Skip to content

An Insider’s Letter About Michael Jackson’s women. THE PRICE OF A MISSING ENQUIRER

January 30, 2013
Meet the National Enquirer (the April 21st, 1998 issue)

Meet the National Enquirer (the April 21st, 1998 issue)

Recently a reader sent us a link to a source that sells old (back) issues of the National Enquirer. His idea is that the letter by Michael’s aide we’ve been analyzing could not be published on June 12, 2004 as there was no newspaper issue on that date. The reader implies that this is the reason why the letter cannot be authentic.

I absolutely disagree but am still thankful to the naysayer even despite his obviously negative motives. The links he sent us will help to reach for the truth and this is all that matters.

Why will the links be helpful?

Because the National Enquirer is available in physical copies only and seems to have no internet equivalent, however it was the internet version of the Enquirer’s message board where the insider’s letter was found. I myself was unable to find traces of it and now that the naysayer has sent us some links we finally have proof that the letter was indeed placed on the internet version of the tabloid.

So my thanks go to Cole, though I am perfectly aware that he is no friend of us.


Those who know the story behind the Insider’s letter please skip this point while to all others I’ll explain what it’s all about.

Lord Montagu, Liberace, Scott Thorson and Michael Jackson, at Beaulieu in 1981, Beaulieu Motor Museum (UK)

On a date around April 15, 2004 the National Enquirer published a scandalous story about Michael Jackson and a certain Scott Thorson.

Scott Thorson was a man of forty five who was in exceptionally dire straits at that time, and this factor helped him to recover from the twenty years of amnesia and finally recall that back in early 80s he had had a two-day gay affair with MJ when they were in London.

Each was on his own business there – Scott Thorson was accompanying his lover Liberace to some event in London and Michael was writing Say-Say-Say with Paul McCartney. By now we know that they did briefly meet each other on a sort of a sightseeing trip as this rare picture shows it.

Let us note that while Liberace, Scott and Lord Montagu accompanying them to his Beaulieu Motor Museum are enjoying themselves in this photo, Michael does not look happy  at all and cannot sit at a bigger distance from Scott Thorson that he actually is. It looks like Michael is trying to avoid any physical contact with Thorson, and this alone heavily contradicts Thorson’s love story but confirms the insider’s account that Michael was very much “old school” and was utterly unhappy with Scott’s passes at him.

If you remember what a devout Jehovah’s Witness Michael was at the time (he read the bible even to prostitutes), you will understand the absurdity of the National Enquirer claims about Michael.

Scott Thorson’s story appeared, coincidentally of course, at the time when the Arvizo scandal was in full swing – during the last week of the Grand jury deliberations which ended on April 21, 2004. The story was a bombshell and it surely affected the Grand jury decision to indict Michael. Otherwise I cannot explain how they could go for Arvizo’s nonsense that the boy was ‘molested’ after the police and the world began looking at Neverland with grave suspicion following Bashir’s documentary.

Michael Jackson and June Chandler in Monaco  with Lily and Jordan

Michael Jackson and June Chandler in Monaco with Lily and Jordan, 1993

Two months after the publication of Scott’s story and all the hysteria accompanying it, in June 2004 the Enquirer revealed a message known to us as a letter from Michael’s close aide ( here is the text), who no longer worked for Michael, but was still in  the know of his most intimate secrets.

The author laughed at the gullibility of the public, explained the real situation with Scott (he made passes at Michael and Michael told him to f*ck off, after which they parted for good) and stated that Michael was not only heterosexual but “thoroughly” heterosexual. To support his point with facts the insider listed some of Michael’s affairs with women.

And among those women we see the name of  June Chandler. For us it is no surprise as we’ve known long ago that this woman had some success with Michael and we were only waiting for the confirmation of the fact. And this confirmation arrived from the insider in his message of June 12, 2004.

However now our naysayer says the letter could not be written on June 12th as the National Enquirer was published on the dates earlier and later than that.


This is what he says:

Via a website regarding back issues ( 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 ( — which is a weekend, making it impossible for them to have published anything on that date.

The first link takes us to a source that sells back issues of the National Enquirer. According to this source there was no June 12, 2004 issue of the paper – the National Enquirer went into publication only on the 7th and 14th of June.

True as it is this fact does not change anything for us. The Insider’s letter was not in the printed copy of the newspaper – it was on the Enquirer internet message board where it could appear at any moment in time, even on the 12th of June.

The second link takes us to a place which we much desired to go to on our own. It is the Enquirer’s internet message board which is defunct now but the link has a captured picture of what it looked like back in 2004.

The screen shot of the National Enquirer's forum page of June 12th, 2004

The screen shot of the National Enquirer’s forum page of June 12 2004

This picture alone is proof enough that the Enquirer’s internet forum page did exist at the time when the letter from Michael’s aide appeared there on June 12, 2004.

So we made sure that it was possible, and this is all we needed to know about it.

For the most inquisitive I will explain how the page was organized. Here is some of its text retyped:

General Discussion A place for you to talk about what ever is on your mind outside the realm of topics in our other forums.User(s) active in this forum : 3





Last post info June 12 2004,2:27 pm
By: broken record
The Boob Tube
From daytime soaps to prime time sitcoms, chat about the hottest series on television here.User(s) active in this forum : 1



June 11 2004,7:58 pm
In: Jump the Shark?
By: broken record
In the Headlines
If it’s in the news, you’ll find it here.User(s) active in this forum : 0



June 12 2004,11:50 am
In: President Reagan Begin…
By: broken record
Everyone likes shiny things. Tallk about  the stars, their secrets, their sex lives and all the fit gossip here.User(s) active in this forum : 6



June 12 2004,12:08 pm
In: Limbaugh announces end…
By: broken record
Blind Items
Got a juicy scoop on a celeb but you don’t want to reveal who it is? Drop some hints here without giving away the whole picture!User(s) active in this forum : 1



June 11 2004,7:22 pm
In: Actors wanted
By: broken record
 * “broken record” is the internet name of the last user
The links would not open as they were not archived

None of the links can be followed. The message says “Wayback Machine doesn’t have that page archived”

The several visitors we see in the forum are truth seekers like myself who cannot go any further than this page. Whenever we try to follow any of its links we face a disappointing notice:

“Wayback Machine doesn’t have that page archived. It doesn’t seem to be available on the live web, either. Want to search for all archived pages under …. link?”

I was willing to search as they suggested it but it brought me nowhere again. So the catched copy of the main page is all we have. Let’s see what it is about.

The message board is divided into subjects which in their turn are divided into topics. Topics are the articles in the earlier issues and since there are so many of them (2860 “in the headlines” section) it means that some stories were not forgotten and continued in the forum for months after their publication.

We may be sure the Scott Thorson topic was constantly in the discussion section and this is why a reply from our Insider came only on June 12. Evidently he could not stand it any longer. He was patient for two months after the story was released, but after facing all that gay hysteria for so long he could no longer hold himself and disclosed the truth about Jackson.

Let us remember that like all other newspapers the National Enquirer needs some information about the people leaving their comments there. The information often varies depending on the paper’s confidentiality policy. The standard set asks for the author’s email address, real name and link to his Facebook account (if any). But some ask even for the physical address of the person.

What I mean is that there are always ways to trace back the author of the comment, especially for the National Enquirer team. They have their own staff of “investigators” who are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a salacious story from a true insider, and once they saw one they wouldn’t have lost their chance and grabbed him.

Meet the National Enquirer (the November 11, 1997 issue)

Meet the National Enquirer (the November 11, 1997 issue)

Remember the way the National Enquirer followed the Newt boys and their father, offering them $200,000 for saying that Michael Jackson molested them? This fact was discovered from the tapes of the deceased Enquirer journalist Jim Mitteager.

In case someone missed this enlightening story let me provide an excerpt from it in order to explain what kind of journalistic sharks we are dealing with:

Former Protégé Vouches for Jacko

Thursday, April 07, 2005

By Roger Friedman

No matter who testifies next in Michael Jackson‘s alleged “prior acts” of sexual abuse mini-trial, the prosecution will have to deal with the fact that only one boy will show up to say he was molested many years ago by the pop star.

Now comes Robert Newt, 30, long a “Holy Grail” for The National Enquirer from its investigation into Jackson circa 1993.

Newt and his twin brother Ronald Newt Jr. (now deceased) were aspiring performers and spent two weeks as guests in the Jackson family home in Encino, Calif., around 1985. They were about 11 years old.

This all occurred before Neverland was completed. Michael, Janet Jackson and LaToya Jackson were all there, as well as the Jackson parents.

Fast-forward to December 1993. The National Enquirer, desperate to get a scoop that Jackson has abused children, heard that the Newt kids once spent time with Jackson.

The tabloid offered the Newts’ father, Ronald Newt Sr., $200,000 to say that something happened between his kids and Jackson.

Newt, a San Francisco “character” and filmmaker whose past includes pimping and jail time, considered the offer.

A contract was drawn up, signed by Enquirer editor David Perel. Enquirer reporter Jim Mitteager, who is also now deceased, met with Newt and his son at the Marriott hotel in downtown San Francisco.

It seemed that all systems were go. But the Newts declined the offer at the last minute.

Ron Newt Sr., to whom $200,000 would have seemed like the world on a silver platter, wrote “No good sucker” where his signature was supposed to go. The reason: Nothing ever happened between Jackson and the Newt boys.

Indeed, no kids, no matter how much money was dangled by the tabloids, ever showed up to trade stories of Jackson malfeasance for big lumps of cash after the first scandal broke in 1993.

“Maybe there aren’t any other kids,” a current Enquirer editor conceded.

I met Bobby Newt yesterday near the office where he works as a mortgage broker in suburban Los Angeles.

Just as his dad promised me a few days earlier, he’s a good-looking kid. He’s half black and half Chinese.

Robert and his twin brother were likely very cute kids. They have the same features as other boys advertised as alleged Neverland “victims.” But all Bobby Newt remembers of his encounter with Jackson is good times.

And all he remembers about the man from The National Enquirer is that he wanted Bobby, then 18, to lie.

“He said, ‘Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,'” Newt said. “He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, ‘We take these people down. That’s what we do.'”

Prior to Bobby’s meeting with Mitteager, Bobby’s father met with him and brought along an intermediary, San Francisco politician, businessman and fellow jailbird Charlie Walker.

Walker is infamous in San Francisco circles for being “hooked up” to anything interesting cooking on the West Coast.

“My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy [Mitteager] said, ‘Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on ‘Oprah’ in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we’ll give you money,'” Newt said.

Two pieces of evidence confirm the Newts’ story. One is the actual contract proffered by the Enquirer and signed by Perel, who declined to comment for this story.

The contract, written as a letter, says it’s an agreement between the tabloid and the Newts for their exclusive story regarding “your relationship with and knowledge of Michael Jackson, and his sexuality, your knowledge of Michael Jackson’s sexual contact and attempts at sexual contact with Robert Newt and others.”

Mitteager expected them to sign, even though it was completely untrue and there was, in fact, no story.

He knew you were lying, I reminded Bobby Newt.

“Exactly! And he didn’t care! He was like, ‘Just say it and we’ll give you the money.’ And I was like, ‘He [Jackson] never touched me!” Newt said. “He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, ‘We’ll give you this money,’ even [if it’s not true]. And they’d take it.”

Bobby Newt recalled more details of the 30-minute meeting with The National Enquirer’s reporter:

“He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said ‘You know, it’s going to be a huge scandal. You’ll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You’re going to be famous!’ But to me, you’d be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn’t do anything even close to trying to molest us.”

Ironically, the second piece of evidence also backs up the Newts’ story. Unbeknownst to them, they were taped by Mitteager.


As a footnote to all of this: In the small world of the Los Angeles music business, Bobby Newt recently worked with choreographer and alleged Jackson “victim” Wade Robson on tracks for his first album, a potential hit compendium of original R&B ballads.

Jackson’s former maid Blanca Francia implicated Robson in the case during Monday’s testimony. Robson is not testifying for the prosecution.

“Wade is straight as they come. He’s getting married. And nothing ever happened to him, either,” Newt said.

He shakes his head, thinking about those who have made claims against Jackson.

“You have to look at these people, go back and see when their relationship with Michael fractured. The calls stopped coming,” he said.

And Newt should know. After the adventure in 1985, the Newts never saw Jackson again. It didn’t bother them, Bobby says, as much as it might have others.

“They probably didn’t like it. And this is their way of getting back at him,” he said.

Full story is here:,2933,152708,00.html

Frankly it is only now that I realize that in the Newts’ and Scott Thorson’s cases one and the same tabloid newspaper was involved. When you don’t read them they look very much alike and you can’t really form an impression of the individual style. And now that we’ve made our acquaintance with the National Enquirer we have some idea about it.

I wonder why the National Enquirer investigators did not approach the author of that letter about Michael. Or they probably did and found the truth too boring to report. In this case they missed the opportunity of a lifetime – Michael Jackson’s real life was no less sensational than the fictional Scott Thorson story.


The back issues available to us show only the cover of the issues. Driven by curiosity I naturally looked for the cover of the issue published around April 15, 2004, when Scott Thorson’s story broke out. However here a big surprise was awaiting me.

It turned out that the National Enquirer provides copies for all periods in the 80s, 90s, 2000s until today except the copies for the period of January-May 2004.

Here is a screen shot of the respective page selling their back issues for the year 2004. Everything is available on that site – issues for the previous year and the following year, but the period of January-May 2004 does not list a single of their publications:

2004 - out of stock items

All items before and after are available except the January-May issues which are NEVER on sale. Some of them are currently out of stock but they are still considered available. The January-May issues are not.

And it isn’t that these issues are temporarily “out of stock” –  they are simply never offered for sale.

The period of the missing newspapers miraculously coincides with the filing of criminal charges against Jackson in December 2003 (and beginning of the Arvizo case) and the close of the Grand jury deliberations (March 29 – April 21, 2004) when the joint effort of the prosecution and media led to Michael’s indictment.

Given that these issues may be potentially the most popular (and profitable) it is a surprise that all of them were effectively erased from public view to be never seen again.

Nat.Enquirer old copy offered at $220

Some are selling it at $220

This mystery intrigued me so much that I spent two full days looking at the covers of the National Enquirer back issues offered for sale by various internet outlets. I’ve seen a lot, some of them pretty expensive (up to $220), however the ones I needed were nowhere to be found.

But since a negative result is a result too, let us make some conclusions from the mysterious lack of these issues:

  • There must be a reason why the National Enquirer withdrew all those copies from sales. Shame for the old lies about Jackson will probably be thinking too good of a veteran like the National Enquirer, so this leaves us only with a version that they no longer want to provide direct proof of their old blatant lies about Jackson.
  • A less exotic and purely technical explanation is that all those copies have long been seized by their readers and are kept as a treasure trove until the time when they can sell them at fabulous prices.

Well, if this is indeed the case let me give these people some tips as to the most valuable issues – now that I’ve studied so many of them.

Tip 1

The issue containing Scott Thorson’s allegations will be considered by many a valuable investment. However there is a slight problem with the dates. While all media screams about April 15, 2004 as the date of the original story our helpful naysayer says that in 2004 all issues were released on Monday only. And April 15 is Thursday. Moreover the stories published at the time said that the Enquirer would go on sale only on Friday, April 16 and in these circumstances it is difficult to say what precise date it really was.

Sorry if you waste your money on the wrong copy in case of a purchase, however the story is so big trash that it would probably be better if you didn’t buy at all:


Published on: April 15, 2004

“I had gay sex with Michael Jackson!” Those are the shocking words of Liberace’s former lover Scott Thorson — the first person ever to give an on-the-record interview about a homosexual affair with Jackson.

And his revelations could prove crucial in Jackson’s child molestation case.

In the issue that goes on sale FridayThorson tells The ENQUIRER how he met Jackson in Las Vegas in 1979, began a gay affair with the singer in London and much more.

Tip 2

Meet the National Enquirer (the October 10th, 1995 issue)

“Michael’s a squealing lover, says Lisa Marie.” The National Enquirer  October 10th, 1995

Another potentially very costly issue is the one which published the most intimate details of Michael Jackson’s sex with Lisa Marie Presley and the way she (allegedly) described it. I won’t provide the text as it isn’t a kamasutra site and will limit myself only to the picture of the respective page.

You can go to the well-informed sources to read the text. They say that the issue was published on October 10, 1995:

To my surprise this copy still seems to be on sale, so for anyone wanting to invest in it here is the respective link to the offer. The cover is not displayed by the seller so people don’t know what secrets are kept inside it:

The current price is $11,11 and only one copy is available.

Tip 3

But the most sought-after issue of the National Enquirer is the one that nobody has ever seen, read or kept in their hands. All we know about it is some vague description provided in Ray Chandler’s book. However despite our less than scarce knowledge about it many of Michael’s advocates will be simply dying to get hold of that issue.

Currently it is not in stock but there is still a slight chance that it will come up for sale one day and I hope that some of Michael’s advocates will be able to get it. This is why I won’t provide you the details of the exact issue and will send them to those who will be ready to make an immediate order for it at the requested price of $11, 11. Having that copy is worth a thousand dollars to us and I am very much hopeful that one day we will be able to obtain it.

In the meantime here is some information about this issue. Ray Chandler described it as follows in his book:

Simultaneous with their return from Europe, the National Enquirer released a story that disturbed Evan greatly. While he was aware that any one hanging around with Michael would eventually appear in the tabloids this particular story was about Michael’s new family and described Jordie as if he was the singers adopted son.

The article was pure hype, but Evan feared that Jordie might now be a target for kidnappers or jealous fans. Michael had voiced his love for many children, all children, but never before had any one child been described as being that close to the superstar.

Knowing that Dave would share his concerns, Evan suggested he tell June to “stop yapping to her friends.” It was a sister of June’s closest friend who had sold the story to the Enquirer.

Two days later June called Evan to scold him for telling Dave she had a big mouth. No sooner had June finished with Evan when Dave called. If Evan was upset about the Enquirer article, Dave was livid. “That asshole [Michael] is destroying my business and my family!” he screamed into the phone. Dave told Evan he was getting calls from friends and business acquaintances expressing their sympathy for the loss of his family. He felt humiliated.

Dave also felt double-crossed. Before June left for Europe he gave her five thousand dollars and told her not to accept any gifts from Michael.

Yes, the issue most coveted by us is the one with a story about Michael Jackson, June Chandler and her two children and their visit to Monaco.

In that story the National Enquirer introduced the Chandlers as Michael’s new adopted family and evidently provided a thrilling account of that trip on the basis of what June first told to her friend, and then the sister of that friend sold to the tabloid.

The Monaco event was the first official outing of June Chandler Michael arranged for her and the children. Michael placed her immediately behind himself during the World Music Awards ceremony and took her children to the front row to sit next to Prince Albert. Afterwards he had them invited to the reception arranged by the royal family for the celebrities attending the World Music Awards ceremony.

Celebrities and their Cartier Love bracelets

Celebrities and their Cartier Love bracelets

After her stay in the limelight it was inevitable for a tabloid like the National Enquirer to prick its ears in respect of June Chandler, especially if she was still wearing on her wrist the Cartier Love bracelet she had received from Michael in Las Vegas a month earlier.

It is only poor peasants like us who don’t know the symbolic meaning of the Cartier love bracelet and therefore totally overlooked its tale-telling meaning, while the trained hounds from the National Enquirer were sure to spot it the first time they saw June Chandler wear it and realized how meaningful and screaming a love signal it was.

This is the first thing they notice when they look at celebrities at all.

I cannot believe that the several times I read this piece from Ray Chandler’s book saying that David “told her not to accept any gifts from Michael”, I did not notice that David Schwartz, Evan Chandler and everyone else also noticed Michael Jackson’s gift of the Love bracelet and this is why David was so furious with his wife that he called her a “whore” .

Imagine a man letting his wife travel for a few days and seeing her come back with a symbol of never-ending love on her hand given to her by another man. Even if she had it unlocked and did not show it to her legit husband, the picture of her wearing it on the cover of that tabloid newspaper could still send a signal to the whole world, and this is how David Schwartz and all his friends most probably learned about the gift. Now I understand why his friends called David to express their sympathy with him for the loss of his family – it must have been too evident from the National Enquirer story and pictures.

Later on the Enquirer changed their story about June Chandler’s visit to Monaco into an opposite one, but their initial version, retold to the tabloid by someone who heard it from a friend of June Chandler, could be a real gem helping us to shed much more light on the situation.

But why is the June Chandler issue of the National Enquirer so rare a bird? So rare that no one has ever seen it?


All sensational stories published in the National Enquirer never failed to be repeated by hundreds of other media sources, in the same way it was done with Scott Thorson’s lie. They surely did the same with the June Chandler story – at the time it became so well known that David Schwartz was bombarded with calls from his friends and business acquaintances. So all of them did see it.

But if everyone knew about the story then some traces of it should remain in the Internet now, and in no less degree than the Scott Thorson tale quite comparable to it in its scope?

In theory yes, however here another surprise is awaiting us – no matter how hard we look for the story of June Chandler’s trip to Monaco we will not be able to find a single trace of it. It looks as if it never existed at all.

I know it for a fact because I wasted two days of my life searching for it all over the Internet and came to a conclusion that someone had cleaned it so well that not a single scrap of it has been left.

Its disappearance is complete, profound and absolute. Not only is the story itself missing, but all its reprints have mysteriously disappeared too, and if  we hadn’t read Ray Chandler’s book none of us would have ever known that it ever existed at all.

Well, the further we go the more appreciative I grow of this book – it is true that manuscripts don’t burn.


Given the so-called freedom of speech and claims of easy accessibility to information, the disappearance of previously reported facts about Michael Jackson and the apparent media bias in favor of stories like the one from Scott Thorson look very strange indeed and smell of the agenda.

The agenda becomes all the more clear when you see sites like the one I saw yesterday. At first glance it was not that bad as it listed Michael Jackson among the greatest idols of the world and put him on a par with Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln and Leonardo da Vinci. The comparison of Michael to these people from the point of view of their influence on the world I fully agree with, but their description of Michael Jackson I absolutely do not.

It is simply incredible to portray Michael Jackson they way they do it in this article. Here is the full text of it – please note that it is a fresh view on Jackson as it was published only four months ago.

The authors of the “Most Famous People” site are shockingly selective:

 September 16, 2012

Michael Jackson

Liberace’s adopted boy/plaything Scott Thorson told The National Enquirer in April 2004 that he and Michael Jackson had sex in 1979, and later pursued an affair in the early ’80s.

While much of the world expected a guilty verdict, in a high-profile trial Jackson was acquitted of child molestation charges on 13 June 2005, with the assistance of attorney Tom Mesereau. Santa Barbara County district attorney Tom Sneddon’s case was very weak, particularly in that it brought the issue of the motives of the accuser’s mother into question. Bringing the first charge, that of child abduction, was an error of strategy that likely killed the entire case.

Died 25 June 2009 while under heavy sedation, a circumstance which led to the prosecution and conviction of Jackson’s personal physician, cardiologist Conrad Murray.

Well, this is all these people have to say about Michael.

Not only do they focus on the five minutes of Scott Thorson’s lies about Jackson as the domineering factor in Michael’s biography, but they also suggest that the non-guilty verdict at the trial was merely a technical mistake, a sort of an error of Sneddon’s strategy that ‘killed’ the entire case. So it is the ‘strategy’ and the ‘weak case’ of Tom Sneddon that killed it, but not Michael’s innocence, you see?

And first they imply that there was nobody else in Michael’s life except Scott Thorson – which sends us to one group of people which is interested in this kind of stories for putting Michael on their banner.

But then these people imply that Michael Jackson was not innocent in respect of children either, but despite that they still proclaim him to be one of the greatest idols of the world – and this peculiar combination of thoughts sends us to another group of men who have a very specific perception of reality and way of living.

MJ rareAnd after all this you are still not convinced that some people have an agenda in respect of Jackson and want to use him as their poster boy for promoting their ideas?

What is perfectly clear is that none of these people want the truth about Jackson. All of them want to snatch him for themselves and use him as a banner for their own goals.

And when the truth contradicts their interests they fight the truth like no other.

Poor Michael, they used him inside out when he was alive, and they wouldn’t leave him alone even after his death.

What a disgusting world we live in.

*  *  *

Related stories:

35 Comments leave one →
  1. Bev permalink
    January 30, 2013 12:37 pm

    I follow all of your diligent work in this effort to vindicate Michael. I admire your persistence and your dedication to this endeavor.
    I went to the link you provided for the Enquirer issue containing Lisa Marie’s supposed revelation and I noticed too like you, that only one copy is available. Does this seem fishy to you? I would’ve expected this copy to be snatched up in an instant. I was about to buy it but thought I’d first inquire as to whether or not you already have this copy or the information contained within it first.
    Thank you for your sincere efforts. I wish I had the time to devote myself to this cause but I’d be broke if I did!
    Always eager to read your latest updates in this ongoing saga.



  2. January 30, 2013 2:01 pm

    “I went to the link you provided for the Enquirer issue containing Lisa Marie’s supposed revelation and I noticed too like you, that only one copy is available. Does this seem fishy to you? I would’ve expected this copy to be snatched up in an instant.”

    Bev, I don’t think that there is anything fishy about it – there are much more fishy things in this campaign around Michael Jackson than this issue. In this case the seller does not provide the cover of that particular copy, so people simply do not know. Of course there is a chance that those fans who wrote about this issue made a mistake in its date, so I cannot guarantee you that their data is correct. Go ahead and see for yourself.

    P.S. I’ve taken information about this issue from the following blogs:


  3. nannorris permalink
    January 31, 2013 5:25 am

    This is a fascinating post.Thank You so much for doing it.
    I have probably read June Chandler testimony ten times ,and didnt pick up on the love bracelet thing.
    Now I see why she has such a wide smile on her face in Monaco, and why her husband was furious.
    When you think about it, what the heck is MJ giving someone elses wife, even if separated , a love bracelet.
    And she accepted it..
    No wonder Evan expected them all to be set for life


  4. nannorris permalink
    January 31, 2013 5:29 am

    And I truly believe there was a massive move to take down MJ by the media..We never would have even had a trial , had it not been for the Bashir piece putting things in motion.
    As far as why Mj was indicted,..
    Somewhere , someplace I remember Mesereau saying that it was Larry Feldmans persuasive testimony at the grand jury , about the earlier settlement,that led them to an indictment, not the Arvizo testimony.
    Which is Im sure why Sneddon called him in , to seal the deal.


  5. alinemj permalink
    January 31, 2013 6:35 am

    Thank you for all these information, each day I have no doubt that this letter existed, as I already said, this person answered some e-mails from fans of Michael at the time, though I can not find.
    Another very interesting thing that I had never seen that picture (if my eyes are seeing well), see that Michael is completely comfortable with them, He does not seem to be running from June, they’re very very near, I’m in doubt if he this with his arm around her, only saw Michael this way with women that he wanted to be near (examples Lisa, Diana).
    Interesting that she already had a bracelet of love
    There are videos of that moment? I would love to see


  6. Fatima permalink
    January 31, 2013 4:33 pm

    thank you for this article, very interesting! Everything from the medias perspective on MJ seems very very fishy as evident here.

    Its almost unbelievable that the site “world famous idol” is writing about MJ in such a disgusting manner. At first I thought maybe thats their way of writing about everyone, in a scandalous/sensational sort of way, but when I read the presentations of other people listed there it become clear to me they have an agenda. They are really trying to destroy his legacy so that the new generation stay ignorant. The fact that they’re not even mentioning MJ’s accomplishments in the entertainment-world, his work as an artist and his huge impact and legacy..well, its just utterly disgusting!


  7. February 1, 2013 5:42 am

    I never knew Michael was involved with June Chandler. I am totally shocked! Did this take place before or after the allegations made against Michael and was she involved in making the allegations????

    As far as Scott Tompson, what a bunch of crap!


  8. February 1, 2013 3:00 pm

    “I never knew Michael was involved with June Chandler. I am totally shocked! Did this take place before or after the allegations made against Michael and was she involved in making the allegations?” – Doris Gorgo

    This took place before the allegations – in April-May 1993. The very essence of the 1993 story is that when the scandal broke out they Chandlers decided to present the relationship developing between Michael and June Chandler as the one between MJ and her son Jordan. They simply replaced one real love story (how deep it was we do not know) with another one, a totally fictional one.

    When Evan Chandler made his allegations in August 1993 June Chandler initially did not take part, but later on joined the rest and put her signature under the retainer agreement with Larry Feldman, their attorney. The suit was filed in September 1993 or a month after the criminal investigation had been opened by the police (on August 17, 1993).

    It is interesting that in her testimony twelve years later, in 2005, June Chandler was somewhat evasive whether she was or wasn’t part of the lawsuit, as if trying to distance herself from what Evan Chandler and Jordan had done. Here are some quotes from her testimony.

    Sneddon examining June Chandler:
    20 Q. Now, at some point in time, Mrs. Chandler,
    21 your son Jordan Chandler was involved in a lawsuit,
    22 Chandler versus Jackson, a civil lawsuit. Do you
    23 recall that?
    24 A. Yes, I do.
    25 Q. And were you a participant in that lawsuit
    26 as a representative of your son?
    27 A. Yes, I was.

    Thomas Mesereau cross-examining June Chandler:

    1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You sued Michael Jackson,
    2 right?
    3 A. Jordan Chandler sued Michael Jackson.
    4 Q. Were you listed as a plaintiff?
    5 A. Yes.
    6 Q. And in response to your suit, Mr. Jackson
    7 sued for extortion, true?
    8 A. I don’t recall.
    9 Q. Okay. Were you and Evan and Jordie all
    10 represented by Larry Feldman?
    11 A. Yes, we were.


  9. February 1, 2013 3:30 pm

    “Its almost unbelievable that the site “world famous idol” is writing about MJ in such a disgusting manner. They are really trying to destroy his legacy so that the new generation stay ignorant. ”

    Fatima, I was amazed too. But there is also a second layer to that site which I didn’t elaborate on. All the five great people whose pictures are put in the header of the site have one trait which was either true about these people or is falsely claimed about them.

    It is true about Leondardo da Vinci and Abraham Lincoln, is alleged (most probably wrongly) about Eistein and Mahatma Gadhi, and is absolutely wrong about Michael Jackson.

    But the authors of the site want all those five great people to be in one group. And this is where the agenda is.

    Have you guessed what it is?


  10. February 1, 2013 10:42 pm

    “I have no doubt that this letter existed, as I already said, this person answered some e-mails from fans of Michael at the time, though I can not find.” – alinemj

    I would be great if we could find the answers from the same person! I have little hope but one day something may surface and we should be on the lookout.

    “Another very interesting thing that I had never seen that picture (if my eyes are seeing well), see that Michael is completely comfortable with them, He does not seem to be running from June, they’re very very near, I’m in doubt if he this with his arm around her, only saw Michael this way with women that he wanted to be near (examples Lisa, Diana).”

    For your eyes to see better here is an enlarged version of the same photo. Yes, Michael is completely comfortable with June, practically pressing his shoulder to hers or probably even embracing her a bit. And each time we see him in Monaco he is also holding Lily’s hand (with Jordan being somewhat aside).

    “There are videos of that moment? I would love to see”

    I haven’t been able to find any.


  11. February 1, 2013 11:06 pm

    “Somewhere , someplace I remember Mesereau saying that it was Larry Feldmans persuasive testimony at the grand jury , about the earlier settlement,that led them to an indictment, not the Arvizo testimony. Which is Im sure why Sneddon called him in , to seal the deal.” – nannorris

    Larry Feldman is playing a very sinister role in the whole matter. In addition to heavily stretching the truth about Jordan Chandler he was telling flat lies about the Arvizos – he personally reported their case to Tom Sneddon in the summer of 2003 after he and Dr. Katz had been turned down by the DCFS (who had interviewed the Arvizos several months earlier and found nothing). And while he was reporting it to the authorities Larry Feldman himself didn’t believe the Arvizo lies as he later said to Larry King.

    But if he didn’t believe them himself why was he so insistent on taking the case directly to Sneddon? It wasn’t even his business to do it.

    When Larry King was to testify about it in 2005 and already arrived in court, his testimony about Larry Feldman was barred as “hearsay”. And Larry Feldman denied that he had said anything of the kind to Larry King. Out of these two I believe Larry King only, especially since his words were confirmed by his lunch partner who took part in the conversation. Larry Feldman is simply a liar which is damning for a lawyer who is supposed to be crystal clear in what he does and says.

    Here are several articles about it reprinted from CNN, Fox News and AP by the MJfancommunity at the time when Larry King was to testify:

    Defense Filing Questions Lawyer

    Larry Feldman, a lawyer who has represented Michael Jackson’s accuser and his mother, told CNN’s talk show host Larry King (‘Larry King Live’) and publisher Michael Viner that he considered the mother “a flake” and didn’t believe the boy, according to a report of a witness interview filed by Michael Jackson’s investigator Scott Ross. The memo, filed Monday and released by the court Wednesday, was offered by the defense to attack the earlier testimony of attorney Larry Feldman. The memo was offered in support of a defense request that Viner testify in the trial.

    In the memo, Scott Ross said he interviewed Michael Viner on April 26 about the breakfast meeting with Larry Feldman and Larry King about six months before the trial began. According to the memo, Viner said the three men met at a Beverly Hills deli along with other friends. He said Feldman wanted to talk about becoming a commentator on King’s show during the Michael Jackson trial.

    “Viner recalled that Feldman had referred to the mother as ‘a flake’ and said he did not believe the boy,” the memo said. “Feldman added that he sent the mother and boy out to ‘another expert and they failed the smell test.’

    Feldman added that he did not believe them and they were into this case for one reason, ‘money,'” Ross wrote. “When I asked Viner if Feldman actually said that, he replied, ‘Absolutely.'”

    Ross said he advised Viner that Feldman had testified he did not know the publisher.

    “Viner said that was not true, that they had met several times…. Viner has no idea why Feldman would say such a thing,” the memo said.

    Larry King has already been subpoenaed to testify. Now the defense is fighting an effort to exclude Viner’s testimony as hearsay.

    During his testimony, Larry Feldman had said he has never met Viner but did remember meeting with King and “six of his pals” at the Beverly Hills deli. He denied making the comments in question, and denied that the molestation trial was part of a plot to get money. He testified he was first contacted by the accuser’s family because of a dispute over the boy’s appearance in the Bashir documentary, and that he referred the family to a psychologist. It was the psychologist who reported suspicions of molestation to authorities after interviewing the family.

    Source: MJFC / AP

    Larry King Expected To Testify Thursday

    On Monday, Michael Jackson’s spokesperson Raymone Baine spoke with press outside the courtroom. She said that the defense expects to call CNN’s Larry King to testify on Thursday.
    The defense is expected to ask Mr. King if it is true that attorney Larry Feldman once said during a breakfast meeting with King that the accuser’s mother made up the molestation story. Feldman has denied the story.

    Source: MJFC / AP

    Larry King Testimony Barred

    On Thursday (May 19, 2005), Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled against allowing CNN Talk Show host Larry King to testify for the defense in the Michael Jackson trial.

    Outside the presence of the jury, Larry King told the court that he and his producer met with attorney Larry Feldman prior to the start of the trial to ask him to appear on the “Larry King Live” show. King stated that during that lunch meeting, Feldman had told him that the accuser’s mother was out for money and that he didn’t take her case because she didn’t seem credible. King added that Feldman said the mother was a “wacko” several times during the conversation:

    “The mother was a ‘wacko’ was the term he used.

    He said he thinks she wants money. … He said ‘wacko’ a couple of times and he said ‘she’s in this for the money.”

    Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. asked King if he asked Feldman to clarify what he meant by wacko. King answered:

    “No, I think that’s self-explanatory.”

    Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled that the testimony was irrelevant.

    Source: MJFC / Fox News


  12. Fatima permalink
    February 3, 2013 3:03 am

    @Helena, yes!! i got the connection, wow good observation 🙂 No wonder they started MJ’s presentation with that thorson-story, ugh. I also noted they wrote “matter of dispute” on his sexual orientation, siiigh, some people just prefer their veil of ignorance.


  13. Rodrigo permalink
    February 3, 2013 8:09 am

    Reading the National Enquirer, it says Lisa had sex with Michael before they got married.

    She called Michael a hot little number.

    And apparently he liked sex standing up lol


  14. February 5, 2013 8:25 am

    “But if he didn’t believe them himself why was he so insistent on taking the case directly to Sneddon? It wasn’t even his business to do it”

    Because Larry had every intention of taking Michael to civil court after the criminal trial. Sinister motive: MONEY.

    If the family had not come off so unbelievable I suspect they would have sued Michael even if there had been an acquittal. Larry said in an interview there was no such intention and that it would be difficult to sue MJ after the trial. For that piece of deceit he had several legal pundits laugh in his face and then go on to explain to the public how much more effective a guilty verdict would have been to securing a large settlement.

    “Partial Transcript
    Show: Court TV
    Air date: April 1 2005”

    “JOE LAWLESS: I think the idea that Larry Feldman says you\’d have to be nuts to take a criminal conviction in front of a judge in a civil suit, I really think that\’s a laughable statement. It\’s the easiest way to get a verdict on liability.”,4876.msg99323.html#msg99323

    There are articles which report talks of suing for a percentage of Michael’s entire holding rather than a 20 or 30 mil settlement. (another reason for grubbing in MJ’s financial matters which had nothing to do with molestation or kidnap) Do you know what that would have made Larry if he could have pulled it off? They would have been mega wealthy, but more importantly Larry would have been “THE MAN” to have successfully ripped MJ off twice. Yes, I know Larry was already wealthy and successful, but NOTHING like what could have happened.

    Given the sentiment over the verdict that was stirred by a tsunami of slanted reporting, such as a constant news report on Court TV Online: “What the jury did not see”, a report of a blemish, but nothing about not being uncircumcised; there is a good chance Larry & the Arvizos (plus whomever else) would have very wealthy people and fêted people.


  15. February 5, 2013 12:23 pm

    Larry had every intention of taking Michael to civil court after the criminal trial. Sinister motive: MONEY. – Dialdancer

    Yes, Dial, by now we know about it, but the MJEOL admin worded it so well that I need to repeat it here:

    Civil Suit Cover-up? – MJEOL Bullet #109

    “The bombshells keep falling in the Michael Jackson case. The latest report confirms what some have believed: Larry Feldman was not being truthful in previous interviews when he’s said he was not planning to file a civil suit against Jackson in this case. If you remember, the prosecution and their sympathizers went out of their way to convince people that the reason the family hadn’t filed a civil suit was because they did not want money from Jackson. Well, new information blows that lie right out of the water. And this information comes from the psychologist hired by Feldman to “pull out” the allegations of molestation in the first place. NBC’s Mike Taibbi has revealed more information found within the documents obtained by them earlier. The psychologist, Stan Katz, told Santa Barbara investigators in June 2003 about the accuser and his siblings:

    KATZ: Mr. Feldman actually referred these kids to me because they come to him in this lawsuit Feldman’s going to file… Whether the mother’s motive is to do it for money, I can’t tell you…I mean, certainly they’re kind of a poor family.

    By Katz’s own admission to Santa Barbara County investigators, he was brought into this case by Feldman as a result of a planned civil lawsuit! If you remember, Feldman claimed during a June 15 2004 interview:

    FELDMAN: I don’t know where they got this idea that this is about money. It just simply isn’t true. (at time 2:45 into the March 19 Today show video)

    Well now we clearly know that it was all about the money, at least from the very beginning and before Katz even became involved. Katz’s has said in no uncertain terms that the kids were referred to him by Feldman specifically because Feldman was preparing to file a lawsuit. The story in the media is that the family did not know anything about any abuse until after the accuser went through many sessions of therapy in which the psychologist had to “drag” the information out of the accuser.” (end of quote)

    But the above won’t be the full picture of it if we don’t add that Larry Feldman did not believe the Arvizos’ story himself and openly said to Larry King that the mother was after money. He knew that the case was a bogus one, but nevertheless wanted to make big money out of an innocent man’s blood.

    I think that money itself is not a sinister reason for anything at all, because it is part of our life and all of us need money to enjoy some basic comfort in it. It is making money by dirty methods like Feldman’s – lying and sacrificing innocent people for the sake of money – which is really sinister.

    In the past they used to call it selling one’s soul to the devil for the yellow metal. And this is indeed what it is.


  16. February 5, 2013 1:17 pm

    “There are articles which report talks of suing for a percentage of Michael’s entire holding rather than a 20 or 30 mil settlement” – Dialdancer

    Right. I’ve even read in a Hideout forum an article in back translation from Spanish from some US source (not functioning now) that there was an agreement between Feldman and other participants in the scheme (including Diane Dimond) on how Michael’s money was to be distributed after the civil suit.

    In this connection another piece of information is important. Victor Gutierrez also bragged to La Cuarta during the Arvizo case that “this time he would own Neverland”. During the trial he worked as a consultanting producer for the Dateline (but despite receiving a good salary wasn’t paying out any money to Michael Jackson following the earlier court decision).

    The MJEOL site has an article about Gutierrez’s case and revelations. Here are an excerpt from it:

    “Sources report that in a November 23 2003 interview in the “La Cuarta Diario” entitled, “Victor Gutierrez Plans His Revenge”, he’ is quoted as saying “This time, the Neverland ranch will be mine.” Thus the questions become what, if anything, does Gutierrez have to do with this current accusing family? Can we put any stock into anyone who’s already made comments of claiming he’s going to own Jackson’s Neverland Ranch and will do anything to make that happen? What does he have to do with this “case”? Is he working in concert with prosecutors? Or is he just another leech trying to profit from the publicity of this current “case” as well?”


  17. February 5, 2013 1:52 pm

    “there is a good chance Larry & the Arvizos (plus whomever else) would have very wealthy people and fêted people” – Dialdancer

    If we believe rumors not only Feldman and Arvizos but Diane Dimond and Jason Francia (all in all 12 people) were to benefit from a possible civil suit.

    I see no reason why I should keep this rumor away from our readers. Time will show whether there is anything real behind this information.

    The article comes in back translation from a Spanish source of 19th April, 2005 and refers to a website which is no longer functioning. Its webmaster had a conversation with a lawyer who used to work for Diane Dimond:

    The website has published a research article the truth of which we have to weigh [ourselves]. As you can see, the webmaster says that he had a conversation with a lawyer who knows a lot about the case…

    Dimond would benefit from a possible payout of Michael

    While the prosecution is experiencing many setbacks the past weeks, I have discovered information about the type of misleading news that pollute the media atmosphere.

    Diane Dimond, a reporter for tabloid that has been attached to the neck of Jackson since 1993, has ties with a possible civil agreement when the current criminal trial ends.

    I’ve been absent for the past weeks investigating troubling information about the bonds of Diane Dimond with Sneddon and a possible civil agreement after this criminal process.

    To many observers, Dimond has a turbulent history, and questionable closeness to this case. When she finished her tabloid-themed program, Hard Copy in 1994, Dimond was associated with Jackson’s legal troubles over the past decade.

    Dimond was suppressed and eventually sued by Jackson in the late 90’s because of her biased allegations. She received much criticism from fans of Jackson. Anyway, this does not mean that she [didn’t] have a lucky break on 18 November 2003, when the arrest warrant against Jackson was issued and another case of child abuse came into being.

    Meet the Joe …

    In the past 2 weeks, I have communicated with a well known lawyer who resides in Chicago, Illinois. We have talked and argued about his vision of the persistence of Dimond to be associated with the case. When I informed this lawyer what I was looking for in our conversation, I was kindly asked not to mention his name or information staff; in the past he had ties with Diane Dimond to late 1990s and allowed me to report that he had worked closely with the Government of Santa Maria. Out of respect we’ll call him Joe.

    At the end of last week, when Janet Arvizo, under questioning of the defense and the Prosecutor said that she had no intention to sue Michael for a civil lawsuit, Joe had serious doubts about this claim. I can not discuss all possible situations where Arvizo has entered into contradictions with this phrase.

    Joe has obtained and sent me copies of secret documents of 1999, where he and Dimond had a personal conflict that led to their separation months later. I have agreed to sign confidential agreements by saying that I do not filtraré these documents, nor publish direct quotations from the text.

    In these documents that I have no permission to develop at least… still, Joe explains the meetings he had with Sneddon and Dimond. The meetings were to discuss an agreement of five years she signed. Dimond was represented by Larry Feldman, who, on 20 November 1999, signed an agreement with Sneddon about the benefits of the civil agreement.

    12 Other people also signed this agreement between the public prosecutor of the district Sneddon and a civil lawyer. One of them, is surprisingly… Yes, you guessed it: Jason Francia.

    Dimond will not return home empty-handed…

    In all likelihood, Janet Arviso will require civil action against Jackson with the assistance of Larry Feldman and cooperation of Sneddon.

    Now, to rebut the idea that the Arvizo don’t think of making that demand because “it is not in their nature”, we have to ask why they attended Feldman in the first place? {Don’t] forget, for a minute, the fact that it was to him rather than to the police… anyway… She went to a CIVIL lawyer!

    According to those documents, Sneddon would agree to give Dimond 3% of the money earned by the agreement. Anyway, if Michael was acquitted [in Sneddon’s case against him], Dimond would receive only 2% in a possible [civil] agreement.

    A civil suit can be brought obviously whatever the verdict of the [criminal] trial. The first example would be that of O.J. Simpson, who was acquitted (in the criminal trial) and his accusers sued him civilly and won a settlement of $30,000,000.

    If, for any reason, Michael Jackson was found guilty, Dimond could carry 420,000 dollars from an agreement like that, its 3%.

    If Jackson is found not guilty, Dimond would gain 280,000 dollars, 2%.

    Joe, who removed himself from the presence of Sneddon in December 2004, also has informed me that despite the negotiations over the amount of the agreement and exit or not guilty [verdit of not guilty?], the Arvizo would gain $ 14 million.

    So the unfair way of presenting the news [by] Dimond could result from desperation that Jackson out [is not] guilty.

    Financial rumors

    Meanwhile, Rita Cosby of Fox, reported on Saturday 16 April that Jackson and his financial advisors could lead a secret meeting about the rumors that Jackson has financial problems.

    The conclusion on the basis of the meeting would be, according to Roger Freidman, Jackson would have to sell the Beatles ATV catalog.

    MJSD will speak more of the conversation with Joe.


  18. February 5, 2013 3:20 pm

    I’ve found who was the first to report Gutierrez saying that “Neverland would be his”. This was reported by the top serious Veritas project made by a team of researchers in 2005:

    In November 2003, when Jackson was accused of child molestation for a second time, Gutierrez began giving interviews about the case to Chilean newspapers. He claimed that the new set of allegations validated the contents of his book and as a result, Jackson had defamed his character and now owed him money. Gutierrez even went so far as to say that Jackson’s 2,700-acre ranch would soon be his.

    During an interview with La Cuarta, Gutierrez alleged that Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon had contacted him about being a potential witness in the current case against Jackson. A week later, a member of the District Attorney’s office contacted La Cuarta to refute those claims.

    I’ve found the LaCuarta article of November 22, 2003 and its headline indeed says (

    Víctor Gutiérrez prepara revancha: “El rancho de Jackson será mío…”

    The English for it is:

    Victor Gutierrez prepares rematch: “Jackson’s ranch will be mine …”

    Even if it is only a figure of speech obtaining Jackson’s ranch could come only as a result of a civil suit (and not a criminal trial). So the very least we can gather from Gutierrez’s statement is that he was very much counting on (or knew of) an eventual civil lawsuit (or a series of them).


  19. nannorris permalink
    February 5, 2013 7:05 pm

    It occurs to me that perhaps the reason the prosecutors went to the judge, hat in hand, asking for the misdemeanor alcohol charges, may have been , not only for them to save face, because that really doesnt even make since..( He is this horrible monster giving alcohol to disable a cancer victim, and hold people against their will,, or he just gave a teenager an alcoholic beverage.) seems pretty ridiculous to me..
    I wonder if they had even gotten a misdemeanor, if Feldman would have gone marching into civil court looking for a judgement.
    Feldman was actually, quietly, part of the prosecutors team, imo, he was running the show with Sneddon..
    I wonder if it was his suggestion, once he saw the case going south.
    According to Mesereau, Sneddon thought he was winning, so why ask for misdemeanors that would seem to me to undermine your entire case..


  20. Dialdancer permalink
    February 6, 2013 7:55 am


    I do not know if the below will help or not, however this site states: “In the issue that goes on sale Friday”


  21. February 12, 2013 8:24 pm

    Since there is some talk about Omer Bhatti on another thread I decided to post another of those National Enquirer’s stories which should naturally be taken with a grain of salt. Now they claim that Omer Bhatti is secret son of Janet Jackson:

    August 25, 2011: just got wind of an EXPLOSIVE REPORT in the National Enquirer. James DeBarge’s MOTHER spoke to them . . and admitted that Janey WAS PREGNANT . . . and that she had s SON with her first husband James.

    And get this. James mother, 75 year old ETTELENE DeBarge claims that Janet’s baby is Omer Bhatti – the boy that was CONSTANTLY around Michael.

    Here are some quotes from ETTERLENE:

    [Omer Bhatti] is my grandson! He looks just like James did when he was young . . . Omer is Janet’s son.”

    And more:
    Janes told me that he got Janet pregnant in 1984 . . . Janet and I spent time together back then. It was obvious to me she was pregnant.

    And more:
    Janet gave birth overseas, and her family arranged to have Janet give the child to a family in Norway.

    Well . . . there you have it!!!

    Omer Bhatti is Janet Jackson’s Son, Not Michael’s, Claims Etterlene DeBarge
    August 26th, 2011 | 50 Comments

    By Staff
    Etterlene DeBarge, the mother of James DeBarge, is claiming Janet Jackson gave birth to James’s son, and the son is Omer Bhatti.

    In an interview with the National Enquirer, Etterlene says she is absolutely certain Janet gave birth to a child 27 years ago when she was married to her son.

    She is demanding a DNA test from Omer Bhatti, who Joe Jackson already admitted publicly is Michael Jackson’s son.

    “That’s Janet son!” Etterlene, 75, told the Enquirer after comparing a picture of Omer with her son James at the magazine’s request.

    “That’s my grandson!” she said.

    “He looks just like James did whe was young. He has the same bone structure and smile. Even the eyebrows are the same.

    “I always believed Janet was pregnant by my son and gave birth 27 years ago.

    “And when I saw her brother Michael with Omer, I knew it was true.

    “Omer is Janet’s son.”

    Janet Jackson & James DeBarge Wedding

    Some information from the comments:

    Myproof says:
    September 5, 2011 at 11:25 am
    Omar is too Janet’s son. Michael just had something to do with his raising, because the Norwegian family started dressing him like Michael so that he could have some family ties to his real family. Janet was pregnant 27 years ago. I know this because my family and I attend the church of the DeBarge’s, my grandmother was even present at her and James’ wedding. Janet continued to come to the church even well into her pregnancy to attend Bible study, but she hid in the back for obvious reasons. Michael helped to cover this up by paying the DeBarge family to keep quiet for the sake of Janet’s career. After Michael died, someone stopped making payments, so it’s ovbious Ms. DeBarge sold the story, BAMM!

    Synethia says:
    August 28, 2011 at 9:18 am
    Omer is not michael Jackson son. I was a huge fan of both Janet and James DeBarge . Everybody new Janet was with child. There is this invisible doctor that Janet treated for a miss carriageTJanet should tell her son the chucking truth !!!! And then again Omer is old enough to make his on dna test decision. Damn it is natural

    Myproof says:
    September 5, 2011 at 11:29 am
    I know Ms. Debarge personally, and she’s well grounded in Christ, it just isn’t her style to lie, but trust, this is Janet’s child, AND THAT’S REAL.

    Whuck says:
    October 4, 2011 at 7:05 pm
    Yeah, she’s such a good Christian that she ran to the media and told her sons personal business. Why is it ALWAYS coming from the DeBarge side? Janet needs to sue them for defamation of character! She has got to be sick of this rumor by now. Yes, if Omer isn’t asking questions. No one else should be!

    Danielle says:
    October 7, 2011 at 3:38 pm
    Omer Bhatti Looks Just Like his Daddy!!! [Riz Bhatti]

    kim says:
    November 23, 2011 at 4:49 am
    I believe he is James’s son. If this were any other person saying these things and they werent true then Janet would have sued by now and everyone would be silent. ITS TRUE… THATS WHY THEY KEEP REPEATING IT.. AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TILL JANET & OMER AND JAMES TAKE THE DNA TEST. BUT WE KNOW THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN RIGHT????

    anoynomous says:
    December 6, 2011 at 12:21 am
    why is that last pic labeled as “Janet and James Wedding”?! LOL they ELOPED! it’s obvious from the guy behind James in the tan suit that it was some kind of formal affair and dinner.
    but yeah Omer is not the son! if anything there is a daughter out there sitting back looking at all these different people listed as them from Brandi Jackson to Omer, and she’s the DAMN ONE! SMH……
    Beyonce’ fakes pregnancy and Janet lies about her’s after almost 30 years!

    Sinderella says:
    May 2, 2012 at 3:59 am
    Looking at Janet and James faces, Omer looks most like the two of them, especially his facial structure. Yes it seems Michael took an interest in him like a lot of good Uncles do, and maybe he wanted to be like a parent to him, mentor. Also it took the heat off Janet and questions being asked of her. Perhaps she did not feel able to be parent at the time and Michael stepped in, we don’t know. Feel sorry for Omer having to deal with any rejection he may have felt.

    KIMMA says:
    May 4, 2012 at 3:44 pm
    ok, I don’t know about any of that, but I know this for SURE! when JANET JACKSON was an actress on the tv series, FAME, RIGHT ON MAGAZINE reported that she would be leaving the cast to join the long list of celebrities who were WITH CHILD! Yes, Sir!! they reported that her and her husband JAMES were having a baby. then, marriage ended as mysteriously as it started and no more talk about a baby.


  22. February 12, 2013 11:04 pm

    Omer is not a Jackson, he has two parents, Pia and Riz Bhatti. Paris, Jaafar, Siggy, all of them have confirmed Omer is not a Jackson.


  23. February 12, 2013 11:07 pm

    Yes, one of the computers in MJ’s room was used to look up pornography, the screen name was “Marcel” one that Jackson’s cousin Elijah uses. So yes they were in MJ’s room while he was absent and using it to look up porn.

    There was a whole group there it seemed besides Omer and the cousins, they found some friends of theirs sleeping in the arcades too which was a common area for MJ’s friends to crash, as we know.


  24. February 12, 2013 11:44 pm

    “all of them have confirmed Omer is not a Jackson”

    In fact Omer does not even look like a Jackson. He looks very much like his father Riz Bhatti
    <img src="Palm Springs commercial photography” alt=”” />


  25. February 15, 2013 11:37 pm

    Did anyone order that May 1993 Chandler copy of the National Enquirer?


  26. February 15, 2013 11:43 pm

    “Did anyone order that May 1993 Chandler copy of the National Enquirer?”

    Lacienegasmiles, I haven’t and no one has yet contacted me for the exact date of the copy. If you want I will inform you of the date by email.

    P.S. I’ve sent you the details. Please check your email.


  27. mkay permalink
    September 7, 2013 7:30 pm

    There’s a certain magazine I want dated May 1993 that is impossible to find as well. Only 1 in UK for $26, they won’t ship to US. Through research I learned many tabloids / mags with the same name will have completely different content, depending on the country where it’s printed. I can’t say if the National Enquirer is an International Publication, I haven’t looked. But if so it will have different articles and/or cover page tailored for that country. It is called censorship – government control of information released to its citizens (basic example China does not allow articles/clippings or other printed materials that mentions Christianity or contain Biblical text). This could also be why the dates don’t make sense; In the USA issue no.5 may be Feb 3 but in AUS it may be Feb 5. Hopefully this info is helpful when looking for other issues in the future.


  28. December 12, 2016 12:15 am

    Hey if anyone is still looking for the May 1993 edition of the National Enquirer, I have the article and you can read it here.

    Also for those wondering it was published in May 25th 1993 not the 18th like the chandlers claimed.


  29. December 12, 2016 10:41 am

    Thank you Helena for your diligent work!I remember there was an article on Victor Guitierrez. He had a vivid fantasy life and was also a prolific writer already in childhood.Too bad he turned his gifts to an evil end.


  30. December 15, 2016 3:34 pm

    “Hey if anyone is still looking for the May 1993 edition of the National Enquirer, I have the article and you can read it here.” – mjjcritic

    Mjjcritic, thank you very much. Very interesting indeed. On the one hand this article made it clear what trash tabloids are capable of publishing – to make sure of that it is enough to read their version about how Michael’s friendship with the Chandlers started:

    “Michael rents cars from Rent A Wreck to make himself less conspicuous. He was in the office when June stopped by with her kids so they could see their dad. Michael struck up a conversation with Jordie and the family was on cloud nine over the encounter”

    On the other hand the sources in the Mirage hotel used by them for describing the Chandlers’ visit to Las Vegas provided a very detailed account of that visit which sounds authentic enough. Quote:

    Michael recently took June and the children on a five-day vacation to Las Vegas, where they all stayed in his private three-bedroom villa at the The Mirage hotel, said a source.
    “When they arrived Michael gave the children and their mother a tour of the place. The next day he took the boy shopping, then to the hotel arcade.
    John Miklie, who runs the arcade, said Michael couldn’t stay long “because too many kids crowded around him”.
    That night, Michael and Jordie swam with dolphins in the hotel’s dolphin pool, said the source.
    The next day they went shopping again and Michael took Jordie and Lily to the “Siegfried & Roy” show.
    “When Michael walked back to his villa holding their hands, he was smiling like a proud papa,” said an eyewitness.
    The day after that, Michael and Jordie ate dinner at the Mirage’s Chinese restaurant. “They talked in whispers and laughed like a father and son,” said waiter Chad Jahn, who served them.
    Later that night, the two went to the hotel’s circus-type show, called Cirque Du Soleil
    “They sat in section 206, row CC,” said the eyewitness. “When the show was over, Michael bought the boy a Cirque Du Soleil sweatshirt.”
    When the group left Las Vegas, they headed to Michael’s ranch, said the insider.

    Well, this rather detailed account does look authentic, given that it was made by the hotel people right after the visit while everyone there still remembered it very well.

    And the first thing that strikes you is that Michael and Jordan DID attend the Cirque Du Soleil show, while in her testimony twelve years later June told the court a sloppy story how “Michael and Jordan didn’t show up” and “they couldn’t find them” and how “Michael returned to the suite sobbing” and allegedly asked her “Why don’t you allow Jordie to sleep in my bed?”

    This account never looked to me convincing enough, and now we learn from an “eye-witness” that Michael and Jordan were sitting in section 206, row CC? And when the show was over he bought a Cirque Du Soleil sweatshirt? Very interesting indeed.

    It is also interesting that the Mirage hotel turned out to have a built-in theater inside. I’ve looked up its seating plan. It indeed has section 206 though row CC is said to be in section 306 several rows above it. Well, if Michael were to see that show he would indeed select that section as it is less conspicuous than the rest of them.

    Here is the seating plan:
    And this is how the theater looks inside, from a similar 202 section on the other side:

    So thank you very much for the article. Even despite the usual trash published there, it seems that it is still possible to get some true details as a result.


  31. December 16, 2016 4:03 pm

    “Hey if anyone is still looking for the May 1993 edition of the National Enquirer, I have the article” – mjjcritic

    Mjjcritic, could you also provide us with the cover of that issue if you have it, please?

    Now that I’ve reread my own post about it written three years ago (and made it shorter – too many words) I recall that the whole thing was revealed to the National Enquirer by the sister of June Chandler’s best friend.

    So the invented story about how June Chandler got acquainted with Michael was the way she described it to her friends. And June didn’t tell them that she and Jordan came running to that office when Michael’s car got broken and they received a call from Dave Schwartz – no, her then version was that “Michael rented cars from Rent A Wreck to make himself less conspicuous and he was in the office when June stopped by with her kids so they could see their dad. Michael struck up a conversation with Jordie”, etc.

    A very restrained version of the same and a totally wrong one at that. This is a small detail, but it tells us a lot about June Chandler’s character and methods.


  32. December 17, 2016 4:27 am

    Here’s the cover

    Also another thing to point out is that the National Enquirer loves to boast about the article.
    “In our May 25, 1993, issue we disclosed that over the course of 15 months, Jackson often slept alone with the boy at his Neverland ranch. And he took the 13-year-old, the boy’s half-sister and his mother on trips to Vegas, Florida and Monaco, where he also slept in the same bed with the boy — with the permission of his mother.” – National Enquirer
    However if you read the article not once is it mentioned that Michael shared a bed with Jordan.


  33. December 17, 2016 4:28 pm

    MJJcritic, thank you for the cover of the magazine and further details. This article grabbed my attention for some reason and though this is not our biggest priority at the moment, I am curious to learn more.


  34. December 18, 2016 11:19 pm

    I know I posted the full article on a different post but I wanted to provide pictures.

    Also worth pointing out is that this issue was published on April 26, 2004.



  1. Дайан Даймонд и Томас Снеддон вступают в игру — Michael Jackson is INNOCENT

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: