Michael about his celebrity friends. Why could he connect with them more than with noncelebrities?

    MJ: Yeah, but I don’t really have Hollywood friends. I have a few.

    SB: Why don’t you? Why don’t you hang out with more celebrities?

    MJ: Because I don’t think they are all real people. They love the limelight and I don’t have anything in common with them. They want to go clubbing and afterwards they want to sit around and drink hard liquor and do marijuana and do all kinds of crazy things that I wouldn’t do. We have nothing in common. Remember the line I told you? Madonna laid the law down to me before we went out. “I am not going to Disneyland, okay? That’s out.” I said, “But I didn’t ask you to go to Disneyland.” She said. “We are going to the restaurant and afterwards we are going to a strip bar.” I said, (“I am not going to a strip bar.” Guys who cross-dress! Afterwards she wrote some mean things about me in the press and I wrote that she is a nasty witch, after I was so kind to her. I have told you that we were at the table eating and some little kids came up. “Oh my God. Michael Jackson and Madonna. Can we have your autograph?” She said. “Get out of here. Leave us alone.” I said, “Don’t ever talk to children like that.” She said, “Shut up.” I said, “You shut up.” That’s how we were. Then we went out again and went to the Academy Awards and she is not a nice person. I have to say it. She is not a nice person.

    SB: Did the people around you feel that it was important to be seen with her?

    MJ: They knew nothing about it. This was totally between her and me.

    SB: So you save it a chance and it didn’t work?

    MJ: Yeah. I gave it a chance like I try and give everything a chance.

    SB: You basically saw that your values do not match those of most Hollywood people.

    MJ: No, they do lots of crazy things that I am not into and at the time I was with Madonna she was into these books, a whole library of books of women who were tied to walls. She said. “I love spanky books.” Why do I want to see that?

    SB: I think a lot of it is the image. She once said something to the effect that she would much rather read a good book than have sex. I think the other vulgar stuff is part of the outrageous image she tries to cultivate.

    MJ: She’s lying [about preferring to read a book]. I can’t judge. I don’t know if she has changed or if she [is] trying to claim she has changed.

    SB: Why does she say mean things?

    MJ: I think she likes shock value and she knows how to push buttons on people. I think she was sincerely in love with me and I was not in love with her. She did a lot of crazy things and that’s how that went. I knew we had nothing in common. But I am pretty sure that having a baby has to change you. I don’t know how much she has changed, I’m sure she is a better person than before.

    SB: She has two children now.

    MJ: Yeah. I know. How would you like getting a phone call and she is telling you that she is putting her fingers between her legs. I would say, “Oh Madonna, please.” She said, “What I want you to do when you hang up the phone is to rub yourself and think of me”. That’s the kind of stuff she says. When I see her she says: “This is the finger I used last night”. Wild, out of control.

    SB: But you were raised that all things romantic should have a certain modesty…
    Have you ever found women who are a bit more modest to be more attractive for that reason?

    MJ: Yeah. I don’t like the women who are always saying, “My nails need to be done. I have to do my toes. I need a manicure”. I hate all that. I like it when girls are a little bit more tomboyish. If they wrestle, climb a tree. I love that… It is sexier to me. I like class though. Class is everything.

    SB: If a woman walks around with all her cleavage showing…

    MJ: Frank loves it. (Michael gestured to Frank Cascio, who was sitting right next to us. We all laughed.)

    SB: A man might want sex with a woman like that. But it doesn’t mean that he would want to fall in love with a woman like that.

    MJ: Of course you want to look. I am in love with innocence and I tell Frank that.

    ………………..

    MJ: I don’t like clubs now, I did all that when I was eleven, eight and- going back—nine, eight, seven, six, Fights break out, people throwing up, yelling, screaming, the police sirens. Our father never let us become a part of it other than to perform and leave. But sometimes in having to do that you would get caught up in some of the craziness. I saw it all. The lady who came on right before, when The Jackson’s were little. “And now next, The Little Jackson 5,” was the lady who took off all her clothes. Threw her panties into the audience and the men would grab them and sniff them. I saw all this. Her name was Rose Marie and she put these things on her breasts and moved them around and she showed everything. So when I became sixteen, seventeen and guys would say. “Let’s go clubbing.” I would go. “Are you crazy?” And the guys would be like, “No, are you crazy? We can get girls, we can get liquor.” But I had done that. I did that when I was a baby. Now I want to be a part of the world and the life I didn’t have. Take me to Disneyland, take me to where the magic is.

    SB: Let me ask you about loneliness. So wherever you travel, you, thank God, have an entourage. People you’ve been with for a long time, Frank and Skip [Michael’s bodyguard at the time, a very pleasant and decent man from New Orleans]. But it’s still not like having a wife in your life or something. Do you get lonely? Or is there so much going on in your life that it doesn’t really happen?

    MJ: Like lonely for like a wife? For like a mate? like that?

    SB: Yeah.

    MJ: I’ve been through two bad divorces and I just got out of the second one. Even when married to those women that I was married to, I’d go to bed hurting. I was hurting. I was crying last night as I went to sleep and I didn’t sleep good last night. And I cry. Shmuley, because I feel this. . . and I’m not trying. I’m telling you the honest truth and if you don’t believe me you can ask Frank. Frank knew how I was hurting. I just was feeling all the pain of the children who suffer and I was hurting so much. That’s why I was trying to reach any child I knew who had pain, from [Michael mentions a little girl who was battling cancer and whose family he met at our home] to Gavin [Michael’s later accuser]. I was trying to like, calling/dialing and I woke up the first thing, the first person I called was [the little girl’s] house and she had gone already. It hurts me. But I think that’s where my real love comes from, Shmuley. If I can help in that way. I’m fine and I don’t need the other [romantic love].You know if I meet some girl somewhere and I think she’s beautiful, which I see a lot of them, that’s great. I mean, I’ll go on a date or something. Nothing wrong with that. Jennifer Lopez looked awfully good the other day, she did. I was shocked ’cause I never thought. . . She looked good [Michael laughs as he says this].

    SB: But have you given up on women understanding you? You tend to think that children will understand you a lot better?

    MJ: I’m not easy to live with in that way for a wife. I’m not easy and I know I’m not easy. Because I give all my time to someone else. I give it to children, I give it to somebody sick somewhere, to ‘the music. And women want to be the center. And I remember Lisa Marie would always say to me. “I’m not a piece of furniture. I’m not a piece of furniture. You just can’t . . .” I say, “I don’t want you to be a piece of furniture,” and you know, there’d be some sick little girls calling on the phone and she’d get mad and hang up on them. And, you know, I feel that’s my, that’s my mission. Shmuley, I have to do it.

    SB: What if you found a woman who was that soft, who was incredibly soft?

    MJ: like a Mother Teresa or a Lady Diana or. .. That would be great. It would be perfect.

    SB: Would that be better than having to do it on your own?

    MJ: Absolutely, and Lisa was great with going to the hospitals with me, and she was so sweet about that. They would tie the babies to the bed or chain the children down. We’d go unchain. . . we’d go free all these babies. I hated that and she, she discovered a lot of that injustice with me. Countries like Romania and Prague. Czechoslovakia and all that, Russia. You should see what they do to the children in those. . . you’d be shocked. They chain them to the wall like they’re animals and they’re naked and they slept in their tinkle and their feces too. It’s just so sad. It made me sick. So we brought clothes and toys and just love and love. I love them and I went back every day visiting them, hugging them, wanting to take each and every one of them to Neverland.

    SB: When you started becoming this childhood star, did you realize that your childhood was slowly slipping away? You won a contest at age eight. In 1964 you were chosen as lead singer for the family band. Did that make you feel excited or were you worried? Did you think to yourself, “Where is all this headed? What’s it going to lead to?”

    MJ: I didn’t think about it. I didn’t think about the future. I just took each day as it came. I knew I wanted to be a star. I wanted to do things and make people happy.

    SB: Did you know what the cost was going to be in terms of childhood?

    MJ: No way. No way.

    MJ on phone: Tell the guys to let the music talk to them and not to, like, jump on it right away. Listen to it a couple of times and let the melody create itself. That’s the tiling, let the music speak to them. Alright? Goodbye.

    SB: Is that your dream that one day, like part of the messianic future, as far as you’re concerned, that all these kids will come and live in Neverland and live happily ever after?

    MJ: Yes.

    SB: And If you had the resources truly you would just. . .

    MJ: I would do it, Shmuley. I would do it. I would love it.

    SB: Lisa Marie was good about at least visiting. So she had no problem going and doing some. of the compassionate, things of giving these children love and making them feel special?

    MJ: She had no problem doing that but her and I had several big arguments cause she’s very territorial with her children. Her children were [her major concern]. . . and I said, “No, all children are our children,” and she never liked that coming from me. She was very angry about that. Plus, she had a fight with me one time when two little boys in London killed this other kid and I was going to visit them ’cause, the queen gave them adult sentencing of life. These were like eleven- and ten-year-old boys and I was going to go to the prison and visit them. She said, “You idiot. You’re just rewarding then for what they did.” I said, “How dare you say that.” I said. “I bet if you trace their life you can find they didn’t have parents around, they didn’t have any love, nobody there to hold them look in their eyes and say “I love you.” They deserve that, even though they’re going to get life, I just want to say I love you and hold them.” She said. “We’ll, you’re wrong.” I said, “No, you’re wrong.” Then the information came out that they came from broken families, were never watched as little kids, attended to. Their pacifier was those Chucky movies with the stabbings and the killings. And that’s how they became conditioned to that.

    SB: Did she admit then that you had a point?

    MJ: Nope, she thinks I’m rewarding bad kids.

    SB: Did she want you to be a father to her children?

    MJ: Well that at was once asked of her. She was asked that question on TV and she said. “No, they have a father. Their father is Keogh,” that other guy. But I was really good to her children. Every day I’d bring them home something and they’d be waiting by the window for me and hug me. I love them. I miss them so much.

    SB: Did she get used to living in Neverland or was it too isolated?

    MJ: Lisa didn’t live at Neverland. We visited Neverland the way. . . I lived at her house in the city and every once in a while we visited Neverland. It’ d be like our big fun weekend.

    SB: And her children liked it?

    MJ: Are you kidding me? They were like in heaven.

    SB: And you were happy to show it to them?

    MJ: Mm hmm.

    SB: Did it have more meaning to you suddenly when you had a family you could show it to?

    MJ: Yes, yes. It’s just a place to make families, to bring them together, to bring people together through love and playful spirit and nature. It makes families closer, Neverland. It’s healing.

    SB: Since you idolize the family was it very hard for you when you had to go through that divorce then?

    MJ: Which one?

    SB: With Lisa.

    MJ: Was it hard for me?

    MJ: Yeah, and she – promised me that before we married, that would be the first thing we’d do was have children. So I was broken-hearted and I walked around all the time holding these little baby dolls and I’d be crying, that’s how badly I wanted them. So I was determined to have children. It disappointed me that she wouldn’t keep her promise to me, you know? After we got divorced she would hang out with my mother all the time. I have all these letters saying, I’ll give you nine children. I’ll do whatever you want.” and of course the press don’t know all these stories and she just tried for months and months and I just became too hard-hearted at that point. I closed my mind on the whole situation.

    SB: So she thought maybe you could get back together?

    MJ: Uh huh.

    SB: But children were a major, major issue?

    MJ: Of course.

    SB: She had the kids and that was it.

    MJ: She had hers and I wanted us to feel like we all were one big family and have more. Just. . . my dream is to have nine or ten children, that’s what I want.

    SB: You’re still very young. Do you think that will happen?

    MJ: Yeah.

    SB: But then it means getting married again.

    MJ: Yeah.

    SB: Are you happy to do that?

    MJ: Uh huh. . . or adopt.

    SB: Is it possible Michael, that you’re attracting the wrong kind of girl because of your celebrity?

    MJ: It’s hard. That’s why it’s hard, it’s hard for me. It is hard. It’s not easy for celebrities to be married.

    SB: Do you thinк that you could only really marry celebrities so that they don’t need you as much?

    MJ: That helps, in my opinion. And they understand what you go through. They’ve been there.

    SB: They help you for the right reasons, then?

    MJ: Yeah, they’re not after, you know? What you’ve made [the money] or, you know? [singing] ‘That’s what you are. . . “[He won a Grammy for that.]

    Shmuley Boteach: Love and fear, as I said, are antithetical. They are like fire and water. The more of the former, the less of the latter. The more valuable you feel, the less you fear your destruction. The more love you have in your life, the less room there is for fear.

    Michael Jackson: That’s right. I used to walk the street asking for people to be my friend. It’s true. In Encino right down there. People would look at me and go: ”Michael Jackson!” I just wanted to talk to somebody. I was up there alone in the house and my mother and father were downstairs watching television. And I was up in my old room and all my brothers and stuff had moved out because they were married and stuff, and I was up there all alone and you can’t…

    p. 108
    …about what you could do for kids?

    MJ: Truly in my heart, I love them and I care more than anything. I am still taking care of Gavin. He had chemotherapy yesterday and he is weak and not feeling good and it just touches your heart. Your heart goes out to the world. I think I am a lot like my mother. I don’t know if it is genetic or environmental. I remember when we were little she would watch the news and even how she has to watch the news with tissues. I’m the same. I start crying when I watch the news about the woman who takes her kids and throws them in the lake, one drowned, the other survived. So I invited the kids over and went to the funeral, paid for the funeral and I don’t even know these people, but you hear these things. It’s like asking, why aren’t there more people like Mother Teresa? “Why aren’t there more people like Lady Diana?

    SB: They are famous for being good, but you are famous and you are good, there’s a very big difference. Even Diana, Diana was a good woman. I didn’t know her. You did. She had many saintly qualities and did a huge amount of good. Still, she loved the glitzy life. But you love children. Why?

    MJ: I am not trying to be philosophical but I really think it’s my job to help them. I think it is my calling. I don’t care if people laugh or what they say. [Children] don’t have a mouth to society and I think it is now their time. From here on out it is their time. They need the world’s awareness and they need issues to deal with, and this is for them. And if I can be that light, that pedestal just to shine some light on who they are, and the importance of who children are, that’s what I want to do. I don’t know how God chooses people, or plays chess with people, and he does put you in position and sets you up. Sometimes I feel like that, like this is my place. I think about from Gandhi to Martin Luther King to Kennedy to myself to yourself. Do you think these are self-made men or from birth, do you think God said: “Aha!” And smiling a little bit. … Do you think that just happened on its own by their fathers, or they were supposed to do this? I am asking you this question?

    Like

  31. lynande51 permalink
    August 26, 2013 9:34 am

    @OH
    Debbie said in an argument with PearlJR on Twitter that Michael loved Lisa with all his heart. Diana Ross might have been a ‘first love” in the sense of a very young man but Lisa, it would seem, was the love he looked for as an adult.
    Michael connected with Lisa in November of 1992.They were brought together by Brett Livingstone Strong at Lisa’s request because she wanted Michael to hear some of her music. They quickly became friends and called each other on the phone to speak often..
    They met secretly when they could and were publicly together in May of 1993 at a charity function with Jimmy Carter.
    In the beginning of the taped conversation that Dave Schwartz made with Evan Chandler they speak of Michael loving Lisa and Evan threatening to call Lisa. There are only two ways that Evan Chandler could have known about Lisa. Either Michael told him or Jordan did because he was aware of the relationship or do we pretend that there was a different Lisa that Michael was in love with.
    I believe that it was this information and a threat to have June charged with pandering her son that led her to turn on Michael. She knew because of her knowledge of LIsa and how Michael felt about her that she would not be ‘mistress of Neverland” as someone referred to her.
    Also I think that because Debbie made the choice to give her friend what he most wanted, children, she is in a better position than any fan is to know how he felt about Lisa and what happened. He was devastated when Lisa filed for divorce after telling him she wouldn’t and Debbie made him the offer of becoming the mother to his children. I know people look at that as something abnormal but friends have children for friends through surrogacy everyday why is what Debbie did any different?

    Like

  32. August 26, 2013 1:28 am

    MJ was sprung on Diana, not LMP. You interpreted that incorrectly.

    Like

  33. July 19, 2013 4:50 am

    “This letter looks as if somebody close to Michael wrote it. But I disagree with the point, that Michael made a mistake when he knocked up Debbie” – Irina

    This man was really close to Michael and evidently had some reasons for saying it – he probably saw Michael feeling sorry about it at some point. Any of us can have an opinion about it but ultimately it should remain the private matter of MJ and these two women only.

    What’s really important is that this insider knew of Michael’s real love life and was privy to all his secrets. And he laughed at Scott Thorson’s story and said that Michael was not only heterosexual, but “thoroughly” heterosexual if I remember it right. This is actually why he left a message on the National Enquirer board – they were discussing Scott Thorson at that time. And his revelations about Michael’s women came simply as a bonus to the main story.

    Out of everything he said I find his story about Diana Ross and June Chandler the most interesting ones. When I look at Michael and Diana Ross for example, I really understand that she was his first – there is a definite aura of possessiveness in the way he behaves when he is with her:

    Like

  34. Irina permalink
    July 19, 2013 3:52 am

    “Lisa Marie, however, led him to believe they would have a family of their own, but stayed on the pill anyway because even if she said she was a rebel, the little bitch didn’t want mommy dearest to get mad at her for having a lil black child. Mike found the pills, split, messed around with a couple of other women with the goal of getting one pregnant just to hurt Lisa (he can be an asshole sometimes, true) and eventually knocked up Debbie, which, (if I didn’t love and adore his children and think they saved his life) I would say was probably one of the biggest mistakes of his life”

    This letter looks as if somebody close to Michael wrote it. But I disagree with the point, that Michael made a mistake when he knocked up Debbie, LMP didn`t love Michael but he realized that too late. First, if she really had loved him, she wouldn`t have disappointed him in the hospital when he was really ill, second – she would have wanted to have children with him before he told her about Debbie`s pregnancy, and third – she wouldn`t have given interview, where she told a lot of bad things about their private life. For example, Michael didn`t say anything horrible about their relationships, her jealousy, bad habits, breaking her promises even though he got hurt more.
    P.S. Sorry for my English

    Like

  35. May 8, 2013 9:32 am

    holy mother of ….. June chandler?? seriously!! wow…..I never thought that ever happened….this explains ALOT

    Like

  36. April 29, 2013 11:52 am

    I think this is the most stupid story I have ever read not to mention humiliating and dumb. The reporting has no ethics, and it is a conspiracy of untruths that people say happened, or knew Michael so well that this or that had happened. For God’s sake not even his biological family knew what was going on in his life. He knew what he was doing and shocked at the stupid hired help wanting a piece of the pie. Only the hell hounds can sniff out the truth. That they shall. Come on, there was nothing going on with Diana Ross, ever. Well, then…..

    Like

  37. February 25, 2013 8:27 pm

    I believe that this person was very intimate with Michael, he knew many things that Michael never tell a person that he did not trust, or that person was a type of worker who was close to Michael 24 hours, which was the case of Bill and Wayne. See, Wayne was so close, that he was warned that Michael (he was with the kids Cascios) that the media had found out about the wedding. Recalling that the family Cascios, did not know about marriage

    Like

  38. February 24, 2013 10:55 am

    “Like, why a wall of text justifying it?” – MJFan

    Because the hysteria unleased by the National Enquirer (during the time when the jury was deliberating whether to indict Michael or not) was really too much. In fact it is raging even until now as only recently Scott Thorson made his appearance on TV and retold the same story, only in a much milder form. It was practically the host of the show who was telling it by asking the respective questions and Scott Thorson was only nodding, smiling and giving “knowing” looks.

    The person who refuted Scott’s lies and drew the real picture in 2004 noted that it would be the first and last time he was doing it, so please pay attention. And why couldn’t he write “a wall of text”? Michael’s detractors write whole books of lies about him and no one wonders why, and when one person decides to tell the truth this suddenly raises questions. Why?

    “Someone sugested it was Bob Jones who wrote it but I don’t believe it, because of the book he wrote with Stacy Brown…he would never defend Michael.”

    No, it was surely not Bob Jones, and not only because he wrote a book of lies with Stacy Brown, but because he was a different kind of a person, diffident, cynical and also slightly sarcastic about Michael, even in the best of times. He said he didn’t want to stay on the same floor with his boss as this type of closeness “breeds contempt”. Though he was Michael’s PR man he said he visited Neverland very rarely. He mostly worked in his office and was not at all close to his boss and he said it himself. Bob Jones’ stories about Michael were based on his own preconceived notions about MJ. And they were highly distorted. Most probably there was not even love lost between the two of them – it was more of a formal arrangement.

    The man who wrote that “wall of text” was different. He is more of a father figure to Michael. He knows his every little secret and was a witness to many of those love affairs with women Michael had. He is compassionate and knowing how much damage some of those women did to Michael he does not even stop at calling them names (“hussy” for D.R.).

    This kind of a man could be only Bill Bray who was in fact almost like a father to Michael (though he was old and long retired by then) or Wayne Nagin, the person Bill Bray hired in 1980 and who worked for Michael until 2000. It is funny but both men look very much like the close confidant of Michael in his “Who is it” video. The video is about Michael’s intimate life and this person’s presence there is only natural and tale telling.

    Here are some pictures.

    Bill Bray when he was younger (the late 70s?): <img src="Palm Springs commercial photography” alt=”” />

    November 11, 1992 Michael’s Heal the world foundation sends $2,1mln. of supplies to Sarajevo. Bill Bray is in the right hand corner (he always stays by Michael’s side):

    In April 1999 Michael visits London. Wayne Nagin is sitting immediately behind Michael:

    The last two photos are taken from a fabulous Romanian site which I highly recommend as a source of very rare pictures, all of them systematically arranged: http://en.michaeljackson.ro

    The actor playing the part of Michael’s confidant in “Who is it” (1992) looks like both Bill Bray and Wayne Nagin taken together. Both were working for him at that time. You can see compassion and understanding for Michael in this man’s face.

    Like

  39. MJFan permalink
    February 24, 2013 12:24 am

    Hi again,
    I admit I thought the letter was from a fan trying to defend Michael. Some words like “please” in the middle of the text brought suspects to me. Like, why a wall of text justifying it? (Please don’t be angry at me for saying that) Someone sugested it was Bob Jones who wrote it but I don’t believe it, because of the book he wrote with Stacy Brown…he would never defend Michael.
    (Again, sorry my english)

    Like

  40. February 5, 2013 11:42 pm

    “Has anyone even considered that most of what the media says about the kids parentage is in fact a ploy to get Blanket’s mother to come forward?”

    Lynette, I think you have hit the nail on the head here. The more I read Frank Cascio and other information about that period the more I realize that Michael’s friends sort of encrypted all facts about Blanket’s mother to avoid a terrible media hysteria around her, and what’s more important – around Blanket.

    And it looks to me like it is done by them on purpose. Well, Michael could have announced to Frank in May 2001 that he was going to be a father, but it doesn’t mean anything except his plans to be one or his thinking so. Natural or articifial insemination, but at that stage no one could really know. As you mentioned somewhere more time was needed to really make sure.

    Michael’s confident manner of the announcement also surprises me a bit as I remember how dreamlike and fearful of talking about Debbie Rowe’s second pregnancy (with Paris) Michael was in that interview with Barbara Walters. He didn’t speak about it at all, as if he was afraid to say it too soon. The interview was on September 12, 1997 when Debbie should have been 3 months pregnant already. And still Michael said “Let’s say I am not sure yet”.

    And if Michael’s close friends and aides were (and still are) shrouding the circumstances of Blanket’s birth in secrecy, making it as contradictory as it is only possible, this will explain that slight note of insincerity which I also feel in the Insider’s letter about Michael concerning that matter.

    I suggest we don’t discuss it any further, leaving it as it is, if this is what Michael wanted it to be, at least until a much later time.

    P.S. I would like to make it a point that whatever Michael’s aide said about the “third woman” and the circumstances of Blanket’s birth it doesn’t make the rest of his letter less authentic. In a way it makes it even more authentic than I originally thought.

    Like

  41. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    January 31, 2013 5:26 am

    Didn’t Michael routinely give jewelry to women he cared for — Elizabeth Taylor being a huge case in point? Not that Liz needed jewelry — she already owned all the important stuff available for sale at the time, yet still enjoyed the collector’s quest for more. Michael gave her jewelry and she always accepted it with great gusto – and, I believe, in the spirit of their relationship. Michael loved La Liz (and vice versa), he knew what she liked, and gave it to her. Dimonds. Rubies. Pearls. Emeralds.

    June Chandler, on the other hand, never dreamed of owning such baubles or experiencing the luxury and glow of having them bestowed on her — though she strongly coveted both. Of course, she was impressed and happy. A grand gift of jewelry from the King of Pop. Who wouldn’t be overjoyed? How that gift is interpreted depends, I guess, on who is looking and where they are standing.

    As for Debbie and the Baby, I don’t think it would be hard to conceal this from the press. Why? Because media was heavily invested in “Michael Jackson, Freak Child Molester” rather than “Michael Jackson Knocks Up Other Woman While Married to Elvis’s Daughter”. From the tabloid perspective, the first scenario is much juicer, more profitable and sells more papers than the second scenario. At this point, Michael having sex with a women — any women — is treated as a joke by media, despite Lisa Marie’s earnest protestations to the contrary. Yes, the press would have reported it (with tongue in cheek), but not with the same ferociousness as the child abuse accusations.

    Like

  42. Fatima(Fatti) permalink
    January 31, 2013 5:23 am

    Actually i did manage to find a clip not from the movie but from an interview where Taraborelli says Michael married Debbie because of “pressure from members of his family” most likely meaning Katerhine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxZtAejAtQ

    Like

  43. Fatima(Fatti) permalink
    January 31, 2013 4:51 am

    Helena, have you seen the movie/documentary, “Michael Jackson, life of an Icon”? I saw that movie a while ago and absolutely remember there was a quote somewhere along the line that Michael never wanted to marry Debbie, but did it for his mom. If I’m not mistaken I think it was Taraborelli who said that quote. I saw that movie before I read the “inside letter” and was surprised that someone knew about that even back in 2004. I was trying to find the movie on Youtube but they dont have it there. Its a great movie, although it left me with a bit of sadness to think MJ’s not here anymore.

    There’s no doubt that the letter is from an insider.

    Like

  44. January 31, 2013 12:56 am

    Guys, I’ve been sent the book by Taraborrelli today and started some random reading of it. You will probably be surprised but up till now I haven’t read it. There were so many negative reviews of it that I was very much biased against it and thought that it was mostly lies. Now that I’ve read a little bit of it my perception has somewhat changed. Taraborrelli fully depended on what he was told by others – if these people lied, he lied too, and if they didn’t his account was more or less true. As to Michael’s own words it seems that there are not that many of them there (at least in the part I’ve read).

    Chapter 11 about Lisa Marie Presley totally amazed me by the fact that Taraborrelli’s account of that period largely coincided with my conclusions made on the basis of the Insider’s letter. We approached it from totally different angles but the conclusions are surprisingly very close. This makes me think that Taraborrelli did speak to Lisa Marie and what we are reading in this chapter is mostly her account of the events (I find it rather sincere by the way, except the reason for their separation of course, though over here not a word is said about “drugs”).

    Taraborrelli wonders if Lisa Marie knew of Debbie’s pregnancy in December 1995 and LMP’s friend thinks that she probably did not (while in reality she did), and he is greatly surprised that Michael’s fans did not pay attention to that point. It seems that Michael was very worried how his fans would look at him, a married man having a baby by another woman. The quote provided below refers to Debbie’s next pregnancy, but if this matter was so meaningful to Michael in the spring of 1996 we can imagine how much more meaningful it was for him in December 1995 when Debbie was pregnant the first time, when he was still officially together with LMP.

    Here are some quotes:

    It’s fascinating, in retrospect, that Debbie’s pregnancy and subsequent miscarriage – as well as her very existence in Michael’s life – had still escaped public scrutiny. It seems incredible that someone of Michael’s celebrity status could be married to one woman and planning a baby with another… and no one in the media would catch on to any of it. How, one wonders, did he manage it? ‘Carefully,’ responded someone in Michael’s camp, only half-kidding. ‘Very carefully.’

    Perhaps a clue to Michael’s behaviour – his distancing himself from Lisa and his subsequent, apparent panic attack – can be found in analysing a chain of events from late 1995. It would be many years later that Debbie Rowe would reveal that she became pregnant that December. Michael had certainly given Lisa fair warning that Debbie would have his baby if she wouldn’t do it. ‘Tell her to go ahead and do it,’ Lisa had said. If she was being sarcastic, perhaps Michael didn’t catch the mockery.
    Did Lisa know about the pregnancy? ‘I don’t think Debbie even knew yet,’ observed Monica Pastelle. ‘I think by the time Michael was on his back in the hospital, she was only a couple of weeks’ pregnant. As for Lisa, if she had known, do you think Michael would have been still drawing breath when she left that hospital room?’

    Well, in fact Lisa Marie did almost kick out all life from Jackson when visiting him at the hospital in December 1995. And again, this scene fits perfectly well not only with the news of Debbie’s pregnancy but also with the upcoming concert which Michael regarded as very important for his career and also with what Michael said to Frank Cascio about LMP being jealous of the Cascios (or at least her not wanting to have the Cascio boys around him):

    It’s possible that Michael really did want Lisa to be with him. However, when she got there he must have been sorry she’d agreed to the public relations manoeuvre. She showed up with fire in her eyes. When she walked into the room, the first thing that hit Lisa were all the framed posters of Shirley Temple as a child-star, Mickey Mouse and Topo Gigio, the strange, little puppet-mouse popular from the old Ed Sullivan Show in the 1950s and 1960s.
    When Lisa looked down at Michael, he appeared to be on his death bed; it seemed as if he had tubes coming out of every limb. He reminded her, she would later say, of the pathetic creature from E.T. at the end of the movie when the alien has taken a turn for the worst. As she stood there, ‘E.T.’ gazed up at her weakly and, mustering all his strength, managed to say, ‘Hi, Lisa. How are you?’
    Lisa wasn’t moved. She didn’t care much about Michael’s health, not at that moment, anyway. She suspected that he wasn’t suffering from ‘exhaustion’ or ‘dehydration’. He had long ago confided in her about his panic attacks. According to those who know her well, she figured that he’d suffered another and, based on his destabilized condition, that it had been quite a jolt to his system. Surely, though, it wasn’t because of the upcoming concert, she speculated. He’d made many such appearances, why would this particular one cause such a reaction? The broadcast had actually now been postponed indefinitely, costing both Michael and HBO a fortune. (It would never happen.) Whatever was going on with him was serious. Now that Michael was a captive audience, she wanted to confront him. So where had he been? Why was he so anxious? Most importantly, where did she stand with him?
    Michael usually tries to avoid confrontation. So, for his irate wife to barge into his safe, hospital haven was upsetting. His heart must have been thundering in his chest.
    Making matters more tense was the fact that the Cascio brothers had just left the room five minutes earlier. Had Lisa seen them? It was difficult to tell; her face was that impassive. But it’s likely she wouldn’t even have recognized them now. Still, it was a close call.
    Lisa closed the door behind her. She and Michael then engaged in a private and, judging from the shouting going on in the room – hers, not his – heated conversation. ‘I’m like a lion, I roar,’ she would say in 2003. ‘I won’t be a victim. I don’t sulk, I get angry. I go immediately into retaliation.
    ‘I couldn’t figure out what was wrong with him,’ she recalled. ‘I started asking questions, and it was always a different story. He said I was causing trouble and stirring up problems. He told me, “You’re making my heart rate go up,” and asked me to leave. I said, “Good. I want out. This is insane, all of it.”’
    When the door to Michael’s room opened, Lisa burst out as if shot from a cannon, past everyone in the hall and straight to the elevator. ‘Mrs Jackson,’ exclaimed one of the doctors. ‘My goodness! Your husband cannot be upset like this. He’s much too fragile. If you’re going to do this, you’ll not be able to visit him.’
    Lisa gave him a sharp look. Michael’s mother, who had been pacing in the hallway, regarded her daughter-in-law intensely. She could not fathom that Lisa would fly all the way from Los Angeles to New York just to fight with her son. Janet, who had also rushed to be at her brother’s side, had just gone to the ladies’ room. As Lisa stood waiting for the elevator, Katherine walked up to her and exploded in stunned disbelief. ‘What is wrong with you, Lisa,’ she hissed. ‘You are so spoiled. I can’t believe that you would do this to Michael.’ At that moment, the elevator opened and Lisa got into it.
    She turned, faced Katherine and gave her a critical look. Luckily for Katherine, the elevator’s doors then slammed closed between them.
    Lisa wanted to see Michael the next day. ‘Absolutely not,’ Michael’s handlers told her. There had been a meeting with Jackson family members and it was decided that Lisa was an antagonizing presence in Michael’s life, and that he should now be protected from her, at all costs. Furious, Lisa went back to Los Angeles.

    Though he tried not to show it to the expectant mother, Michael actually was apprehensive about the news of Debbie’s pregnancy being made public. First of all, would his fans put it all together and realize that he’d been working on having a baby with Debbie before he was even divorced from Lisa? How would that look? (Oddly, it would turn out that much of his public wouldn’t figure it out, or, at least, care.) Not only was he unsure how his fans would take it, he was worried about the reaction of his mother, Katherine.
    Indeed, Katherine, still a devout Jehovah’s Witness, was not happy to learn from news broadcasts that her son was fathering a child with a woman to whom he was not married. ‘This reminds me of what Michael’s father did in the seventies,’ Katherine said, privately, speaking of Joh’Vonnie. ‘It broke my heart. I won’t have history repeat itself with Michael. I just won’t have it.’

    Many of these details fit in perfectly well with the picture painted to us by the Insider’s letter. Of course the circumstances of LMP’s break-up with Michael related by LMP represent only her view of the matter with a couple of words added by the hospital doctors. But if we combine LMP’s account of the events (in Taraborrelli’s book) with the account of Michael’s aide (in the Insider’s letter) showing Michael’s view on the same thing, we can get an almost complete picture of what happened.

    This delights me not only because this way we are restoring a really true picture of the events, but also because it once again confirms the authenticity of the Insider’s letter.

    On the other hand Taraborrelli’s chapter 9 on June Chandler is a grave distortion of the truth. There are very many lies, omissions and half-truths there, and all of it because it also reflects the story told by one side only – that of June Chandler (or Evan, or Ray Chandler) and probably even Victor Gutierrez. And since it is only their version of the events, we cannot believe a single word of it.

    Look at the incredible way June Chandler (or Evan?) explained the Love Bracelet (it turns out that it also had rubies in between diamonds):

    Quote:

    The next day, Michael gave June a $12,000 ruby-and-diamond bracelet from Carrier’s. June stared at him as he presented the gift, dumbfounded. ‘A token,’ Michael told her. ‘It’s nothing. I just love you.’

    Nothing? Michael could have bought her lots of other, more conventional (and to be frank) more attractive jewelry if he wanted to impress her, but he still selected the Love bracelet, and the Chandlers present it as “nothing”? Well, from the happy smile on June Chandler’s face I didn’t have the impression that she regarded it that way at that time. Especially after Michael said to her: “I (just) love you”.

    No, guys, Taraborrelli’s book is a very interesting document if you know how to handle his information.

    Like

  45. January 30, 2013 4:13 pm

    “this is a great conversation” – Cole

    No, it is not.

    “You wrote: “And what if Blanket – just by chance – sees that TV program? Did anyone think how big a trauma it will be for the child?” And I absolutely agree, I feel the same regarding blogs. It could be hurtful for Prince and Paris to read that (according to this supposed letter) that “one of the biggest mistakes of [Michael’s] life” is when he “eventually knocked up Debbie”.”

    First of all the letter is not a “supposed” one, but is very much real and genuine, containing lots of details which proved to be true. And you yourself have provided me with links to the Enquirer’s message board where it was posted on June 12, 2004, so now we even know where it was found.

    Second, your quote of the letter is not correct. What the insider said was this:

    “Lisa Marie, however, led him to believe they would have a family of their own, but stayed on the pill anyway because even if she said she was a rebel, the little bitch didn’t want mommy dearest to get mad at her for having a lil black child. Mike found the pills, split, messed around with a couple of other women with the goal of getting one pregnant just to hurt Lisa (he can be an asshole sometimes, true) and eventually knocked up Debbie, which, (if I didn’t love and adore his children and think they saved his life) I would say was probably one of the biggest mistakes of his life. He was never faithful to Debbie after they married, never even wanted to marry her but Mike doesn’t like to break his mother’s heart. He and Lisa continued having sex until 1999”

    So with all the reservations the author of the letter is making, it is clear that he adores Michael’s children and realizes that they saved his life, and if it were not for them Michael would not have survived. But he still thinks that “messing around” with other women at the time was Michael’s mistake. Michael should have tried to sort the matter out with Lisa Marie and think of something to neutralize her family which was a huge negative factor for both of them. The insider thinks that Lisa Marie was not hopeless and Michael should not have thrown her out of his life at that moment leaving her for 6 weeks and trying to “knock up” another woman (“just to hurt Lisa” too).

    It is the personal opinion of a man close to Michael who saw everything with his own eyes and his observations only add to our understanding of the pain both Michael and LMP were going through as well as the mistakes they were making. These observations do not affect Michael’s children in any way, except that they may teach them some day to learn to take responsible decisions in whatever situations they find themselves in their future life.

    The insider does not have anything against Debbie – all he says is that Michael should not have messed up with other women at that particular moment and it would have probably saved his marriage with Lisa Marie, giving to it a happier turn. The later events proved that she could have agreed to give him a child (“nine children” according to Schmuley’s tapes), only by then it was too late. That “knock-up” thing had already taken place and now none of them could change anything in their lives. This is where the mistake was.

    When you come to think about it, Lisa Marie began to defy public opinion (and the opinion of her family) soon after her divorce with Michael. By the mere fact that she followed him all over the world she showed to everyone that she cared for him more than what the public opinion said about it.

    Even if Michael’s children learn of this dramatic moment in Michael’s life from the insider’s letter (or this blog), it will not bring any negativity into their lives. It will probably teach them something good and helpful instead.

    And it is absolutely not the same as rubbing salt in the wounds of a small child like Blanket by irresponsible speculations about who his mother is or whether he has a mother at all and he comes from a sterile tube instead.

    Putting these things on a par is pure demagogy and cynicism which I detest.

    This is why I don’t consider it to be a “great” conversation.

    Like

  46. Cole permalink
    January 28, 2013 10:38 am

    Hi Helena, this is a great conversation. You wrote: “And what if Blanket – just by chance – sees that TV program? Did anyone think how big a trauma it will be for the child?” And I absolutely agree, I feel the same regarding blogs. It could be hurtful for Prince and Paris (we all know she actively uses the internet and has “fanatics/haters” sending her all kinds of nasty comments/links) to read that (according to this supposed letter) that “one of the biggest mistakes of [Michael’s] life” is when he “eventually knocked up Debbie”. Or to read that their father “was never faithful to Debbie after they married [and] never even wanted to marry her” — again when Paris and Debbie have said otherwise. Likewise, it would be hurtful for Blanket to read that his father “wasn’t entirely faithful to [his mother], which is why they split up shortly after she found out she was pregnant.”

    Not many seem to express concern for the children’s privacy and feelings when it comes to matters like the above. Posting this entire supposed letter was an invasion of both the children’s and Michael’s privacy to begin with.

    I believe they are all Michael’s biological children as Michael himself claimed, that he was an excellent father, and was a heterosexual man (just to make it clear whose side I’m on). When myself or other commenters bring up talking points (and most of us have been careful to use words like “evidently” or “according to…” — unlike the ‘letter’ in question which outright presents their claims as truth) we’ve gathered from other public sources (be it Frank or another author, doctors, or legal personnel) it’s because it’s in all of our best interests to verify this was actually published and to cross-check the information presented within, via multiple sources we may have at our disposal.

    Otherwise we can write pages upon pages, but if a doubter, or an uneducated member the general public, asks a simple one line question regarding proof for the authenticity of our claims, and we cannot provide a solid source that they themselves can look into, then what we say may be ignored. Even worse, they may tune out further information provided that does have promising sources because they’ll have already decided that (in their mind) they’re not going to waste their time continuing to engage — which is unfortunate because stopping communication leads to a lack of understanding. It’s an absolutely unfair perception (especially given how much we know the media lies) but one we have to face. The more fans or supporters spread anonymous information about Michael with certainty, the more we hinder rather than help him. And ourselves.

    Like

  47. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    January 28, 2013 2:26 am

    Helena: I agree totally with your last comment about Blanket’s privacy, and am so proud of you for posting in such forthright terms.

    Paris — a bright teen of the internet age and eager to engage the world, — is already under media scrutiny, and we see her youthful attempts to handle emerging celebrity and ferociously defend her Father’s life and memory. Prince exhibits a friendly cautiousness, but speaks up when provoked, and Michael II (Blanket) is characteristically reserved (much like his Father). They cannot escape the celebrity maelstrom inherited as Michael Jackson’s children, but they need space to grow into it and learn to navigate its many pitfalls while pursuing their own individual lives. The British press, if I recall correctly, agreed to a general ‘hands off’ policy toward Princess Diana’s boys while they were teenagers.

    The US Media has no such agreement — though some outlets are gentler than others, noting how well behaved, respectful and ‘normal’ Jackson’s children are considering their Father’s tumultuous life and acrimonious relationship with the press. (I also detect a little snide, backhanded compliment in this praise — ‘Gee, the kids are so normal considering Michael was so weird’.)

    Generally, however, media is no respecter of persons and pounce whenever the kids emerge for a breath of normalcy outside the protective walls of home. Hard to believe, but there was a time with members of the press respected themselves, respected their profession, and respected the public they served. Yes, sensationalist tabloidism always existed but was not mainstream. That time is gone. The profit-above-all business model is supreme and supported by one goal — ‘get the story first by any means necessary’ rather than get the story right the first time. It is media terrorism and the damage to victims is no less calamitous just because we do not see blood.

    Into this world Michael Jackson’s children were born, will grow up and live. Fortunately, they have an anchor in Michael’s wise parenting and love, and I hope they receive equally wise counsel going forward.

    Like

  48. January 27, 2013 9:32 pm

    “it’s interesting to note different cultures views on the paparazzi and the like. ..Unfortunately as Ms. Chase stated during the trial (when questioned about the interviews she gave after his passing) “people wanted to know” which leaves a market. France is reported to have stricter privacy laws than the US” – Cole

    These are not only different cultures views – these are also big differences in morals too. What is considered “moral” in one place is considered completely immoral in another place. I prefer to side with the French in this respect.

    In my opinion whether people want or don’t want to know something about someone else’s private life is no reason to allow them to invade other people’s back passage and conduct an endless shooting safari there as J.Mason perfectly worded it.

    It is almost like you catching this small child in the street (immediately after he loses his father) and aggravating his grief by loud and feigned “sympathy” for the poor fatherless and motherless orphan he is – “And where is your mother, the poor little darling?”. In cases like that even close relatives try to distract the child from these thoughts, not to mention complete strangers.

    But over here these strangers dig in the children’s open wound out of some callous curiosity. And what if Blanket – just by chance – sees that TV program? Did anyone think how big a trauma it will be for the child?

    Here is the video again in case someone has missed this masterpiece of bad taste: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOGyJ0O3GiY

    Dr. Castillo is the physician that delivered Blanket according to his birth certificate. Dr. Schmidt has a website regarding her practice which includes informational pages, testimonials, contact info, occasional informational interviews from her youtube channel (which uploaded the video), provides evidence of favorable establishment in the medical community and etc.

    The fact that Dr. Castillo is working there and Inside Edition just showed a photo of her does carry any meaning on its own. We’ve seen the photo, and we’ve seen her name on the (unfortunately) disclosed confidential birth certificate which none of us has the right to see. So what of it that we’ve seen the photo? Does it mean anything to us? No, it doesn’t. It reminds me of a phrase from one comedy: “Have you seen a doctor about your problem? Yes, I’ve seen a doctor and the doctor has seen me”. So we’ve seen each other, and that’s it.

    “various media or tabloid sources can pick up an interview or discussion and run the story with their own commentary in-between. That’s been a common theme with MJ, even if someone wants to speak in his favor, the media will interject their own judgements in the voice over or write-up. “

    That’s true. However I’ve found time to watch this TV report and see that they are not even lying too much with their voiceovers. It is the fact that they address this issue at all which is so awful. None of them have the right to because they are invading the privacy of a very little child, a very vulnerable one, who had just lost his father and with whom the matter of that “surrogacy” should be handled in an extremely careful way. People forget that it is a totally private manner where a very small child is involved. If some people don’t understand it, I feel sorry for them. They have lost the last features that distinguish them as a human species.

    “Thankfully the doctors in question seemed to be careful and avoided naming donor names and considerate of privacy laws and didn’t report anything that wasn’t already legally public information or that Michael himself hadn’t already stated (which doesn’t violate HIPPA).”

    In this video Dr. Castillo did not say a word (we saw only her photo), so she was either not approached or refused to talk about it, while Dr. Schmidt who is named some vague “colleague” of Dr. Castillo (who could be simply working in the same building) shared a hypothetical situation with the viewers:

    “It’s likely she didn’t know, in which case it would be anonymous, but if she is watching the news she knows her delivery date, she knows her time, the birth certificate fell (?) on the media, she will put it together – “I delivered Michael Jackson’s child.”

    In other words Dr. Schmidt knows nothing about Blanket’s mother – whether she was anonymous or not, and whether it was “likely she didn’t know” (or probably knew?), etc. Her words are a mere speculation betraying that she has no idea what the real situation was like. But even that little should not have been said considering that the small child may accidentally see it and hear her irresponsible talk.

    “Mr. Baxter’s book on Michael’s body language (which does a great job of showing how sincere Michael was in interviews and completely attests to Michael’s innocence) also supports the view that Michael was being truthful when he spoke about using a surrogate.”

    It’s nice of Mr. Baxter to confirm Michael’s sincerity in stating his innocence (which we already know of), but even a perfunctory look at two Michael’s versions in Bashir’s documentary shows that the first time he was very open and beaming when talking about Blanket’s mother, and the second time he was all closed up and unwilling to talk, stating the official version.

    Surprisingly, both versions may be true – the first one about Michael having a relationship with this woman and then making an agreement that she would not disclose herself and her name would not be known (implying a surrogate), and the second time voicing only the “official” part of the same version, concerning the agreement only.

    Since it is totally inappropriate for us to discuss the matter of Blanket’s mother I consider this conversation closed. We will return to it twenty years later when (or if) Blanket is willing to discuss it himself. At the moment we should respect this small child’s privacy and do our best to take care of his well-being. Therefore I ask everyone to restrain their curiosity and turn to another, less vulnerable subject. Thank you.

    As regards the National Enquirer just give me time to put all the facts together. I hope to make a post about it.

    Like

  49. shellywebstere permalink
    January 27, 2013 5:38 pm

    @cole

    It’s also true for the defamation lawsuit. Here, and I believe it’s true for Europe, the journalists start their trial by being guilty and can avoid a conviction if his story is true or by showing good faith.

    It doesn’t mean all the stories in the newspaper is true but you will never find a voodoo story.

    Like

  50. Cole permalink
    January 27, 2013 2:27 pm

    I agree shellywebstere, it’s interesting to note different cultures views on the paparazzi and the like. It’s not only the tabloids these days, but the mainstream media as well. Morally speaking, the idea of people running off to the media to blab about Michael can be unsettling, especially given how poorly they have treated him over the years. Unfortunately as Ms. Chase stated during the trial (when questioned about the interviews she gave after his passing) “people wanted to know” which leaves a market. Michael succinctly sums it up in “Tabloid Junkie”. France is reported to have stricter privacy laws than the US. It’s sometimes cited as a reason why numerous celebs have been fond of staying there. It’s easy to understand the appeal.

    I agree Helena, Inside Edition has been nasty to Michael and spread misinformation in the past. So has the National Enquirer, Taraborrelli, and even Shmuley. It’s a problem with the media and ‘talking heads’ in general, but thankfully we can dissect what they say and see if there is any validity by reviewing their sources on individual pieces of information they present. Dr. Castillo is the physician that delivered Blanket according to his birth certificate. Dr. Schmidt has a website regarding her practice which includes informational pages, testimonials, contact info, occasional informational interviews (http://www.sandiegomommymaker.com/inthenews.html) from her youtube channel (which uploaded the video), provides evidence of favorable establishment in the medical community and etc.

    It seems News 8 of SD (http://www.760kfmb.com/Global/story.asp?S=10629882) was originally spoken to around July 1st, but various media or tabloid sources can pick up an interview or discussion and run the story with their own commentary in-between. That’s been a common theme with MJ, even if someone wants to speak in his favor, the media will interject their own judgements in the voice over or write-up. Thankfully the doctors in question seemed to be careful and avoided naming donor names (unlike a certain doctor who has constantly ran to to the rags spreading utter garbage since MJ passed) and considerate of privacy laws and didn’t report anything that wasn’t already legally public information or that Michael himself hadn’t already stated (which doesn’t violate HIPPA). I remember the concern of how Nurse Lee was violating HIPAA laws by doing various interviews about Michael where she made claims of specific medication Michael supposedly asked her for. That was a breech of privacy that was explained here (http://virginiabeach.legalexaminer.com/medical-malpractice/attorney-client-patient-privacy-rights-surviving-deathdid-michael-jacksons-former-nurse-ignore-confidentiality-and-privacy-rights-under-hipaa.aspx) and helps clarify what does and doesn’t breech privacy laws in the US medically speaking.

    Mr. Baxter’s book on Michael’s body language (which does a great job of showing how sincere Michael was in interviews and completely attests to Michael’s innocence) also supports the view that Michael was being truthful when he spoke about using a surrogate.

    If that letter (with all those very personal claims about Michael’s ‘private’ life and the conception of his children) was published, there should be a physical copy of its printing out there. I know some fans collect reports about MJ and have many scans (including tabloids like the National Enquirer). Also, if it was published in a following issue then the date listed (say “June 14” instead of “June 12”) back-copies can still be acquired. It seems relatively easy to confirm if this was printed.

    I’m appreciative for the exhaustive facts from books like “Was Michael Jackson Framed?: The Untold Story That Brought Down a Superstar” by Mary Fischer and “Michael Jackson Conspiracy” by Aphrodite Jones that we have at our disposal, as it helps us prove Michael’s innocence with information that “haters” or “naysayers” cannot dispute. The more verified sources of factual information we use the more we are foolproof against salacious stories about Michael. I’m grateful to see the interest in spreading the word about his innocence of those awful false allegations. Thank you for the work you do! Again, I hope this was of assistance in return.

    Like

  51. January 27, 2013 3:01 am

    “National Enquirer in 2004 always published weekly on Monday. The letters date is twice listed as “June 12, 2004″. However, June 12 in 2004 fell on a Saturday — which is a weekend, making it impossible for them to have published anything on that date….I hope this was of some help!” – Cole

    Well, this was of great help, actually. I didn’t notice how time flew while I was looking at the covers of all those National Enquirer magazines. Surprisingly, I came to exactly opposite conclusions than Cole did and from exactly the same links.

    However it is 3 a.m. here, so the earliest I will write about it will be tomorrow (evening).

    So long Cole and thank you for your help.

    Like

  52. shellywebstere permalink
    January 27, 2013 1:48 am

    What was interesting is the story of Kate Middleton in September in France. They filed criminal charges against the journalists. In france, the whole public supported them while on american website you had the public supporting the journalists.
    I just thought that some of the american public seemed so brainwashed by their tabloid that they can’t understand what is wrong and what is right.

    Like

  53. January 27, 2013 1:11 am

    “My point was more why someone who calls himself a journalist would even have a story on that. Why is it even legal in the US, it’s not about freedom of the press” -Shelly

    This is what in ancient times was called “testifying against themselves”.

    Like

  54. shellywebstere permalink
    January 27, 2013 12:04 am

    My point was more why someone who calls himself a journalist would even have a story on that. Why is it even legal in the US, it’s not about freedom of the press otherwise the US would not have such a bad result according to reporter without border.

    Of course the doctor in that video is an asshole.

    Like

  55. January 26, 2013 11:44 pm

    Michael’s friend, Dr. Barney Van Valin knows from Michael the story of Blanket but he would not tell, because he is a real doctor who is behaving in accordance with the ethics of his profession. And when he was asked about Blanket he refused to answer saying that this is something which Blanket should be the first to know:

    Like

  56. January 26, 2013 11:32 pm

    “I am always at how low the US tabloids are. Why do they want to know who is Blanket’s mother and why his birth certificate went to the media. Who cares about all of that?”

    Shelly, I had a brief look and found that the video is based on the Inside edition story dated July 8, 2009. It was the time when tabloids were the same crazy dogs as they had been during Michael’s life – hysterically screaming about tons of Xanax in his blood, etc. Later on, when the autopsy report showed that there were no narcotics in his system and he was a healthy man, they calmed down a little. So this tabloid story about Blanket is very much in line with all those initial screams.

    And the second thing I need to say, or rather ask after reading that Inside edition nonsense, is “Where are Dr.Schmidt and Dr.Castillo working now”? If they are really “fertility specialists” who had to do with that “surrogate conception” and then they disclosed this fact to the public they surely don’t work any longer in this or any other medical capacity, do they? Where are these “respectable doctors” now? Are they cleaning toilets or what?

    Quote:

    The following acts shall be regulated by law with penal provisions:

    – Offering and receiving sperms, eggs or embryos for profit-making purposes, or brokering such arrangements.
    – Performing medical treatment for the purpose of surrogate conception, or arranging such treatment.
    – Divulging confidential information concerning reproductive treatment using donor sperms, eggs or embryos acquired through the performance of one’s professional duty without good reason

    http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/wp/other/councils/00/3-2.html

    Like

  57. shellywebstere permalink
    January 26, 2013 9:49 pm

    ” Evidently Blanket was conceived thanks to a surrogate as confirmed by Dr. Schmidt (located in San Diego, CA) who was the fertility specialist. Her partner is Dr. Castillo, who also happens to be the OB/GYN who delivered Blanket at Grossmont Hospital in San Diego county (as confirmed via his birth certificate). Here’s a video (from ‪Inside Edition – July 8, 2009‬) for more information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOGyJ0O3GiY

    I am always at how low the US tabloids are. Why do they want to know who is Blanket’s mother and why his birth certificate went to the media. Who cares about all of that?

    Like

  58. Cole permalink
    January 26, 2013 7:36 am

    * Evidently Blanket was conceived thanks to a surrogate as confirmed by Dr. Schmidt (located in San Diego, CA) who was the fertility specialist. Her partner is Dr. Castillo, who also happens to be the OB/GYN who delivered Blanket at Grossmont Hospital in San Diego county (as confirmed via his birth certificate). Here’s a video (from ‪Inside Edition – July 8, 2009‬) for more information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOGyJ0O3GiY

    * Does anyone have a photo, scan, or .pdf of the original National Enquirer issue that this letter was reportedly published in? Via a website regarding back issues (http://backissues.com/publications/National-Enquirer-2004) we see that the National Enquirer in 2004 always published weekly on Monday. The letters date is twice listed as “June 12, 2004”. However, June 12 in 2004 fell on a Saturday (http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/monthly.html?year=2004&month=6&country=1) — which is a weekend, making it impossible for them to have published anything on that date.

    Thanks to archive.org’s “internet way back machine” we can see that the National Enquirer did used to have a discussion forum at one point called “Planet Tabloid”. Here are some links to see an archive of their index page (you can see “Planet Tabloid Discussion Forum” on the left hand side:

    a) http://wayback.archive.org/web/20030611072756/http://www.nationalenquirer.com/
    b) http://wayback.archive.org/web/20050101090352/http://www.nationalenquirer.com/

    And here is archive links of different dates to see the archive of the forum itself:

    c) http://wayback.archive.org/web/20030604203211/http://boards.nationalenquirer.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi
    d) http://wayback.archive.org/web/20041230010053/http://boards.nationalenquirer.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi

    If these links aren’t accessible, I’ve provided a couple screen captures:

    e)http://i.cubeupload.com/Fz8zVa.png
    f) http://i.cubeupload.com/h61Ny5.png

    I hope this was of some help!

    Like

  59. January 21, 2013 6:00 pm

    “It’s possible that Frank doesn’t know the whole truth, and it’s also possible Frank knows and does protect the true story from being revealed.”-

    Yes, Susanne, both variants are possible and both variants are perfectly okay.

    “I think we shouldn’t try to find out who this woman is as well as the other women in Michael’s life. Our only effort should be to determine how far this letter is credible and look for other ways to find that out.”

    Exactly!

    Like

  60. January 21, 2013 5:16 pm

    “It was in the later part of the interview that he changes the story and says that it is a surrogate. That is where all of the confusion come in but no one takes into account something very important. That part of the interview was filmed on January 14th, 2003. By that time Michael was becoming guarded about what he was saying to Bashir because he was beginning to discover that he was not being honest.” – lynande

    I absolutely agree. Michael was very much on his guard in the later parts of the interview with Bashir. He stopped smiling and changed his story accordingly. He already realized that something was wrong.

    Like

  61. lynande51 permalink
    January 21, 2013 6:32 am

    And it is not paying Debbie to have his children. They were legally married and California is a community property state. That means that Debbie would have been entitled to HALF of everything that Michael owned. That would have been much more than $4 million plus $900 thousand a year. She could have owned half of his half of the ATV catalogue and his own Mijac catalogue if she wanted to “sell” those kids. How stupid do people think we are anyway?

    Like

  62. lynande51 permalink
    January 21, 2013 6:26 am

    Personally I think it is time that either Debbie or the Jackson’s take charge of him and sue him if he doesn’t stop it. It is time for him to shut up. He knows nothing he is only trying to stay in the limelight and using MJ’s kids to do it. And to think he said he was concerned about Joe Jackson. Isn’t it just as abusive to keep subjecting MJ’s kids to his lies and nonsense?

    Like

  63. lynande51 permalink
    January 21, 2013 6:21 am

    Yes kaarin they do eliminate those with inherited disorders or diseases. That would eliminate our firend Klein who recently implied that he was Prince’s father on his Facebook page only to deniy that he posted it less than 24 hours later. He is currently in serious danger of losinghis license to practice. He has until the end of Febuary to comply with the findings of the Cal Med Board or lose his right to practice.
    Hasn’t anyone figured out yet that all of that mans posturing over the last 3 and a half years is to cover up what he did? Then all of his complaints about people stealing from him and bankrupting him is just a bunch of baloney. I think what he was actually trying to do was liquidate all of his holdings so he could leave the country.

    Like

  64. January 21, 2013 2:47 am

    Those who arrange for egg , sperm or surrogate parenthood, so to speak, take much more than looks into account.They need a complete medical history of the woman or man as well as a family history to exclude inheritable diseases .

    Like

  65. January 21, 2013 2:39 am

    Yes,I have also read that everything was clearly documented. It is vain to think that they will give out any information though.It is another thing if he had a relationship with the woman, she may as time passes speak out.I doubt that though.Sofar not even the hospital or clinic is known.I have a vague recollection that something about this was said a long time ago,

    Like

  66. lynande51 permalink
    January 21, 2013 2:28 am

    If everyone remebers the Bashir interview was when Michael revealed Blanket. He first told Bashir that he had a relationship with the mother when they were filming at Neverland which was done on July 30th, 2002. At the time he trusted Bashir to be honest and thought he was going ot help him.
    It was in the later part of the interview that he changes the story and says that it is a surrogate. That is where all of the confusion come in but no one takes into account something very important. That part of the interview was filmed on January 14th, 2003. By that time Michael was becoming guarded about what he was saying to Bashir because he was beginning to discover that he was not being honest.
    He had tried for several months to get the footage and was refused or stalled by Bashir every time. Michael was supposed to get the footage and be part of the editting because of the contract that they had not to show his childrens faces. In other words Michael was becoming suspicious of his motives.
    Michael agreed to the last meeting to fulfill his contractural obligations. But knowing that he was becoming suspicious which version is it? Is it that one frim the beginning when Michael was not guarding what he was saying or is the one from the end where he is suspicious of Bashir and what he was going to do.

    Like

  67. alinemj permalink
    January 20, 2013 11:14 pm

    For me it is very hard to understand this part of Michael’s life. I think he spoke the truth when he said he had an agreement with the mother of the child (the surrogate) who had a relationship (we know how Michael could be charming with a woman, we have evidence of several of them until today still passionate by him) he could have asked her to take her pregnancy, and we have another statement where he says he does not know the donor (he really should not know, he only saw a Catalogue), then we have two women.
    Frank’s book is very important, it humanizes Michael, but on the other hand, we know how Michael was private with the kids (teenagers).
    I had the feeling that Frank dropped all of Michael relations with women (do not know if it was jealousy) seemed, or that he was guarding the true side of Michael or he really did not know the whole truth.

    Like

  68. alinemj permalink
    January 20, 2013 10:46 pm

    there is a doctor who said he knew the whole truth about the history of Blanket.

    Like

  69. January 20, 2013 6:46 pm

    Also I don´t know if the women in that magazine were willing to be inseminated and the give their biologically own child away. They may have been willing to go through a pregnancy only, to a child not biologically theirs,.

    Like

  70. January 20, 2013 6:40 pm

    Now I am sure many of you know that the egg-donor and the surogate mother may not be the same.Like there are sperm donors there also are egg donors.The egg is then fertilized in vitro ( by the sperm). The sperm could be from the father to be ie Michael or not.
    Why he would not give his own, I don´t know, and he probably did. Then the woman who carried the fertilised egg, which was implanted in her womb, gives birth to a child that is not hers biologically. This is just the how things can be done, nothing about Michael. The child will biologically be related to the egg donor in the theoretical case described.I absolutely don´t know what the case was in re to Michael.

    Like

  71. Susannerb permalink*
    January 20, 2013 2:07 pm

    Helena, I had similar thoughts on the episode of the donor selection in Frank’s book. And I remember Raven of AFLB also wrote in her book review that it didn’t have to be necessarily the way Frank told it. Like we already said, what Michael told Frank has always to be taken with a grain of salt, because of his youth. It may well be possible that the both of them once flipped through pages of egg donors, but it may also be that things later turned out differently. And I still wonder how Wiesner then should know Blanket’s mother. If Frank’s story is true, who is this mother – the donor or the surrogate mother? It’s possible that Frank doesn’t know the whole truth, and it’s also possible Frank knows and does protect the true story from being revealed.
    I think as long as no documents are leaked, we will never know exactly. And that’s ok to me, ‘cause in the end it’s only Blanket’s right to know. I think we shouldn’t try to find out who this woman is as well as the other women in Michael’s life. Our only effort should be to determine how far this letter is credible and look for other ways to find that out.

    Like

  72. January 20, 2013 10:59 am

    That photo of Lisa Marie and MJ from 2002 is a photoshop, it’s really a photo of Lisa and Nicolas Cage. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltswkug6wm1r1ffmao2_500.jpg – lacienegasmiles

    Oh, thanks a lot! Now I will be on my guard. Michael’s fans sometimes do a disservice. I was misguided by the article about Nicolas Page. It says that LMP saw Michael regularly even 6 years after the divorce (which may be true).

    Like

  73. January 20, 2013 2:52 am

    That photo of Lisa Marie and MJ from 2002 is a photoshop, it’s really a photo of Lisa and Nicolas Cage.

    Like

  74. January 20, 2013 2:24 am

    “Has anyone even considered that most of what the media says about the kids parentage is in fact a ploy to get Blanket’s mother to come forward? It is the billion dollar question if answered or if the tabloids get the information first. Just think how many magazines that would sell, how long they would sell and what the “stories’ would be! Nothing is beyond the tabloids imagination and we know that.And they know that there is a very small group of people that are fully aware of who she is and how it came about and they are very secretive and protective of that information. The tabloids REALLY don’t like that.” -lynande

    I agree and that is why think that we should not even go into it. And never try to find out who this woman is. And you know – I don’t even rule out that Frank Cascio is sort of protecting this woman by keeping to the official version and intentionally telling the story of him and Michael leafing through the catalog and selecting a donor.

    “this letter was once presumed to be written by Wayne Nagin, Michael’s previous head of security after Bill Bray. He was with Michael from the mid eighties until he retired in 2001. At the time of this writing Bill Bray was no longer able to write due to advanced dementia”

    Oh, I see, so Bill Bray was suffering from dementia? And this is probably why he was laid off (and not to a “fallin out” as the media presented it). It could perfectly be Wayne Nagin who was no less close to Michael than Bill Bray. Frank says that when he was travelling with Michael as a boy, Nagin was always one step ahead of them, perfectly arranging things in the next place they were going to visit. Very efficient, reliable and also knowing all Michael’s secrets.

    Like

  75. January 20, 2013 2:07 am

    “when Frank wrote that, it showed how young he is, because , I thought that should have been left out. I still dont think he has a lot of maturity to understand MJ relationship with LMP. I also dont think MJ told him how he really felt about LMP either.” – nannorris

    The age difference between Michael and Frank was too big, so some things in his account were tainted by his teenager’s perception of the events and Michael’s general tendency to present serious matters as jokes.

    For example, in the ‘selection of the donor’ episode at the beginning of 2001 Michael was 42 while Frank must have been 19. Of course Frank was a great friend to Michael, but I still doubt that Michael would seek the advice of his young friend in so serious a matter and even go by it.

    As to Lisa Marie the fact that they kept seeing each other for so long speaks for itself. Michael’s confidant said that it was for sex only, but this was the way it must have looked on the outside, and we cannot also rule out that this was how Michael explained it to the confidant trying to conceal the fact that he was still infatuated with Lisa – he probably didn’t want to show his “weakness” for her, you know.

    The same with Lisa Marie – she hates anyone thinking that she simply could not cope with her love for Michael and for so long too. But facts are a stubborn thing. Do you remember that article about LMP and Nicolas Page? It says that even 6 years after the divorce Lisa Marie was regularly seeing Michael – at least once a month. Poor Nicolas was not even allowed to comment on it:

    Six years after her divorce from him, Lisa Marie Presley does have strong feelings for Michael Jackson – though probably not of the romantic variety.
    She speaks to him often and visits him at his Neverland home in California at least once a month.
    For Nicolas to even comment on the long-standing, albeit odd, relationship was not a good idea. Lisa Marie loathes it when others attempt to probe her psyche. ‘Stop trying to analyse me,’ she told him, angrily.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-150606/Did-The-King-destroy-Lisa-Maries-marriage.html

    Here is a photo of Lisa Marie and Michael admiring the baby Blanket born in 2002:

    P.S. Sorry, it turned out to be a photoshop! Lacienegasmiles corrected me.

    Like

  76. January 20, 2013 1:32 am

    “He felt he could only keep his relationships honest and real if they weren’t public”. – lacienegasmiles

    I absolutely agree. It even seems to me that we can speak of it being a rule with Michael – the more secret he was about some relationship, the more honest and real it was.

    Apparently there was so much publicity in his life that he simply locked his private life from everyone’s view into a sort of a closet. This makes me think that we should take his “In the closet” video literally.

    He was probably entering into a relationship with a woman only on condition that she respected his privacy in the same way he respected hers. It was like a deal based on the choice she was to make – “if you want us to be together you will have to keep silent, however if you value publicity more nothing will come of it”. And they chose him and the silence – not because it was some agreement on paper, but out of love and respect and longing to be with him.

    It always surprised me why all these women (even the fans who occasionally visited his bedroom as described by Frank) do not go on gossipy talk shows to discuss him and his intimate details, and now I am beginning to understand why – he treated them in so decent a way and they respect him so much, that they simply cannot break their promise even now, in memory and gratitude for the man he was.

    Like

  77. lynande51 permalink
    January 20, 2013 1:25 am

    Has anyone even considered that most of what the media says about the kids parentage is in fact a ploy to get Blanket’s mother to come forward? It is the billion dollar question if answered or if the tabloids get the information first. Just think how many magazines that would sell, how long they would sell and what the “stories’ would be! Nothing is beyond the tabloids imagination and we know that.And they know that there is a very small group of people that are fully aware of who she is and how it came about and they are very secretive and protective of that information. The tabloids REALLY don’t like that.
    I don’t need a crystal ball to tell me just what they would do to this young woman if she did come forward… just imagine what they would say about her. Then ask why it would even be worth it to come forward. Just because she hasn’t done it publicly doesn’t mean she hasn’t done it. It really irks the hater in this world too that they can’t belittle and bully this young woman.
    Surrogacy or no surrogacy there is a mother and they want her first so they can just add to the craziness that has surrounded what Dimond started.Actually she was not the one that started it, that was supplied by none other than Stacy Brown the minute that Prince was born. The funny thing is he uses the same supposed quote from Katherine, of all people, for both of Michael’s sons. I used to have the original article where “a family insider” quoted Katherine as saying ” that baby’s no Jackson, I know what a Jackson looks like and he aint one”. Now which one of us doesn’t know that comes straight from the mouth of Stacy Brown? He was always the one that wanted to point out the “color” of Michael’s kids as the reason that they weren’t his.
    Like i said in a previous comment, this letter was once presumed to be written by Wayne Nagin, Michael’s previous head of security after Bill Bray. He was with Michael from the mid eighties until he retired in 2001. At the time of this writing Bill Bray was no longer able to write due to advanced dementia. It was not Frank because Frank wold not have dared to break the gag order imposed during the trial and that is when it was written. It would not have been Chris Carter because he was in the middle of testifying FOR the prosecution in the grand jury. If it was someone other than Wayne then it was none other than Randy Jackson in my opinion.
    The blonde employee was Mary Coller, The woman from the sit com was from “Good Times”. The singer was probably Donna Summer she was all it in the 80’s but not so much since then. The Glenda tapes are him because the family has confirmed this since his death but they will not talk about it now like they refused to talk about it before. Mrs. Stein has confirmed this.

    Like

  78. January 20, 2013 1:03 am

    Susanne, thank you. It was a family event and wasn’t long. I’ve already read the whole chapter containing the episode with a donor mother, and found that for some reason I had never read it at all. It is chapter 16 and is one of the most heart-breaking parts which makes me realize again how great and honest Frank’s book is. His memories are precious. They portray Michael as a man and not an icon. However even as a man of flesh and blood he may still be an icon considering how much betrayal and suffering he had to go through.

    As to that episode with planning the third child and the way they were “selecting a donor”, even upon second reading it still doesn’t look to me just right. I feel a tinge of a joke about it.

    So they were leafing through the catalog of donors and Frank liked one girl, and showed her to Michael and first Michael was unimpressed but later agreed she was the one, and after that conversation Frank contacted the doctor for the ID of that girl and the matter was more or less settled? And some time later Frank was told that the donor mother was exactly the one he had once pointed out to Michael?

    Well, I am sorry but I cannot really believe that the whole thing – at least the way it is described – was serious enough. To me it sounds more like that fairy tale about an Arab Prince who was supposedly the reason why Michael married Lisa Marie. Again the same playing down of the seriousness of the decision and brushing it off as something secondary and being the matter of several hours only – while in reality it was one of Michael’s most serious decisions in life which required months and possibly years of thinking.

    To me the episode described looks like Michael only playing with the idea and only starting on a long-long road. And how do we know what happened after that episode? What if he met the girl and fell in love? No, the outline of the events is too vague for us to make any conclusions on the basis of what Frank said (and knew).

    The context for the episode is not quite clear either. Frank says that the leafing through the catalog took place when they were staying in San Francisco at the Four Seasons hotel. I tried to look up what else they were doing at the time, but didn’t find any mention of that hotel except in the next chapter (so a later point in time?) when Frank dressed Michael as an East Indian woman in a safari and in this attire, unrecognized by anyone, Michael went to some memorabilia sale together with Frank and David Gest. During the sale they made a joke on David Gest and Frank announced over the microphone, “David Gest, you dropped hair fifty-four in aisle three”. David was mad while Frank and Michael were cracking up.

    I hope the ‘selection of the donor mother’ took place in a more serious atmosphere, but if it took place in the circumstances like those described above I wouldn’t go by what Frank said at all. The chances of Michael just making a fool of himself and just toying with the idea are too big for us to really believe the story.

    Well, the story itself may be true, but it may have been only a start of a long road for Michael which he preferred not to disclose to Frank further. I think that the chances of the story reflecting the real situation are 50-50 or even less.

    Like

  79. January 20, 2013 12:14 am

    But this does not answer why even after being accused of liking lil boys he still did not want women coming out stating he was heterosexual and their lover.

    He was private.

    Even after 1993 he still kept his relationship with Lisa Marie a secret, didn’t tell everyone in his life about it, and he didn’t want to announce it either, it was Lisa Marie who did. MJ said he didn’t want that. After their divorce Lisa said MJ had told her to not talk about him in public.

    You’d think if it were a fake he could’ve exploited it that way, but he didn’t want that.

    It’s like Jodie Foster said about her own life, where she strived to find any sense of normalcy or truth and she felt she could only do that by keeping her life private, it’s just how it seems with MJ. He felt he could only keep his relationships honest and real if they weren’t public.

    Like

  80. nannorris permalink
    January 19, 2013 7:46 pm

    I had read that in Franks book also and had thought he gave too much info with that, because if you are a person who is the donor( if true ) , you may just recognize your own profile and your ethnic background…and put 2 plus 2 together..
    I tend to believe it , simply because I cant imagine MJ being in a relationship with a woman who loved him, and she hands over her baby to him , with no interaction, with the child, ,knowing you love the father.
    I thought that would make sense, to have an unknown woman, because someone who knew it was MJ , wouldn’t just leave imo..
    Plus, this person didnt show up when MJ died , to look after the child..
    Somewhere I read ,Debbie showed up and she returned to town , when Katherine was MIA in Az,,
    Because she is still Paris and Princes mother , even if she doesnt have custody…
    I thought when Frank wrote that , it showed how young he is, because , I thought that should have been left out.
    I still dont think he has a lot of maturity to understand MJ relationship with LMP
    I also dont think MJ told him how he really felt about LMP either..
    Even if he had closed his heart to her in the end, he still considered her part of his life , imo, talking about when he saw Elvis statue i the woods in Ireland, he referred to it as his father in law..

    Like

  81. Susannerb permalink*
    January 19, 2013 6:00 pm

    I forgot: I wish you a nice party! Take some time for yourself!

    Like

  82. January 19, 2013 5:59 pm

    Susanne, thank you very much. The first impression is that it may be anything. I’ll have to look into it later. Now I have time enough only to shut off my computer. Hope to be back later.

    Like

  83. Susannerb permalink*
    January 19, 2013 5:55 pm

    Sorry, Helena, I had to leave, but I’m back now. The quote from p. 230 is correct.
    The one from p. 201 is this one:

    “Though Michael had been deep in the making of his album, building his family always remained a top priority. I can’t say this often enough. Michael was a natural father, and he had always said he wanted ten kids. Debbie had had trouble during her pregnancy with Paris, so Michael sought an egg donor for his next child. Without Debbie as a familiar, willing volunteer, he resolved that his relationship with any prospective mother would be anonymous. I remember a day when he and I were in his suite at the Four Seasons, perusing a big binder full of pictures of potential donors. It was not unlike making our mind maps – flipping through pictures and imagining our future. The difference was that this choice was real, immediate, and serious. I flipped through the pages until the photo of one young woman caught my eye.
    “This is the one,” I said. I liked her eyes and her skin tone. She had beautiful black hair. The bio said that she was part Italian and part Spanish.
    “You just like her because she’s Italian,” Michael said, seeming to dismiss my choice. But there was more to her than her Italian roots. She sounded like someone Michael would like. Describing herself, she said, “I’m a positive person. I see the good in people. I’m not judgmental… I’m very spiritual, do awareness work, and read a ton of books.” I knew a match when I saw one, and ultimately she was the one he picked. He said, “Let’s do it,” and I called the doctor to give him the young woman’s donor ID number.
    Now, in the Florida hotel room, Michael was telling me that everything worked out. A surrogate mother was pregnant with Michael and the donor’s baby.”

    I as understand, the surrgate mother and the donor are not the same person. Is that correct?

    Like

  84. January 19, 2013 3:12 pm

    “It’s true, Helena. It’s on page 201 in Frank’s book. And also on p. 230 he tells that his mother (Frank’s) went to NL for Blanket’s birth to pick up the baby from the surrogate’s representative at a hotel together with Michael.”

    Susanne, please help me to find it. I am in a hurry as the guests are arriving in two hours. I have a copy of Frank’s book with no pages in it. The piece about picking up the baby has been found but the first one you mention has not. Could you provide the exact quote please?

    The second one (p.230) should be this one:

    “In February 2002, my parents went to Neverland for Blanket’s birth and Prince’s fifth birthday. My mother was with Michael when he picked up the baby from the surrogate’s representative at a hotel. They brought baby Prince Michael Jackson II back to Neverland on a private luxury bus.”

    Can anyone provide the first quote too?

    Like

  85. Susannerb permalink*
    January 19, 2013 2:10 pm

    It’s true, Helena. It’s on page 201 in Frank’s book. And also on p. 230 he tells that his mother (Frank’s) went to NL for Blanket’s birth to pick up the baby from the surrogate’s representative at a hotel together with Michael.

    Like

  86. January 19, 2013 1:49 pm

    “Also, the letter was never published in the National Enquirer magazine – the letter was posted on the Enquirer website message board.” – forreal

    I didn’t get this impression from all the discussion of the people who saw it in the magazine (I myself didn’t of course). But I did try to find the letter on the Internet version of the National Enquirer and found that such a version simply does not exist. All you can find is the cover of the magazine.

    And you know what? There is no website message board either.

    However I am backward in internet technical matters and probably just overlooked, so in case you find the Enquirer website message board, please post a link to it, okay?

    Like

  87. January 19, 2013 1:41 pm

    “Frank said he was there with Michael when he selected the surrogate.” – forreal

    WHAT?? Forreal, please tell me in which part of Frank’s book you’ve seen it. I don’t remember any such statements.

    P.S. Sorry for being away. My Internet was not working.

    Like

  88. katina permalink
    January 19, 2013 12:51 pm

    I think the blonde that worked for MJ could have been Raymone Bain ?? I am just glad to see he was getting it in. But this does not answer why even after being accused of liking lil boys he still did not want women coming out stating he was heterosexual and their lover.

    Like

  89. forreal permalink
    January 18, 2013 1:41 pm

    Personally, I feel the letter was written by a fan…

    Also, the letter was never published in the National Enquirer magazine – the letter was posted on the Enquirer website message board.

    Anyone can say anything on the internet so without solid proof, it is hard to know what is true and what isn’t.

    Also, the part about Blanket’s mother doesn’t add up because Frank Cascio revealed in his book that Blanket’s mother is a Spanish/Italian surrogate who Michael wasn’t involved with. Frank said he was there with Michael when he selected the surrogate.

    Like

  90. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    January 17, 2013 9:34 am

    Sometimes I think these ladies may be ‘composits’ of one or two women when Michael speaks of them — one of the ways he could keep things murky. Melissa is described as a coordiator in the Dangerous Tour. Tatiana was a model.

    Like

  91. January 16, 2013 3:28 am

    1. Does anyone believe Mike had anything to do with the release of the Glenda tapes since they are censored(names blocked out and missing info)? Why would anyone but MJ care if we knew details?

    The tapes are edited in places, like when some names and info relating to the Steins is spoken about. The tapes were clearly recorded from the Stein’s end, as you can hear a call waiting on one tape and a woman answers and asks for Sam and he tells her to wait a second. It’s also very very very grainy quality whenever the Sam stuff comes up, which to me makes it sound like Sam was aware he was taping MJ and didn’t want his own voice to show up so clearly.

    It doesn’t seem like Glenda was happy about the tapes being released or sold, so perhaps they were edited because the person selling them didn’t want to make her too upset with revealing all of MJ’s personal info.

    But no, I definitely don’t believe MJ had anything to do with them.

    2. Who is Melissa and is Tatianna mentioned on Glenda tapes

    She’s described as being someone who was helping co-ordinate the Dangerous World Tour and was supposed to go tour with them then too, but then doesn’t for some reason. She’s also described as a model. Nobody’s ever claimed to know who she is. He talks about something having happened between them, and he goes and meets up with her in disguise it sounds, with a towel over his face (I’m guessing one of his Sheikh outfits), and they talk about their relationship, “Well, I’m gonna be with her”. That was in May 1992, because he was rehearsing for the DWT on those tapes and that’s when he rehearsed for it.

    He mentions Tate/Tatum O’Neal.

    Like

  92. January 16, 2013 2:09 am

    “Kit said he was the Pied Piper and Peter Pan all in one.” – katina

    Katina, I’ve never known about Pied Piper and looked it up after you and J.Mason mentioned it. Here is a piece by Kit Culkin about both P.P. Frankly I didn’t understand much of it – probably it is too late here for reading difficult things like that. I’ll read it tomorrow morning, while this piece is for the rest of you:

    The image of Michael, and certainly the image that he had of himself, was (as all the world probably knows) that of Peter Pan, the boy who refused to grow up, preferring (as he ever does) to live always in Never Never Land with The Lost Boys. James M. Barrie, the character’s creator, in the naming rather obviously intended him to embody a certain pastoral ideal (forests and pastures and shepherds and flocks), although I always thought the moniker (however suppressed in the Victorian psyche) to have a certain salacious ring to it (Peter being a near-vulgarism for the male genitalia, and Pan the embodiment of a half-man, half-animal creature with goat feet and horns). Certainly Michael accepted Barrie’s quite innocent intention and (from all that I could ever observe of him) probably never gave so much as a second’s thought to such as my rather lewd and jaundiced view; he being way too proper and prim for such a cognizance. Paintings of Michael as Peter
    by artists from all over the world (“gifts”, I was made to understand) all but littered Neverland. Peter was Michael’s persona, his alter-ego, his other-self, his whatever-you- may-wish-to-name-it. Michael himself would tell you that he was Peter Pan, and one look about Neverland was usually enough to tell one that he really meant it. Indeed, the character’s image was emblazoned on everything from the bar soap to the stationary to the little gift bags that Michael would often gift to visitors.

    But if Peter was the light side to Michael, then there was a darker persona, a darker alter-ego, a darker other-self, a darker whatever-you-wish-to-name-it to Michael as well; one that was also portrayed in gifted paintings that perfectly cluttered his estate. Concomitant to Peter Pan (and yet keeping to the initials), this was the figure from a medieval German folk tale (popularized in the nineteenth century by Robert Browning) known as The Pied Piper of Hamelin; a fellow who perfectly mesmerized children with his pipe playing, and thereby lead them away from the homes of their deceitful and cheating parents. Peter and The Piper: One must admit that they are both of them certainly interesting images for Michael to have adopted. Just as Peter Pan is construed by many to be a fellow who is (as we like to say) “a bit light in the loafers”, so too (and in similar fashion) is The Pied Piper construed as someone a bit more ominous and even sinister; and if one but look to one’s Webster’s one will find him described as “a person who induces others to follow him, especially by means of false and extravagant
    promises” (Yes, a bit more ominous, even sinister, indeed!). Put the two of them together and you have a connotation that, I highly suspect, Michael never for so much as a
    moment thought of or dreamed on at the time when I first met him, but which subsequent events (events which most all of the known world would come to hear of) most certainly must have brought him to contemplate; certainly to contemplate as much as he is able.

    I still remember a couple of things that Michael had to say to me about a year or two following my first coming to know him. The first had to do with the possibility of his one day having children of his own. I may have been the one to put the question, or to
    openly wonder, simply out of a general interest as to what he would have to say (I can no longer remember), but I do recall his telling me that he was thinking of getting married, and his adding (almost furtively) that he actually had someone in mind. I recall further that in my own mind-my-own-business sort of way (New Yorker as I can never help but be) I didn’t take the bait and ask, “Who?”; but even if I had, I rather suspect that he wouldn’t have confided in me (although I could be wrong), preferring to keep it all a secret and a bit of a game. I remembered this a year or so later when it was announced that he was going to marry the daughter of Elvis Presley. As to the other thing that Michael had to say, this was a bit more ominous (and there are things a bit more ominous than marriage, I suppose; although there be times when it is difficult to remember exactly what they be).

    “I want you to know,” he said, “that there are some bad people out there who are going to be saying some bad things about me.”

    Again the mind-my-own-business New Yorker that I ever am would not allow my inquiring, and in looking back at it perhaps Michael was this time all but asking me to ask him; but I didn’t. Instead, I simply nodded.

    “I just want you to know that they aren’t true,” he continued with emphasis.

    I remember that I simply looked at him and he at me, and that following only a moment’s pause I merely nodded again; letting him know that I would not forget that he had said this to me.

    And such was all that ever passed between us on the subject.

    Like

  93. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    January 16, 2013 12:47 am

    The Pied Piper was hired by the people of Hamlin to dispose of their rat infestation. He did his job, but was not paid. So, he waited until the adults were gathered in church and lured all the little children with his flute to a cave where they were never seen again.

    Like

  94. Rodrigo permalink
    January 16, 2013 12:20 am

    I don’t think he meant it in a sinister regard. I just don’t like Michael being compared with the pied piper lol

    Like

  95. Truth Prevail permalink
    January 16, 2013 12:06 am

    “I will understand better who he was. Kit said he was the Pied Piper and Peter Pan all in one.”

    Wow the Pied Piper was a real bad guy who apparently lured children away and they never came back Kit is obviously gone overbaord.

    Like

  96. aldebaranredstar permalink
    January 15, 2013 11:50 pm

    David Hans Schmidt was a broker, esp.in sex videos, had something to do with the Glenda tapes– I have read he was involved. He was a guy who also was involved in getting the Gennifer Flowers story about Bill Clinton out in the media. He tried to extort Tom Cruise and was put under house arrest where he committed suicide.

    Like

  97. katina permalink
    January 15, 2013 3:21 pm

    I have two questions:
    1. Does anyone believe Mike had anything to do with the release of the Glenda tapes since they are censored(names blocked out and missing info)? Why would anyone but MJ care if we knew details?
    2. Who is Melissa and is Tatianna mentioned on Glenda tapes?
    I have always noticed the chemistry between Dianna Ross and Michael was more than just friendly. I always figured she was his first and broke his heart. Thanks for this post as it is so interesting and I have learned some new tidbits. I am so intrigued by Mike and the dichotomy of his personality. On one hand he is Peter Pan, shy and embarrassed by sex and on stage he is so sexy. That is what makes me want to study him because he was such a mystery. I have been reading Culkin’s book and although I think he is rough on MJ it is interesting to hear these contrast and different perspectives on who people thought MJ was. Maybe if I hear enough people’s descriptions I will understand better who he was. Kit said he was the Pied Piper and Peter Pan all in one.

    I want to know more about June Chandler going out with Michael.

    Like

  98. aldebaranredstar permalink
    January 15, 2013 1:20 am

    Just to remind people that Willa Stillwater’s book “M Poetica” is available for free through today from Amazon. It is an ebook. After you ‘buy’ it you can see it and read it on your computer. She has some very interesting comments to make about the Chandlers and the 93 and 05 cases.

    Like

  99. January 14, 2013 3:57 pm

    VMJ, thank you for the pic.s and the info about the demonstrations.Apparently you had quite some success. The pics were great and the news reported on it here.That is what is important.The more people abroad, that is outside Russia, get to know about the resistance to P the better.So, congratulations and good luck for future events in the same spirit.
    Rodrigo, I fully agree with you, it is not apprprpriate to ask any celebrity to tell the public on TV about their sexual orientation. It should be a rule that this question will never be answered.

    Like

  100. Rodrigo permalink
    January 14, 2013 10:34 am

    I like Jodie Foster’s speech from the Golden Globe awards. It was more of a confirmation about her being gay, but she at least understand the concept of an early childhood in the spotlight and what it feels like.

    “But now, apparently I’m told, that every celebrity is expected to honour the details of their private life with a press conference, a fragrance and a primetime reality show… “I’m sorry, that’s just not me and it never will be.

    if you had been a public figure since the time you were a toddler.
    If you had to fight for a life that felt real and honest and normal, then maybe then too you’d value privacy about all else.

    “Someday in the future, people will look back and remember how beautiful it once was. I have given everything up there since the time that I was three years old and that’s a reality show enough, don’t you think.”

    Like

  101. January 13, 2013 6:07 pm

    VMJ, today is the day for your demonstrations. I hope you have some impact and that the weather was the best possible.I don´t know if there will be anything on the news about it. Hope to hear from you how it went.It is alright with people here with russian immigrants. We have people from all over, China.Chile(from back of the Pinochet days) Somalia and other African countries.There is no ill will against Russian mothers ,why pick on them?. What is unpleasant is the hostile rumblings from the eastern neighbour.That is why you and the ones demostating with you matter.I know from my own life that you have to obey the laws of the country you are domociled in.And I know from my own expierience that at times that means difficulties you have not foreseen.And the law also(here) includes informing re appeals,all the way to the supreme court.P´s dictatorial ways are of real concern.

    Like

  102. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    January 13, 2013 9:43 am

    Big difference between the Cascio Family and the Chandler and Arviso families. The Cascios are NOT dysfunctional, nor are they greedy, craven, backstabbing pirahna. They ‘gave’ to Michael instead of ‘took’ from him, and provided a stable loving family environment for him and his own children. They did not seek publicity even though their son, Frank, was a friend and employee of Michael Jackson for many years.

    Like

  103. aldebaranredstar permalink
    January 13, 2013 5:51 am

    VMJ, I don’t see how you go from he did not attend any other function to he could not attend any other function. I did read that in the testimony and to me it confirmed only that there were other functions that he did not go to, which actually confirms that he chose not to go to a dinner rather than refutes it.

    I am not clear on the various activities you are involved in but please be careful and if it is ao cold, wrap yourself up well!!

    I wanted to say also that I think Michael was desperate for a warm, loving family and that’s why he surrounded himself with various families along the way. Perhaps the Cascios were the best fit for him? Big mistake, though, with the Chandlers. They were not warm and loving at all, just users and takers.

    Like

  104. January 12, 2013 6:42 pm

    “I can understand that Michael wanted the kids to have a great view and maybe in the 2nd row, Lily would have had trouble seeing it all. On the other hand, the performers were on a raised stage, so maybe the 2nd row seats were perfect for seeing everything. IMO in light of what happened, that was a huge mistake b/c it was flaunting the relationship in front of the world.”- aldebaranredstar

    If Michael had known what it would end up with he would have never done it. All of us are clever in hindsight.

    But there was still a reason why he changed their seats. First, he wanted the children to have a better view, that’s for sure. But the second reason is that he could be inviting the world to meet his new family, sort of introducing them and putting them out of the shade into the limelight. Why have we never thought about it?

    The fact that he didn’t leave them in the hotel but took them to the ceremony and then the state dinner with Prince Albert also shows the importance he was attaching to this particular family. They could be very special to him. As far as I know not even the Cascios were treated in a similar manner, though Michael truly regarded them as his second family.

    If someone thinks that Michael was doing it for the sake of Jordan, I will ask them a question – Why didn’t he take only Jordan with him then? Did you ever see any other parents of the boys beside Michael? Any pictures of them at any official ceremonies? The parents of Omer Bhatti, for example, or even Frank Cascio’s mother or father? The answer is NEVER did you see those parents. It was ONLY June Chandler for whom the exception was made.

    Why?

    Look at this glamorous woman (she is in white). Jordan and Lily are in front of her. Michael is on stage. By the way if June Chandler had been sitting by Michael’s side the whole world would have immediately exploded gossiping about her and Michael (and this is probably why she was placed in the second row):

    Like

  105. January 13, 2013 1:36 am

    This case was news in November 2012. Then the appropriate officials on both sides met and the news stopped.It was said that Sergei Lavrov had been given false information.
    I can assure you that Russian parents are not targeted.The system may have ,and probably does, it´s weaknesses, but that is so for everybody.-Having had a lot to do about this kind of things in NYC I know people ,or families who gets involved have strong and often negative feelings.-I found a list of 5 lies(don´t know if those were the ones S.Lavrov heard
    or was told). They were all refuted. Also what is unknown is weather this is a temporary situation, is it a divorce case or not.I don´t know the ethnic or national background of the father.

    Like

  106. January 13, 2013 12:50 am

    “And beware propaganda on TV and in Pravda.”

    Kaarin, I haven’t watched TV for several years now, and the last time I took the newspaper Pravda in my hands was 30 years ago. You may be interested to know that at the time it was more or less obligatory to subscribe to this newspaper as it was an outward sign of loyalty which everyone had to keep to if they didn’t want to get odd looks from others or have to answer questions. The younger generation now has no idea what it was like.

    Please don’t get stuck on this point. I’m keeping an open mind and am simply waiting for the situation to clarify one day. As regards propaganda you may be sure that I try to be vigilant. This is the constant thrill and training session I live in.

    Therefore it was even funny for me to see how easily those tabloids cheated everyone in respect of Jackson. When there were so many contradicting points within one story I couldn’t even believe that someone could find those stories believable. This is how this vindication work started at all, with questions like “Have you seen this and that in one and the same story?”

    Like

  107. January 12, 2013 11:48 pm

    This person seriously claims, among other strange facts,that Anna Politkovskaya arranged herself for her own murder. How this supposedly happened I don´t know.

    Like

  108. January 12, 2013 11:37 pm

    VMJ, I am sure that number is greatly exaggerated and I mean greatly so.I will try to find out how many children overall have been taken from their mothers. Neither has this mother been separated from her baby. Nor is she imprisoned. I don´t know all the details about the case as family and child protection issues are confidential. But that person I referred to would for sure have touted this to the whole country. As far as I know she has been in a sc safehouse for women who need to be away from spousal abuse. She can come and go as she likes. Now I don´t even know if this is a case of possible divorce or not.Just that there is a crazy pro Putin finn(he is the son of one of the rihcest families in Finland,which makes this stranger still) involved. I advice you not to come to any conclusions yet.He is nuts and will say anything to play up to Putin.He has desperately tried to create a political career for himself here, has taken part in all possible elections,but never got many votes.
    Now he has found a niche in Putins armpit and that explains his actions.I know that the appropriate officials from both sides have had meetings to iron out problems around this case.Just keep in mind that this is 100% pro Putin propaganda at present.There is nothing that can be done on our part re his propaganda.This person does not have to work for a living,he has all the money and time for his personal ambition.-There was a lot here too about this latest case.but now no news. They must have come to some agrement. I cant recall the name of your minister in charge of this kind of affairs, but he and our Maria Guzenina have been conferring.If it really was 100 we sure would also know.The reason this person is so strangely active and ambitious is,I think, a case of a psychological father complex. As you or your mother may know, if a father has been very successful ,the son needs somehow to rebell(at times) to create his own identity and wealth or fame.—-
    Then ,sorry for mixing teeth into a discussion about Michaels Love affairs, but the idea sprung from uncle Ray talking about that real or imaginary dental proceedure on the vid.clip.
    I wish you and those with you success tomorrow, and so do most people here. I know you now have been banned from the streets and have to stick to 2 parks. But dont give up.
    the eyes of the world is on you.And beware propaganda on TV and in Pravda.

    Like

  109. January 12, 2013 11:06 pm

    “The testimony says Michael and the Chandlers attended a general reception, but that is different from a more private dinner, so they are not mutually exclusive.”

    Aldebaran, but Bob Jones says in the testimony that Michael attended only one event out of several the Prince hosted, so it means that Michael could not attend any other private dinner:

    28 A. Of course, His Royal Highness Prince Albert 5553
    1 hosted a reception for visiting dignitaries, and I
    2 was — he had an event — when you go there, they
    3 have an event each night for visiting dignitaries.
    4 And there was only one event that Mr. Jackson
    5 attended.

    Like

  110. aldebaranredstar permalink
    January 12, 2013 10:23 pm

    About the dinner in Monaco with the royal family, from what I read it was not a general reception but a more intimate dinner planned, but Michael refused the invitation b/c the Chandlers weren’t invited. (When I read this, I did not make a note of the source as at the time I did not see it as important.) So if anyone has more info on this, it would be appreciated. Michael was there from the 9th to the 13, and the awards themselves were on the 12th, so there was time for a reception and a dinner. Adrian Grant says Michael did meet with the Prince at a restaurant where they chatted for 45 min. but Michael did not eat 9page 162). The testimony says Michael and the Chandlers attended a general reception, but that is different from a more private dinner, so they are not mutually exclusive. Maybe both were planned, seems likely to me, and Michael only attended the reception.

    Like

  111. January 12, 2013 9:13 pm

    “At the bottom of this is blackmailing other coutries so Russians will not dare leave Russia. He is concerned over excessive emigration.”

    Kaarin, I know. This is what I myself thought when I first heard about the law forbidding adoption by foreigners. After P’s return to power the emigration soared. It isn’t very noticeable in official figures because people who left settled down in homes they had bought abroad and they often do not declare their intention to stay for good.

    But if children are taken away from Russian families or mothers (for whatever reason) this is a perfect way to curb the emigration in a natural way. People will simply be afraid to go. Not only do they find themselves in a different country where no one is waiting for them, but they are facing the danger of children taken away from them too.

    Of course our media may lie and lie excessively about it – at the moment they report that the number of children taken away from Russian mothers in Finland is over 100. If this is indeed the case this figure cannot be easily shrugged off. I have no doubt that the Finnish system of education and medical care is perfect, but why should mothers and children be stripped of their right to be together is beyond me. I cannot imagine that all these women are alcoholics or drug-addicts. From my more than 50 years life experience among my acquaintances and former colleagues there was only one who more or less qualified for it. But she was young and had no children.

    Incidentally tomorrow there will be a march against the law forbidding foreign adoption. I am planning to go though it is minus 12. The frost will probably hamper many, though generally it is mostly the feeling that no matter how hard you try they will still ignore you. So how many people will go out I have no idea.

    P.S.

    Actually the above theme was raised because at some point I realised that Michael lived the life which is very close to that of our orphans. Everything we know about him fits into the behavior of orphans raised in children’s homes, almost to the letter of it. Isolation from the outside world and a great craving to see what family life is like. Staying in the crowd with no privacy whatsoever, which results in both terrible loneliness and total inability to stay alone. No one personally attached to them and therefore no individual relationships formed with anyone at all.

    Even if the “children’s home” is good and the caretakes are kind and caring, the orphans still don’t know what a family life is like – and hence their inability to form a stable relationship with anyone on an individual basis. They are best in a crowd – this is their natural environment. Look at Michael and him living on stage only, as he himself said. He said he even wanted to die on stage. The moment he stepped off the stage he was lost.

    Orphans have no role models to follow. They see the lives of families only from the outside – what’s happening inside the families they have no idea. It is like standing in the street and looking at a bright shop window trying to imagine what glamorous things are inside and never having a chance to enter.

    These children use the patterns of their behavior they developed in the crowd to their individual spouses. And what is it like to live in a crowd? You don’t like someone, so you get up and leave – the person is a nobody to you. And in a family you need to adjust, work and be patient, which they cannot. This was very close to Michael’s pattern of behavior, probably even with Lisa-Marie. He tried hard, but how could he if he never saw any role models for a loving relationship within a family? And what he saw was the exact opposite to it?

    Like

  112. shellywebstere permalink
    January 12, 2013 9:11 pm

    Judging by differents reports Finland is one of the best country in the world.

    Like

  113. January 12, 2013 9:01 pm

    As for education,look up OECD, press home, and countries.Since we joined the eu things have gotten worse and worse.

    Like

  114. January 12, 2013 8:04 pm

    see Wikipedia:List of countries by infant mortality rate.That is mortality /1000 live births.
    I got Finland 3.4- US 6.0-Russia 7.3. Another chart showed Russia 9.88, I don´t know why the difference.The World 42.35.

    Like

  115. January 12, 2013 6:18 pm

    “I read that Michael refused a state dinner b/c the Chandler guests had not been invited. Later he agreed to go by himself to dine with the Prince but he didn’t eat anything. I just don’t think this was polite behavior. Why couldn’t he go to a State dinner without the Chandler guests?” – aldebaranredstar

    This is what happens if we read tabloids and don’t verify facts. The Chandlers did go to that dinner together with Michael and Bob Jones even said that all Michael’s guests were invited to it (the Chandlers were Michael’s only guests). Bob Jones, the PR man, didn’t know anything about that tabloid story. Here is his testimony at the 2005 trial:

    26 Q. Okay. Do you recall attending any other
    27 events with Mr. Jackson on the trip to Monaco?
    28 A. Of course, His Royal Highness Prince Albert 5553
    1 hosted a reception for visiting dignitaries, and I
    2 was — he had an event — when you go there, they
    3 have an event each night for visiting dignitaries.
    4 And there was only one event that Mr. Jackson
    5 attended.
    6 Q. And do you recall whether or not the
    7 Chandler family were at that event?
    8 A. They were with him.
    9 Q. And that was because Michael insisted that
    10 the Chandler family go?
    11 A. I don’t know whether he insisted whether
    12 they attend or not.
    13 Q. Okay.
    14 A. But all of his guests were invited.
    15 Q. Okay. Were there any other guests of
    16 Michael Jackson that you haven’t named?
    17 A. No, just the Chandler family.

    So June was introduced to the royalty!
    This is how far it went.

    Like

  116. January 12, 2013 6:12 pm

    “Jordan wasn’t sat on Michael’s lap, it was between his legs on the edge of the seat.” – Rodrigo

    No doubt about it. The person sitting on your lap will sway together with you if you move to the music. And Michael was almost dancing to the rhythm, while Jordan was absolutely still. This was possible only if Michael was sitting apart from him and was not even touching him!

    Like

  117. January 12, 2013 6:09 pm

    “It is no wonder that he could have been at great risk during the London concert. Well, he was indeed, as he collapsed. The heart and brain needs enough blood with enough pressure to function. Also the brain needs a constant and necessary amount of glucose to fuction.”

    Kaarin, your explanation about dehydration was very helpful. Now it is more than clear that Michael did need a doctor during the concerts. Probably not all singers do, but those who sing and dance, and dance like Michael, are similar to athletes at the Olympics who also need medical monitoring. And athletes by the way do not perform 3 hours non-stop!

    So let us not allow the media (or AEG) tell us that if Michael was healthy he didn’t need a doctor to accompany him to London. He did need him and very much indeed. This is probably why doctors always went on tour together with Michael. We surely underestimated the factor of dehydration.

    Like

  118. January 12, 2013 5:56 pm

    Putin and his party and cronies have started a full fledged anti-Finland propaganda, among other things a running TV series of a Finnish family showing Finnish people as being some of the worst on the planet. I hope to find some statistics on the health of Finnish children and their school performance. They always score on the top in many if not most subjects in the international Pisa-tests given in most nations every year.There has been requests from many counties ,among them many Arabic, who have requested the type of teaching used in finnish schools.
    Putin is concerned over the diminishing population in Russia. Here, open any page somewhat related to Russia and you will for sure see ads for Russian brides for finnish men.

    Like

  119. January 12, 2013 4:38 pm

    Dehydration can be a very serious thing as blood volume naturally also shrinks and blood pressure goes down. There is another factor in MJ`s practises that could put him at risk. Anyboby who is involved in serious sports, or knows about the preparations for competitions, know that athletes tank up on glycogen in the liver prior to the event.
    It is no good to do heavy athletics on a full stomach, but the body needs fuels for the performance. That is why athletes “tank up” a day or 2 before the performance by consuming carbohydrates.A nd Michael even used to fast on Sundays, don´t know if he did it consistently. This was also a fact that Murray paid no attention to.
    A relative of mine was recently hospitalised when his bloodpressure had gone down to 70/? and was immediately put on iv solutions. Once I myself was almost hospitalised for the same reason as I had lost fluids due to a GI condition. I got off by accepting to drink the correct salt solution by mouth in great volumes. Michael´s hours long performances can well be compared to athletics.
    It is no wonder that he could have been at great risk during the London concert. Well, he was indeed, as he collapsed. The heart and brain needs enough blood with enough pressure to function. Also the brain needs a constant and necessary amount of glucose to fuction.
    Just about everybody knows that an od of insulin brings down blood glucose to a life threatening level. This, insulin, has been used in homicicides, and it works by lowering blood glucose.

    Like

  120. Rodrigo permalink
    January 12, 2013 10:48 am

    Jordan wasn’t sat on Michael’s lap, it was between his legs on the edge of the seat. Lily was sat on his knee throughout the night.

    Like

  121. nannorris permalink
    January 12, 2013 8:23 am

    Maybe MJ wanted them to attend that state dinner because June was disappointed..Surely the children could have cared less..Maybe he just wanted June to know that he was proud to be seen with them..

    I think Bob Jones said at one time that he didnt feel it was the place for children, so maybe that made MJ feel all the more like taking them….
    As far as JC sharing the chair with him, I suppose MJ didnt think there was any harm to it, since he is doing it on tv,,and Lily is on someones elses lap..Seems like he wanted to give the kids equal status or something, but there was nothing wrong with the 2nd row…a mistake on his part, for sure..
    I didnt know Evan was that old also..I wonder if she thought he was a successful dentist when she married him.For someone who liked the good life, she didnt chose very smart..

    Like

  122. alinemj permalink
    January 12, 2013 7:26 am

    I would like some help to you guys. There is a photo that I can not find anywhere, the four with casual clothes, in a high place, they were looking down (looks to fans of Michael), they seemed very happy, I wanted more information about this photo, if anyone has, I’d love to know.

    Like

  123. January 12, 2013 6:56 am

    Evan was born in 1944, he was an older man to June too.

    Like

  124. aldebaranredstar permalink
    January 12, 2013 6:48 am

    BTW, Michael had a tendency to become dehydrated when stressed. This happened during the trial as well. Dick Gregory drove him to the hospital, where they gave him intravenous fluids for 12 hours (or more) and said if he had not gone in that day he would have died. I think during the HBO special he was just too exhausted and stressed and LMP didn’t help. He said when stressed he would not eat or drink.

    Like

  125. aldebaranredstar permalink
    January 12, 2013 6:43 am

    About the invitations to the State dinner, I don’t know the details of how many were invited. But I have had the experience of giving a party, and I plan how many people I can have, how much food, how many chairs do I need for everyone, and it happened after my careful planning that 2 extra people were invited by other guests without my knowledge and they just showed up the night of the party, and I myself did not have a chair to sit down on b/c I had to give it to them and had no chairs left. So I had to stand. This was to me very rude. Now, Prince of Monaco is probably a formal man, and sponsors the World Music Awards, which was giving Michael the award. So for Michael to insist that 3 extra guests must be included or he won’t attend the State dinner to me is rude. I am not saying of course that it makes him a bad person, just that this was a mistake on his part and I do NOT get why the Chandlers were so important to him given that he had barely started this friendship in mid-Feb., and is doing these things in Monaco in early May. It would help to explain it, maybe, if he was madly in love with June, but I really doubt that from what I know so far. Maybe he was just so eager to find a family and be part of it that he threw caution and good sense to the winds? When did he get involved with the Cascios?

    Like

  126. aldebaranredstar permalink
    January 12, 2013 6:27 am

    Thanks for the videos of Michael’s collapse and LMP’s separation date. She was somehow convinced that the reason he collapsed was drugs, even though the doctors denied it. It was also strange that he was so ill, and was actually near death when he arrived, and yet as someone who supposedly loved him, what does she do? Gets into a huge argument with him and officially ends the marriage, which, as we saw in the video, just gave the press more fodder for their ‘failing pop star’ garbage. This is one reason why I can’t stand her, even though she had a better view of him after he died (finally!!).

    To someone looking at the WMA in Monaco on TV, it certainly looks like Jordan is sitting on MJ’s lap, and he might have been on his lap part of the time (?). I can understand that Michael wanted the kids to have a great view and maybe in the 2nd row, Lily would have had trouble seeing it all. On the other hand, the performers were on a raised stage, so maybe the 2nd row seats were perfect for seeing everything. IMO in light of what happened, that was a huge mistake b/c it was flaunting the relationship in front of the world. If June had been in front as well, it might have been better (?). Frankly, I don’t think it was appropriate or necessary or considerate of his hosts. I read that Michael refused a state dinner b/c the Chandler guests had not been invited. Later he agreed to go by himself to dine with the Prince but he didn’t eat anything. I just don’t think this was polite behavior. Why couldn’t he go to a State dinner without the Chandler guests? Yes, of course they can and should attend the Award ceremony as his guests, but at a State dinner as well?

    Michael was doing something very risky, and yet was it so necessary? He paid a huge price for it.

    BTW, I read today that the U.K. Savile investigation revealed he molested hundreds of kids and raped 34. This is a real pedo. And they didn’t investigate for 12 years a la Sneddon to find those victims. Sneddon had to invent victims!

    Like

  127. nannorris permalink
    January 12, 2013 6:13 am

    Helena, I think you do a great job and I get so much info out of here, Even the comments are full of info, or interesting opinions.
    There is so much more to all this stuff, then I ever thought ..
    Thank you for all you do.:)).

    As far as MJ staying at the Chandlers house……I think,…… it was soon , after,… their long intense conversation in Vegas about how June was afraid she couldnt put her trust in another man, that MJ made the effort to show up at her house , have dinner with HER and her kids , help HER son with homework because about this time in her life, she is like a single parent ,or trying to give him that impression, struggling with her two children , financial woes as well as a broken heart over another failed relationship…
    So he is over there , hands on , for a few weeks or so..
    Tells her , they will all go on tour together..
    He even meets her brothers some where along the way….
    I can see him showing up for June sake…….more then him just deciding to go hang around with JC., in that house…
    That could have been a big reason for him putting the time and effort in.

    JC has school and I am sure he wasnt staying up late , so he was probably hanging with June after the son went to sleep, because he could never sleep.
    Then going to work himself during the day
    By the time they get to Monaco,after he had spent time in her home, she looks ecstatic to me..
    If you are supposedly concerned that your child spent the night in a room with an adult in Vegas, I dont think you look that thrilled if he showed up at your house, after, and did that for a significant amount of time.And was ignoring you…
    So I think he was paying alot of attn to her , and Lily of course,also.
    I dont know if their relationship got physical, but to me , June married Evan probably for love and he wasnt good with money
    2nd husband is an old man with money , so I dont think she had a physical attraction to him, or at that point it wasnt that important to her,’
    Then you hit the jackpot with MJ…..filthy rich, dynamic , powerful…kind…I think she would have taken a platonic relationship also..anything to be with him.
    I know supposedly MJ didnt tell her to sign JC custody over to Evan for a supposedly short time , but I think he influenced her , just because he was in a panic..
    And that was one of the reasons she did it…
    Which backfired on June and MJ and imploded their friendship….
    I wonder if Evan ever told his son , that his mother signed custody away because MJ told her to..and she actually did it, because, she was so enamored with MJ , more then her own son..
    It seems strange that if they all lined up against MJ, JC would turn on his mother like that…after the thing was over..
    .

    Like

  128. January 12, 2013 5:20 am

    VMJ, you are great. And I am truly sorry if you have gotten any Sovjet backgruond insinuations. I just heard on the night radio that Putin will fobid Finnish adoptions too.
    Sometimes smoke gets in your eyes,that custodycase in Finland was twisted and false. A very strange and complex story behind it. It is really also behind P.s blackmail of countries esp. other countries where Russians emigrate to or adopt Russian children. There is a malignant Finnish personality behind it. He was himself married to a Russian woman in 2000, they divorced some months before their child was born. He has litigated since for custody of that child, now 13 yo and living in MiLAN, Italy now:I am too tired and it´s late to go furter into that now. Only thought I needed to mention it because Finland is now also forbidden to adopt. Our child custody people are not bizarre enough to take an infant from the mother. Only 3 reasons for forbidding breastfeeding: Alcohol abuse, drugabuse or mother on medication that could harm child. It would be cosidered a crime to imprison her in a bunker. The husband is not a Finn, just has Finnish citizenship. Statistically children from Russian families here have less involvement with child protective services than the general population. More about this another time.
    -Those tooth comments-because Ray C in the vid clips mentioned babyteeth. Good luck on Jan 13th. And don´t despair, no one person can do everything and stop all abuse. That will mean a change in the heart of every person.
    Anyway: Father slaps girl in school, results in mothers imprisonment and? taking her infant away from her. Bizarre and irrational. At the bottom of this is blackmailing other coutries so Russians will not dare leave Russia. He is concerned over excessive emigration. Everybody here (exept that malignant person et al) hopes for a stable democracy in Russia, You have many intelligent and good people there.

    Like

  129. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    January 12, 2013 4:04 am

    Helena: As you know, Michael did not think in terms of my people or your people but as ONE though he was Black, proud, and knew his history well. It is obvious that thoughtful people of good will, good sense, discernment and insight can come from anywhere. True, our upbringing, life experience, and place of origin help form our view of the world. Something about Michael Jackson was unifying, life-affirming and leapt boundaries of language, gender, culture, age, race, religion, geography, education, etc. That so many have come together in his name for discussion at your blog and other blogs is testament to that truth. The internet provides a certain anonymity. But, as in face-to-face communication, people will reveal their true selves in due course. We all take a risk opening up to strangers. Are they truthful or not? Do they have ulterior motives or not? Are they haters or not? We are not mind readers, but we do have tools that help us navigate unfamiliar territory and that help protect us from hostile elements — intelligence, intuition, honesty, integrity. When my parents sent me out into the world, they cautioned that we should be gentle as lambs but also wise as foxes.

    You are right that our work goes beyond vindicating Michael Jackson as an individual. What he stood for is BIGGER than himself, and he knew it I think that if Michael had lived and vigorously pursued his goal to protect and improve the lives of children everywhere, he would have certainly collided with powerful entities for whom children are just commodities to be bought and sold — for human trafficking, slave labor, and military fodder. And, he would have expected us to stand with him.

    Like

  130. January 12, 2013 3:30 am

    A 13 yo can not give consent. A parent can and did, but what for?To give SA without consent is ASSAULT AND BATTERY..Sorry to jump around like this on the topic.

    Like

  131. January 12, 2013 3:08 am

    “Thank you for your very kind words and I’ll help in any way I can.”

    Okay, J.Mason, at least you haven’t said “no”. I was thinking of natural reasons for retirement – some day it will take place anyway. Of course there is a lot to be done before that, but my general feeling is that after my first step someone on your side should follow, as in a relay race. You seem to be reading my thoughts and saying it much better than I do, so the choice is obvious.

    I also feel that now it is the turn of your people. There are certain limits to what I can say. Whenever I touch upon the really serious and deep reasons for what they did to Michael, someone inevitably pops up and throws at me my Soviet past insinuating that I have an agenda here. I haven’t. I would love to know myself what’s driving me to write here.

    By the serious reasons for Michael’s harassment I mean the interests of a huge pedophilia lobby which really exists and is eroding the society. It is people like Jimmy Savile and those who were covering up for him for decades and are silent even now. These people prefer to talk about Michael Jackson instead, though it is clear to every sane person that Michael was a totally different breed. He was just a big kid. He happened to have his life in reverse – first he was forced to be an adult, and when he finally had a chance to relax he turned into a kid who had missed out his childhood and wanted it back. They quickly reversed him again though and sucked all life out of him.

    People like Savile and Sandusky have nothing in common with MJ. The mere look at them gives you the creeps. How could they commit all those crimes without anyone knowing about it? There were many complaints, only no one cared. In the same way Corey Feldman complained to the police about his real abuser in Hollywood, only no one cared either – they were after the innocent man only.

    Now we have reached a stage when it is not only Michael who should be vindicated, but his main goal in life – saving children from any harm – should be followed. If not Michael’s supporters, then who?

    Like

  132. January 12, 2013 3:02 am

    To backtrack a bit:A 13 yo does not have any babyteeth. Wisdomteeth develop around age 17-19 years of age.So what was Evan up to? Or did Jordan have his teeth at an unusual age from others?.Ask a dentist to confirm.

    Like

  133. Rodrigo permalink
    January 12, 2013 2:16 am

    I agree with Helena, J. You’re a good ally to have on board🙂

    Like

  134. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    January 12, 2013 2:03 am

    Don’t you dare even dream about leaving! You belong right here doing the good work and fighting the good fight Vindicating Michael. Thank you for your very kind words and I’ll help in any way I can.

    REMEMBER: You are greatly valued and essential, and this blog is your baby!

    Like

  135. January 12, 2013 1:21 am

    “About Michael’s Ladies, we have little except the reports of others — whose words land at various points on the reliability continuum — and who saw Michael Jackson from one vantage point or another over time. Even Michael’s first-person reports are sometimes tantalizingly vague and open to interpretation, and I think he meant them to be that way. We KNOW that he married two women, one of whom bore two children; a third child was born of a woman Michael described as a surrogate but whose name he personally never revealed. Michael Jackson proudly acknowledged the children as his, took sole possession of them and was the supreme parental influence in their lives. He is their Father in every way that counts in this world — legally, emotionally and spiritually. He loved them, cared for them, reared them, took them everywhere with him, and his life centered on them. For many, biology is important and an ongoing source of argument. Yet, biology alone does NOT make a parent. LOVE, attention, teaching, sharing, setting examples, character building, respect – these are the stuff of parenting. From what we’ve seen, Michael Jackson was a wonderful Dad and his children respect, love and admire him. What parent could ask for more?

    Speculating about Michael’s love-life is delicious, though I don’t need to know chapter and verse. Clearly he loved and enjoyed women in his extraordinary life – a challenging life lived in a judgmental and unforgiving world. It’s enough for me that he found joy and fulfillment in a strip of territory that he tried to keep inviolate. And, All Hail to the ladies who helped him do that by keeping their mouths shut.”

    J Mason, I agree with you so much that if I leave this blog I’ll pass it to you. Will you take it?

    P.S. Please don’t be afraid, it is not now. You have plenty of time to think it over.

    Like

  136. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    January 12, 2013 1:18 am

    About Michael’s Ladies, we have little except the reports of others — whose words land at various points on the reliability continuum — and who saw Michael Jackson from one vantage point or another over time. Even Michael’s first-person reports are sometimes tantalizingly vague and open to interpretation, and I think he meant them to be that way. We KNOW that he married two women, one of whom bore two children; a third child was born of a woman Michael described as a surrogate but whose name he personally never revealed. Michael Jackson proudly acknowledged the children as his, took sole possession of them and was the supreme parental influence in their lives. He is their Father in every way that counts in this world — legally, emotionally and spiritually. He loved them, cared for them, reared them, took them everywhere with him, and his life centered on them. For many, biology is important and an ongoing source of argument. Yet, biology alone does NOT make a parent. LOVE, attention, teaching, sharing, setting examples, character building, respect – these are the stuff of parenting. From what we’ve seen, Michael Jackson was a wonderful Dad and his children respect, love and admire him. What parent could ask for more?

    Speculating about Michael’s love-life is delicious, though I don’t need to know chapter and verse. Clearly he loved and enjoyed women in his extraordinary life – a challenging life lived in a judgmental and unforgiving world. It’s enough for me that he found joy and fulfillment in a strip of territory that he tried to keep inviolate. And, All Hail to the ladies who helped him do that by keeping their mouths shut.

    Like

  137. January 12, 2013 1:17 am

    “I often remind myself that Michael Jackson didn’t owe me anything except a Kick-Ass Performance and Great Product for the money spent. His personal commitment to artistic excellence and his love and respect for his fans guaranteed both. Yes, his fame generated curiosity and the press remained in hot pursuit. That is part of show business rough and tumble. But, it does not give anyone the right to invade Michael Jackson’s back passage, take up residence, conduct an endless shooting safari, and blast his bits and pieces all over creation so the hunters and onlookers to pick over his remains.”

    J. Mason, this is SO well said that it needs to be engraved in gold letters and put on the wall in everyone’s kitchen.

    Like

  138. January 12, 2013 12:52 am

    And it is true that the date of Lisa-Marie’s visit to the hospital was the date of their separation. She filed for divorce in January 1996, but the divorce papers sited the date of separation as December 10, 1995 – the day when she visited Michael in hospital:

    Like

  139. January 12, 2013 12:48 am

    “scroll through there to find number 19 and that is the video with the Doctors press conference at Beth Israel Hospital in New York.”

    Lynette, I haven’t been able to find it. But I’ve found this (it was quite a commotion):

    Like

  140. January 12, 2013 12:39 am

    “Yet when coming face to face with the man who allegedly molesting his son, he hugs him? These actions contradict his character.” – Rodrigo

    Not quite. When people don’t believe in real harm done to their child and have totally different motives (are driven by spite for example) they behave in exactly this way. “So you ignored me? Thought that I was harmless? I’ll show you what I am capable of!”

    Like

  141. January 12, 2013 12:27 am

    “In the footage we saw that June was sitting behind Michael in a very comfortable position, probably was Michael who determined that adjustment.” – alinemj

    It was Bob Jones who arranged for the whole family to sit directly behind Michael, but Michael wanted the children in the first row. There were no longer vacant seats in the front and he had to take Lily on his lap. Then Lily sat on Linda Evans’ lap and Jordan sat on the same seat as Michael’s. Michael did not even touch him. It is very well seen in a video – Michael moves to the rhythm and Jordan does not.

    However to Bob Jones, who was sitting 20 feet away from them, it looked as if Jordan was sitting on Michael’s lap:
    19 Q. Now, going to the music awards, what was the
    20 nature of the physical contact that you saw with
    21 them at the World Music Awards?
    22 A. Jordie sat on his lap.
    23 Q. Where were you seated?
    24 A. I sat a distance away from June, her
    25 daughter, and Jordie and Michael.
    26 Q. How many feet away were you when you were
    27 observing Mr. Jackson and Mr. Chandler together?
    28 A. Oh, I would say approximately 20 feet. 5529
    1 Q. And if you would describe for me in detail
    2 what you saw at the World Music Awards involving Mr.
    3 Chandler and Jackson?
    4 A. Well, during the performance, he sat on his
    5 lap, Jordie sat on his lap. And the sister sat on
    6 the other lap, but at one time Linda Evans took the
    7 girl off of his lap and let her sit on her lap.

    11 Q. Okay. And where was Michael Jackson sitting
    12 in that event?
    13 A. He was seated on the front row next to
    14 Prince Albert of Monaco, and — on one side, and
    15 Linda Evans, the actress, on the other side.
    16 And I attempted to get — I had arranged for
    17 the Chandlers to sit directly behind Mr. Jackson,
    18 because I did not feel that the royalty wanted to be
    19 bothered with those guests. But he insisted that
    20 they sit with him, so I left it alone.
    21 Q. Did the mother sit with Michael Jackson as
    22 well?
    23 A. Behind.
    24 Q. Okay. So when you saw the brother and
    25 sister sitting on Michael Jackson’s lap in the first
    26 row, the mother was right behind, correct?
    27 A. Correct.
    28 Q. So this is the first row in full view of 5551
    1 everyone at the awards show, correct?
    2 A. That is correct.
    3 Q. There was no effort to hide anything at any
    4 time?
    5 A. No.
    6 Q. At some point, did you see the children with
    7 their mother behind where Michael Jackson was
    8 sitting?
    9 A. When I brought them in to their seats, they
    10 were seated behind Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson moved
    11 them up front.
    12 Q. Okay. Did — when you say he moved them up
    13 front, did he move them into seats up front?
    14 A. He moved them into his seat.
    15 Q. Okay. Okay. So the children moved into his
    16 seat to sit with him?
    17 A. With him.
    18 Q. And the mother still stayed sitting behind?
    19 A. That is correct.

    Like

  142. January 12, 2013 12:08 am

    “I want to make clear that I’m not saying that Michael was in love with June, I believe he was in love with having a family.” – alinemj

    There is so much everyone has written while I was looking for what others wrote about MJ’s ladies! I have to say that none of it helped – it is mostly gossip and no facts, so I’ll have to start all over again and on my own.

    As regards June, Michael was surely in love with having a family and June managed to create the impression that he was part of hers – she invited him to her home, each time Michael arrived it was for dinner time, the whole family sat to dinner, then Michael helped Jordan to do homework (he was even photographed in June’s home sitting on a bed with books in front of him) and most probably played with Lili. In fact whenever we see Michael he always carries Lili in his arms.

    Remember that note? Initially Michael was fascinated by June and the family – “if all people were like you” and was so carried away by their charms that planned a great future for this family. In this context it even becomes clear why Evan asked Michael to build a wing to his house – if Michael was almost a relative to Evan it was natural to ask for a little help.

    I truly believe that if the balance of forces had not shifted in favor of June, and Evan had not been cut out of that “family arrangement” he wouldn’t have got so infuriated. Evan ruined everything himself by his crazy questions to Michael “Are you f—g my son?” Michael was shocked and tried to distance himself from Evan and this is when the nightmare started.

    By the way the question still remains – who planted all those ideas into Evan’s troubled mind while June and her children were travelling the world with Michael? I am still looking in the direction of Victor Gutierrez for an answer to this question.

    However the tragedy was imminent. Michael saw through June as we have a testimony of Brett Barnes’ mother (or was it Joy Robson?) who said that at some point Michael began to avoid her. And as soon as her dream came to an end the events were to follow the Arvizos’ pattern anyway. When you have to do with gold-diggers the end is always the same.

    Like

  143. alinemj permalink
    January 11, 2013 11:06 pm

    I can not be absolutely sure, but I still think it was starting something between them. We can not forget that in this period, Michael really wanted a family.
    Reading the book by Frank Cascio realized he did not say anything bad about June and Jordan
    Michael gave her a jewel. And I told Jordan to tell his mother he loved her (I know that Michael would say this to everyone, but I really feel that he harbored some affection for June).
    What other family complete without a husband present (she was already separated), was taken to meet the Royals, had pictures taken as a family? Michael did not seem bothered. In the footage we saw that June was sitting behind Michael in a very comfortable position, probably was Michael who determined that adjustment.
    Michael gave his credit card for June, to be able to make purchases.
    Michael told June that he would be different from the other two men she had married.
    And finally, where TMez was going with the questions at trial.

    I want to make clear that I’m not saying that Michael was in love with June, I believe he was in love with having a family.
    If I’m wrong on something, please tell me

    Like

  144. Rodrigo permalink
    January 11, 2013 10:00 pm

    That’s what makes me wonder…Evan had an explosive temper, lashing out at people verbally or physically.

    Yet when coming face to face with the man who allegedly molesting his son, he hugs him?

    And even though there was ‘pain and anger’ over what the evil Michael Jackson did to his son, he endorses Victor Gutierrez’s filthy book about the two being in love?

    These actions contradict his character.

    Like

  145. lynande51 permalink
    January 11, 2013 9:38 pm

    it is number 19 on the playlist for this You Tube Channel and for some reason everytime I copy the url it come to this one. So follow the link and just scroll throught there to find number 19 and that is the video with the Doctors press conference at Beth Israel Hospital in New York.

    Like

  146. lynande51 permalink
    January 11, 2013 9:22 pm

    Sorry that was the wrong one. I think that is the one that is number one on the pay list I will go back and find it.

    Like

  147. lynande51 permalink
    January 11, 2013 9:19 pm

    Helena here is a link to a video about the time that MJ went to the hospital in New York and you can see the Doctors press conference. Maybe you will want to add it to this post.

    Like

  148. lynande51 permalink
    January 11, 2013 9:17 pm

    Actually, I believe that he did record Jordan and that was turned over to police or it was in the case that he asked Gary Hearne to recover from the Century City condo. Gary Hearne testified that he took a black case from the closet and delivered it to Pellicano’s house. I think for more information than that we will have to wait until later this year for the release of Anthony Pelllicano.
    When Pellicano said that MJ did far worse things to these kids than abusing them I think he meant that he let them get away with extortion and left Jordan in the hand of a man that would use his son to get money. That in some peoples mind would be worse if you were one of the people that knew Evan Chandler and had to deal with him.
    We all know that Evan had a terrible temper. By their own admission he would hit Nathalie, he beat Dave up twice and in their own book he says that he hit his owon mother. At what point do we think that several adults were not very afraid of him. I think part of that reason that Ray Chandler got in on it was because he was afraid of Evan or afraid for Jordan if he didn’t agree to it.

    Like

  149. January 11, 2013 4:57 pm

    Taborelli is just one of the journalists, writers who hit on the idea of making Michael their main source of income for life.

    Like

  150. January 11, 2013 4:50 pm

    alinemj, it does not surprise me that Joe Jackson claimed Michael and June had an affair. He also was adamant that Omar Bhatti was Michaels bio son. Mysellf June´s smile on that pic. with MJ and Lily has impressed me, it is a smile of utter happiness, as if she had won the biggest lotto ever! Maybre at the time of that pic. she did think she had it all coming to her(all she wished for that is).I never thought she was anybody MJ would have had an interest for in the long run, and maybe not even a fling.Probably the truth, as mentined,. is that both Evan and June had the hots for his wallet and fame.

    Like

  151. January 11, 2013 11:03 am

    Something that has always bothered me is the fact that Pellicano, who had a penchant for recording people, didnt record JC when he asked him if MJ had ever done anything..If he had just done that… none of this could have happened.

    I was thinking about that. If only he’d recorded that conversation they had.

    Like

  152. January 11, 2013 11:01 am

    The photo of Randy at Neverland was taken after MJ’s death. MJ was “friendly” with some people, like Steve Manning and Flo Anthony, and people like that, who would hang out with him at home sometimes and he would visit their homes. Taraborrelli was always just a journalist. MJ even had Janet sit in on one of their interviews back then, the way he did with people he didn’t trust.

    I read this letter a long time ago and wondered who the author might be. There was a rumor that it was Frank Cascio, but I don’t think it’s him – it’s not his style

    Frank denied it was him back in 2010.

    It seems like the black girlfriend from Oakland and the woman Liza mentioned are the same one.

    There’s a lot of things this letter mentions that I’ve heard repeatedly from people around him, and this person mentioned it first.

    I don’t think this letter is 100% accurate, but I feel like they do know some things, and the fact that they spoke about it first back in 2004 is interesting to me.

    Like

  153. jolie permalink
    January 11, 2013 8:04 am

    Sorry; totally unrelated: Am I the only person who is questioning the validity of J. Taraborelli’s book? I mean it just has a feel of sensationalism to me… by ettelra

    I have never fully believed J Randy. He says he was a friend of MJs, but there is only one picture of them together. J Randy is all over YouTube documentaries saying he was a friend of MJs, but bashing him and insulting him. J Randy would say he would call MJ or MJ would call him. Don’t really believe it since MJ never spoke of him. He says he spoke to Lisa Marie and others, but no one speaks of J Randy. But he is a media darling when it comes to Michael Jackson. Now Randall Sullivan is the media darling. Randall Sullivan says MJ did not have a nose, among a myriad of other lies, 3 1/2 years after MJs death and an autopsy later…

    Like

  154. alinemj permalink
    January 11, 2013 7:48 am

    the book by Joe Jackson in 2004 he said that Michael and June, had an affair. In Jermaine’s book, he said that no one thought of the possibility of them being having an affair.

    I think something happened, I wonder that no one ever asked about it TMez.

    Like

  155. January 11, 2013 7:43 am

    I read this letter a long time ago and wondered who the author might be. There was a rumor that it was Frank Cascio, but I don’t think it’s him – it’s not his style, plus it contradicts his story about the Blanket’s mother.

    Speaking of that, I find Frank’s version very convincing, especially because he was involved in selection of the donor for the child. So I’m not entirely sure what to think of this letter.
    Plus it doesn’t mention the woman Michael proposed to in the 80s (according to Liza Minnelli), nor a black girlfriend from Northern California (mentioned by one of his friends). So I’m not entirely buying this employee letter. Although there may be some truth to it. One thing we can say for certain is that Michael’s love life was sure private, and he managed to keep a lot of girlfriends in secret from the public.

    Like

  156. nannorris permalink
    January 11, 2013 4:42 am

    Randy T has a picture of himself at Neverland for his page.
    I dont mind him but I dont think was as close to MJ as he says.
    He took that picture at Neverland on the sly , I believe when the press was invited for a party.
    The other thing I noticed in his book is when he says AFTER MJ died he was allowed in his bedroom, and he had never been there before.
    Frankly I think every friend of MJ has been in his bedroom , looking at his show costumes and stuff

    June and Evan Chandler were both in hot pursuit of MJ.
    she even said on the stand she was not happy when MJ ended up staying over Evans house..
    jealous that he was with Evan.He was a walking wallet for this family.
    Something else I found interesting regarding the Sullivan book is that Evan took off with JC after they got the money and never bothered at all with his children with Natalia.
    I think that is incredible , that he could drop his other children , in favor of the rich child..
    I dont see how JC could be anything other then cut from the same cloth as his folks.
    I think he was like Gavin, angry with MJ when he dumped his family over Evans rants, I think June was angry too, because Evan made sure , there was no way they could ever remain friends with MJ, so I think JC just went along with it for money.
    Something that has always bothered me is the fact that Pellicano, who had a penchant for recording people, didnt record JC when he asked him if MJ had ever done anything..If he had just done that… none of this could have happened.
    I dont think JC was thinking of anyone but himself when he refused to testify in 2005..If he had come in, the person from NYU could have testified also.And as we all know here, his story doesnt add up.

    Like

  157. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    January 11, 2013 4:41 am

    My term ‘friend’ was meant in the sense of friendly — not deep friendship. In show business, everyone is ‘friendly’ with each other.

    Like

  158. January 11, 2013 3:12 am

    Taraborrelli was never a friend of Michael’s. He was a journalist who spoke to Michael and his brothers a couple of times for interviews in the 70s, that’s it. There’s only one photo of them together during an interview back in 1978 and Taraborrelli makes sure he crops out all the other brothers so it looks like it was just the two of them. After that MJ spoke to him after the first edition came out, much the same way he tried to reach out to many journalists (he contacted Barbara Walters after she said something about plastic surgery in the late 80s), then did an interview with him for a British tabloid after he married Lisa, that’s pretty much it as far as their “friendship” goes. He was a journalist, not a friend.

    Much of his book is just Taraborrelli’s opinions and he’s been proven wrong about many, many things. I don’t know why fans regard him so highly, maybe the Lisa Marie thing he gave Michael (that’s only because he likes Lisa Marie), but even that used other sources, the people he used to speak about their sex life were actually interviews those people had given to other magazines, and he used tabloids for the things he made up – like the part about MJ wearing make up in bed, that’s completely taken out from the National Enquirer. We can see MJ didn’t mind not wearing make up in private many times, especially around 1992-1999. And he ignored completely what really happened between them from 1996-2000, and Lisa Marie proved him wrong about that herself.

    I have spoken to some of the sources in Taraborrelli’s book and they refused to speak any more about MJ publicly because they told me Taraborrelli had taken their words out of context and mixed them in with someone else’s words (I suspect he mixed them in with his own opinions), and others told me they had no idea they were in his book and had no idea who he was.

    Like

  159. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    January 11, 2013 1:15 am

    In the early years, Randy T was friends with Michael Jackson and he penned the first BIG biography — though we mustn’t confuse guantity with quality. Since then, he has turned the book into a cottage industry of revisions followed by the inevitable flurry of interviews. Thanks to much undeserved media overexposure, Randy T is considered a Jackson Expert and Insider. Tsk. Tsk, Tsk. How many others are out there making a living off of this title? I’ve lost track. What a racket!

    Like

  160. January 11, 2013 12:48 am

    Sorry; totally unrelated: Am I the only person who is questioning the validity of J. Taraborelli’s book? I mean it just has a feel of sensationalism to me…

    Like

  161. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    January 10, 2013 10:51 pm

    Michael said different things at different times to different people in his circle — about the same topic. He accepted (like it or not) that he was the center of their universe, and they all wanted to be The One who knew him best or most intimately. There was jealously among his entourage over ‘who knew what, who knew the most, or who assumed they had the last word.”

    King Louis of France lived in Versailles Palace. He woke up every morning to see courtiers at the foot of his bed gazing at the royal presence. No privacy for Louis. Yet, it was the accepted custom.

    As a modern-day Louis, I like to think that Michael, nonetheless, managed to keep ‘something for himself alone”. He once said that Diana Ross and Elizabeth Taylor knew ‘all of his secrets” and kept their mouths shut. Elizabeth took that information to the grave, and Diana has kept her mouth shut.

    I often remind myself that Michael Jackson didn’t owe me anything except a Kick-Ass Performance and Great Product for the money spent. His personal commitment to artistic excellence and his love and respect for his fans guaranteed both. Yes, his fame generated curiosity and the press remained in hot pursuit. That is part of show business rough and tumble. But, it does not give anyone the right to invade Michael Jackson’s back passage, take up residence, conduct an endless shooting safari, and blast his bits and pieces all over creation so the hunters and onlookers to pick over his remains.

    Yet, Man in the Mirror is Michael Jackson’s great, eternal, shattering response to all the answered and unanswered questions left behind. I hear him loud and clear.

    Like

  162. Truth Prevail permalink
    January 10, 2013 9:37 pm

    Interesting letter not surprised the person referred to Diana Ross as a “Hussy” since she has a reputation with sleeping with most of the guys from Motown even Berry Gordy himself.

    Like

  163. January 10, 2013 7:24 pm

    Interesting post. I also read this letter once and wasn’t sure how credible it could be, though I thought there must be some truth to it. I’m glad you are working on this, Helena. There could perhaps be some exaggeration in the letter like we all do it at times when we want to make something clear, but in direction it’s obviously very close to the facts.
    And it seems to be still necessary to get this out considering that nonsense Randall Sullivan writes and says in public about MJ’s sexuality.

    @ MJason: Great comments!

    Like

  164. January 10, 2013 5:35 pm

    Oh, then I’ll have to listen and read the transcripts once again. The tapes have cuts and many names were erased, so they are quite a riddle to solve. The fact that there was one more woman of an older age in Michael’s life whom he gave jewerly, a house, a car, etc. makes your head spin – there were so many of them.

    Many people have wrongly assumed the woman is Tatum O’Neal (though she isn’t older, and he never gave her a house/car, etc), or Diana.

    But it isn’t.

    He speaks about 3 women on the tapes the public doesn’t know about. There’s the older woman who seems to have been someone he’d been seeing since the 70s and whoever had the tapes went through the effort of editing a lot of what he said about her which my guess would be info which would identify her, Melissa who he was dating in May 1992 (same month he met the Chandler’s), and there’s also someone he speaks about in 1990-1991, when Sam jokes about her getting pregnant, “Is the baby moving?” “Nooo, we’re careful.”

    He speaks about Diana, Glenda asks about her in the context of previous relationships and he says, “But that was only in my mind.” Glenda asks him how long it took to get over Diana, and he says, “Years. A hell of a long time.”

    Like

  165. January 10, 2013 4:03 pm

    “June was beautiful and ached for the attention and adoration of wealthy, powerful men. Evan fancied himself a mover and shaker, but instead cleaned their teeth and treated their gum diseases. Enter Michael Jackson – the Queen Mary and QE2 combined sailing toward them, loaded with treasure and the answers to their prayers. Scarcely believing their good luck, they resolved (together or separately) to HAVE Michael – by any means necessary. Jackson was known for his generosity, especially toward children, so they used their son Jordan as catalyst and bonding agent. Whether Jordan was complicit in the scheme or simply a pawn, the dye was cast for Michael Jackson.” – J.Mason

    Oh, there is very much truth in what you are saying! Both of them aspired to more than they had. Evan wanted a career in Hollywood instead of cleaning those people’s teeth, and June was in constant search of a wealthy husband, whom she, a former model, thought she really deserved. This becomes clear from her marriage to David Schwartz, who he was over 70 (when they parted), but was a millionaire and this was the decisive factor for her marriage to him. It seems that David didn’t mind it very much when she spent her time with Michael – he understood that his age had certain limits to it.

    And you know, I can’t even blame June or Evan for hoping for the best – when Michael entered their life in so unexpected a manner he looked like a miracle happening to them in order to turn their bleak reality into a wonderful fairy-tale, where all wishes come true – Evan has a career in Hollywood and June marries the man of her dream. Of course each was resolving it for him/herself only, so initially there was no arrangement between them – this came much later.

    If the balance between Evan-Michael-June had remained unbroken none of that tragedy would have taken place. But at one point Evan grew extremely resentful that he began to be falling out of the picture and the balance was changing in favor of June. He was jealous of her success while for Evan it meant the end of his dream.

    That is why when you listen to Evan’s phone conversation with David Schwartz what you hear is a terrible mix of Evan’s jealousy and hate for his wife (she got the upper hand again!), frustration that he was no longer part of Michael’s life and was “thrown out” (why isn’t Michael calling me?), and the desire to do harm to June and ruin her plans in the first place. Jordan was not that important and Evan openly said so even if he really had some suspicions about him and MJ. In fact Evan said “he had no idea of what was going on” between them.

    It seems that Jordan was more of a pretext for Evan for dealing with June in the first place. Former spouses often want to do harm to each other by pretending that they care solely for the well-being of their children while the real motive is spite against each other and the desire to ruin each other’s lives. People often do something without realizing what motives they are really driven by. They will find for themselves all sorts of noble explanations which they first invent and then start believing themselves.

    Of course Jordan was a pawn in that game and one of its victims. The boy was no fool and realized that since he found himself in this situation anyway it would be better to at least gain some benefit out of it. But he was still very happy when the case against Michael was closed (and he plunged into the pool with his clothes on, as VG describes). He didn’t really want harm for Michael, but his life between those two parents was unbearable either. He got his money and got separated from them both. As a result we have four lives ruined (each in his own way and to a different degree) – the three of the Chandlers and Michael as their main victim.

    June Chandler was the toughest and most calculating of them all and got out of it fairly easily. It seems that Jordan felt it and later took care of the weaker parent (his father) who lost all the extorted money and was living on what Jordan provided him with. June seemed to be doing well though, even without seeing her son for eleven years, which tells a lot about her character.

    Like

  166. January 10, 2013 3:08 pm

    “Michael’s never said that. On the Glenda tapes he speaks about an older woman he was dating, but it isn’t Diana Ross.” -lacienegasmiles

    Oh, then I’ll have to listen and read the transcripts once again. The tapes have cuts and many names were erased, so they are quite a riddle to solve. The fact that there was one more woman of an older age in Michael’s life whom he gave jewerly, a house, a car, etc. makes your head spin – there were so many of them.

    We will probably need a special post about Glenda Tapes one day, while at the moment my primary goal is to check up the authenticity of the letter. And this will be partially done with the help of those tapes.

    Like

  167. January 10, 2013 11:54 am

    “How much credence are you to to give the author of this letter?” – kaarin

    We are to decide it together after I make the second post about it.

    P.S. I mean that I have formed my own opinion about it, but I don’t want to press it on anyone unless you know all the details.

    Like

  168. January 10, 2013 11:40 am

    “She could not have known about the final sum of money when all this started.Or do you think she had a clue?” – Kaarin

    Of course June Chandler knew what sums they were talking of. And initially they demanded $30 mln.

    She put her signature under the retainer agreement with Larry Feldman, though at the 2005 trial she lied that she had nothing to do with it.

    Like

  169. January 10, 2013 12:41 am

    “it seems like the issues that Michael had with her were a result of misleading on her part because she wasn’t doing these things in the beginning” – Tatum

    I think that it is Lisa-Marie’s lies which alienated Michael from her. If she had told her about her various reservations about having children by him (her mom, family, etc.) it would have made him terribly unhappy but at least it would have been honest, and there would have been a hope to sort it out in some way. But she lied to him. She fed him stories that getting pregnant “needed time” and when he found those pills he realized that she wasn’t telling him a word of truth. No wonder there was a split.

    From Taraborrelli:

    “The man who had previously been adamant that he had no interest in procreation was desperate to have children.
    The Chandler business had hurt him deeply, leaving the gnawing, empty space in his heart more terrifying than ever. He was determined to ‘start living’, he insisted, falling in love with a woman, marrying and having children of his own. He told me at the time: ‘I love Lisa. Why won’t people believe that? Why won’t people let me be happy?’

    When Lisa didn’t become immediately pregnant, he expressed his disappointment. ‘I thought we’d be expecting within a couple of weeks of making love,’ he said. ‘Lisa says it takes time, but I don’t have time. I want it to happen now. I want children so badly.'”

    You do not have to be too observant to see that at the MTV video music awards, aired September 7, 1995, things were going really bad between them. The ceremony was exactly after the split described in the letter. Look at Michael – he has a forced smile and pretends that everything is okay, though it is clear that it is not. Both of them are utterly unhappy:

    It is so much different from the MTV ceremony of the previous 1994 year, when there was no alienation between them. The media said all sort of things about that kiss, but it was an incredibly tender and genuine moment:

    Like

  170. January 10, 2013 4:30 am

    Grace Rwawamba came into Michaels life too, maybe too late to be included in this letter.
    After Thome fired her she left to Haiti to help the victims of the earthaquake there. Really something in line with Michaels altruism.

    Paris has confirmed Michael never dated Grace.

    Like

  171. January 10, 2013 4:23 am

    I question it too, especially since Michael said it himself that he didn’t.

    Michael’s never said that. On the Glenda tapes he speaks about an older woman he was dating, but it isn’t Diana Ross. The older woman he speaks about is a woman who he says he gave a car, a house, jewelry (he wrote a song where he sings about a girl he gave a car to in 1979), and who was with him for many years. It isn’t Diana Ross. The tapes were edited so that the details about the older woman were removed, and so that what he says got mixed up with other women he speaks about, but it’s a separate woman. And besides, Diana was dating numerous other men from 1977-1985, I do believe MJ dated her but he dated her the way she dated her other men, casually. The woman on the tapes 100% is not Diana Ross who he’s talking about.

    My friend and I were close to finding Jordan once, but he moved shortly before according to his former neighbors.

    You spoke to his former neighbours? Maybe I could give you an email and you could share more info there? njc298@aol.com

    Like

  172. lynande51 permalink
    January 10, 2013 3:47 am

    The speculation is that the letter was written by Wayne Nagin. He worked for MJ with Bill Bray and was with him about the time of Scott Thorson. Bob Jones went to MJJ Productions in 1984 and he rarely went with Michael anywhere.

    Like

  173. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    January 10, 2013 3:28 am

    This is my view of the Chandlers. Long before meeting Michael Jackson, June and Evan burned with envy and frustration at being cheated out of their rightful share of the world’s goodies to which they felt entitled. June was beautiful and ached for the attention and adoration of wealthy, powerful men. Evan fancied himself a mover and shaker, but instead cleaned their teeth and treated their gum diseases. Enter Michael Jackson – the Queen Mary and QE2 combined sailing toward them, loaded with treasure and the answers to their prayers. Scarcely believing their good luck, they resolved (together or separately) to HAVE Michael – by any means necessary. Jackson was known for his generosity, especially toward children, so they used their son Jordan as catalyst and bonding agent. Whether Jordan was complicit in the scheme or simply a pawn, the dye was cast for Michael Jackson. With parents like Evan and June, Jordan was doomed to a life in the shadows. Next year, Jordan will be 33 years old and still lives under the radar — though comfortably if he managed his settlement wisely. Evan is dead. Michael Jackson is dead. Maybe Jordan keeps in touch with June, maybe not. I understand he remains close to his sister, Lily.

    My friend and I were close to finding Jordan once, but he moved shortly before according to his former neighbors. Randall Sullivan is a journalist and author of Untouchable, the recent tub of lard biography of Michael Jackson. Sullivan certainly has more resources at his disposal than I did. Why didn’t he use them to locate and speak to Jordan Chandler for his book? After all, Sullivan touts his book as sympathetic to Jackson – even declaring him innocent of child molestation charges. Instead, Sullivan proclaims Jackson innocent by labeling him a presexual being, “… likely going to his grave without ever having sex with man, woman or child (Sullivan’s own words).” How’s that for a seemingly supportive pat on the back with one hand followed by a castrating stab to the genitals with the other. Not Guilty Due to Equipment Malfunction.

    Should I cheer and be grateful for ‘supportive’ words at any cost? I say No Thanks.
    Michael Jackson will be vindicated in due course … with the honor and respect he deserves.

    Like

  174. January 10, 2013 2:52 am

    How much credence are you to to give the author of this letter? Some facts are well known,like LMP`s sudden visit to her then husband MJ hospitalised in NYC,only to get into a heated ,angry argument ,-mother-in-law Katherine wondering why she travelled from LA to NYC just to argue with her son. June C´s possible affair with MJ is news to me.Sure thing she was interested in him and in Neverland too, acting like she already was the mistress there..In the end she lost both her son and Michael.She could not have known about the final sum of money when all this started.Or do you think she had a clue?

    Like

  175. Rodrigo permalink
    January 10, 2013 2:47 am

    That’s a good idea.

    Like

  176. January 10, 2013 2:09 am

    “But I was reading the transcripts of Michael talking to some woman on the phone (I forget her name), and what he says was consistent with what I’ve read in other pieces.” – Rodrigo

    These must be the Glenda tapes. Thanks to Lacienegasmiles blog recently I listened to them once again, and this is exactly what I would like to write about in the next few days.

    Like

  177. January 10, 2013 1:58 am

    “I read also that she and Michael had not seen each other in a while but when he was in the hospital, she was asked to come, but when she came, she and Michael got into a heavy argument, confrontation. She was angry and accusing and Michael asked her to leave b/c here he was trying to get better and she was giving him a thrashing instead of comforting or helping.” – aldebaranredstar

    Exactly. He asked her to leave as “she was only creating problems”. And creating problems she was. Let’s recall the whole of it – sometime at the end of summer they split, which was followed by the September MTV ceremony where both of them made their appearance but were clearly not together any more. Then at least in November he “messed around” with Debbie Rowe and by December she was pregnant. In December he collapsed on stage and Lisa-Marie was summoned by Michael’s associates to the hospital. She didn’t want to come, but for the sake of publicity the managers insisted on it. She arrived and started asking questions, and not only about the collapse, but about their future too. He most probably told her about Debbie, and this is when Lisa-Marie demanded a divorce. He was in no state to discuss it at that moment, and asked her to leave. Looks like everything is fitting in.

    “Shortly, after, as you said, she filed for divorce, although she later told Oprah that she was trying to get him to come back to her, but he didn’t.”

    Of course she tried to get him to come back to her and for four years too after they parted. Later she said that she had mentioned divorce on the spur of the moment and regretted it. There was a lot to regret – for example, her reaction to the news that Debbie could give Michael a child: “Let her do it”. He was sort of coercing her into agreeing to have his child, but she chose to react like an immature teenager, which only aggravated things. In short it was a real mess, but mess sometimes happens between a man and a woman.

    “I also question whether he and Diana Ross actually had sex.”

    I question it too, especially since Michael said it himself that he didn’t. But strange as it might seem it does not contradict the letter. The author of the letter noted the intensity of Michael’s feelings for Diana. Considering that Michael was living together with her at the time, the author most probably assumed that they had sex as with that intensity of feeling it was impossible to refrain from it. In fact Michael could have some experience with her, but not anything regular. In short, there are variants here, but this is not the point. I think it should remain solely between them.

    “About the circumcised vs. non-circumcised issue, even in the dark if you are going to be intimate, you will know IMO. There are hands and there are lights. Just sayin’.”

    Not if he uses a condom. Absolutely NO CHANCE to know. Especially if it happens just once or twice.

    Like

  178. Rodrigo permalink
    January 10, 2013 1:40 am

    You know more than I, Helena lol

    But I was reading the transcripts of Michael talking to some woman on the phone (I forget her name), and what he says was consistent with what I’ve read in other pieces. His own private conversations have been very truthful when you compare them to stories from those cloesest to him who have said things. His love and hurt over Diana and how it affected him.

    They say he had no desire for women or sex in his teens…this was not the reason of being gay or whatever. This, I believe from all of this here, was because he was holding onto the romantic notion of him and Diana.

    And that is exactly what he said on the phone to the woman.

    Like

  179. aldebaranredstar permalink
    January 10, 2013 1:31 am

    Hi, VMJ, thanks for highlighting the incident when Michael collapsed and the true story from the doctor, as opposed to the false story from LMP (re drugs were the cause). I read also that she and Michael had not seen each other in a while but when he was in the hospital, she was asked to come, but when she came, she and Michael got into a heavy argument, confrontation. She was angry and accusing and Michael asked her to leave b/c here he was trying to get better and she was giving him a thrashing instead of comforting or helping. Shortly, after, as you said, she filed for divorce, although she later told Oprah that she was trying to get him to come back to her, but he didn’t. Personally, I think she was immature emotionally; in her defense, she was younger by some 10 years or so. However, given her lack of emotional maturity, there was no way it could have worked IMO.

    Re June C. I honestly don’t think there was anything on his side at least. She does not seem his type, she is not beautiful or glamourous, or on his wavelength (that I know of). The other issue is he was asked in the Oprah interview about dating–and he said Brooke Shields and ‘another girl.” I took that to mean LMP, as I think she had eneterd his life by then. Whereas, he had not yet had the Chandlers to Neverland (their first visit was Feb 12, 93). So by then he had only met June once briefly at Rent-a-wreck.

    I also question whether he and Diana Ross actually had sex. I think he was too shy. Tatum O’Neil talked about that and I think she was after Diana Ross. About the circumcised vs. non-circumcised issue, even in the dark if you are going to be intimate, you will know IMO. There are hands and there are lights. Just sayin’.

    Like

  180. January 10, 2013 1:17 am

    “…was she so afraid of Evan and maybe losing custody of Jordan that she refused to speak up ,she could have dispelled all the untruths and , lies of the 93 allegations?” – Kaarin

    But what was the point? What was she gaining by speaking up for Michael? (I’m absolutely NOT justifying her and am only explaining the situation).

    Imagine yourself in her shoes – Evan has already started the process by taking Jordan to Dr. Abrams. The authorities have been notified. Even if she tries to straighten out the situation Jordan’s name has already been damaged and her own plans were ruined forever. All of them are facing a media frenzy and the future is fairly uncertain. She doesn’t even know whether her son will be returned to her or not.

    The problem is that we heavily underestimate June Chandler and think of her as someone secondary in the picture. She definitely wasn’t a secondary player in the game. She was in love with MJ all right, but she was also a very calculating woman, not prone to losing the chance of a life-time this situation presented. She was determined that if it didn’t work one way with Michael it should work another way and she could at least have good money and a guaranteed future for herself and her son. Hence her U-turn on Michael. She just made the best of the situation and thought of her interests only.

    “I always thought that the story of Diana R. and Michael was true.”

    Let us not be in a hurry and first look into the whole picture of it and only then draw any conclusions. I hope to write a second part to this post.

    Like

  181. January 10, 2013 12:13 am

    “I love how that letter is 100% consistent with everything Michael has said in private and what others have said publicly.” – Rodrigo

    Mostly yes, but there are some points which I still need to write about.

    Like

  182. Rodrigo permalink
    January 9, 2013 11:07 pm

    I love how that letter is 100% consistent with everything Michael has said in private and what others have said publicly.

    It’s just the allegations of child abuse that aren’t consistent. I wonder why?

    Like

  183. TatumMarie permalink
    January 9, 2013 10:49 pm

    I can’t even write anymore.

    Like

  184. TatumMarie permalink
    January 9, 2013 10:31 pm

    In the Rabbi Schmuley tapes Michael also mentioned that Lisa Marie was good about going to children’s hospitals in the beginning it sounds like she changed that routine but he also made some comments that led me to believe that she didn’t really want him being daddy to her children. Lisa also likes to play the victim and she apparently needs attention from the
    opposite sex. If Michael would’ve married someone who didn’t need that much attention, and when he’s off saving the world could join him or do her own thing – I think the relationship would have been successful. Hmm… I wonder what woman is like that. Oh me.

    This is my problem with Lisa Marie, it seems like the issues that Michael had with her were a result of misleading on her part because she wasn’t doing these things in the beginning. In Michael’s case, he wasn’t doing anything during the marriage that he hadn’t done when they were courting, Debbie Rowe was in the picture. I don’t know if their spats were mainly about children, there were so many other issues in this relationship… on Lisa’s end. I know Michael wasn’t perfect and their were many things about everything that he said that I didn’t agree with but it when someone has personality issues (Lisa) only God and time can fix that.

    Like

  185. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    January 9, 2013 9:46 pm

    Re Lisa Marie – who can be a sore point with many folks: Whether she was “the supreme love of his life” is open to discussion, and I don’t even go there. However, I am sympathetic to the many challenges they both faced. Michael was an international mega star for a long time — the center of attention. He was accustomed to the merry-go-round-circus that was his very big life. In many ways I think he liked it that way — creative juices flowing all the time, lots of people around, many interests, Neverland going full blast, tours, recording, travel, business matters, children’s’ initiatives, etc. I think he loved Lisa Marie and hoped to incorporate her into that dizzy whirlwind and that she would adapt — coming from a show business family herself. Plus, he wanted a wife, partner and (above all) CHILDREN of his own.

    Michael’s life never required him to adjust to others — everyone in his world adjusted to him. Given this, I’m always pleasantly amazed that he remained so nice and considerate of others — thanks to his upbringing probably. In any case, Lisa Marie probably found it very frustrating not to have ‘more of him’ as any wife wants exclusivity in her husband’s life. Lisa complained that even when they were together, she sensed that this mind was always racing with ideas and working on the next thing. She found it difficult to carve a role for herself in Michael Jackson, Inc., which left her frustrated and angry. Plus, his layers of entourage probably didn’t help matters either. This may account for her subsequent sniping and ‘badmouthing’ during interviews that followed the separation and divorce. Note that Michael never responded in kind. Later, he acknowledged in the Rabbi Stimuli tapes that he probably wasn’t very good husband material (in the conventional sense). By that time, of course, he had his children to which he was devoted. He was both Mother and Father to them and that’s the way he wanted it — to be the supreme parental influence in their lives and to give them his unconditional love. He did a wonderful job, too!

    Like

  186. January 9, 2013 8:46 pm

    Grace Rwawamba came into Michaels life too, maybe too late to be included in this letter.
    After Thome fired her she left to Haiti to help the victims of the earthaquake there. Really something in line with Michaels altruism.

    Like

  187. January 9, 2013 8:25 pm

    June´s smile on that pic. with Michael and Lily says it all (about her).But was she so afraid of
    Evan and maybe losing custody of Jordan that she refused to speak up ,she could have dispelled all the untruths and ,lies of the 93 allegations.?.She was not married to Evan and the Schwarz marriage was also coming apart.Did she feel that Michael had rejected her?
    Was she mad at him?And had he in fact rejected her.?
    I always thought that the story of Diana R. and Michael was true.She probably was the one to hold back in view her own well established career and that the age difference would have reflected negatively on her.Too bad that conventional ideas prevented them from
    developing the relationship further.She, Diana, did not yet have any children but had 5 later on.
    It is total news to me that Michael had fallen in love with Blankets mother,who the left him due to his unfaithfuness. Why did she not keep the child,Blanket that is?It would sure be interesting to learn more about this.
    I don´t think Debbie was a “mistake”.She and Michael were about the same age and had known eachother since their youth.With the Arvizio allegations things turned very negative for her too,she had probably expected at least some lasting friendship with Michael.And look up pic.s of her when young, she is quite nicelooking and still her face is good. In the past years I think she has been very disappointed and there fore the overweight.as well as
    some other negative matters.Now Paris and Prince need to grow up, mature etc, maybe sometime in a more distant future they will seek some connecftion to theit bio mother.

    Like

  188. January 9, 2013 3:05 pm

    “Am I the only one who suspects that the writer of the letter is Bob Jones? Who else could it be?”

    It could be Bill Bray who died several months later, in November 2004. Of course he wasn’t working for Michael already and had not been in the picture for many years by that time, but he was still on the payroll and surely in close contact with Michael’s associates. Men also like gossiping and they could have told him about Michael’s latest adventures with women.

    Or it could be someone else. Someone who was like a father to Michael. He even says about him – “that boy was sprung”. So I think it was someone much older than Michael. But not Bob Jones. The letter carries a totally different feeling about it.

    Like

  189. January 9, 2013 2:39 pm

    “This letter is a blast from the past. ..the media was rabid to cast him as anything EXCEPT a non-tragic heterosexual guy who enjoyed private moments with the ladies of his choice. Frankly, considering Michael’s life-long commitment to a schedule as complex, punishing, focused and time-consuming as his, it’s a wonder he found the time for romance. Clearly, he did and I’m glad it made him happy. Nobody could tell the stories of life with body and voice with such depth of feeling, raw emotion, and pure knowledge like Michael Jackson — and not know exactly what he was talking about! Bless Him.”

    Jason, a great comment, thank you so much! I am also happy that Michael had his own happy moments with ladies. It seems to me that at least initially he was so romantic that he was always in love with some lady. And women were always on his mind. Of course he checked himself very much but when he allowed himself to flow with the music on stage all of it was there in the open, without him even realizing that it showed so well.
    He himself said that he was living on stage and this is where he opened himself up. His dance was his ongoing love-affair with women.

    Like

  190. January 9, 2013 2:22 pm

    “I am sorry that you had to go into so much detail about circumcision but I was chuckling a bit. It had to be said and thank you for your courage. : – )” – TBiggerstaff

    Thank you so much. It relieved me a bit. I wasn’t very comfortable about it though this incessant talk about circumcision had really hardened me. Now I regard it more like a medical issue and look at it like a doctor would. And if it helps to establish the truth about Michael, then it is a must.

    Like

  191. jolie permalink
    January 9, 2013 10:52 am

    Am I the only one who suspects that the writer of the letter is Bob Jones? Who else could it be?

    Like

  192. Rodrigo permalink
    January 9, 2013 8:49 am

    He wasn’t gay. He wasn’t a pe-le. He wasn’t ‘pre-sexual’.
    He was shy. He was private.

    Like

  193. TBiggerstaff permalink
    January 9, 2013 7:27 am

    I have read this letter before but thank you so much for the reminder. Great story. I am sorry that you had to go into so much detail about circumcision but I was chuckling a bit. It had to be said and thank you for your courage. : – )
    I have always thought that Michael had relationships with women that were very satisfying. I say good for him and it was a miracle that he could keep that part of his life private. Randall Sullivan claiming in his book that Michael was pre-sexual was ridiculous and thoroughly laughable but the stupid media eats it up, of course.

    Like

  194. J Mason, New York, NY permalink
    January 9, 2013 6:56 am

    Thank you. This letter is a blast from the past. I’ve seen it before — word for word — posted some years ago on a now-defunct Web site. I remember laughing a little and thinking, so Mike loved the ladies, Mike loved sex with the ladies– and sex and the ladies certainly loved Mike. Duh! So what’s the big surprise? I never doubted it and I can’t understand why some people reacted with shock, disbelief — or even a sign of relief. As we know, Michael Jackson did not disgorge in public about his intimate moments — though Oprah and others pressed hard. Considering the lurid public behavior of today’s celebrities, Michael’s little adventures (as outlined here) seem pedestrian by comparison. Of course, I recognize that anti-Michael sentiment at the time was off the charts, and the media was rabid to cast him as anything EXCEPT a non-tragic heterosexual guy who enjoyed private moments with the ladies of his choice. Frankly, considering Michael’s life-long commitment to a schedule as complex, punishing, focused and time-consuming as his, it’s a wonder he found the time for romance. Clearly, he did and I’m glad it made him happy. Nobody could tell the stories of life with body and voice with such depth of feeling, raw emotion, and pure knowledge like Michael Jackson — and not know exactly what he was talking about! Bless Him.

    Like

  195. January 9, 2013 5:20 am

    thnx for putting in print what I already know !! ♥

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. An Insiders Letter To The National Enquirer About Michael Jackson and Women | Michael Jackson's Human Nature
  2. The Insider’s Letter About Michael Jackson’s women. Part 2. CHECKING IT UP WITH FRANK CASCIO’S HELP « Vindicating Michael

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: