Skip to content

ABC Facts of Michael Jackson’s INNOCENCE

February 21, 2014

The boys from a certain MJ haters’  site are on a march against Michael Jackson again. Judging by the number of readers’ questions about their lies disproved by us years ago these boys are quite successful in brainwashing the public and there is a need to start educating people about the most basic facts of Michael’s innocence all over again.

This education process seems to be endless as it has to be renewed with each new generation of readers and starting everything anew is the last thing I would want to do – however it looks like at the moment there is no choice.

This is why I’m making this post which is intended to answer the very basic questions about the Jordan Chandler case again.

But first here is a couple of words about those who keep spreading lies about Michael Jackson’s despite a mountain of true facts testifying to his innocence. 

WHEN MJFACTS ARE ACTUALLY MJLIES

One of the first questions arrived from a reader in a form of a statement:

“There is this website called mjfacts that says they only provide the truth and facts without opinion. They say a few things like that Jordie never actually stated the MJ was uncircumcised”

Yes, there is a website called facts about MJ, only it is lies about him presented as “facts” which is a method illustrating best of all that they do express an opinion and agenda of their own.

They collect every speck of dust about Michael and simultaneously shut themselves to anything that may clean him of the allegations. Every day brings new facts of Michael’s innocence to their door, but the truth does not stick to them in principle as their job is to archive and preserve lies about MJ.

And when their own lies become too inconvenient for them they pretend they never told them and begin saying the opposite, like they did it with the “circumcision” issue.

While Michael was alive and no one knew whether he was circumcised or not, their official story was that Jordan Chandler called him circumcised (he indeed called him that way). But when Michael died and the autopsy report revealed that he was not circumcised and this was contradicting Jordan’s story, the mjlies guys quickly got over the shock and are now claiming the opposite without batting an eyelid. 

Now they pretend they never said anything different.

This constant renovation of lies to keep them up-to-date betrays the goal they are really working for and it is creating the image of Michael as a “boy-lover” no matter what.

While being extremely preoccupied with Michael Jackson these boys cannot care less about real pedophiles. Considering the number of horrid pedophilia crimes uncovered lately one would expect them to handle these cases too and launch a crusade against the phenomenon in general (like we are doing it, for example), however this is the last thing you can expect of them and why they are not doing it is a separate intrigue.

It has also become an interesting tradition for these people to intensify their hate against Michael each time unpleasant facts are uncovered about real or suspected pedophiles. This time is no exception as I have just written two posts about Dylan Farrow accusing Woody Allen of sexually abusing her at the age of 7 and see what an avalanche of questions about Michael it has suddenly provoked!

Here are some of the readers’ questions inspired by the mjlies:

“They say a few things like that Jordie never actually stated the MJ was uncircumcised. Is this true? Where did he actually say that in his description. They also say that Barnes said MJ “nuzzled” him (???), Jordie correctly identified a blotch no one could have known about without seeing it, and that Ray Chandler DID allow his book to be used in court? Would you mind explaining/debunking these supposed facts?”

And here are some answers to these questions.

1. JORDAN MADE A MISTAKE IN CIRCUMCISION

No matter what the mjlies say Jordan Chandler DID claim that Michael was circumcised.

This fact was stated in the official Santa Barbara’s Deputy Sheriff’s report known as “Deborah Linden’s report” described in this article (now in the archive). An excerpt from it is provided below:

The Telltale Splotch

Photos of Jackson’s body confirmed ’93 claims

JANUARY 6–As search warrants go, you won’t find one more intrusive than the one executed on Michael Jackson’s, um, person in 1993. And the results of that intimate Kodak moment from a decade ago could resurface in the performer’s upcoming molestation trial.A detailed recounting of the criminal probe of Jackson is contained in sealed documents reviewed by TSG. An affidavit from former Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department deputy Deborah Linden was filed in 1993 to secure court permission to photograph Jackson’s private parts. Investigators sought the images in a bid to corroborate allegations made by 13-year-old Jordan Chandler. The boy told police that Jackson frequently masturbated him, adding that he could provide a detailed description of the star’s penis as a way of proving the pair had been intimate..The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.

.

If the article disappears again as it once did, there are also several books repeating Jordan Chandler’s description. One of them is a manuscript by Michael’s worst hater Victor Gutierrez, published in 1995.  Here is a quote from its chapter named in a style very much characteristic of Gutierrez – “Privacy in Monaco” :

“Then he took off his clothes, and I noticed that he had very little pubic hair, and that his penis was circumcised.”

This is the description Jordan gave to the police. He did claim that MJ was circumcised.

And the fact that the mjlies boys are denying even this totally undeniable fact will tell you all you need to know about their approach to truth in general. If they lie even here – where it is simply impossible to lie – how much more do they lie everywhere else?

2. JORDAN MADE A MISTAKE IN THE COLOR TOO

The story of the blotch allegedly identified by Jordan is also exactly the opposite of what the mjlies say.

This story is thrilling but graphic, so now you know what to expect. 

In her official statement the Santa Barbara Deputy Sheriff Deborah Linden wrote that Jordan had described to her Michael’s penis as having a “splotch a light color similar to the color of his face”.  The light splotch was Jordan’s guess as this was how Michael’s buttocks looked like which Evan Chandler saw when he was making an injection to help Michael cope with his headache.

By May 1993 Michael was suffering from terrible migraines as for several months by then he had been undergoing a new stretch of his scalp by means of  a baloon inserted under the skin. This was followed by a new scalp surgery done by Dr. Sasaki (who testified about it at the recent AEG trial).

Whatever stage of treatment Michael was in at that moment, on the weekend he was visiting Evan and Jordan Chandler he had a splitting headache. To alleviate the pain Evan Chandler gave him an injection of Toradol, a poweful non-narcotic painkiller which sent Michael into a kind of a haze.

This chance was never missed by Evan and he used it for interrogating Michael in this half-unconscious state, however Michael didn’t tell him anything that Evan could in any way turn against his guest. Ray Chandler’s book describes the interrogation and the whole incident in his book. As regards the injection he said the following:

“Evan injected 30 mg, half the maximum dose, into Michael’s gluteus. But one hour later the star claimed he was still in a lot of pain, so Evan administered the remaining half and instructed him to lie down and try to relax.” [“All That Glitters”, p.47]

Gluteus is a medical term for buttocks, so Evan Chandler saw MJ’s gluteus at least twice. The buttocks had some light vitiligo splotches and after witnessing them with his own eyes nothing could be easier for Evan than assume that MJ’s front private parts had a similar color scheme – dark with some light splotches there.

The assumption that at least one light splotch should be on the penis too looked like a safe guess and being sure that with Michael’s vitiligo it was a guaranteed success Jordan ventured his description to the police. The location of the splotch was not that important – with time vitiligo spots can change their configuration and grow bigger and thus change the whole picture.

Ray Chandler recalls Larry Feldman saying to Evan Chandler that it did not matter how Jordan would describe Michael’s splotches. No matter what he said the situation was a “no-loser” for their case, and this is a very telling way of how that false story was cooked in the Chandlers’ kitchen.

Lauren Weis, the Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney who was the first to record Jordan’s description on September 1, 1993  said to Feldman that vitiligo spots had a tendency to change and for this reason it was not a decisive factor. This is why Larry Feldman assured Evan Chandler that whatever Jordan said anything would be okay:

Lauren Weis told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.”

“Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”

“No, that’s good for us!”

‘Why?”

“Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!” “Ha!”

“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”

[Ray Chandler, “All That Glitters”, p. 202]

The second time Jordan gave his description of Michael’s private parts was on December 1, 1993. This time it was to Deborah Linden, the Santa Barbara Deputy Sheriff and it was this second report that was quoted by the above Smoking Gun article.

The Deborah Linden report abounded in explicit details provided by Jordan. The full description was as follows:

With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090630025648/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

Horrendous as it looks on second thought you begin realizing that it was not that impossible to tell the same story (whether correct or wrong) without ever seeing those genitalia. Why?

The “distinctive splotches” on the buttocks were seen by Evan Chandler after which vitiligo was correctly assumed to be spread over the whole of MJ’s body; the short pubic hair is typical of black people as I hear;  the circumcision idea expressed by Jordan was already determined to be totally incorrect – and the only thing that remains to be checked up is “the light splotch” and its placement on what is called here an “erect” penis.

By calling it “erect” they are camouflaging the fact that Jordan Chandler made a mistake in circumcision and pretend that circumcision and erection are the same thing. They are absolutely not and we have a special post about it, including the animation on how the foreskin moves even during erection and showing the glaring difference between the two.

Jordan never saw MJ’s genitalia and didn’t know how uncircumcised skin “behaves” during erection, and therefore claimed in his interview with Dr. Gardner (October 1993)  that he had masturbated the male “many times”. However when Michael’s naked photos of December 20th proved that Jordan was grossly mistaken in the circumcision issue, his declaration made a week later (on December 28th) dropped the point of “masturbating MJ” from its description. Everything else stayed but that point was missing. A very tale-telling factor.

I understand your amazement and disgust at the graphic mode of this discussion, but please regard it as a necessary job to do to clear the innocent man of horrible slander and then the whole thing will sound less of a nightmare to you.

Now back to the splotch.

You will agree that with Michael’s vitiligo it was almost impossible to make a mistake in respect of splotches and this is why Jordan was so sure that at least one “light splotch the color of his face” would be found on MJ’s penis.

However the fate played a unique joke on Jordan. It turned out that he and his father made a wrong guess of the color of the splotch and therefore the general color of MJ’s penis (sorry for being so graphic).

They thought that it was black, but in reality it was white.

But how on earth do we know about the way it looked?

Declaration of Tom Sneddon, May 25, 2005

Declaration of Tom Sneddon, May 26, 2005

We know it from Sneddon’s declaration made on May 26, 2005 where he described the photos obtained from the strip search and some peculiarities of that description made us realize that the highly intimate part of MJ’s body had a totally different color from the one Evan and Jordan Chandler expected it to be.

After long beating about the bush Sneddon finally says that there was a certain “dark blemish located at about the same relative location” as described by Jordan Chandler. Then he calls the “dark blemish” “a discoloration” and says that it was he who compared the photos with the description, and he believes that the photos “substantially corroborate the description” and he is making these statements “on information and belief” and that he “believes them to be true”.

The accuracy of this declaration is simply mind-blowing – it abounds in vague terms like a dark spot being called a discoloration and it being found “at about the same relative location” as described by Jordan and all this being Sneddon’s “belief” that it is true.

Though there is a lot more to say about this incredible document let me ask you to focus only on the dark blemish at the moment.

Jordan Chandler’s guess was that Michael had a “light splotch which was the color of his face” – and Sneddon was talking about a dark blemish.

A dark one.

Am I missing something or can a dark spot be seen only on a light background and a light spot be seen only on a dark background? So Jordan thought Michael to be black in his frontal part and Sneddon found him to be white?

But is it possible to take a predominantly white skin spotted with dark for a predominantly dark skin spotted with white? And what will be your opinion of two cows – is it possible to take a white cow for a black one even if they have some spots on their skin? And what will be the first thing you will notice – the whole color of the cow or a certain spot on its skin? Or will it be both as the skin is inseparable from anything painted on it?

The Chandlers imagined it black  with one light splotch

The Chandlers imagined it black with one light splotch

These simple reflections made me realize that in the very first place Jordan made a mistake in the whole color of what he had allegedly seen. He didn’t know that it was predominantly white and therefore described it as dark and having a light splotch on it.

So it turned out to be the opposite of what he and his father expected.

No power on earth (even vitiligo) can change the color of the skin into its opposite within a couple of months only, and all Sneddon’s later attempts to prove that Michael had undergone an operation to change the color of his genitals and also bring back the foreskin went bust.

And the cow turned out to be light

But it turned out to be white with a  dark blemish on it

He went through all Michael’s medical records and approached all his doctors including those in England, but the mammoth efforts to prove that during the three weeks Michael was in a rehab he grew back the foreskin and changed the color of his genitals went nowhere because all of it is simply impossible.

So what do we have as a summary of this totally obscene discussion?

  • The light splotches on the buttocks were seen by Evan Chandler and this is why they were described correctly.
  • The Chandlers assumed that Michael had a similar color scheme on his genitalia too.
  • But over there he was predominantly white, at least in the penis area, so Jordan’s incorrect story about a light splotch had to be changed by Sneddon into a correct story about a dark spot.
  • Jordan’s most blatant mistake was in the circumcision issue.
  • When the photos proved the mistake Jordan’s initial claim made to Dr. Gardner that he had allegedly masturbated MJ had to be dropped and never recalled again.
  • To cover up for Jordan’s biggest mistake Sneddon never mentioned “circumcision” but spoke of the “erect” penis instead.
  • But the erect penis is not the same as circumcision as the foreskin moves during erection, and if “masturbation” had ever really taken place Jordan would have noticed it.
  • So “masturbation” never took place either and this makes Jordan’s interview with Dr. Gardner worthless as a pack of lies.

And the overall conclusion from the above is that the only two distinctive details Jordan Chandler was counting on as his damnest evidence were both incorrect – Michael was uncircumcised and his genitalia had a different color scheme from the one Jordan expected it to be when he spoke of the “light splotch” there.

It is even funny that with male anatomy being more or less the same it was possible for Jordan to make so many mistakes!

As a final note on the above let me say that none of the officers or experts who were obliged to compare Jordan’s description with the photos had a chance to do it. Some saw only the photos, others saw only the description and everyone counted on someone else to say what the comparison showed. Actually all of them said almost in unison that “they were told that it was a match”. Even Dr. Richard Strick, who was specially assigned by the government for making the determination said that he had been told that there was a match.

The person who told them this lie was Tom Sneddon. He was the one who made the comparison. He stated it in his declaration himself and declared that everything he said there was true and correct except the things he only believed to be true.

6. I believe evidence of Jordan Chandler’s knowledge, as evidenced by his verbal description and drawing, when considered together with the photograph of Defendant’s penis, substantially rebuts the opinion evidence offered by witnesses for Defendant to the effect that he is of a “shy” and “modest” nature and so would not have exposed his naked body in the presence of young boys.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those statements made on information and belief, and as to those statements, I believe them to be true.

Executed May 26, 2005, at Santa Maria, California.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

3. NONE OF THEM WANTED TO TESTIFY AGAINST JACKSON – EVER

Now it is time to handle the next statement from a reader who reads too much of mjlies and says that “Ray Chandler DID allow his book to be used in court”. This is evidently supposed to convey to us that:

  • the decision to allow or not allow its use depended on Ray Chandler and it was a sort of a favor on his part and
  • the book was the next best thing to his testimony which could be used as a replacement for Ray Chandler’s personal presence

My answer is NO, the decision to use or not use the book did not depend on Ray Chandler, and it wasn’t a favor of his but his greatest desire to have his lies read out in court while he himself was not present there.

And the second answer is YES, the book could be regarded as part of his testimony but only if he himself testified in court.

This last point is very interesting. If the book could indeed be regarded as his testimony, why wasn’t it possible to use it in court in his absence – as a sort of a declaration on his part?

This was not possible because in accordance with Amendment 6th to the US constitution every accused person has the right to challenge his accuser in court – cross-examine him and ask him inconvenient questions there. And this is exactly what Ray Chandler didn’t want to do. He vehemently objected to testifying against Jackson as he had nothing to prove his lies with and this is why he fought Michael’s subpoena tooth and nail.

We have proof of Ray Chandler’s refusal to testify in the form of a series of motions sent back and forth which ended in Ray Chandler’s complete victory discussed here in great detail.  He managed to prove that he was a sort of a journalist (a self-publisher of his book) and therefore could enjoy the immunity granted to journalists by the Shield Law.

In the recent blogtalk radio show with King Jordan Thomas Mesereau didn’t mention this episode as it was evidently another Michael’s attorney who subpoenaed Ray Chandler to the 2005 trial. But who subpoenaed him doesn’t matter – what matters here  is that Ray Chandler refused to speak against Michael in court  and preferred to spread his lies in the media where he didn’t face the danger of a cross-examination by Michael’s lawyers.

And when he chose not to testify there, this simultaneously meant that his book could not be submitted to the court either as according to the 6th Amendment if you accuse someone of something you should go to court to prove it as the accused person also has the right to defend himself against the accuser.

But if the accuser is afraid of some questions and wants to send his book to represent himself in court, this won’t do as the book cannot answer questions which will naturally arise from the other side. So it is either this or that, and that fake “permission” from Ray Chandler to use the book while he himself will hide in the bushes means nothing, or rather shows Ray Chandler and his advocates for what they really are – big liars and falsifiers of the truth.

FBI agents approached Jordan Chandler in September 2004. He said

FBI agents approached Jordan Chandler in September 2004. He said to them he had no interest in testifying against MJ, would legally fight any attempt to do so and that  he believed “he had done his part”

Of all Chandlers only June Chandler ventured to come to court while all the rest of them refused.

Jordan Chandler refused twice  –  first in 1994 (he cooperated with the police for several months after the settlement until June 1994) and the second time he refused was in 2004 when he said that he would sue them if they insisted on his testimony and in closing the conversation dropped a mysterious phrase that “he had done his part”.

Parts are usually played by actors in some theatrical performances which the Jordan Chandler case actually was.

And Sneddon was part and parcel of this theatrics himself.

4. SNEDDON’S BUFFOONERY WITH MICHAEL’S PHOTOS

Sneddon knew that Jordan would not testify at the 2005 trial as he gave his pointblank refusal already in September 2004, but despite that Sneddon still waved the photos of MJ’s genitalia in the courtroom teasing the jury and the public, frightening Michael out of his wits and impressing the media with this spectacular gesture while all the time knowing that he could not show the photos in court.

Why couldn’t he?

Exactly for the same reason why Ray Chandler’s book could not be used without his personal testimony in court. If there is no accuser to speak about the accused person’s genitalia no one can introduce the photos of them either – and this is again in accordance with the great Sixth Amendment to Constitution for which I have a huge respect.

It was Tom Sneddon who didn’t have respect for the Constitution as he knew that he didn’t have his witness but nevertheless tried to introduce a piece of evidence about which only that witness could testify.  It was a complete bluff on Sneddon’s part and its sole idea was to create the impression that the photos were a match to Jordan’s description.

Sneddon deliberately wanted to send shock waves about MJ throughout the nation and the world, and thus accuse Michael on the basis of this bluff alone.

The judge naturally didn’t allow the photos but the effect was indescribable. Everyone thought that Sneddon had some crucial evidence on his hands but the judge was so “awe-struck” by the celebrity that he left this evidence out and thus allowed the “criminal” to get away with his crime.

But the stark truth of the matter is that Sneddon did not have a single shred of evidence against Michael.

The other prosecutor in the 1993 case, the Los Angeles DA Gil Garcetti had the decency to distance himself from Sneddon’s tricks and at the end of a year long investigation in September 1994 publicly declared Michael innocent “like all of the rest of us in this room”.

It was only Sneddon who continued prosecuting and persecuting Michael though all he had on his hands was “what the boy said”.  And “what the boy said” was a big lie.

Let us sum up why we are so certain about it.

The truth can be bought from the USA Today. If you buy it you'll learn that

If you  don’t pay for the truth you’ll learn that “Photos MAY contradict Michael’s accuser”. And if you pay for it you’ll learn even more  – that  “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia DO NOT MATCH descriptions given by the boy”.

First of all we are certain about it because we’ve analyzed every detail of  Jordan’s description with its splotch, circumcision and other crap and proved that he made every mistake that was ever possible to make in this type of a description.

We are also certain that Jordan made gross mistakes while telling his lie as the USA Today published an article on January 28, 1993 placing a tiny but crucial statement there that the “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy”.

This tiny piece has a fun of its own as the headline available in the USA Today archive for free says that that photos MAY contradict Michael’s accuser, however if you pay money for the news you will get the full story – that the “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia DO NOT MATCH descriptions given by the boy”. Funny how the story changes from “maybe” to something definite depending on whether you pay for it or not.

Larry Feldman wanted the photos barred - fragment

Larry Feldman demanded barring the photos from the civil trial unless MJ showed them to Jordan and submitted himself to a second strip search.

We also know that Jordan lied from the fact that Larry Feldman didn’t like the photos to such a degree that he demanded to bar them from the civil trial.

Yes, Larry Feldman filed a motion in court that was a so-called multiple choice request – Jackson was to provide the photos to Jordan so that he would first see them and then submit himself to a second search, and if Michael didn’t agree to this travesty of justice Feldman demanded that the photos should be barred from the civil trial. For the full of this totally incredible story go here please.

We also know that Jordan lied from the simple fact that Tom Sneddon did not arrest Michael then and there, and never brought charges against him in 1993 at all.

We also know it from the fact that two Grand juries looked into all the evidence in 1994 and found nothing to indict MJ for:

“Several Jackson camp insiders have appeared before either the L.A. or Santa Barbara County grand jury, including former security consultant Anthony Pellicano, Jackson’s mother Katherine and several housekeepers. Miko Brando, a driver for the singer, and Norma Staikos, Jackson’s executive assistant, have also testified.  While grand jury testimony is sealed, sources said that none of the witnesses so far have offered anything that would directly implicate the singer.

http://variety.com/1994/biz/news/d-a-garcetti-denies-jackson-probe-ended-120071/

JIM MORET, Anchor: After three months of investigating child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson, the Santa Barbara County grand jury disbanded Friday without announcing any action. One juror told CNN he did not hear any damaging testimony during the hearings.

http://site2.mjeol.com/important-article/jackson-grand-jury-disbanded-1994.html

And we also know that Jordan Chandler told a horrible lie about Michael from Tom Sneddon’s own press release where he admitted that he had no evidence against Michael Jackson. However he said it in so roundabout way that no one really noticed it.

5. SNEDDON ADMITTED HE HAD NO EVIDENCE AGAINST JACKSON

Jordan's declaration of 1993 was published by the Smoking Gun on the same day Bashir's film aired and Sneddon made his press-release. ALL OF IT ON FEBRUARY 6, 2003

On February 6, 2003 the Smoking Gun published Jordan’s declaration of 1993 which was part of a confidentiality agreement. Jackson issued a statement: “Someone has chosen to violate that confidentiality” and use the boy’s statements to further sully the star’s character. 

By some inexplicable coincidence Sneddon’s press-release I am talking about was made on the same day when Bashir’s film aired (February 6, 2003).

By an even more inexplicable coincidence Jordan Chandler’s declaration from the distant December 1993 was leaked to the media and published for the first time ten years later and also on February 6, 2003 – exactly on the day when Bashir’s film aired and Sneddon made his press-release.

Jordan’s declaration was part of the 1993 confidentiality agreement and when it was leaked Michael Jackson issued a statement saying that both sides were supposed to respect the obligation of confidentiality but someone had chosen to violate it and use the boy’s initial statements to further sully his character.

I wonder who that “somebody” might be and how come all the three events happened on one and the same day? And what do you think?

Press release of February 6, 2003 (the same day when Bashir's documentary aired and Jordan Chandler's 1993 declaration released  to the media)

Tom Sneddon made his press release on February 6, 2003  which miraculously coincided with  the date when Bashir’s documentary aired in the US and Jordan Chandler’s declaration of 1993 was leaked to the public for the first time

In his press-release Sneddon addressed the issue of MJ “sleeping with boys” and spoke about the prior Jordan Chandler’s case.

Sneddon complained that in order to do something with this terrible Jackson he needed new, “credible” evidence or new “victims” willing to cooperate, and called on the public for help in finding those “victims”.

As a side note let me say that now that we know how dear a price the Connecticut State Attorney Frank Maco paid for using  the word “victim” just once (for Dylan Farrow in the Woody Allen case), you will understand how big a misdeed Tom Sneddon was getting away with when using the same word for Michael Jackson.

There is also a very big difference between the way it was used by Frank Maco and Tom Sneddon.

Frank Maco mentioned it with reference to a girl who was a very likely victim of sex abuse as all other evidence testified to it too, and Sneddon used the same word for non-existent victims of MJ or people who had not yet even complained about anything at all!

And we know that the State Attorney Frank Maco was almost disabarred for using that word just once in respect of Woody Allen while the Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon spoke of Michael’s “victims” on a routine basis but nevertheless left the office with honors and the highest pension in the state. Equality, you know…

Sneddon’s February 6, 2003 press release opened with the status of the 1993 investigation.  Sneddon said that he was still waiting for credible evidence against Jackson. This means that prior to that moment he had nothing credible to rely on:

1. The Status of the Prior Investigation.  A number of years ago at a press conference in Los  Angeles with the then L.A. County District Attorney, Gil Garcetti, we described the investigation  as “open, but inactive.”  It was stated that the case could be reactivated upon the discovery of new, credible evidence or victims willing to cooperate.  Nothing has changed.  The investigation  remains “open, but inactive.”

In point 5 of the same press-release Sneddon explained why he couldn’t act against Jackson (for example, solely on the basis of Jordan’s declaration of December 1993 or his description).

It was because the California Law didn’t allow him to go forward if he had only a confession of a claimant, but didn’t have a witness OR other evidence:

5. California Law and a Child/Victim’s Right to Refuse to Testify and Cooperate in Investigations.  Under California law a child/victim must voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement.  Neither testimony nor an appearance in court can be mandated.  Therefore, an investigation without a cooperative victim or a percipient witness to establish the corpus for a crime is not prosecutable.  While it may seem strange that even if a person made an admission or a confession, under California law without a witness or other evidence to establish the corpus there is no case.  See CALJIC Instruction 2.72.

Besides Jordan's declaration Sneddon needed either a witness OR some other evidence. He had NEITHER.

Point 5 of the press-release cited the California law. It  explains that  in order to bring charges against MJ in addition to Jordan’s declaration Sneddon needed either a witness OR  other evidence. Sneddon never charged MJ. Therefore he had neither the witness, nor the evidence.

Let’s get over it once again, guys, as you surely didn’t get the point and the reason why it is so terribly important.

According to the California law if a minor complains of an abuse in a ‘confession’, this is not enough to bring charges against the accused person.

The California law also requires a witness to testify OR other evidence to prove the case.

Now let’s see what Sneddon did or didn’t have.

  • A confession from a complainant he did have – it was Jordan’s declaration made to Larry Feldman (or something similar obtained from Jordan by the police).
  • The witness Sneddon didn’t have as Jordan refused to testify (and twice too).
  • But even if the witness refused Sneddon still had one more chance to proceed with the case. All he needed for it was the “other” evidence to prove the minor’s complaint.

This alternative was given to him by the California legislators sometime in 1995 when the law was changed under the DA pressure and allowed prosecutors to bring charges against the accused on the basis of evidence alone, even in case minors refused to testify. It was an exception to the Sixth Amendment I admire so much and was made specifically for children and for sex abuse cases only.

However Sneddon still didn’t bring any charges against Jackson and in his press-release practically declared to the whole world that he had nothing credible against him. Remember his statement:

  • While it may seem strange that even if a person made an admission or a confession, under California law without a witness or other evidence to establish the corpus there is no case.

In short in addition to the confession Tom Sneddon needed either a witness or credible evidence, but he had neither and this is why the case was not reopened.

And if there was no evidence it means there was no match between the photos and what Jordan described.

NO EVIDENCE = NO MATCH.

And this once again proves what we have learned in many other ways and dots all the i’s and crosses all the t’s in this incredible story of Jordan Chandler.

6. CHILD PROTECTIVE AUTHORITIES DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING EITHER

Sneddon’s press-release of February 6, 2003 has one more very important point.

Point 4 mentioned that there were certain documents made by the Child Protective authorities which were confidential and were therefore not subject to disclosure:

4. Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 investigations are within the purview of the Child Protective Service Division of the Department of Social Services.  By law those investigations are confidential and not subject to disclosure.

I practically see our mjlies boys grasping at a straw here – and what if these undisclosed documents have something terrible against Jackson?

To their disappointment the Department for Children and Family Services has made several statements to the effect and clearly stated that they had nothing against Jackson either.

The recent May 5, 2011 information from the DCFS said the following:

  • The DCFS statement about Arvizos

    The DCFS statement about Arvizos in 2003 (click to enlarge)

    the Arvizos case had zero credibility (the DCFS 2003 statement about Arvizos was leaked to the press and Larry Feldman even threatened to sue the authorities for the ‘damage’ the truth of the DCFS statement did to the poor family).

  • The 1993 similar statement from the DFCS is not available to us, but their information released in 2011 addresses both Arvizo and Chandler cases and says that in both cases Michael Jackson was cleared.
  • The DCFS says they investigated MJ on an on and off basis for at least 10 years and during all investigations Michael was fully cooperative with the authorities and held nothing back.
  • In the 1993 case an extensive investigation was carried out. Michael was subjected to a battery of tests and interviews and answered the hardest questions possible, and did it  for hours.  And all this in the absence of his lawyer.

Here is the article which broke the news that the DCFS investigated Michael Jackson in both 1993 and 2003 cases and in all investigations they conducted he was fully cleared:

“With Katherine Jackson ratcheting up the debate about her son Michael Jackson’s relationship with children by saying he was no child molester, a well-placed government source tells RadarOnline she’s right.

The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services absolutely agrees with Katherine that her son never molested any child in cases the department investigated,” a source told RadarOnline.

Michael Jackson was investigated by DCFS on and off for at least 10 yearsThe department undertook a first extensive investigation of allegations made by an underage accuser in 1993.

“Michael was fully cooperative during all of his interactions with DCFS,” the source said.

“Michael was interviewed for hours without his lawyer. He held nothing back.

He couldn’t understand why these allegations were being made against him. DCFS cleared him on any wrongdoing in all investigations.

“Did Michael put himself in precarious situations that most normal people wouldn’t? Absolutely . . . The questioning was very, very hard on Michael, he just couldn’t fathom that anyone could accuse him of being a child molester.”

Another accuser, in 2005, “had absolutely no credibility,” the source said. “There were differing accounts of what happened from the accuser and his family members.”

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/05/katherine-jackson-michael-jackson-today-show-child-molester-pedophile-los-angeles

If there are no more questions on this issue let me go over to the other two questions which arrived from the mjlies.

7. ‘NUZZLING’ AND LISA-MARIE PRESLEY

One of the two questions was about MJ allegedly “nuzzling” Brett Barnes. I had to look up the word “nuzzle” and found it was something like “sniffing”.  I asked the people who asked the question for proof that this terrible crime was indeed committed by MJ and while they are looking have checked some sources myself.

Goodness gracious! What would they say if this were a boy? [MJ with his niece}

Goodness gracious! What would they say if this were a boy? [MJ with his niece Brandy Jackson]

What I found is indeed astounding.

Not only something that looked like nuzzling was indeed found but open embraces were found too  however not in respect of Brett Barnes or boys in general (with them it was mostly food fighting), but in respect of very many girls instead.

No words

No comment (I hear that the girl is one of Al Malnik’s children)

In fact there are so many photos of Michael embracing and hugging girls that these photos are the best proof of a saying that fathers always want sons to be born to them, but dote most on their daughers.

The way Michael looks in these photos it seems that he is simply dying of happiness and admiration for these little girls.

While I was coming across more and more photos of Michael admiring these little ones (the pictures posted here are just a fraction), one more question arrived and this one was about Lisa-Marie Presley:

Is this

Is this “nuzzling” or what? [with Sage Romero]

QUESTION:

“I have a question on Lisa Marie. She said in one interview she was sure Michael was innocent, but at another around the same time she said she often worried he was guilty. And of course there was the ambiguous Oprah answer that “only Michael and the kid know.” Why can’t she seem to make up her mind? Better yet, how could she be so close to him for so long and not know if he was guilty or not? What do you think she really believes?”

Oh, so Lisa-Marie Presley “often worried that he was guilty”? Really?

This is news to me as I have never seen or heard Lisa-Marie Presley “worry about his guilt” and do it “often” at that. She did speak at length about their differences and sometimes called him an idiot and other bad names, but each time she thought it necessary to clarify that it concerned only their relationship as a man and woman, and it was not in any way connected with children.

Here is a typical sample of what she usually says (the sample is taken from an interview with the Playboy Magazine in 2003):

PLAYBOY: Did you and he ever have children join you in your bed?

LISA-MARIE PRESLEY: Never. Never, never, never, never. I never saw him sleep in bed with a child, ever.

PLAYBOY: Did you ever see him with photos of nude children?

PRESLEY: Never. Never.

PLAYBOY: Do you have any reason to think he’s a child molester?

PRESLEY: If I’d had any reason to suspect that, I would have had nothing to do with the guy. I had no reason to, other than the allegations themselves. The only two people who know are Michael and that kid in the room. I’ve never seen him behave inappropriately. He was great with my kids. He does have a connection with kids, babies. He’s a kid, and other kids sense that in him.

http://www.lisamarieonline.net/lisa/interviews/Playboy.php

Yes, sometimes Lisa-Marie does follow other people’s foolish ideas and repeats their usual mantra that “only that kid and Michael know what happened in that room”.

This silly statement is made by lots of people (including Aphrodite Jones, for example) thus showing to us that no amount of facts proving anyone’s innocence is enough for these people. The only way they think they can know the truth is to “be in that room”. Otherwise they will be groping in the dark, poor things.

Let me say to these people that “being in one room” with a molested kid and the abuser is absolutely not the decisive point here. Child abusers are extremely inventive and a child may be molested in front of everyone without the people around them noticing it. How do I know it? I do and please don’t ask me how I came to know it. I was also a little child once but still remember that incident like yesterday though half a century passed since then.

A much surerer way to know the truth is learn the system of values of a person, his beliefs, thoughts and ideas he is bringing into this world. If the person talks about child molestation in each of his films and regards it as a mere trifle as Woody Allen does, and spreads ideas that “half the country does it”, I agree that this will be reason enough to prick your ears and stand on the guard of your children.

But with Michael Jackson who at age 35 would blush at profanities or run from dirty jokes said in his presence? Every person who knew him noted that Michael had the purest heart anyone could ever imagine and that nothing of the kind was ever on his mind…

Michael Jackson with Lisa-Marie's children

Michael Jackson with Lisa-Marie’s children

If Lisa Marie keeps repeating that silly story about “not being there” I suggest that someone asks her to recall whether she ever left her children alone with Michael.

The answer she would give to herself will explain to her that if she had ever doubted Michael she would have never allowed her children to even come up close to him – whether alone or in her presence.

No, she never doubted him.   Actually I don’t even know what we are discussing here. Lisa-Marie already said that she had never had any doubts about Michael:

  • “If I’d had any reason to suspect that, I would have had nothing to do with the guy.
  • … He was great with my kids. He does have a connection with kids, babies.
  • He’s a kid, and other kids sense that in him.

8. DID THE INSURANCE COMPANY PAY?

As an extra bonus to those who want some answers here let me explore one more question often discussed by fans and non-fans alike.

During the recent King Jordan’s blogtalk radio show Thomas Mesereau was asked whether there is evidence that the Chandlers were paid by the insurance company:

QUESTION:  “Was there any evidence that it was settled by an insurance company or paid by them?”

To this Thomas Mesereau said the following:

“My understanding was that the insurance company did not pay. Now the settlement agreement was written, and again, I was not involved in that settlement – you should ask Howard Weizman about that settlement, I was not involved, I didn’t even know Michael at the time, I got to know him eleven years later but my understanding was that the settlement agreement was written to permit the possibility that the insurance company would pay but I was also told that the insurance company did not pay. That’s my understanding. There are some people running around saying that an insurance company paid it and that’s why it was settled and my understanding is that it is not correct.”

Thomas Mesereau’s reply upset a lot of people.

To many it sounded like a complete disaster, though to me it absolutely didn’t. I really don’t care who paid what as I know the real reason for that settlement – it was simply because Michael could no longer stand the torture. He was so fed up with the whole thing that was ready to do anything to make it go away.

However to those who are super-sensitive about this issue let me say that I have found evidence that the insurance was indeed going to pay money in a settlement agreement and the dispute was actually not so much about the possibility of payment, but mostly about the sum they were ready to part with.

What the end result was I don’t know, but what I know for sure is that two weeks before the settlement the insurance company offered a certain sum to Michael’s team as a “one-time” offer only, but the defense attorneys didn’t accept it and three weeks after the initial offer their negotiations with the insurance company were still in progress.

All these details come from this article published in the New Sunday Times dated January 30, 1993:

The Insurance company made a

Jackson ‘sought insurance help pay boy’

The New Sunday Times

January 30, 1993

London, Sat. – Michael Jackson asked his insurance company to the multimillion dollar payout to the teenager who filed a child molestation suit against the pop star, it was reported yesterday.

The newspaper Today said it has documents showing that the Illionois-based Transamerica Insurance Group was astounded by Jackson’s demand and told Jackson his personal liability policy didn’t cover sex allegations.

Despite the company’s position that Jackson wasn’t covered, Transamerica attorney Jordan Harriman made “a one-time only” offer to Jackson on January 13 to resolve the claim – but Jackson rejected it, according to the paper. Today said negotiations were continuing.

“Our client relationship precludes us from discussing it,” said Cheryl Friedling, spokeswoman for what is now known as TIG Holdings Inc. in the Los Angeles suburb of Woodland Hills.

Jackson’s lawyers announced an out-of-court settlement this week with a 14-year old who had filed a civil suit accusing the pop star of molesting him during a five-month campaign of seduction.

None of the lawyers involved would disclose financial terms of the settlement, but a source close to the case said that Jackson was paying US $15 million to the teenager.

Insurance c. offered to pay - part 2

The Insurance company made a “one-time” offer to Jackson to contribute to his payment to the Chandlers. Jackson refused. Three weeks later the negotiations were still going on

If we are to believe the article it would be an overstatement to say that the insurance company insisted on payment to the Chandlers.

But on the other hand this is what the insurers said to the paper while the fact that they offered money is suggestive of the opposite.

It is obvious that when Michael’s lawyers approached the insurers they agreed to do something about it and even made an offer to Michael, and this means that Thomas Mesereau simply doesn’t know of the deal.

The details we get from the article are as follows:

Michael’s insurance company was Transamerica Insurance Group Holdings Inc. based in Los Angeles. Instead of defending Michael in a civil trial his lawyers (Johnny Cochran and his team) started working with both Michael and the insurance persuading them that the settlement would be the best way out in the circumstances. To Michael they promised that the insurance company would agree to cover the cost of the settlement and to the insurance they evidently said that they would lose more in case Michael was unable to go on working.

The insurance company says that they weren’t especially happy but their deeds speak louder than words – they did make an offer of money (evidently for reasons of negligence which would constitute an accident).

The money was offered on January 13, which was two weeks before the settlement.

This initial offer apparently convinced Michael that the agreement with the insurance company was well on the way and the only thing that remained to be done was agreeing on the sum.

And indeed, though the offer was said to be “one-time” only three weeks later on January 30  the negotiations were still going on.

The sum of the settlement with the Chandlers is named here as $15 million (just as we thought). The amount offered by the insurance company is unknown, but even if their offer was much lower it was surely not rejected as one should be a complete fool not to take money from the insurance.

And this means that the insurance company did pay and that at least some part of the settlement amount was covered by the insurance policy.

So it looks like in this insurance situation everyone is right – Brian Oxman who said in his Motion that the insurance company had paid money, Michael who never spoke about it but who saw the first insurers’ offer and was right in hoping that they would eventually pay, and even Thomas Mesereau who says that it is his understanding that the company did not pay.

It is obvious that they did, only the amount was probably not big enough to cover the whole sum of the settlement (or probably it was).

However none of it matters of course. Michael was innocent anyway – irrespective of all this insurance business.

Will there be any other questions, guys?

9. ANOTHER QUESTION

As soon as I asked for further questions one more arrived and reminded me of a very important point. The question was:

Could they have been referring to the penis, that being “a light color similar to the color of his face”?  The wording is not completely clear, and will probably give those who want to believe the description matched a reason to cling to their assumption. As far as I can remember, I’ve read a response to that somewhere on your website, but I don’t remember what you said.

I am really happy to be reminded of it as I completely forgot that the mjlies guys are now actively promoting the idea that Jordan’s words were simply misunderstood and his description of a light color referred to the whole genitalia and not just a splotch on that intimate part of MJ’s body.

The mjlies said:

“It is the penis “which is a light color similar to the color of his face”, not the “splotches”. Fans are confused by simple sentence structure.”

By “fans” they mean me as I am the only one who ever talked about that issue. Naturally I took the idea seriously as English is a foreign language to me and to check whether I understood Jordan’s words correctly I needed someone else to look into the subject.

Seth Clerk Silberman is a lecturer at Yale University who arranged the first academic conference on Michael Jackson on September 23-24, 2004

Seth Clerk Silberman is a lecturer at Yale University who arranged the first academic conference on Michael Jackson on September 23-24, 2004.

And I did find such a person. And he is not just someone for whom English is a native language –  he is also a MJ researcher who claims to be a big authority on everything connected with Michael.

His name is Seth Clerk Silberman and he is a lecturer on gay and lesbian studies at Yale University who even arranged a two days academic conference on Michael Jackson in September 2004.

In fact Silberman may easily turn out to be one of the authors at the mjlies site as he is also propagating the false story that Jordan allegedly knew of MJ’s non-circumcision state. Silberman openly lies on this issue misquoting even his hero Victor Gutierrez and trying to adjust Gutierrez to their present lies about Jackson and make Gutierrez’s story of 1995 up-to-date.

However while lying about one thing Silberman doesn’t yet know that he needs to lie about the other thing too in order to make Jordan’s description fully consistent with their present understanding of it. When Silberman was making his “studies” no one yet spoke of the dark spot and light penis, so Silberman happily corrects Jordan Chandler in one thing but leaves the rest of his story intact.

This results in the following combination from this learned guy Silberman:

 Jordan described Michael’s penis, “not circumcised” with “blotchy-pink” patches like a cow.

http://thisdaymichael.blogspot.com/

Silberman’s activity around Jackson is extremely interesting in and of itself , but the crucial fact which is of interest to us now is that this big university authority on Michael Jackson interprets Jordan’s words on the color point in exactly the same way as I did, and this means that I understood Jordan’s description correctly.

Silberman also says that Jordan described the penis as having blotchy pink (light) patches – which was actually the scene consistent with what Evan Chandler saw on Michael’s buttocks. And I understood Linden’s affidafit (summed up by the Smoking gun) in exactly the same way.

However Tom Sneddon very conveniently explained to us that the only thing they managed to notice there was just one dark spot. So much for the “match” between Jordan’s words and the photos. Okay?

As regards Seth Clerk Silberman’s chameleonic stories please look up the post made two years ago when we first noticed the strange transformation that are happening to lies about Michael Jackson. It is called Rewriting History or Michael Jackson’s Unpredictable Past.  

Now it has been changed a little bit. The changes concern not the essence of the story but the way I now perceive people who are so dedicated to slandering Michael that they are even ready to change the past for him.

The point is that I no longer see them as Michael’s haters. These people have an agenda of their own and need Michael for their cause. This is why they spread lies about him at every possible forum including universities and are always ready to morph the facts of the past into their opposite when these facts become too inconvenient for them and no longer fit their agenda.

It is their agenda that matters and not Michael Jackson. For them Michael is simply a means to achieve their goals.

10. DIANE DIMOND KNEW THE TRUTH BUT LIED ALL ALONG

The next day after making the post brought another  discovery and another confirmation that all of the above is true.

It turned out that Diane Dimond had always known of  Jordan’s real description of Michael’s genitalia and has been simply fooling us all along.

Dimond also says that Jordan described some pinkish spots on MJ's genitalia

Dimond also says that Jordan described some PINKISH spots on MJ’s genitalia

Lynette sent us a revealing comment from Diane Dimond who in November 2009 wrote an article called “The Enigma that was Michael Jackson” and in one of her replies to readers said the following:

“Jordie Chandler was apparently confused about whether Jackson was circumcised.  However, what he described about discolorations on Jackson’s penis was proven to be correct. In the opening chapter of my book I describe the day police went to serve a “body search warrant” on Mr. Jackson. They were looking to see if the boy’s description of Jackson’s ERECT penis as having pinkish splotches on it were correct.

This was important to prove or disprove…”

http://dianedimond.net/the-enigma-that-was-michael-jackson/#commentshttp://dianedimond.net/the-enigma-that-was-michael-jackson/#comments

Forget about the “erect” penis crap and look at the pinkish splotches instead.

Oh boy, saying that was very reckless of Diane Dimond. Very reckless indeed.

By saying it she proved to us once again that:

  • Jordan Chandler imagined MJ’s penis to be dark and have some pinkish splotches on it,  same as his buttocks   

AND

  • that she always knew Jordan’s description to be incorrect and was simply fooling us all along.

Why she is telling a little bit of truth now I don’t know. Probably she just forgot what she wrote in the past or simply knows that people are too lazy to compare what she says now with what she wrote in her book of 2005, and thinks that she can get away with both stories.

It is only with the nosy us that both stories don’t work and we are even nuisance enough to remind her of her earlier version.

And in her book Dimond says Jordan described a certain DARK spot

And in her book Dimond says Jordan described a certain DARK spot. These liars  absolutely cannot get their story straight  and think they can get away with anything!

And this is how Diane Dimond described the scene of Michael’s humiliating intimate inspection in her book. She is speaking about the photographer who was taking pictures of the event:

 “While I was on Mr. Jackson’s left side, Dr. Strick asked Mr. Jackson to lift his penis. Mr. Jackson questioned why he had to do that, but he did comply with the request. When Mr. Jackson complied with Dr. Strick’s request to lift his penis, I observed a dark spot on the lower left side of Mr. Jackson’s penis.

It’s unclear whether Sergeant Spiegel actually had time to snap a photograph of the mark he saw. But law enforcement sources, as well as Chandler family sources, said that the dark patch on Jackson’s genitals was found exactly where young Jordan Chandler said they could find such a mark. It’s important to note that the dark spot was only visible when the penis was lifted – as during sexual arousal”.

See how many lies Diane Dimond manages to cram into so short a piece:

  • The suggestion that the dark spot was not snapped is untrue as it was photographed and even described by Tom Sneddon in his declaration of May 26, 2005
  • The penis was not just simply “lifted”. To see whether there were any spots below the foreskin Michael should have had to draw the foreskin back by some 5-6 or more centimeters (this is how long the foreskin is) because it is only after this procedure that the result may more or less resemble the state of “sexual arousal” she is describing. The resulting condition is absolutely not the same as “erection” but Diane Dimond naturally doesn’t elaborate on this point and this is where one of her most sophisticated lies is.
  • And they found a dark spot there about Jordan never spoke. Our good boy sent the police to look for a light splotch there and imagine their amazement at seeing that the whole thing was so light that they could find just one dark spot there – at least in “about the same relative location” they described according to Sneddon.

Of course it is very easy to confuse people’s minds with all this crap about spots, especially when nothing adds up there, and this is why Diane Dimond cooked a very simple story for the masses to consume – “there was a spot there and this is all that matters”.

But what doesn’t matter to the masses, matters very much in court where experts will be closely examining every detail and where they will be finally able to tell a dark spot from a light one. And this is exactly why Jordan Chandler never took his story to court – because this is where they do look into details and don’t take media trash stories at their face value.

And by the way it was very nice of Diane Dimond to confirm that Jordan “was confused whether Michael Jackson was circumcised”. It once again answered the question this post started with at all. Yes, yes, yes – Jordan Chandler did say that Michael was circumcised and even Diane Dimond agreed that he was “confused” there.

And after that you still doubt  the outcome of a possible civil trial in 1993 if the parties had not settled?

Of course Michael Jackson would have been cleared of all charges. He would have probably died in the process from the sheer humiliation of it, but he would have certainly been acquitted.

That’s for sure.

262 Comments leave one →
  1. susannerb permalink*
    December 19, 2015 5:02 am

    I’m a bit late with these news, but I want to have two good messages documented on this blog.

    There was news this week that Michael Jackson has reached a new sales record with his “Thriller” album. As the only artist he has attained “the 30-time multiplatinum status” in the United States. See here:
    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/Michael-Jacksons-Thriller-Sets-New-Sales-Record-362621341.html

    Michael Jackson’s ‘Thriller’ Sets New Sales Record
    By Anthony McCartney

    Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” is still scaring up sales and giving the King of Pop’s legacy a new milestone.
    The album has sold 30 million copies in the United States, making Jackson the first artist to attain 30-time multiplatinum status, the Recording Industry Association of America and Jackson’s estate announced Wednesday.
    The album has proved even more popular overseas, with a total of 100 million copies sold worldwide since its 1982 release. It includes some of Jackson’s most recognizable hits, including “Beat It,” ”Billie Jean,” ”Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin'” and the title track, which inspired one of the most famous music videos of all time.
    “What an exceptional achievement and testament to ‘Thriller’s’ enduring spot in our hearts and musical history,” RIAA chairman and CEO Cary Sherman wrote in a statement. The group monitors music sales and bestows gold status on albums that have sold 500,000 copies and platinum status if they reach 1 million sales.
    Branca noted that Jackson wrote the album to appeal to a broad audience, which helped fuel its popularity abroad.
    “‘Thriller’ continues to be the yardstick against which all other albums are measured,” said John Branca, co-executor of Jackson’s estate.
    “He didn’t want to sell records to blacks or whites or Americans,” Branca said. “He wanted to sell records to everyone, Africa, Asia, everywhere. It’s just continued to sell and sell and sell.”
    Branca was cautious about declaring that Jackson and “Thriller” had set an unbreakable record.
    “You can’t say never,” he said, noting Adele’s album “21” has sold 11 million copies in the U.S. since 2011. “Nobody saw that coming.”
    But, he added, “You wouldn’t want to bet that there’s another one coming along. Not these days.”
    A greatest-hits collection of songs by the Eagles is Jackson’s closest competitor at the moment, with 29 million albums sold, according to the RIAA.
    Jackson’s music surged in popularity after his unexpected death in June 2009 at age 50. His estate has released new music, the film “This is It” that features footage of Jackson’s final rehearsals for his comeback concerts and a pair of Cirque du Soleil shows.

    This means that new generations are still listening to Michael!

    The other news is this amazing story:
    While in Los Angeles Michael Jackson is still made a defendant in court cases, he is cited by prosecutors in a Philadelphia court with his “Man in the Mirror” song as an example for the defendant there to make a change:

    http://watchloud.com/michael-jackson-lyrics-for-meek-mill/

    The prosecutors:

    “Since the Defendant’s language is music, this Commonwealth felt that perhaps the best way to reach the defendant would be through music. While it is understood that this Commonwealth and the Defendant share different type of music tastes, music has the power and ability to transcend cultures, language, race and gender. The Defendant – he himself – is the only one that can change his present and future under probation supervision. He has to begin to accept personal responsibility for his probation – he has to stand up and be the leader and prioritize the terms/conditions of his probation. It is simple to comply but it will mean the Defendant taking a hard earned look at himself, his talend and his character as a man and do a complete 360° degree change. So this Commonwealth turns to the legendary Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones coupled with songwriters Siedah Garrett and Glen Ballard to their inspirational song “Man in the Mirror”.

    “I’m gonna make a change for once in my life,
    it’s gonna feel real good, gonna make a difference, gonna make it right.”

    “I’ve been a victim of a selfish kind of love,
    it’s time I realize that there are some with no home,
    not a nickel to loan…”

    Like

  2. December 16, 2015 7:10 pm

    Dear readers, sorry I had to close comments on the old posts – this was done for the purpose of saving them as they are (as I am now trying to archive them). If you think the comments should be reopened they will be reopened, just please tell me the way you prefer it.

    I currently have some problems with the Internet and may not be available for a couple of days. But this will help me to focus on the new post instead.

    Like

  3. vulcan permalink
    December 15, 2015 2:29 am

    I couldn’t post this under the Frozen in time post because comments there are closed but I have to talk about this nonsense Zonen likes to promote.

    “Larry Feldman looks at Gavin, who at this point is about 12 years old, almost 13 I believe, and sees in Gavin a very strong resemblance to the child from 1993. They’re the same age, roughly the same size, roughly the same coloring. You could look at pictures of the two of them, along with two other children who also had a very close intimate relationship with Michael Jackson years prior. You look at the photographs of all of them together, and at times it’s hard to distinguish one photograph from another. They all bear very much the same resemblance.”

    What a giant load of crap!

    1. Jordan Chandler did NOT look like Gavin Arvizo at all!
    As you can recall one of Dimond’s many nasty innunedos was that Jordan was exceptionally good looking.
    And he was. He was a pretty boy.
    Gavin on the other hand was an unattractive boy, he looked like a random street thug!
    The complete opposite of Jordan delicate features!

    Frankly, not even a real pedo would be interested in Gavin Arvizo. He had a repulsive face.

    Their body type was also diffferent. Jordan was slender and looked his age.
    Gavin was bulky and looked older than 13. He looked about 15 during the Bashir interview.
    He had a deep voice so he was cearly well into puperty which itself kills another false narrative promoted by Zonen and co. that MJ was only interested in boys between 10-13 BEFORE hitting puberty.
    If you watch Bashir, the part where MJ is in the kitchen with the three Arvizos you can see that Gavin was almost as big as MJ, hardly a little boy.

    2. Zonen seems to forget that they named other boys as victims who clearly didn’t look like
    either Jordan or Gavin. Wade Robson looked liked Jordan or Gavin or Jason?
    Jonathan spence? Jimmy Safechuck looked like Brett Barnes? News to me.
    Mac Culkin looked like Gavin Arvizo? Where is this supposed pattern?

    3. What about the other boys who hang out with MJ and spent even more time with him
    than either Chandler, Arvizo let alone Francia?
    Frank and Eddie Cascio. Emmanuel Lewis. Sean Lennon.
    Emmanuel looked like Jordan or Gavin? Frank looked like Sean?
    Sean looked like Wade Robson?
    What about Corey Feldman? He wasn’t even a cute kid. He looked average.

    Right, they totally look alike!

    4. What about Gavin’s ugly fat brother Star?
    At one point he too claimed that he was molested in a golf cart. Then this element of the story vanished. I wonder why.
    Zonen said Star was also in Mj’s bedroom on a regular basis. That MJ showed him porn and gave him alcohol.
    So what does that mean? That Mj was grooming ugly fatass Star too? He got the hots for him too?
    If not then why show him porn, why gave him alchohol, why have him in his bedroom?
    All these things were listed by Zonen as MJ’s efforts to groom Gavin for sex.
    He never explained why MJ wanted Star to be around him.
    (Well we all know that MJ didn’t want either of them around, they were just begging him to let them stay in his room
    and MJ was too softhearted to say no.)

    5. What about Dave Dave who was Mj’s lifelong friend starting with age 7.
    How did he look?
    I really would have liked to see Zonen explain this:

    You can be sure MJ is innocent from the very fact that this enemies cannot make a case against him
    without telling one obvious lie after another. Zonen’s desperate attempt to establish patterns
    where there was none was left unchallenged by Tom Mez during his closing argument.
    But it was actually the most ridiculous element of Zonen’s performance.

    Non-existent pattern: MJ targetted vulnerable kids.

    Really?
    Exactly how was Brett Barnes, Jimmy Safechuck, Mac Culkin or Jordan Chandler vulnerable?
    If anything the common theme with these kids is that they were all confident happy kids with good relations to their parents. The exact opposite of an ideal pedophile target.
    Not to mention Gavin Arvizo who bragged that he was not the kind of person people can easily take advantage of, who bragged that he stood up to his teachers when he thought they were wrong, who was described by prosecution witness Cyntia Bell as rude, arrogant, bossy, whom Brett Ratner called an adult, whom Chris Tucker called streetsmart and cunning.
    Is that vulnerable in Zonen’s upside down world?
    Ratner said Gavin Arvizo would have punched MJ in the face if he had tried to touch him.

    Non-existent pattern: MJ targetted kids with an absent father.
    Really?
    Jimmy Safechuck was in a nuclear family. So was Brett Barnes. So was Mac Culkin.

    The first time Wade Robson slept in MJ’s bed the whole family was on the ranch.
    Mother father grantparents. So if Zonen argued that MJ decided to target Wade
    right during the first visit then did he target a boy who not only had a a father but whose father
    was sleeping in the very same house?

    Culkin’s father Kit Culkin wrote in his book that one of the reasons why he didn’t notice anything
    suggesting pedophilia in Neverland was that he was always around and MJ was suicidal
    or that stupid, one misstep and he would have broken his neck and every other bone in his body.
    Absent father, my ass.

    Jordan Chandler’s father wrote in his book that MJ wanted to build a house for him so he could spend
    more time with him and Jordan there. If Zonen believes Evan’s version of events how does that
    compute with the whole “absent father” theory? MJ wanted Evan out of the picture therefore
    he wanted to spend more time in his house??

    As for Gavin Arvizo, Zonen suggested MJ decided to target him the first time they talked on the phone.
    He said all those phone calls were part of the grooming. Nevermind that those calls took
    place in the summer of 2000 when Gavin not only had a father but it was actually the father
    who went with the kids to Neverland, Janet Arvizo wasn’t even there after the first visit.
    Andif Zonen argued that no MJ didn’t decide to target Gavin until after the Bashir doc had aired in Feb 2003 then what was his point about the phone calls, the internet porn or that MJ wanted Gavin to ask his parents whether he can sleep in his room? All of those supposedly took place in the summer of 2000 while Gavin still had cancer and while David Arvizo was very much in the picture!

    The only boy who accused MJ and who didn’t have a father when the alleged targetting started was Jason Francia and he doesn’t fit the supposed pattern for other reason.
    Francia was not in any way MJ’s “special friend” by Zonen’s standards.
    He rearely even met MJ, he never slept in his bed, MJ didn’t talk with him on the phone,
    he didn’t travell with him, MJ didn’t befriend his family, he didn’t go with him to “fun places”,
    he didn’t get expensive gifts. He never talked about any kind of grooming, the molestations
    supposedly happened ouf of the blue! Totally the opposite of what the Chandlers wanted us
    to believe. They claimed that MJ spent months to prepare Jordan for the ultimate molestation
    which was very gradual starting with kissing and ending with oral sex.
    How does Francia’s story of random ticklings establish a pattern?

    Non-existent pattern: tells the boys and their parents they are like family

    When did he ever tell that to Jason or Blanca Francia? Never.
    When did he tell that to Kit Culkin or his 7 kids?
    When did he tell that to Janet Arvizo

    Non-existent pattern: calls the boys son and wants them to call him daddy.

    When did he call Jordan Chandler son and wanted him to call him daddy?
    Jason Francia? Nope.
    Brett Barnes? Nope.
    Mac Culkin? Nope.
    Gavin Arvizo asked his father whether HE can call him daddy not the other way around!
    And MJ only went along with it because he didn’t want to hurt Gavin’s feelings.
    But that was hardly a thing he regularly did!

    Like

  4. vulcan permalink
    December 14, 2015 4:10 pm

    Thanks Helena. I always wondered why Tom Mez did not talk about the strange circumstances those books were “found”.
    Like, why in the world would Michael give the key to that cabinet to Blanca Francia, or anyone for that matter, if he wanted to hide those books from everyone?
    And why they didn’t do fingerprint analysis on those books to see whether Francia or anyone else touched it.
    Or why there were no fingerprint analysis of the pages to see whether Michael ever paged that book. Or if there was then why the result was not used by Sneddon. (If they didn’t find anything that would kill their whole argument that Michael not only knew about the pictures but regularly used it for sexual gratification).

    As for the “diary” just more proof that Dimond and pedo Gutierrez were in the same boat all along! It’s no wonder that they revealed the “diary” on Hard Copy.
    Of course noone asked the obvious question: if such diary existed why wasn’t Michael arrested on probable cause. And why was it Gutierrez of all people who manage to obtain this “diary” from the Chandlers. Why would an actual abuse victims and his father cooperated with a NAMBLA supporter pervert?

    “So , essentially, the Neverland 5 made these stories up, ( in his office , if I recall) sold the stories , to finance , hiring this lawyer and their case,”

    Oh no it wasn’t them who made up those stories! They got those stories from Gutierrez!
    Francia, McManus, Cachon, Abdool — what’s common with them?
    They all talked to Gutierrez! Their stories sound exactly like Gutierrez’s dirty fantasies, they are way too much in his style for it to be just a coincidence.

    Consider Francia’s shower story. Gutierrez’s book claims that MJ and Jordan routinely had sex in the shower (which if it had been true would make his claim that MJ was circumcised even more ridiculous).

    The shower story exists in multiple versions, of course, because it never happened and liars cannot keep their story straight. But the version in Sneddon’s motion, now where do you think that came from?

    Here it is:

    ““As she approached the bathroom ..she saw Jackson and young Robson nu…de together in the shower and Jackson was rubbing against Wade’s body. The shower was steaming so she could not see everything, but she could see Wade’s head pressed against Jackson’s stomach area. Jackson’s and Wade’s underwear were on the floor next to the shower. “”

    Francia of course didn’t talk about any rubbing or Wade’s head pressed against Mj’s stomach. But this shit sounds exactly like something that pervert Gutierrez would make up.
    He just liked to fantasize about this kind of stuff.

    McManus actually admitted in her testimony that Gutierrez told her he would help them with their lawsuit against MJ. Now how exactly could someone like Gutierrez help someone who wants to sue Michael?

    “5 Q. All right. Do you recall speaking to a book

    6 author named Gutierrez?

    7 A. Yes, sir.

    8 Q. And approximately when did you speak to a

    9 book author named Gutierrez?

    10 A. I believe that was before we went to Star,

    11 and — but I don’t remember the — I don’t remember

    12 the date or the time.

    4 Q. Were you interviewed by a book author named

    5 Mr. Gutierrez?

    6 A. I never was interviewed, but I did meet with

    7 him.

    8 Q. And approximately when did you meet with

    9 him?

    10 A. You know, I cannot recall the date.

    11 Q. Well, you certainly had a discussion with

    12 him about the fact that he was writing a book,

    13 didn’t you?

    14 A. No, I did not.

    15 Q. So when you met with him, you didn’t know he

    16 was writing a book?

    17 A. No, when I met with him, he was going to try

    18 to help us in our lawsuit.

    19 Q. Did you ever learn he was writing a book

    20 about Mr. Jackson?

    21 A. I never — I don’t recall him saying that he

    22 was writing a book. I don’t remember that.

    23 Q. Did you give him information about Mr.

    24 Jackson?

    25 A. Um, later I did.

    The vaseline story, the shower story, the oral sex story all of that crap came from Gutierrez.
    He was the inventor and supplier of pedo fictions involving Michael and the boys he decided were his “lovers”. That this pig was not only never punished for what he did but was actually employed by a major US network shows how truly fucked up America’s so-called justice system and media really are.

    Like

  5. December 14, 2015 3:10 pm

    “i believe that is atty Ring, asking MJ questions in the deposition.So , essentially, the Neverland 5 made these stories up, ( in his office , if I recall) sold the stories , to finance , hiring this lawyer and their case, which is essentially threatening negative publicity , and then , this same lawyer , gets to ask , if MJ has ever heard the stories, as if to give them some credibility.” – Nannoris

    Yes, it must be their attorney Michael Ring. I want to explore the subject further, but the very basic information is that the Neverland Five filed their lawsuit against Michael at the beginning of 1996 (in January if I remember it right). Michael Ring organized their interviews with Splash and another tabloid where they made up all sorts of stories. Michael Ring was present during those interviews and took the money for payment of his legal services.

    Michael Ring’s own portfolio which has only 4 cases describes their lawsuit as “Wrongful Termination” (http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/93101-ca-michael-ring-248345/legal_cases) but instead of termination the questions went over to Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes. Their only purpose could be an attempt to turn the case into something it was not meant to be. The judge did not allow this to happen, but even without those allegations the case lasted for 6 months.

    So I perfectly understand Michael’s attitude to Ring’s questions – he was supposed to be asked about wrongful termination of those bodyguards and possibly about the counter-claim he filed against them (for stealing), but instead the lawyer was rehashing all that dirt which had nothing to do with the case. This is why you feel so much resentment in Michael’s attitude and so much stifled anger. This is why he is shaking his head in disbelief as if asking “When will this BS going to stop?”

    And please remember that at about the same time he was suing Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez who in 1995 also made him mad by spreading lies about that non-existent video with alleged molestation of his nephew. Michael was so angry that he filed a suit against them for $100m mln. Diane Dimond hid behind the shield law protecting journalists and shifted all the blame to her “best source” Gutierrez. As you know the case ended in 1997 with a judgment against Gutierrez of $2,7 million for defamation.

    So this was a period when after the 1993 case Michael was so sick and tired of liars and extortionists that he decided to finally fight for his good name. And it is this determination not to give in to them and their crazy questions any more which you see in this 1996 video.

    Like

  6. nannorris permalink
    December 14, 2015 12:10 pm

    VMJ wrote

    Let me also add that that the deposition dated 1996 (excerpts here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOy0oYpMwk8) had nothing to do with the allegations. The deposition was taken as part of a lawsuit brought against Michael by his former employees Adrian McManus, Kassim Abdool and the others for unfair termination (Adrian McManus also complained about sexual harassment from one of the bodyguards), so asking Michael about the allegations in that context was a complete outrage.
    Hence his reaction – he doesn’t understand why he has to answer the same ridiculous questions no matter what he is being sued for. And this has to happen again two years after a year-long criminal investigation was closed in 1994 without bringing any charges against him.

    ——————
    Yes < i believe that is atty Ring, asking MJ questions in the deposition.So , essentially, the Neverland 5 made these stories up, ( in his office , if I recall) sold the stories , to finance , hiring this lawyer and their case, which is essentially threatening negative publicity , and then , this same lawyer , gets to ask , if MJ has ever heard the stories, as if to give them some credibility.

    I think Evan Chandler tried to do the same thing to LMP, after the Sawyer interview..
    His lawyer would call her in for a deposition,in his lawsuit against her , because of the Sawyer interview, give an interview to tabloids , before she showed up , implying all kinds of things , and have the tabloid press waiting for her , when she arrived .
    Sell it to Hardcopy., or Splash.
    I think that is why LMP< is very careful, in how she speaks .., so she doesnt get dragged back int this garbage

    This is the vicious circle he was stuck in for years,
    People making up stories, threatening negative publicly, if he doesnt settle , ..Tabloids bringing them to the attn of authorities , to create more stories .
    Authorities , looking for a big show trial.
    I can only imagine what a nightmare that must have been..

    Like

  7. December 14, 2015 6:18 am

    An innocent person who is falsely accused is outraged, angry, can’t believe this is happening to him and Michael showed all of those signs. Just watch the Dec 1993 TV statement. Especially when he talks about who the media handled the whole thing. That’s not acting! That’s genuine anger!
    Now compare it to when Bob Costa asked Sandusky whether he was sexually attracted to young boys. Instead of instantly saying no Sanduksy repeated the question which is a typical sign of a liar: parrot statement they try to win time to formulate their untrue response. If you watch Sanduksy’s nervous body language during his interview with the New York Times reporter you could see he is lying.
    While if you watch MJ’s face right when the lawyers ask him about Brett Barnes it’s a spontaneous “what??? I can’t fucking believe this shit”.
    There is no way someone who is guilty could react like that. – vulcan

    You are absolutely right. Michael is in shock to hear all those questions again and again, and is trying to cope with his anger and desire to tell all those people to go to hell – while Sandusky is simply evading an answer.

    Let me also add that that the deposition dated 1996 (excerpts here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOy0oYpMwk8) had nothing to do with the allegations. The deposition was taken as part of a lawsuit brought against Michael by his former employees Adrian McManus, Kassim Abdool and the others for unfair termination (Adrian McManus also complained about sexual harassment by one of the bodyguards), so asking Michael about the allegations in that context was a complete outrage.

    Hence his reaction – he doesn’t understand why he has to answer the same ridiculous questions no matter what he is being sued for. And this has to happen two years after a year-long criminal investigation was closed in 1994 without bringing any charges against him.

    Like

  8. December 14, 2015 5:54 am

    @vulcan, I owe you an answer about the so-called “Chandler’s diary” being read in the media. You asked when it happened and how I know about it.
    It is a long story which requires a full post, so here is the short of it.

    1) The person who wrote about a certain diary was Victor Gutierrez (of course). Some excerpts from it were read out on Hard Copy in Diane Dimond’s program aired on May 9th and 10th, 1994. Over there it was presented as Evan Chandler’s diary.

    2) We know that this so-called diary was read out on TV (and also repeated on the radio as far as I remember) from an article published on May 21, 1994 by Abiola Sinclair. As usual the article is no longer available on the internet, but Lynette found it in the archives.

    A quote from that article:

    Abiola Sinclair
    New York Amsterdam News
    05-21-1994
    TV show continues to prick Michael Jackson’s credibility.

    Tabloid TV show “Hard Copy” continues its leading role in the persecution of Michael Jackson with a so-called diary written by the father of the 14-year-old boy who was allegedly sexually abused by Jackson.

    The diary, which was admittedly procured by “Hard Copy,” was read on the air Monday and Tuesday May 9 and 10, in typical “Hard Copy” fashion.

    The diary tells the father’s version of the events surrounding the abuse case, but despite “Hard Copy’s” attempt to put its own suspicious spin on the information, it also reveals the father’s greed and manipulation of the situation for his own benefit.

    3) In his book published in 1996 Gutierrez revealed that it was he who “presented the diary to the world” in 1994, only in the book Gutierrez called it Jordan’s diary thus spinning the lie even further. Even Ray Chandler said that Jordan never had any diary.

    A quote from Victor Gutierrez:

    “Then on Monday, May 9th. I presented to the world excerpts from Jordie’s diary as a precursor to my book. The presentation included photographs of Jackson dressed in pajamas in Jordie’s room. It also included Jordie’s suicide note and other things of interest. I never expected that the Santa Barbara and L.A. district attorneys and detectives would react with surprise. I thought that Jordie had told them everything, and that they had seen the photos. The district attorneys contacted Larry Feldman, and demanded Jordie’s entire diary, however, Feldman refused to turn over the evidence.”

    There is more to the story but this is the very short of it.

    Like

  9. December 14, 2015 5:25 am

    “When Michael was told that some books were found in a closed cupboard in his closet he was very surprised.”- Helena
    “Why do you think he was surprised?” – Vulcan

    I know that Michael was surprised that the police found some books in that locked cabinet and didn’t remember what books they were because there was an article mentioning this fact. I came across this article long time ago, probably in 2009 when I only began reading about MJ and did not feel necessary to save anything on my computer. Later on, when I realized how important the information was I tried to find it, but in vain. Lots and lots of things have been deleted since then.
    But I still remember the fact itself and even hope to one day to regain this information. It seems to me that I once fully provided the article in the comments, so if anyone does find it please bring it back to us.

    Like

  10. vulcan permalink
    December 13, 2015 10:52 pm

    “When Michael was told that some books were found in a closed cupboard in his closet he was very surprised.”

    Why do you think he was surprised?
    I’m not saying he was not I’d just like to know your source.

    I know he didn’t even remember having those books when Diane Sawyer asked him about it.
    There were sent to him in 1983 10 years before the raid and 12 years before the interview.
    No fingerprint evidence was introduced proving that he ever looked inside those books let alone that he was obsessed with them. And Sneddon sure would have liked some fingerprints on the pages which had the naked boys. The fact that there were no such fingerprints prove that MJ was not interested in those books at all.

    Like

  11. Jolie permalink
    December 13, 2015 7:18 pm

    Thank you so much Vulcan. All your thoughts are so well stated. I appreciate your input very much.

    Like

  12. vulcan permalink
    December 13, 2015 9:15 am

    “After I viewed this clip, I called her in. She saw and heard and I watched the colour drain right out of her face. “He is innocent Mum”, she whispered. .”

    Yes and it’s not just this clip.
    Watch him answer Diane Sawyer’s question in 1995
    “have you ever sexually engaged with this boy or any other child”

    He instantly says Never ever.
    Watch his face. There is absolutely no sign of deception and Mike was not a good liar his real feelings were always on his face.
    He looks totally honest while answering that question.
    And when he talks about how they found nothing he shows absolute confidence in what he says. Liars do not act like that. They act like Bill Cosby when he was asked about the rape charges and he was evasive, nonsensical.
    An innocent person who is falsely accused is outraged, angry, can’t believe this is happening to him and Michael showed all of those signs. Just watch the Dec 1993 TV statement.
    Especially when he talks about who the media handled the whole thing. That’s not acting!
    That’s genuine anger!

    Now compare it to when Bob Costa asked Sandusky whether he was sexually attracted to young boys. Instead of instantly saying no Sanduksy repeated the question which is a typical sign of a liar: parrot statement they try to win time to formulate their untrue response.
    If you watch Sanduksy’s nervous body language during his interview with the New York Times reporter you could see he is lying.

    While if you watch MJ’s face right when the lawyers ask him about Brett Barnes it’s a spontaneous “what??? I can’t fucking believe this shit”.
    There is no way someone who is guilty could react like that.
    And of course we know that both Brett and Mac have been adamant that nothing ever happened.

    His behavior after the allegations went public is also very telling. He crying he was so down he was begging Dominique Cascio to let his two kids stay with him on the tour because
    they kept his spirit up. Frank wrote about this in his book.
    A guilty person who has been caught would not be this depressed and devastated.
    Again, look at Sandusky’s behavior during the trial. He was smirking all through the whole thing while MJ was alternating between hope and despair and by the end of the trial he was almost dead. Quite literally.
    While his alleged victims was acting like a brat showing absolutely no sign of any trauma whatsoever. Same with Jordan Chandler. He was described by Evan Chandler as exuberant and even whimsical right after he told his horrible molestation story to Dr. Abrams! All he care about was what they would eat for lunch!
    That’s not the reaction of a real victim!
    Or think about his answer when Dr. Garner asked him who the molestation could hurt him?
    Chandler had no idea!

    “Okay, how could it hurt? As you see it, how could it hurt you?”
    “Because – that’s a touchy subject, I guess. It separates you from any other people.”
    “How?”
    “I don’t know.”
    “Just your own guess.”
    “It could make me depressed or something, I don’t know.”

    Remember OJ’s smirk when the verdict was read? He was happy. He got away with it.
    But Mj’s face showed nothing but sorrow when he came out of the courtroom.
    That’s how an innocent person who was dragged through the mud behaves.

    And even four years after the trial who was traumatized? Arvizo? No.
    It was Michael.
    This is from an interview with Angelica Huston who met Michael one month before he died.
    A guilty person would not be this heartbroken after a not guilty verdict.

    Did you see him recently?

    “After Captain Eo we have rarely met … But, ironically, I saw him about a month ago, by chance, in the study of our dermatologist, Arnie Klein. We hugged and we were locked in a study room and chatted for a couple of hours. We talked about how he felt humiliated by the accusation of sexual abuse. And the sorrow for the loss of Neverland, where he had lived for many years. ”

    What did he say?

    “I remember his words: ‘They ruined my dream. I had this dream, perhaps childish and foolish, a place designed to celebrate the innocence of childhood I never had, and they took it. I love children, I could never harm them. I spent all my life to love them and try to do good things for them. The stigma that I harmed children, breaks my heart. It’s an unbearable pain, the accusations are so unjust and terrible …’. As he said these things he began to cry. I shook his arms. … He was so skinny and frail ”

    Did he speak about future projects?

    “He told me he was preparing for a concert in London… One thing I can say he was in so much pain over the past and a lot of anxiety and uncertainty over the future. ”

    What do you think really killed Michael Jackson?

    “Michael had a broken heart. That’s why he is dead. Of course, with an autopsy we will wonder how many things, drugs and so on. But the truth is that his heart was broken.

    http://www.repubblica.it/2009/07/sezioni/persone/michael-jackson-2/jackson-anjelica-huston/jackson-anjelica-huston.html

    Then there is the lyrics of An Innocent man. Why would a guilty person write that to himself?

    If I sail to Acapulco or Cancun Mexico
    There the law is waiting for me
    and God knows that I’m innocent

    If they wont take me in Cairo
    then lord where will I go?

    I’ll die a man without a country
    and only God knew I was innocent now.

    And the Murray tape where he is talking about building hospitals for sick kids and how much he cares about them? A pedophile does not think like that about kids. He was knocked out, he had no way to know that one day the world would hear those words.
    Those were his true feelings he deepest desires. And there was nothing but goodness in them, nothing sexual, nothing perverted.

    More than 10 years of investigation by multiple agencies, a relentless hunt by the media and noone ever could show anything incriminating that proves his thoughts about children were sexual!

    Hey, even the book with naked boys proves that that’s not what was on his mind while looking at boys. Which pedophiles thinks like this when seeing kids in bathing suites?

    “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ.”

    Like

  13. December 12, 2015 3:54 am

    “Helena, your work is not in vain, it is complex and worthy. Your mental gymnastics are astounding.”-Lynaire

    Lynaire, I am really sorry I had to give so cruel an example, but this was the only way to make the idea clear.

    I once attended a several days psychological workshop. At a preliminary meeting the psychologist said that the workshop would start at 8 sharp as at 8:01 the door would be closed and no one would be able to enter. People started arguing (what if I get into a traffic jam or something happens on the way?). His answer was short and simple – “Just imagine that the life of your child depends on whether you arrive on time”. A hush fell over all of us, but for the next three days not a single person arrived late.

    So sometimes it takes a strong remedy to make people understand.

    As regards my example with the dog, I’m sorry I had to do it – I myself am now haunted by it. To undo the harm done by the words and to erase the image the creation of which was unfortunately inevitable (and this is why Michael didn’t want to repeat words like that), please imagine that you break the stick and throw it into fire. And take the surviving dog into your arms. This should help.

    But the example itself and the traumatic effect it had give us the idea what a nightmare Michael was going through when he heard people attributing to him all those horrible things. In situations like that people go mad. No wonder that after the 2005 trial he was nearly dead.

    Like

  14. Lynaire Williams permalink
    December 11, 2015 6:35 pm

    This short clip that nannoris has kindly reminded me of, I found soon after Michael’s death. Obviously it was put out by the the media to humiliate and condemn. However in my world it had the opposite affect. Though all my instincts knew him to be completely innocent, it served to put the human side together.
    How anyone could watch that and still believe Michael a guilty man is beyond me. My daughter, a former avid fan, had her first child, a boy , in 1994 and though we never discussed it, she fell prey to all the negativity surrounding the Chandlers at that time. Sad.
    After I viewed this clip, I called her in. She saw and heard and I watched the colour drain right out of her face. “He is innocent Mum”, she whispered. .
    Helena, your work is not in vain, it is complex and worthy. Your mental gymnastics are astounding. But I, for one, once you lead me there, know it as absolute truth. Thank you for that.
    Lynaire

    Like

  15. December 11, 2015 4:13 pm

    “Just watching the statements and the interviews where he talks about it, he never says, even when directly asked, that he didn’t do it. He always says “I would never harm a child” (why didn’t he flat out say “I didn’t do it” in those terms?)“ – Deana

    Funny that people don’t understand the simplest things about Michael.

    He was simply unable to repeat the horrible things they were asking him about and couldn’t speak in “those terms”. Repeating words is partially visualizing them and he absolutely couldn’t visualize, for example, “sex” with a minor.

    Since people evidently don’t understand this phenomenon I will have a provide an example (sorry, it will have to be a very cruel one, otherwise it will not work).

    What will be your reaction if someone asks you a question:
    – Was it you who put a stick through a live dog, spilled gasoline on it and burned it alive?
    Your reaction will be a stare, shocked silence and a stammering answer:
    – I’m unable to do anything like that!
    They still persist:
    – Why don’t you simply say that you didn’t put a stick through a live dog?
    – Because I can’t even think of doing a thing like that!
    – Why don’t you give a direct answer?
    – Because it I can’t even repeat it! I can’t harm a dog! I love all animals!

    This is a normal reaction and a normal reply. Reply of a normal person to an absolutely abnormal question.

    The same about Michael. What they were asking about was inconceivable to him. If they had forced him to repeat all those words he would have cried or probably fainted. Forcing him to say it was like a torture for him.

    Interesting but the opposite is also true. People who like speaking about abnormalities and derive pleasure (like Gutierrez, for example) from depicting various “scenes” with minors, reveal their perverse nature and display their ped-lia inclinations this way.

    P.S. Very sorry for the example again. I myself am now haunted by it. To undo the harm done by the words and to erase the image the creation of which was unfortunately inevitable, imagine that you break the stick and throw it into fire. And take the surviving dog into your arms. This should help.

    Like

  16. nannorris permalink
    December 11, 2015 11:54 am

    this clip is supposedly MJ being interrogated , but I believe it is actually a deposition in 96 by the Neverland 5 lawyer ( same person , who is acting as a go between for them and the tabloids , to pay their legal bills .)
    MJ doesnt hesitate to answer any questions at all regarding children
    he explains ,…himself , why he loves children
    In hindsight , it is pretty pathetic, that people believed this garbage in the first place, given how honestly he answers questions.
    The media , imo, knows themselves , that they crucified an innocent man, which is why they ignored the ten year anniversary of his acquittals
    Notice they take opportunity to revisit the OJ Simpson trial .
    Since his death and the transcripts are out, they seem to avoid it like the plague

    Like

  17. December 10, 2015 5:27 pm

    Vulcan, I absolutely marvel at the great way you are explaining the truth to those who don’t understand. I’ve singled out only a few of your points which are worth memorizing:

    Jordan was totally incapable of emotionally connecting to the story he was reciting. Because it was not real! It was just a story he memorized. He was coached by his father and his SOB lawyer for a month!

    Bottom line: NOBODY was silenced.
    The Chandlers talked.
    The Francias talked.
    The Arvizos talked.

    Now, it was not MJ’s accusers who showed sign of abuse. It was MJ who was depressed, who couldn’t sleep, who was in pain, who cried every day!
    MJ showed the typical signs of a victim not Chandler not Arvizo not Francia! Because he was a victim of horrible false accusations.

    This last point is especially true. It was Michael Jackson who was a victim of all those horrible people and not the other way about.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. stacy3 permalink
    December 8, 2015 6:01 pm

    Anybody who thinks Jackson was acquitted because of his fame is an idiot. First of all, the case wasn’t about Jordan Chandler, Wade Robson, or any other accuser. It was about Gavin Arvizo and only Gavin Arvizo, and the jury, according to their own statements, did not find Gavin or his family credible. All it takes is one lie under oath for a jury to reject a witness’ entire testimony. What people fail to understand is that lying is an indication of deception, and if a person is being deceptive then it means that they are not being truthful. If you’ve experienced a traumatic event and you were asked to tell your story, you would tell the story from what’s in your memory. So therefore you will not get caught in lies because there is nothing to lie about because the event really happened. But if you’re making up the story, you will get caught in lies because you are not recalling an event that’s in your memory. You are recalling an event that’s in your imagination, and imaginary events are hard to remember or keep track of because they never happened. The Arvizos were caught in numerous lies and that is what convinced the jury that these people were full of BS and that is why they voted not guilty on all counts.

    Like

  19. vulcan permalink
    December 8, 2015 8:09 am

    “Deana

    “Just watching the statements and the interviews where he talks about it, he never says, even when directly asked, that he didn’t do it. He always says “I would never harm a child” (why didn’t he flat out say “I didn’t do it” in those terms?) “

    You are wrong. He DID say several times that he didn’t do it including to Evan Chandler himself who quoted him at that Aug 4 1993 meeting “I didn’t do anything”.

    Then to Diane Sawyer, he didn’t just simply say that he would never harm a child.
    He said “I’m not even interested in it” and when Sawyer asked him
    “have you ever sexually engaged with this boy or any other child”
    MJ instantly said Never ever.

    He also told Bashir “what didn’t happen when Bashir said “what happened in 1993”.

    Not to mention his televised statement where he said “these reports are totally false”
    referring to the ex-employees’s stories they were selling to tabloids and he said that with passion and conviction if you watch his body language he looked totally honest. No way he could fake outrage like that he was not a good actor.

    The idea that he believed sex with boys of love not harmful is nonsense in light of the fact
    that his nephew Taj was molested and Taj said MJ was his support system.
    He also wrote this note to his mother Dee Dee telling her to read an article about child molesters who are family members. He clearly wanted to protect his nephews which someone who thinks child molestation is not harmful would not even think about doing.
    Here’s the note:

    He also wrote a song Do you know where you children are in the early 90s.
    The lyrics and the way he was singing that song make it clear that he considered sex with a 12 year old outrageous and definitely harmful.

    Michael didn’t have sexual attraction to males of any age, period.
    He liked women and there is tons of evidence of that while there is no proof that he liked boys at all. Not a single letter, note or incriminating phone call and he was more investigated than a serial killer! Something should have suggested that he was attracted to boys but there was nothing. His phone conversation with Ryan White is available publicly and it’s completely innocent. That’s the way it was with Chandler, Arvizo and every other kids he talked to too.

    He didn’t buy or download photos of boys let alone naked boys but he bought and downloaded tons of pictures of naked women! Now what does that tell you?

    Liked by 1 person

  20. vulcan permalink
    December 8, 2015 6:46 am

    Brian May,

    This entire website is positively, absolutely, and irrefutably ridiculous. The fact of the matter, Dearies, is that Michael Jackson paid cash to silence Gavin and the maid. If Jackson was innocent, he certainly would not have paid them.

    Are you indeed this stupid or just pretend?

    1. Real victims cannot be silenced! Parents of real victims cannot be silenced!
    They want the molester behind bars like the Sandusky victims wanted it and testified in a criminal court!
    Would you take money and the refuse to testify in a criminal court if your kid was molested?
    MJ’s accusers wanted money and money only and the Arvizos only went to a criminal trial because after 1993 the law changed and the couldn’t go with the civil case first!
    But Chandler could and that’s exactly what they wanted: to AVOID a criminal trial.
    After the settlement why didn’t they testify in a criminal court?
    Because they never wanted to and they admitted that in their book!
    The Chandlers never argued that they didn’t testify because the settlement silenced them. They said they wanted to move on and they didn’t get witness protection from Gil Garcetti which is bullshit of course.
    They had all the opportunity to testify and they didn’t . Why?
    Because they were not real victims, only parasites who wanted MJ’s money.

    2. Same with the Francias. They could have testify in 1994 but they didn’t. Why? They only wanted money and they blackmailed MJ if he doesn’t pay they will sue him!

    3. Gavin and his family didn’t get any money, their case went to trial in 2005 and they lost.
    Their lies were exposed, MJ never molested Gavin, never imprisoned his family, never intoxicated him.
    Gavin is doing just fine, remember he was joking about his “molestation” in court. Yeah that’s your typical abuse victim right there. He never showed any sign of a real victim because he was not one. He was liar, just a member of a con artist family.

    4. The Chandlers got money only after AFTER 5 months of MJ fighting them, the media, Sneddon, the judge, the whole gang!
    If MJ had been guilty he would have silenced Chandler in Aug 1993 when he first demanded 20 million from MJ! The fact that he refused to pay not only 20 million but ANY money proves that he was innocent and he believed that justice would prevail.

    From the Chandler’s own book:

    “Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather
    than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s
    most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”
    Ray chandler all that Glitters page 128]

    Here, they de facto admitted extortion and you still feel sorry for the Chandlers?

    5. You don’t have to feel sorry for Chandler either. He is doing just fine living off of the bloodmoney they extorted from MJ. Even in 1993 he showed absolutely no sign of abuse, Evan Chandler described him as whimsical:

    From the Chandler’s book:

    Ten minutes after noon, Jordie finally emerged. “Hey, Dad, can we get something to eat?”
    His favorite question.
    Evan was startled. He expected Jordie to come out heavy-hearted, but the boy seemed
    exuberated, almost whimsical. “Are you okay?” Evan asked, wrapping his arms around the boy.

    “Yeah, Pops. Let’s go, I’m starved.”

    “He was a different boy,” Evan recalled, “and I knew immediately that no matter how long a road might he ahead, he was going to be okay.”

    Oh poor victim! He is exuberated righ after telling Dr. Abhrams his horrible molestation story.

    If you read his interview with Dr. Garner you can learn that he didn’t have a clue how
    the molestation was supposed to hurt him. He just didn’t know, because it never happened!

    “Okay, how could it hurt? As you see it, how could it hurt you?”
    “Because – that’s a touchy subject, I guess. It separates you from any other people.”
    “How?”
    “I don’t know.”
    “Just your own guess.”
    “It could make me depressed or something, I don’t know.”

    https://jacksonaktak.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/j-chandler-gardner-interview.pdf

    He was totally incapable of emotionally connecting to the story he was reciting.
    Because it was not real! It was just a story he memorized. He was coached by his father
    and his SOB lawyer for a month!

    Now, it was not MJ’s accusers who showed sign of abuse.
    It was MJ who was depressed, who couldn’t sleep, who was in pain, who cried every day!
    MJ showed the typical signs of a victim not Chandler not Arvizo not Francia!
    Because he was a victim of horrible false accusations.

    6. As for the maid she and her retarded son were cross-examined in 2005. Jason’s performance was so ridiculous the foreman compared him to Janet Arvizo who was of course completely nuts even her own lawyer Larry Fledman called her wacko.
    Read Jason Francia’s tesimony and name just one reason why we should believe he was molested.
    Blanca and Jason Francia were nothing but filthy opportunits who saw that the Chandlers made tons on money in Jan 1994 and their tried the same trick.
    MJ paid because he didn’t want to deal with the whole thing especially after
    The money he gave to Francias was chump change especially compared to the money they spent on his album and the promotion which he was working on at the time.

    7. There is irrefutable medical evidence that both Arvizo and Chandler lied so the settlement proves nothing other than the fact that MJ had zero confidence in the system after 5 months of witch-hunt and he simply had enough, wanted to move on. Not to mention he was urged to do it by Sony and his business advisors who wanted MJ to work not to go through a lenghty trial which would have destoryed his health just like it did in 2005.

    8. You don’t see your own hypocrisy, do you?
    You say he is guilty because he paid.
    so what does an innocent person do?
    Have a trial and win in court , right?
    Oh wait a minute. That’s exactly what happened in 2005!
    So why don’t you admit he was innocent?
    Don’t tell me that YOU would have admitted he was innocent if he had won against the Chandlers in
    court in 1994! You would still be here telling everyone that he got away with it because he was a
    celebrity!
    So why should MJ had gone to trial in 1994? To convince YOU? You made that clear that that is
    impossible.

    Bottom line: NOBODY was silenced.
    The Chandlers talked.
    The Francias talked.
    The Arvizos talked.

    And none of them of them has any level of credibility. They all wanted to make millions with their bogus
    claims.

    Now put these families in the larger context of MJ’s relationship with boys
    and please explain this stranger pattern:

    No real pedo have this track record!
    the the track record of a victim who was targetted by crazy greedy parents and their puppets!

    Liked by 1 person

  21. vulcan permalink
    December 8, 2015 5:14 am

    Helena

    EXACTLY. In the so-called diary of Evan Chandler which was read on the radio at that time Evan Chandler also claimed that Jordan masturbated M. “many times”.

    I’ve never heard about this before.
    What diary and what radio show? do you have a transcript?

    Like

  22. vulcan permalink
    April 5, 2015 3:41 am

    Garett, you are either hopelessly misinformed or intentionally brainwashed.
    Your post is filled with proven lies and primitive spin. And if you had a strong case against MJ you would not need such lies, like they found chld porn
    or he was obsessed with BOYS.

    “Juries said “not guilty” to OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. Yet still the entire planet knows of their guilt due to people’s assessment of the evidence.”

    1. The OJ trial was televised and the public could actually see the evidence. The MJ trial was not televised
    and the media was absolutely not interested in any exculpatory evidence, even though it was overwhelming.
    Every member of the Arvizo family was caught in numerous lies and contradiction not to mention absurdities that no sane person would believe
    like the rebuttal interview was scripted by two Germans who didn’t eve speak proper English or that they were not allowed to know the time in Neverland.
    You think if the public had seen crazy Janet Arvizo’s performance and Gavin Arvizo joking about his “molestation” they would have concluded that he was indeed molested? Hello?

    2. There was DNA evidence against OJ and noone could explain where he was when the murders were committed.
    By contrast there was absolutely no physical evidence against MJ while there was physical evidence against his accusers:
    receipts which showed they were not falsely imprisoned at all and phone records which proved there was no conspiracy.

    3. The OJ trial became about race thanks the LAPD’s racist elements and there were 8 blacks on the jury.
    By contrast there was no blacks on the MJ jury, it was a very conservative town with a high conviction rate and they didn’t even find him guilty
    on the four misdemenous charge — which can hardly be explained by “celebrity justice” since he wouldn’t have face a long sentence if he had been found guilty on those. But the fact is there was no evidence that he indeed gave alcohol to the Arvizos while there was plenty of evidence that the Arvizos drank while MJ wasn’t even in Neverland or didn’t even see when Gavin and Star were stealing alchohol.

    4. OJ was aquitted because of race. MJ was aquitted because his accusers were full of shit. The fact that you are supporting these serial false accuser serail perjurer parasites says a lot about you and your ethics or rather lack thereof.

    “He had an unhealthy and excessive interest in boys and was found to possess child pornography when authorities raided his Neverland home.”

    1. He didn’t have an unhealthy and excessive interest in BOYS, that’s a media created myth and anyone who actually looks at his relationships can see through it.
    They simply singled out the boys and ignored everyone else. The many men, women and girls he befriended don’t fit the narrative, right?
    As for it being unhealthy maybe you should explain to Gavin Arvizo that he shouldn’t have tried to call MJ when MJ’s phone number was not available and he shouldn’t have complained about it, he shouldn’t have bombared MJ with letters like “DAddy Michael”, he shouldn’t have thrown himself at MJ and tried to hold his hand all the time, he shouldn’t have put his fucking head on his shoulder, he shouldn’t have asked him to let him sleep in his room he shouldn’t have thrown a tantrum once they were ejected from Neverland that he wanted to go back! Maybe you should explain to him that he had an unhealthy and excessive interest in Michael Jackson. Same with Jordan Chandler who begged his mother to let him stay in MJ’s room! You should have told him that he shouldn’t have dressed like MJ and he shouldn’t have talked with him on the phone for hours. Jordan Chandler clearly had an unhealthy and excessive interest in Michael Jackson. So did a bunch of other people who wanted to be around him all the time and use him and exploit him. Maybe you should give them a lesson. Cause MJ never force anyone to be with him. never invited any boy in his room let alone bed. They were there because they wanted to be there! If you have a problem with that go an complain in their department.

    2. You could argue that he had an excessive interest in older ladies after all he befriended one after another: Jane Fonda, Diana Ross, Shirley Temple, Jacqueline Kennedy, Sophia Loren, Katharine Hepburn , Liza Minelli, Liz Taylor, Rose Fine
    Or tha the had an unhealthy and excessive interest in animals after all he had a private zoo!
    Or he had an excessive interest in babies after all he had a collection of baby dolls, he had baby pictures in his bedroom, he held babies all over the world and always talked about how much he loved them.
    Or he had an excessive interest in nude women after all his hard drives were full of them, his regularly bought pictures of nude women, he regularly bought
    heterosexual magazines and he regularly checked out women like this:
    http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81114877/
    Or you could say he had an excessive interest in befriending families after all he did it over and over again, the Lewis family, the Barnes family, the Ma family, the van Valin family, the Spence family, the Chopra family, the Culkin family, the Agajanian family, the Stein family, the Cascio family, the Lester family, the Brando family, the Dyer family, the Malik family and to his detriment the Chandler family,
    There is absolutely no pattern about these family: some had boys and girls, some had only girls, some had older boys and

    2. No child porn was found during any of raid because he didn’t have any! Stop spreading this lie.
    Possession of child porn is a federal crime if they had found any he would have been charge for that alone , regardless of any other accusation.
    The only porn he had was heterosexual adult magazines, hetero adult DVDs and one out of print book about gays he didn’t even open.
    That’s it. Everything else a lie.

    “Why did he keep these items locked in his bedroom?”

    1. Seriously, you think if he had wanted to hide those books in that file cabinet he would have given the key to Blanca Francia???
    Especially after supposedly molesting her son??
    Why did Blanca Francia have a key 2 years after he left Neverland at all?
    Like so many aspect of the case against MJ this element is absurd.
    Those two books were not put there by MJ! It was clearly a setup and if that’s not obvious to you you are an idiot.

    2. MJ didn’t even buy those two book! They were sent to him by some fan back in 1983.
    Both were out of print made by the same authors obviously they were sent together.
    Anyone could read those books in the Library of Congress or buy them on Amazon. They are categorized as art photography.
    One had an inscription by the fan. It’s even possible that a pedophile send it to him. When you are as famous as MJ was all kinds of creeps try to target you.

    The other had an inscription by MJ revealing that he couldn’t care less whether the boys were
    naked or not what he focused on was that they looked HAPPY!
    Which is a common theme with the statues and paintings in Neverland. They were not boys let alone naked boys
    but both boys and girls playing, being carefree and happy. Which is what MJ loved about children.
    The inscription was so obviously non-sexual that it was read by the DEFENSE during closing arguments.
    The prosecution didn’t even mention it.
    If you think that these are the thoughts of a pedophile when looking at naked boys you need mental help:

    “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces, this is the spirit of Boyhood.
    A life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.”

    3. The two books were sized by the police in 1993 and they didn’t find them again during the 2003 raid.
    Which means MJ didn’t even own them after that and he didn’t make any effort to
    obtain them. Hardly someone who was obsessed with those pictures or needed them. They were simply two books among 10 000 other books
    some fan sent him back in 1983, he looked at them inscribed them and forgot about them.
    A pedophile would have obtained new material in 20 years you can be sure about that.

    “Why did he keep a photo of a naked boy he shared his bed with”

    He didn’t keep ANY photo of a naked Jonathan Spence – or any photos of of any naked boy he knew for that matter.
    That bullshit appears in one prosecution motion and never again.
    It was one of many Sneddon’s lies in his motions, many of those contradicted by his own witnesses!
    Prosecution motions are not the gospel! Especially if they are written by a zealot like Sneddon.

    Of course no such photo was introduced during the trial which would have been the smoking gun evidence even in 1993.
    But Jonathan Spence, who by the way never slept in a bed with him that’s another fabrication by Sneddon based on Gutierez’s nasty fantasies
    was questioned by the police in 1993 and you can be sure if such photo had existed his mother would have learned about it,
    Spence would have been forced to explain it and MJ would have been arrested and charged for molesting Spence regardless of what Chandler said.
    Not to mention the media would have been all over this news and they never said a word about any photo of any naked boy.

    The fact is: the only pictures of naked boys in Neverland were in commercially produced artbooks, among other artbooks with naked men, naked women and naked girls.

    “was Michael doing with a copy of the book “Chronos” by Bill Andriette, who is a self proclaimed pedophile and well known member of NAMBLA?”

    Bill Andriette has nothing to do with Chronos. You are lying again.
    It’s a book about aging with boys, girls, men and women.
    It’s an innocent artbook, there is nothing sexual about it.
    It was found in a box among hundreds of other books and it was never opened for that matter.

    “WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT THE PURPOSE THAT THIS TYPE OF MATERIAL IS MEANT FOR”

    Why did he have books with naked men, naked women, naked girls and naked boys?
    Because he was interested in photography, because the history of photography is the histroy of nudes, because fans and photographers
    sent him books which often he didn’t even open.

    Now answer these questions about magazines and DVDs and photos that MJ DID buy himself.
    All heterosexual adult material or photos of nude women!
    No naked boys, no naked men. Just women.

    Why do you think MJ had 80+ Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse?
    To groom boys? More than 80?? Including Plumpers and Over 50? How do you groom boys with that?
    And how is it that no boy’s fingerprints were found on any of those magazines, except Star and Gavin Arvizo who admitted to go in MJ’s room
    while he wasn’t even there and rumage through his stuff, fidning the suitcase which stored those magazines?
    Why is it that Jordan Chandler and Jason Francia didn’t even mention any kind of porn?
    BEcause they didn’t know MJ had them! Because he never showed them just like he never showed them to Arvizo either.

    Why do you think he kept buying hetero adult magazines even after the Arvizos left the ranch?
    To prepare for the next boy? Wouldn’t the 80+ he already had been sufficient for that?
    Face it: he bought those magazines because he wanted to look at naked women getting fucked! Plain and simple.
    It had nothing to do with boys. There is no other reasonable explanation.

    Why do you think he had nude photos of M. Monroe and Bo Derek?

    Why do you think he kept buying vintage photos of nude women?

    “He also bought a bunch of old nude stuff-clipped out pictures from nudist magazines and old shots of posed nude women.”
    http://chuckprophet.com/blog/michael_jackson_visits_recycled_records_-_by_andrew_rush/

    Why do you think he cut out two articled about the G-spot? Because he liked penises? Makes sense.

    Why do you think he flirted with women, dated women, make out with women checked out women all the time?

    Why do you think he talked about women like this:

    Please show me a boylover who does all those things over and over again.
    One thing is sure. You couldn’t find an article about the G-spot in Sandusky’s bedroom.

    “Fans need to wake up”

    You need more than just wake up. You need a brain that’s able to differentiate between a lie and a fact
    and able to see things in context instead of cherrypicking just to support a twisted theory.

    Two books he didn’t even buy and didn’t even own after 1993 along with books with naked men, women and girls
    along with a bunch of heterosexual mags, DVDS and photos of nude women he did want to buy on a regular basis
    and 16 hard drives which only had pictures of naked women and heterosexual imagines do not point to a boylover pedophile.

    They point to a heterosexual man who liked naked women and who also liked photography and art and had a bunch of fans who sent his stuff.

    That’s it.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Miha permalink
    January 31, 2015 1:27 am

    I have read articles the on mj”facts” website and I have to say that their articles are no where near as in depth as this blog. They take things out of context very often, but what disturbs me most about them is the fact that they call anyone who thinks Michael was innocent “a person of limited intelligence” and yet Helena clearly is an intelligent person that has done a humungous amount of research.

    I’ve also seen people say that reading articles that assume Michael was innocent and work backwards is wrong and yet people who assume the Michael was guilty do the exact same thing and think it is alright. I have been in discussions with MJ accusers and they point their fingers at MJ fans to try and discredit them and yet they are doing the exact same thing.

    Honestly I’ve found this blog way more helpful with giving the full context of the facts.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. June 16, 2014 7:16 pm

    This may have been reported on another topic already, but I think it is signifigant enough to find its’ way on to several topics.

    I appears Ms. Geraldine Hughes’ movie named after her book “Michaelgate” is still on and will be released this year.

    I am spreading the word as promised and I do not want to get hopes up to high until we hear directly from Ms. Hughes, I am greatly looking forward to hearing from her about the possibility of this movie becoming a reality.

    She will be speaking on the King Jordan Blog Talk Show. It is tentatively scheduled for next week, but no specific date is given as of yet

    http://www.geraldinehughes.blogspot.com/.

    Like

  25. Lele permalink
    June 1, 2014 10:53 am

    This is so horrible Helena, it makes me want to cry. So us Wade trying to get through with his claim in the month of June? Also, who is this James Safechuck?

    Like

  26. May 30, 2014 3:45 pm

    “So you’re telling me that the estate has to pay up because of Safechuck & Wobson?’ – lele

    I personally think that the Estate should give a good fight to these liars and never let them get away with their allegations. In the place of the Estate I would take unprecedented effort to find out through what kind of psychiatric methods these guys suddenly recalled all that craziness (of course if it ever comes to discussing their stories at all).

    I would gather a team of serious scientists who would explain to the whole world that any repressed memories are out of the question here and that the latest version from Robson that “he always remembered it but didn’t understand what it was” is an even bigger insanity than any “repressed memories”.

    People should not be allowed to get away with slander, otherwise it will open the gate to a flood of false claimants who will turn lies about MJ into a profitable business for themselves. Why work if they can accuse Michael instead?

    Like

  27. lele permalink
    May 27, 2014 12:08 am

    So you’re telling me that the estate has to pay up because of Safechuck & Wobson?

    Like

  28. May 17, 2014 3:27 am

    Thanks Helena. Will the theory about amnesia stand at all, given the fact that opinions are so widely divided on the question of repressed memory therapy among psychologists? I just read that the critics of this therapy claim that false memories may be implanted in the mind of the patient int he course of this therapy. Have found this link and thought of sharing this with you http://www.skepdic.com/repressedmemory.html From this page ” Most of the controversy centers around recovered memories during repressed memory therapy (RMT). Critics of RMT maintain that many therapists are not helping patients recover repressed memories, but are suggesting and planting false memories of alien abduction, sexual abuse, and satanic rituals.”

    Like

  29. May 16, 2014 1:46 pm

    “Yes the accusation had come just when the Xscape album has been released and has been climbing the charts.” – Suparna

    Suparna, yes, it is the same old routine – only previously it was happening with Michael personally and now it is being done to his Estate. Someone wanted to ruin him while he was alive and the same people want to ruin his Estate now, leaving Michael’s children penniless. This is the main goal and I am stunned that MJ’s fans are so ready to run and help this to be done.

    “I read somewhere that Safechuck’s comments will be encouraging many others to come forward and join the suit.”

    I don’t know about “others” but theoretically anyone who has ever been to Neverland may turn accusations into a profitable business for himself and while the Estate still has some money left may try their luck in their thirst for millions.

    But their primary goal at the moment is to push Robson’s case further. This is the reason why Safechuck’s accusations have arisen. The same thing was done when Arvizos case was looked into by the Grand jury in April 2004 – some totally fictional stories appeared right during the week when the Grand jury was deciding whether to indict Michael or not, and soon after the indictment they disappeared into thin air. It was Scott Thorson and Daniel Kapon.

    So Safechuck is primarily needed by Robson and those standing behind him in order to push Robson’s case further. Though he may be willing to extort the Estate for money on his own too.

    I wonder what story Safechuck will tell and how he will explain that he didn’t speak out twice though he had an opportunity to do so within a gap of ten years. Was it amnesia too? So now we have two cases of a memory loss?

    Like

  30. May 16, 2014 10:13 am

    Hi Sina and Helena and everyone else! Yes the accusation had come just when the Xscape album has been released and has been climbing the charts. I read somewhere that Safechuck’s comments will be encouraging many others to come forward and join the suit. So this is what Robson had been up to since one year. And since Safechuck is not really connnected to showbiz anymore it is very hard to find out about him online.

    Like

  31. May 16, 2014 8:43 am

    ‘I’ve seen very little hate for the Estate in all this, except for the “Don’t fuck it up” type of comments, but I think EVERYONE has that feeling.” – Amaya

    “Branca and co, at this time especially, are irrelevant. Wade Robson, James Safechuck, and if the rumours are true, a third man, are our enemies, right now.” -NewRodrigo

    First of all, you’ve seen little hate for the Estate in this blog only because I don’t support it – otherwise it would be rampant here as everywhere else.

    Second, not everyone has this feeling – I absolutely don’t. And not because the Estate “bought” my support in this or that way (they don’t even know of my existence and no one can “buy” me anyway), but because I see the present campaign against the Estate as vicious and unjustified. Which is especially horrible now that the Estate will have to go through very hard times in respect of Robson and Safechuck.

    I did look into everything that was sent to me by private email where people pick at every little thing done by Branca, and the more I read this rubbish the angrier I got. People notice a speck in other people’s eyes but do not notice the log in their own. They think that Branca was on AEG’s side for the sole reason that he as Michael’s lawyer held a meeting together with them after Michael’s death to look into his financial matters. So what? I have no word to even describe the folly of those who think that it might be proof that Branca is on AEG’s side.

    What’s even worse is that at least partially it is AEG who is standing behind Robson\Safechuck allegations. These people wanted distraction from themselves during the trial and this is how Robson’s case was triggered off. Then Murray’s attorney sided with AEG at their trial, and Murray suddenly started dropping some dirty hints about Michael. And now Safechuck has been added to influence the judge’s decision and make him go ahead with Robson’s case.

    Thinking that AEG has nothing to do with it would be another terrible folly.

    But all this group of people is in the direct opposition to the Estate! Because it is the Estate who will have to deal with all these allegations! And those who wanted to see Michael ruined when he was alive want his Estate to be ruined now too! And Michael’s fans are doing their best to also contribute to the Estate’s failure!

    Indeed when God wants to punish someone he deprives people of their reason.

    I’ve seen Branca’s haters gloat at the fact that the Estate will probably have to pay extra $700 mln or so to the IRS and they don’t give a damn that it will damage the Estate and no money will be left to Michael’s children. It seems that they will applaud if the Estate loses this money though the IRS claim is totally unjustified.

    And the fact that the Estate is making money for Michael is considered by fans the Estate’s worst of vices while it is their duty and reason for their existence at all.

    But what made me especially resentful is that when I try to restrain people from lynching Branca they tell me that since I am “mistaken” about Branca they begin thinking that I am mistaken about everything else. What, I wonder? Michael’s innocence? When I read it my first reaction was to send these people to hell.

    This was more or less said to me in a private email by my compatriot. Though my glorious compatriots are no longer authority for me now, in this particular case I don’t single them out from other Michael’s fans – in respect of their hate for the Estate they are no worse and no better than the others. They are the same. The same haters.

    I look at these people and ask myself a question. What will they say now that the Estate will have to handle Robson and Safechuck? Will they again gloat in deep satisfaction? And probably wish that the Estate loses?

    Like

  32. May 16, 2014 7:28 am

    “John Branca is not the victim in this at all. We support Michael Jackson. Not the men in suits who make money off his work.”- Lopsided Man

    Lopsided Man, the duty of John Branca is to make money. I repeat making money is his DUTY as the executor of Michael’s Estate. And all other talk about the profit made by the Estate is absolutely irrelevant. Also biased, foolish, misguided and detrimental.

    Like

  33. newrodrigo permalink
    May 15, 2014 6:56 pm

    I rather our support and strength be focused on the men who attempt to make money from Michael be falsely accusing him.

    Branca and co, at this time especially, are irrelevant.

    Wade Robson, James Safechuck, and if the rumours are true, a third man, are our enemies, right now.

    Like

  34. Amaya permalink
    May 15, 2014 6:51 pm

    I’ve seen very little hate for the Estate in all this, except for the “Don’t fuck it up” type of comments, but I think EVERYONE has that feeling. I’m hoping this case gets thrown out. It doesn’t seem to be getting too much media attention, and a surprising number of people are skeptical about these claims.

    Like

  35. Lopsided Man permalink
    May 15, 2014 5:05 pm

    John Branca is not the victim in this at all. We support Michael Jackson. Not the men in suits who make money off his work.

    http://sylmortilla.com/2014/05/15/the-mission/

    Liked by 1 person

  36. susannerb permalink*
    May 15, 2014 10:25 am

    So true, Helena. It’s sick how fans are so busy with their incessant hate and fight against Branca that they even don’t care what Michael’s detractors are doing to him. I don’t understand how they don’t see his real enemies and don’t invest their energy in fighting against these everlasting allegations, now that a united fanbase is needed. There is an obvious endeavor to destroy his name by keeping molestation claims alive, but many fans care more about how they can bring down his Estate the success of which his children are depending on. This is unbelievable.

    Like

  37. May 14, 2014 4:27 pm

    “It looks like there’s a storm on the horizon. Jimmy Safechuck is joining Wade Robson’s suit, and Diane Dimond wrote a gloting hatchet job on the Daily Beast. Look it up.” -Michael Moore

    Guys, sorry for being so far away from you at this time of new trouble for Michael. These days I’ve been to a different front and now have to catch up with a lot. But we knew that something like that would happen, didn’t we? And the fact that is coincides with the release of the new album only makes it fall into the usual routine for Michael Jackson.

    At the moment I don’t know the details but speaking generally two factors amaze me.

    1) One is that at the time when the Estate needs all support from fans in fighting these two beastly accusations, fans do exactly the opposite and attack Branca and Sony from every angle possible. I’ve received letters explaining to me how terribly “mistaken” I am that I don’t join the campaign of trashing Branca like everyone else and even have the cheek to write posts in his support. And since I am so “mistaken” here I am mistaken about everything else I’ve ever done and said in this blog. I’m a bit exaggerating but this is the general idea.

    The hate for Branca is so overwhelming that it extinguishes everything like napalm. And these are the followers of Michael Jackson…

    I really don’t understand how the Estate is going to fight Robson and Safechuck without the support of Michael’s fans. How can the Estate fight on all fronts all at once? Or do fans want the Estate to lose in the case of Robson and Safechuck? Do they understand that with their ever-present hate for the Estate they can force them to follow the road of least resistance and just pay money to these two beasts to avoid one more headache out of a hundred they already have to deal with? Most of which arose due to these very “fans”?

    2) And the second point is that the media says that same as Robson James Safechuck also received some “intensive therapy”.

    These “therapies” make me very wary. We absolutely don’t know what methods are being used there. If I were in the place of the Estate I would look into every possibility to find out what kind of “treatment” was given to Safechuck and Robson and probably have it assessed by some independent commission (if it is possible).

    In this time of total insanity taking place in my country I realize that some people have a tremendous arsenal of affecting people’s minds. How it is done I don’t know, but I can see the result, and it is horrendous. White is being called black and vice versa, and people act like zombies. Are blind and deaf to the truth and can easily believe the wildest science fiction “facts”.

    Now that I have seen it with my own eyes I absolutely cannot rule out that Robson and Safechuck have been affected in some way.

    Like

  38. Sina permalink
    May 12, 2014 4:06 pm

    Diane Dimond wrote a gloting hatchet job on the Daily Beast. Look it up.

    @ Michael Moore.. I appreciate you inform us. But maybe we should take a different approach to this kind of ‘news’ . Maybe we should not help spread it or give her the ratings she so desperately wants.. Lets not get carried away by it just take good notice,
    Another lesson learned, we cannot trust anyone who was around Michael, ever!.. .
    The timing is again perfect as it was with the AEG trial.

    Like

  39. Michael Moore permalink
    May 12, 2014 1:57 pm

    It looks like there’s a storm on the horizon. Jimmy Safechuck is joining Wade Robson’s suit, and Diane Dimond wrote a gloting hatchet job on the Daily Beast. Look it up.

    Like

  40. May 5, 2014 7:53 am

    “Michael grew up in a tiny little house and shared one bedroom with 5 brothers, even shared a bed. Even when they could afford their own room, because they were always on the move he shared hotelrooms with his siblings 24/7 so there was always noise and activity around him. So from an early age on his normal was to sleep with others and never alone.” – Sina

    Exactly. This was not only a habit with him since early childhood but also the only life pattern he knew. And we don’t have to be Einsteins to understand it – if someone was born to a palace and is used to living alone in spacious quarters he’ll feel uncomfortable in a crammed students’ hostel. Of course he’ll try to put up with others constantly around him, but he’ll never be able to enjoy comfort, will never feel “at home”. And the opposite is also true, which was Michael’s case.

    I’ve once read a story about one super-popular and handsome singer in my country (Magomaev) who was so much sought after by his fans that whatever hotel stayed at he could never leave it. As a result he practically turned into a hermit but a special kind of – he always stayed with a crowd of friends in his hotel room or at home.

    I think that we cannot judge these people by common standards – they suffer from a unique combination of being tired of crowds following them and being desperate for privacy, and feeling extremely lonely when surrounded by a crowd. Many of Michael’s ways originate here.

    Michael’s life was glamorous only on the face of it but none of us can envy it.

    Like

  41. April 30, 2014 7:58 pm

    @lynande51 Sorry I’m working on somethings got some new information so I took it down for now. Should be back up tomorrow with more.

    Like

  42. lynande51 permalink
    April 30, 2014 6:13 pm

    Open Mind I can’t seem to find your blog any more.Can you leave another link to it? I’m always interested in another perspective.

    Like

  43. Sina permalink
    April 30, 2014 2:45 pm

    Michael grew up in a tiny little house and shared one bedroom with 5 brothers , even shared a bed , From his formative years up untill he was 10 years old when they moved to LA that is what he knew. Even when they could afford their own room, because they were always on the move ( MJ: we travelled, travelled, travelled; )he shared hotelrooms with his siblings 24/7 so there was always noise and activity around him.
    His sleeping on the floor did not start with back injury. In early interviews at Hayvenhurst when describing his room the interviewers always mentioned that he had a matress on the floor and I think he even wrote about it in Moonwalk,
    So from an early age on his normal was to sleep with others and never alone. The same with sleeping with bright lights on, which he talks about in some interviews and nurse Lee tried to get him to change. The fact that he could sleep so easily with a stranger in his room tells me that he was used to having people around him when he went to sleep.
    Also giving a guest the best place to sleep, in most cultures is a gesture of hospitality.. Though I think Michael preferred sleeping on the floor anyway.
    That said , I wished he had been more careful and most of all that he had developed a better understanding of how the outside world looks at such interactions, That could have prevented that he became such an easy target. It would have saved him so much pain and the turn his life took after the Chandlers.

    Like

  44. April 29, 2014 6:30 pm

    Vindicatemj (Helena), Thank you for correcting that and for the rest of your comment.

    Like

  45. April 29, 2014 6:14 pm

    “she stated the she could put the in the same room or same bed on 50 or 60 different nights” – OpenMinded

    OpenMinded, it is funny how rumor always exaggerates things. It was never “50 or 60 nights”. The most June Chandler ever said was 30 and when we started calculating we couldn’t come to even these 30 – it was a weekend here, a weekend there, and two weeks or so spent at June Chandler’s home.

    And in June’s house we don’t even know where Michael slept. Probably not in Jordan’s room at all. For some reason Sneddon didn’t subpoena June Chandler’s live-in maid. Probably because she could have told there something really interesting? I always wondered why we have never even learned the name of this woman. She was the most knowledgeable person in the household and nevertheless the prosecution didn’t even want to listen to her story. Why not?

    Another point I need to mention is the one Susannerb already quoted from Frank Cascio’s book. When Michael spoke of “sharing his bed” he meant not sleeping with somebody in it – he meant giving it to another person.

    This was mentioned by Corey Feldman who once stayed with Michael in a hotel room and said that Michael was such a gentleman that he offered him his bed and himself slept on a couch. Frank Cascio said the same – in almost all cases Michael slept in some other place – on a cot nearby or most often on the floor. Frank said that “Michael slept on the floor by the fireplace nine of ten times”. Nine times out of ten – let us remember it, please.

    I always wondered about reasons for Michael’s preference of “floor life”. In his later years, after the trauma on his back it was surely due to the problem with his spine. When he was in Ireland he slept on a bed with so hard a mattress that the owner who now rents out Michael’s room to tourists and left everything untouched there, had to change the mattress because it was so stony that no one could really sleep on it.

    And did you know that in his “Hideaway” apartment Michael didn’t have a bed at all? This I’ve learned from Blanca Francia’s testimony at the 2005 trial. She said he always slept in a sleeping bag on the floor and there were no beds in the apartment. Actually there was very little furniture there – most probably because Michael often practiced his dance there.

    But if “floor life” was Michael’s preference in his Hideaway apartment I don’t think he changed his habit when he was in Neverland. This is probably why he so easily gave his bed to others and why his sparkling bed on the second floor was almost always untouched – for whatever reason Michael always preferred to sleep on the floor.

    I am speaking of these details to show you that all this talk about Michael “sleeping with someone in a bed” is highly exaggerated for the simple reason that the “bed” was not an issue with Michael at all.

    What is not exaggerated is that Michael preferred company for sleeping at night. This we learn from June Chandler’s testimony where she said that the first night the four of them (she, he and two children) slept in one room. Sneddon was extremely surprised to hear it. The same was said by Klein who once told Larry King that Michael could sleep on a tour only when the whole Klein’s office staff slept with him in his room.

    I don’t know why this was Michael’s preference but assume that since he suffered from insomnia most of the night he was actually awake. This is probably when he felt most lonesome. And he preferred having a company for himself – just to talk or watch movies together or hang about or whatever. The way Frank Cascio describes it when they were visiting Michael they practically didn’t sleep until 4 or 5 in the morning – they talked, did their school homework together (!), listened to music as Michael was giving them lectures on all types of music and this is how they began to love a different kind of music from the one they knew. Michael himself liked to sleep to Debussy – a French composer of the 19th century who wrote the Impressionist music.

    In short nights for Michael were more like daytime. It was the time for communication, talk, education, entertainment, whatever – but not sleeping proper. All of them dropped dead-tired only by morning time. Why this was Michael’s life-style is another story.

    Like

  46. April 29, 2014 4:54 pm

    Thank you for your response susannerb. I would like to say a few things. You are correct I didn’t read the rules sorry for that. In my opinion because off my background and what goes on in the world around me I don’t particularly think kids should sleep in the bed with adults if there are other options, no. However I am aware that this is normal for some, and I don’t have a problem with it. The problem I have is with the mother JUNE CHANDLER. Sorry if somethings in my post weren’t clear. The problem I have is with a mother who knowingly allows her child to spend 50 or 60 nights then turn and say something inappropriate was going on. I don’t think Michael regularly had random children in his bed at all. I don’t believe I said anything like that. I am from the US and as far as I know so was Michael Jackson unless I’m mistaking. And yes I am very much aware of the way he grew up in his families two bedroom home. And I’m sure that I stated that if there are other beds available. So for those who have no choice I am not speaking about that.I have never personally read the book ‘My friend Michael’ by Frank Cascio, but again I am sure I was only speaking about the 1993 case and never said that random children slept with him or in his bed. I was only commenting on the CHANDLER case and more over on the fact that the mother June Chandler stated the Michael sleep in either the same room or bed with her son on 50 or 60 different occasions. I also never said anything about Michael’s bed room because the case that I’m speaking about was not just at his home it was at the Chandler home hotels and his home unless I’m mistaking. As for my open-mindedness I guess it wasn’t clear so I will rectify that now. I never said Michael slept in bed with random children or ever any but the Chandler boy. Even though I’m from the US I am very much aware that these a whole world out there and every person and place is different. In fact I the only thing I said directly about Michael was that people still say he was guilty and that because of the world we live in he should have known better. I was just stating my opinion on the mother. Sorry if you don’t like or agree with it.

    Like

  47. April 29, 2014 4:50 pm

    Another piece of news from me as a blogger. I called it “WHY A RUSSIAN SHOULDN’T BE A SUCCESSFUL BLOGGER”.

    On 15 April the Russian State Duma [parliament] Committee on information policy approved an amendment on registering bloggers. In addition, the legislation has now actually equated bloggers to the media. All social networks should disclose information about bloggers whose audience exceeds three thousand visits a day.

    The definition of a blogger according to the new Russian law is “a person who places information for open access on a personal Internet site (page) whose daily audience is more than three thousand visits”.

    As the law does not directly define “visits” this concept can be viewed by the authors of the document as the number of hits (page views), and the number of visitors (unique IP addresses approaching the website).

    Bloggers are obliged to verify the accuracy of published information and should immediately delete inaccurate information.

    All users of the Internet with a three thousand daily audience are prohibited from hiding “socially significant information” and from falsifying it. What constitutes “socially significant information” the law does not say.

    Bloggers must observe the rules of publication of materials on elections and referenda, i.e. not to publish the survey data five days before voting. On election day it is prohibited to publish the results of exit-polling until the polls are closed.

    Bloggers are obliged to observe the law – not to spread extremist information, not to disclose state secrets, not to publish libelous statements. They should also avoid obscene language. Punishment for these actions is already specified by other laws.

    Bloggers should not only monitor what they write themselves, but they are responsible for other users who can write something on their page. Thus every blogger is responsible not only for their own posts, but for any comment on his page too.

    Every blogger must indicate on his page the name and initials, and also the e-mail address. No penalties for failure to comply with these requirements are yet specified in the law.

    All bloggers will be listed in a special register. The list will be monitored by Roskomnadzor [Russian monitoring committee]. The office will develop a method of calculating the daily audience and will search for users whose hits exceed three thousand visits per day.

    Roskomnadzor will have the right to request from the “organizers of the dissemination of information” the identity of each user. The organizer of the dissemination of information is considered to be a “person performing activities on the functioning of information systems and/or programs that are used for reception, transmission, delivery and processing of electronic messages to users.” According to the head of the Committee Alexei Mitrofanov, this includes Facebook, Twitter and any other social network in the broadest sense.

    The blog is excluded from the register automatically if within six months its daily audience does not exceed three thousand visits.

    How it works

    Roskomnadzor finds a blog – it can be a personal website, social network, etc. Using their method, the office calculates the daily audience of the blog. If it exceeds three thousand people, Roskomnadzor asks the “hosting provider accommodating a personal site to provide data about the owner of the page”. The information should allow identification of the user. The recipient is given three working days to respond. After receiving information from the provider Roskomnadzor notifies the user that he/she is a blogger now, and adds him/her to their registry.

    If your ISP does not provide information about the user, the provider is to be penalized in the amount of up to three hundred thousand rubles (around $10,000). The law also imposes fines on “the organizers of dissemination of information”, who are obliged to provide Roscomnadzor and law enforcement officials with information about all actions of users at their first demand.

    The law is to come into effect on August 1, 2014.

    Full text: http://therunet.com/articles/2755-chto-nuzhno-znat-pro-novyy-zakon-o-blogerah

    This piece was published on Helena’s page too.

    Like

  48. April 29, 2014 4:47 pm

    Guys, life is getting funnier here with every new day. See this news please. It directly affects my writing in this blog so it seems that everything I wanted to write should be written as soon as possible while “foreign” Internet is still accessible to me.

    RUSSIAN INTERNET IS TO BE PLACED UNDER FULL CONTROL

    “The Kommersant reports that the authorities discuss a complex of measures to tighten control over Internet service providers. The goal is filtering data at all levels of its transmission, impossibility to place the DNS servers of.RU and RF domains outside Russia and a ban on a connection between local networks of data transmission and foreign Internet networks. Many experts and networks operators fear that the state will receive an unlimited opportunity for the Internet censorship.

    Information about proposals to control the Internet by Russian authorities was provided to the Kommersant by a source in the telecommunications market and was confirmed by a Federal official and two managers of Internet companies. Proposals on legal regulation in the sphere of communication infrastructure are prepared by the working group under the administration of the President of the Russian Federation, according to those who are familiar with their content.

    The proposals suggest a forcible introduction of three levels of data transmission: local, regional, national. The next step is to impose a ban on the access of regional and local networks to foreign servers. The traffic of regional and local operators is proposed to be passed only through the networks of Russian operators. All levels of data networks will be filtered for its content. There will also be a ban on deploying the .RU and .RF server domains outside Russia.

    A representative of a big internet provider says that “there is no definition of content filtering. Legal regulations already restrict access to illegal or pirated content. Now the idea is probably to limit access to the content in foreign languages, for example English. But in this case the proposal will contradict the 29th article of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, giving the right to free access to information”.

    In addition, big expenses will be required for the creation of a DNS server in Russia. Now most of these servers are located in USA (more than 10), and several more are in Germany and China. The proposal to introduce a state licensing of the activity to transfer URLs into IP addresses and back is regarded by him as “disconnecting users from the Internet.”

    Large Internet companies expected new measures on Internet regulation in Russia. Last week Vladimir Putin said that Internet was created and is being operated as a special CIA project. And since the main data flows through the servers in the US where everything is controlled, the President of Russia considers it necessary to place the servers of major Russian Internet resources in Russia.”

    Full text: http://kommersant.ru/doc/2462760

    This information was also placed on Helena’s page.

    Like

  49. April 29, 2014 4:26 pm

    Thank you for commenting Mariam, I enjoyed reading your response thank you. I think I didn’t make things as clear as I could most of my comment was directed at the mother JUNE CHANDLER. I think her responsibility on the subject is often ignored. I understand people come from different backgrounds and cultures. What seems strange to some is normal for others. The main point I was trying to get across was for her as a mother to allow this then claim something inappropriate was going on is just wrong. If it’s normal behavior for you then that’s fine. However to then come out and say the things she said without taking responsibility for her part is baffling to me. I feel like it was a set up. If I allowed a child to sleep in bed with an adult (and I speaking about what she said when she stated the she could put the in the same room or same bed on 50 or 60 different nights) I would know and trust the person well enough that there would never be a question in my mind on what was going on. I just think the 1993 case was one sided like the parents didn’t know what was happening. I think that she should take some responsibility for allowing it.

    Like

  50. susannerb permalink*
    April 29, 2014 3:27 pm

    @OpenMinded: Where is your open-mindedness? And you apparently didn’t read our rules, as to rule #1 it is not allowed on this blog to use words like ‘mol….er’ in combination with Michael’s name. So I edited your comment accordingly.

    There are two points in your comment that need to be addressed and that you should think about because these are typical misperceptions which we discussed many times on this blog. But I will repeat them for you.
    The first one is that in your opinion it is apparently a problem when adults sleep in the same bed with children.
    The second one is that you apparently think Michael regularly had random children in his bed.

    First: The argument that it is not appropriate for adults to sleep together with children I usually only hear from Americans. In most parts of the world this is not an issue at all. There are many countries on this planet where people have no other choice than to sleep in the same bed with children, simply because they don’t have a bed for each family member or have only one room for the whole family, where all of them sleep side by side on the floor, sometimes even with kids of neighbors and friends. They are used to it and nobody gets the idea that there is something inappropriate with it, and nobody has any dirty thoughts. And that’s exactly how Michael grew up. When he was a kid his family lived in a small house with 2 bedrooms, they had to share beds because of their poverty. Michael was used to it, he was used not to sleep alone and he had a hard time to be alone, coming from such a big family.

    Second: It is just plainly wrong that Michael slept with random children in his bed on a regular basis. And the few ones that did sometimes sleep in his bed he regarded as family members. How do we know this? Because it was told by Michael’s good friend Frank Cascio in his book ‘My friend Michael’, who grew up with Michael, who was with him for weeks and months as a kid and who lived and worked with him as an adult. The misrepresentation that Michael slept regularly with random children was spread by the media, especially by Martin Bashir in his documentary, but it was not the truth. These are the quotes from Frank Cascio’s book again:

    “There is this widespread misconception that Michael rounded up small children to participate in sleepovers in his bedroom at Neverland. This was simply not the case. Families came to visit Neverland. Sometimes, depending on how far they had traveled, those families spent the night. These were close, intimate friends and families who’d known Michael for years. They stayed in the guest units.
    Michael’s suite, along with the kitchen at Neverland, was a natural gathering place for groups. The whole house was warm, but any house has places where people tend to congregate and there were two of those places at Neverland. (…) People – kids – often didn’t want the fun to end. So sometimes they slept over, as I did as a child, putting out blankets on the carpet around the fire place of that family room. Michael himself slept there nine of ten times. He always offered his bed to the guests.” (p. 153/154)

    “One of the biggest misconceptions about Michael, a story that plagued him for years following the Bashir documentary, was that he had an assortment of children sleeping in his room at any given time. The truth was that random children never came to Neverland and stayed in Michael’s room. Just as my brother Eddie and I had done when we were younger, the family and friends who did stay with Michael did so of their own volition. Michael just allowed it to happen because his friends and family liked to be around him.
    What Michael said on Bashir’s video was true: ‘You can have my bed if you want, sleep in it. I’ll sleep on the floor. It’s yours. Always give the best to the company, you know.’ Michael had no hesitation about telling the truth because he had nothing to hide. He knew in his heart and mind that his actions were sincere, his motives pure, and his conscience clear. Michael, innocently and honestly, said: ‘Yes, I share my bed. There is nothing wrong with it.’ The fact of the matter is, when he was “sharing” his bed, it meant he was offering his bed to whoever wanted to sleep in it. (…) Although Bashir, for obvious reasons, kept harping on the bed, if you watch the full uncut interview, it’s impossible not to understand what Michael was trying to make clear: when he said he shared his bed, he meant that he shared his life with the people he saw as family.” (p. 261/262)

    Like

  51. Mariam permalink
    April 29, 2014 1:30 pm

    “IS IT OK TO LET CHILDREN SLEEP WITH ADULTS ON A REGULAR BASIS WHEN ANOTHER BED IS AVAILABLE RATHER THE CHILD IS THEIRS OR NOT?”OpenMind

    For some there is nothing wrong with that, for many it does. For some it is pure, innocent thing, for many it is dirty. When I say this, I don’t mean it is appropriate or not. But I will not do it, only because it is not right in so many people’s eyes and also my mind is cludier now then before because I heard in fact it is happening. I don’t want to sleep with children and also I don’t let my children to sleep with adult ever.

    But from where I came from or in other part of the world, noting wrong if adult sleeping with children, it is simply pure, clean and innocent thing. That is how we grow up, and nobody suspect you or no body think about sex when it comes children. Moreover, children’s are not molested there as much as happening here; the rate is very low over there even though there is no boundary.

    So when it comes MJ, MJ has that pure, childish heart , he seems he is from different world, the way he think, the way he approached things is different than average American, probably, he was isolated from the outside world so long, what he do and what he say is from his heart without checking reality and without being diplomatic.

    If you ask someone the same question “did you allowed the children to sleep in to your bedroom?” of course will say no, never, even if he/she did, because you know it is going to be a problem to you. In other hand, MJ said yes, and he asked the interviewer, what is wrong with that? That tells me where his heart was, how he was thinking and of course, how poorly did the interview. Me, absolutely understand him and his way of thinking, but for others, the society he grows up with cannot understand that, for that reason, I agree with you, HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER!!!”

    I think the other reason is, his bedroom is not a bedroom like, it is like living room, not only children, everybody hung out in his bedroom, everybody sat in his bedroom watching movie and had a good time. His bedroom is like living room, I guess everybody feel it is movie theatre or game room again MJ has no rule in that aspect, he was very humble man.

    As much as I studied his life, I found out that, MJ was a lonely man almost all his life, that is why he loves to hung out with people without thinking of anything or probability when he got a chance. But lately/at the end he was not the same because he was become paranoid to be around people, had hard time to trust people, because of that he isolated himself more and more.

    His character/personality is very different than the society we have now (his childlike, innocent, humble personality, his generosity, his faith (being religious), his background (the way he raised) seem did not fit for the society, he trust everybody which cost him big time, he likes every people from every kind and standard of family).

    Additional that, he has that poor judgement of character and he was close to very wrong people who does not have a good interest in heart for him, finally the combination of all this, destroy his life.

    A person like him, the position he was in, he should be very careful whom he could be friend with, carful whom to trust, be careful whom to help and how, be careful whom to have business with. Unfortunately, he wasn’t very careful in that aspect.

    In general, people think he is guilty because #1. He ADMITTED allowing the kids to sleep in his bedroom and 2nd. Because, he settled with the first 1993 accuser. 3rd. Because, he has strong and powerful enemies who work day and night to destroy him. I am more convinced than ever now the 3rd one is the main reason .Nothing else. If not child molested case, they would do anything to avoid him anyway; they used as a way or as a weakness that love he had for children just to get him. That was just excuse to hurt him.

    “LEAVE THE MAN ALONE HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY FOR A REASON AND IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS FAME!!”OpenMind

    OpenMind, I agree with you, HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY FOR A REASON. If there was a little convincing evidence and if God not involved, I am sure, they would throw him in jail long time ago because his enemies were more powerful and determined at that time. Still, his character and his legacy is attacked very much. Being Michael Jackson is not easy at all.

    He gave up the fight on June 25/2009 for good, now his kids, friends, family and fans are the one fighting for his legacy and of course God because God is always with the truth and innocents, the man did a great ting for mankind which is pleasing God almighty, peoples do but God never forget that.

    Like

  52. April 29, 2014 2:09 am

    Some people my not like what I have to say and I’m not trying to say the children were or weren’t molested. I’m just stating and addressing the INDISPUTABLE FACTS. I’m not here to say what did or didn’t go on between the families and Michael Jackson behind close doors or from hearsay. I’m just pointing out what we all know are the facts and to those people who want to please answer these two questions. IS IT OK TO LET CHILDREN SLEEP WITH ADULTS ON A REGULAR BASIS WHEN ANOTHER BED IS AVAILABLE RATHER THE CHILD IS THEIRS OR NOT? WHERE DO YOUR CHILDREN SLEEP WHEN THEY AREN’T SICK OR IN NEED OF SUPERVISION THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT? I’m not gonna say rather or not he did it because I wasn’t there and have saw no definitive proof and he was proven not guilty at the end of the trial. I support the verdict because the evidence wasn’t enough and it’s not because I’m a fan of Michael Jackson. I am a fan of his music but I don’t know the man so I wont pretend to know him nor will I blindly believe anything because he was is in my eyes will always be the greatest entertainer the world will ever see. My issue isn’t weather or not he molested children because as I he was found not guilty but as I read and watch videos on the subject I’m completely disgusted by what some have said on the subject. Now I don’t have children I lost my child but I have nieces and nephews and friends children that I love like my own. And I don’t care if GOD himself told me that someone was a good person there is noway I would be able to sit and say I let a child sleep with anyone who is GROWN for 50 or 60 nights. If it was my sister or brother with their own children and there were OTHER BEDS AVAILABLE I would look at it like WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!!! After a certain age you should not be sleeping with anyone if not involved intimately. The only reason I can see would be if beds were not available. So no matter if he did or didn’t there is NO EXCUSE FOR A MOTHER TO ALLOW THIS NO MATTER WHAT WAS OR WASN’T GOING ON. I think a lot of people are caught up in proving him guilty or not guilty that the forget the one fact that is UNDENIABLE. HE SHOULD NOT BE SLEEPING WITH CHILDREN!!! I DON’T CARE HOW MUCH YOU LOVE THEM!!! AND THESE PEOPLE WHO SAW THIS BEHAVIOR AND DID NOTHING DISGUST ME!!! NOW I DON’T CARE WHO YOU ARE UNLESS YOU HAVE NO CHOICE THIS IS NOT OK!!! If I was his mother I wouldn’t ever show myself unless it was to turn myself in to police. I would say I LET THIS HAPPEN TO HIM AND DID NOTHING!!! So if anything improper was going on or not that doesn’t change the facts. I believe these people were selling their children rather for sex or just his friends that is what was happening. He wines and dines and you turn the other way. IN MY HONEST OPINION THEY SHOULD ALL BE ON TRIAL. MICHAEL FOR POSSIBLY MOLESTING BUT FOR CERTAINLY FOR IMPROPER CONDUCT!!! AND THE OTHERS FOR NEGLIGENCE!!! EVERY LAST PERSON WHO EVER SAW OR HERD ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR AND WHO DIDN’T TRY TO STOP IT IS RESPONSIBLE IN AWAY FOR WHATEVER HAPPEN OR DIDN’T HAPPEN TO THESE CHILDREN!!! And I love his music but on this on subject all I to say about Michael Jackson is YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER!!! If it wasn’t so often I wouldn’t have anything to say but leave that man alone he was proven not guilty!!! And I’m still gonna say it to those people who don’t get LEAVE THE MAN ALONE HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY FOR A REASON AND IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS FAME!!! They bought the 1993 case in the 2005 trial and was still not guilty stop saying he is a child m……..r!!!

    Like

  53. April 27, 2014 10:42 am

    Dear Helena, thank you for liking my note on Face Book. Had it not been for your blog, the truth would have never been out. I have sourced most of my information from your blog. So Thank You for all that you do:)

    Like

  54. April 21, 2014 4:16 pm

    “Here’s wishing Helena and all others a very Happy and Blessed Easter!” – Suparna

    Suparna, I also wish you and all others a Blessed Easter.

    Like

  55. April 20, 2014 6:08 am

    Here’s wishing Helena and all others a very Happy and Blessed Easter!

    Like

  56. 29mj permalink
    April 19, 2014 5:54 am

    Due to ♥ MJ’s popular presence, the King Michael Jackson’s magnificent spirit I wish you dear Helena, entire Michael’s family and to everyone a Happy Easter!
    We all owe Michael’s gratitude, eternal love, whereas he is the glue of knowing, of closeness, of respect between all beings of the world! Forever we love, respect you King ♥ Michael and we miss you So Much!!!
    May this Easter Sunday to inspire you a new hope, happiness, prosperity and abundance, all received through God’s divine grace.
    Have you all humans a Blessed Easter! Celebrate Easter Day remembering you about the huge Michael’s love, music and dance.
    May this love, peace, harmony between every people to last forevermore! Yours, Barbra

    Like

  57. April 8, 2014 4:16 pm

    “Just by curiosity Helena… did you take a look on Micheael’s FBI file? I saw it’s available online.” – Julie

    Julie, to my surprise I’ve found that I never made a post about them. These files were so extensively discussed in the comments that this is one of those cases when I evidently thought it unnecessary to write a post as everything had been discussed through and through.

    I can recommend to you Charles Thomson’s articles about these FBI files: http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.ru/2010/01/fbi-files-support-jacksons-innocence.html and http://dancingwiththeelephant.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/inside-the-jackson-fbi-files-with-charles-thomson/

    P.S. What I recall now is that I’ve made a post about the phantom “victims” like Terry George mentioned in the FBI files. https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/phantom-victims-of-mj/

    Like

  58. April 8, 2014 3:52 pm

    “Thanks Helena for the in depth study of the books found at Neverland.” – Suparna

    Suparna, you know, I’m so sick and tired of the same questions asked about those two books and one photo again and again that decided to make a short post about them. So if I have an opportunity I will write about it (hopefully in the near future).

    And there is one more subject I wanted to make a post about. Both will be short because at the moment I have no chance to do a real indepth study.

    Like

  59. April 8, 2014 5:39 am

    Thanks for this lovely post Mariam! Thanks Helena for the in depth study of the books found at Neverland. MJ was just too beautiful. It is not hard to see that at all. But as we know the media chooses not to see it and distorts the vision all for money.

    Like

  60. Julie permalink
    April 7, 2014 4:16 pm

    *beautiful way of being (sorry for the misspeling)

    Like

  61. Julie permalink
    April 7, 2014 4:14 pm

    Just by curiosity Helena… did you take a look on Micheael’s FBI file? I saw it’s available online.
    Ps: I really appreciate your work and i think this blog really helps us to discover MJs real beautiful cay of being.

    Like

  62. April 7, 2014 7:47 am

    There is one fact about Michael that often was not for his own good: He was too trusting of people and at times somewhat impulsive.Many turned on him and stabbed him in the back.
    Only rarely did he try to right things in court,this would have absorbed much time and he would have had littlle left for work.Once he saw through the damage done it was often too late.
    This trust he had of the good in people reflected his own character and goodwill.

    Like

  63. April 7, 2014 6:24 am

    There is another song I think Michael did not release, one suitale for our turbulent days.
    The name is or would have been:All in Your name.And is about the wars and violence we people inflict on each other, and God´s role in this….Somewhere in the bible are mentioned the 3 gifts :Faith,hope and love…love being the greatest of them all.I think Love is a factor in all great religions.

    Like

  64. April 6, 2014 4:35 pm

    This is what Suzy said about the song in her 2010 post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/michaels-clear-message-against-the-sexual-exploitation-of-children/

    A previously unreleased Michael Jackson song has been leaked to the Internet and it became an immediate hit with fans. I’d say much more than the first official release of the “Michael” album “Hold my hand”. No wonder: it’s a great tune with a very strong message and, unlike “Hold my hand”, written and fully sung by Michael himself.

    Despite of all this, this song will not feature on Michael’s upcoming album. Sony probably deemed it too risky to include because of the lyrics: it deals with the sexual exploitation of children and we all know that subject together with Michael Jackson’s name opens the door for a lot of unpleasant discussion in the media, and the record label likely wanted to avoid that.

    They say the song was written around 1990, for the Dangerous album – so before Michael ever got accused of molesting children. It didn’t make on the Dangerous album and after 1993 probably had no chance to make it on any other Michael Jackson album either. Had Michael released a track where he sings against sexual child abuse after 1993, he probably would have been ridiculed, or worse, and he couldn’t have got the message through.

    But the problem is not with Michael. He was innocent of what he was accused of, both in 1993 and in 2003. And this song just highlights what was really in his heart and mind about this subject.

    As I was listening to it, I thought of the likes of Victor Gutierrez and Thomas O’Caroll and how there is no way that real p-les would ever have it in their hearts or minds to write something like this – something against the sexual abuse of children. Their agenda is totally the opposite! In their sneaky (Gutierrez) or more open (O’Caroll) ways they want to break down society’s moral resistance against the sexual exploitation of children, not to raise awareness about the dangers of it like Michael does! Also, as far as I know, p-les don’t think what they are doing is wrong, so they obviously wouldn’t have it in their hearts to write a song like this.

    Listening to this song, what happened to Michael in 1993 becomes even sadder. Before that he was someone who was the voice of children in need, the voice of children who were exploited in any way. But in 1993 Victor Gutierrez and his friends from NAMBLA (and their enablers from the Chandlers through the Sneddons and Dimonds of this World to the Arvizos) killed two birds with one stone: not only they managed to put a stigma on Michael (with the intention of using him as their poster boy), but they also shut him up about this very important subject, so that he would never be able to campaign against the sexual abuse of children without the risk of the media and the public ridiculing him for it. Tragic.

    Like

  65. April 6, 2014 4:33 pm

    I’ve found a link to the song (the previous version was slightly different, it had no rap):

    The lyrics of the song:

    Father comes home from work and he’s scared to death
    Mother cries [for] the kid in that note she read
    Father runs to the table, he said “What’s going on?”
    Mother cries in disbelief “Our little baby is gone!”

    Do you know where your children are,
    Because it’s now 12 o’clock.
    If they’re somewhere out on the street,
    Just imagine how scared they are.

    Do you know where your children are,
    Because it’s now 12 o’clock.
    If they’re somewhere out on the street,
    Just imagine how scared they are.

    She wrote that she is tired of step-daddy using her
    Saying that he’ll buy her things, while sexually abusing her
    Just think that she’s alone somewhere out on the street
    How will this girl survive? She ain’t got nothing to eat!

    Do you know where your children are,
    Because it’s now 12 o’clock.
    If they’re somewhere out on the street,
    Just imagine how scared they are.

    Do you know where your children are,
    Because it’s now 12 o’clock.
    If they’re somewhere out on the street,
    Just imagine how scared they are.

    Save me, From this living hell
    Save me, Coz thats not what i do
    Save me, I’m tired of dad
    Save me, Coz this is nothin’ (Aoow)
    Save me, Coz i’m on the curb
    Save me, Coz i don’t wanna go
    Save me, Coz terror is rising
    Save me, Aoow

    Now she’s on the move, she’s off to Hollywood
    She says she wanna be a star, she heard the money’s good
    She gets off from train station, the man is waiting there
    “I’ll show you what the money is, girl, just let down your hair”
    He’s taking her on the streets of Sunset Boulevard
    She’s selling her body hot, girl that will you far
    The police come around the corner, somebody they told
    He’s arresting this little girl, she’s only 12 years old!

    Do you know where your children are
    Because its now twelve o’clock
    If they’re somewhere out on the street
    Just imagine how scared they are
    Do you know where your children are
    Because its now twelve o’clock
    If they’re somewhere out on the street
    Just imagine how scared they are

    Like

  66. April 6, 2014 4:23 pm

    Hi Mariam, Michael’s music and prayers are the only solace left.

    As regards the song “Do you know where your children are?” Suzy, a Hungarian girl who used to write for this blog, made a wonderful post about it. Here it is: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/michaels-clear-message-against-the-sexual-exploitation-of-children/

    The link to the video no longer works. Well, I have this song downloaded on my computer, but considering that it is on the new album don’t want to spoil its debut. The song is very good.

    Like

  67. Mariam permalink
    April 6, 2014 3:41 pm

    Hi Helena, we will pray and God will listen and be strong my dear.

    @29MJ, here info I got List of unreleased Michael Jackson songs from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
    “Do You Know Where Your Children Are”
    * Michael Jackson Written and Recorded in 1991
    * Also known as “12 O’Clock”
    * Guitar performed by Slash
    * Failed to make Dangerous Album
    * Leaked Online in 2010.
    Even if it is true, it was written and recorded in 1991 before MJ was accused of child molestation and it was even on Dangerous Albume but failed. So what is bad about it? Actually it shows his sensitivity, sympathy, how much he cares about children. The song is against to the child abused and tried to alert the family to be more conscious and care full for their children. That was what I felt when I heard it, he even song about it that shows how much he care about the children to me.
    It is not surprised if MJ write the music about children because MJ cares about children so much all his life that is why his enemies tried to use his good intention against him. I heard MJ said on his 45 birth day 2002/2003, he did some donation that day and said “I will fight for them (children) for the rest of my life”.
    I know your point if I understood it well 29mj, but they can say this and that, but the truth is everything MJ did was all from his pure heart nothing else and we also see it his point of view not tabloid anyway. He was misunderstood all his life and it is not first time and we can’t do anything about it.

    Like

  68. April 6, 2014 3:27 pm

    “I respect, love you and I’m sorry for what is happening in your country. The power of God is immeasurable and we must to pray for peace and friendship between the peoples of the world and the wisdom, the light of our countries leaders.” – 29mj

    Dear 29mj, the situation has worsened very much. Please pray that God wins.

    Liked by 1 person

  69. 29mj permalink
    April 6, 2014 12:01 pm

    Dear Helena,
    I think that you are well. I have find this news
    Do You Know Where Your Children Are?’ rumoured to be on new MJ album XSCAPE on LMJ http://www.legendarymichaeljackson.nl/news/do-you-know-where-your-children-are-rumoured-to-be-on-new-mj-album-xscape/
    I want to spread it for Michael’s fans and my first thought was directed here. Maybe someone has a link about this song to convey here or on facebook. I hope as soon as we know more about the song and get the facts! I respect, love you and I’m sorry for what is happening in your country. The power of God is immeasurable and we must to pray for peace and friendship between the peoples of the world and the wisdom, the light of our countries leaders.

    Like

  70. Mariam permalink
    April 5, 2014 11:49 pm

    Fans, I read how MJ heard, on Charles Thomson blog about police went to his Neverland and also what people say how MJ react when he heard it and MJ was recording” one more chance” video then I watched his verdict day on 2005 trial on YouTube and I become emotional. It is difficult and very hard to imagine how extremely hard his life was. being MJ is very hard, that is very true.

    “Jackson spent much of those two days crying” says Dieter Wiesner. “I was sitting with him day and night. He was shocked; he was crying… he didn’t know what to do. It was such a bad situation. We were supposed to go to Europe. He was ready to move on in his life and everything was prepared. It was just a beautiful situation and this news shocked him deeply. Really, it killed him” Dieter Wiesner

    I really want Thomas Sneddon going through and feel the pain he cause to MJ, to his family, friends and his fans. He basically hurt so many people. In my life time I saw peoples like Sneddon, not bad as Sneddon but because they just hurt one person evil way, I saw God punished/rebuked them and their family. I really don’t want him to die or kill himself like Evan Chandler did but I want him to pay it while he is alive. It sound cruel, but also it is fact God punished people for their bad did because someone blood is on their hand and also He give reward for people good did(he blessed them and their family).

    There is only one way to skip the punishment, admit what you did was bad and ask God forgiveness and the people you hurt. That is what I praying to God either Sneddon seek forgiveness from God and the people he hurt badly or get paid for what he did to MJ, that is what I believe is justice done for MJ. I want to see that before I go.

    Because of his selfishness and ego, he destroyed the man. He wants to finish his career with big signature or credit (as the people who knows him well said it) , Michael Jackson life had to be destroyed? He is in fact ” a cold man” MJ. I hate that serpent who put that evil idea in to Sneddon heart, really. Otherwise MJ would be here with us.

    Thomas Sneddon already had known as excellent a successful DA, personally can’t see that, based on MJ’s trial. He was boosting “he got him” he also said “this time we had strong case and evidence”, anybody can see even who doesn’t have a law degree can tell MJ’s case was just empty, the items they brought should not even considered as evidence after all.

    That is the man called successful DA, maybe lately he is not good as he was, probably he lost his mind. As William Wagener said, being successful is not a licence to do crime or do whatever they want. also said , good police also do sometime wrong thing and doing wrong thing shouldn’t be acceptable because they were a good police.

    Sneddon falsify evidence (false finger print, tried to create false phone record etc.) as per Wagener, how come he did not convict for that, Helena?

    I am glad he failed and he did not get what he want instead this time I believe he is waiting another trial for himself from God. God is the ultimate judge, I do believe that strongly.

    Like

  71. Nan permalink
    April 5, 2014 3:21 pm

    https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=12208269902

    This is an old Coppertone ad with Jody Foster as a little girl, .She doesnt have a top on and the logo for Coppertone is a dog pulling down the back of a little girls bathing suit bottom, again with no top on.
    What could Sneddon have made of that , if MJ had a copy of this commercial.
    This was just Sneddon clutching at straws.
    Anyone who starts a press conference with ” We Got Him”, as if Mj had been on the run for a decade, instead of living his life in plain site , has an obvious agenda
    That and of course the obvious look of pleasure on his face when a supposed crime has taken place against a child cancer victim , shows his true colors.
    I had heard an interview with DD the other day on some radio blog, and the interviewer was an obvious fan of hers and believed all her assertions.
    I thought it was interesting that when it came to her source , she refused to say who her source was , would not even say if it was a man or a woman.
    I thought it was common knowledge that Victor Guiterrez was her source, as we see in court documents.I wonder if she is trying to distance herself from him , given the deposition that says he lies about stories for money etc, nevermind his supposed undercover work infiltrating Nambla..

    Like

  72. April 5, 2014 11:43 am

    The word chronos comes from greek and refers to age, time ,time passing.,I cant remember the exact translation now.Actually the pictures are quite beutiful and interesting.One could see such in museums.Artrists have always been fashinated By the human body and why not everybody else too.I would like to meet one person, not necessarily even a grown up who has not seen a painting or statue of a naked human.My parents owned a good deal of paintings and one of them was a frontal female nude. No pervs in the family I can assure you.

    Like

  73. April 5, 2014 7:29 am

    Let me also repeat the earlier comment which was devoted to the same subject: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/the-abc-facts-of-michael-jacksons-innocence/comment-page-1/#comment-57639

    Since no photos or videos incriminating Jackson were found during the raids of Neverland in 2003-2004, on January 18, 2005 Sneddon requested that the evidence seized during the search in 1993 should be introduced at the 2005 trial. This evidence was three books with photos of children and two photos.

    Sneddon’s document described this damning evidence in the following terms:

    Books:
    “Boys will be boys” containing photographs of boys under the age of 14; full frontal nudity. The book is personally inscribed by Michael Jackson;
    “In search of Young Beauty”, containing photographs of children, both boys and girls; some nude;
    “The Boy, A Photographic Essay”, containing black-and-white photos of boys, some nude

    Photographs:
    A photograph of a boy, believed to be Jonathan Spence; fully nude.
    A photograph of a young boy holding an umbrella; wearing bikini bottoms, partially pulled down.

    My little comment on the above:

    1) The cover of “Boys will be boys” showed boys jumping into water. The inside of the cover had an inscription from MJ saying: “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces, this is the spirit of Boyhood. A life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.”

    This was followed by his “MJ” signature which means that the book was most probably given to him and he was inscribing it for a fan. Why and how it came back into his possession only God knows.

    2) “The boy, a photographic essay” was sent to him by a fan and was signed “From your fan, xxxooo, Rhonda. 1983 Chicago”. There is no evidence that Michael even opened it. Most of the book is shots from Lord of the flies movie, but some show boys “in full frontal nudity”. The strange circumstances around these two books look like a provocation to me.

    3) The third book depicted boys and girls, “some nude” and since no “frontal nudity” was ever mentioned it suggests that the book was the most innocent of all. This is probably why the prosecution never addressed this issue again.

    Now come the two photos which were found after searching the whole of Neverland inside out (in 1993).

    4) One of it was of a boy in bikini and umbrella. The bikini was “partially pulled down” which was the worst they could say about it. Since no “frontal nudity” is mentioned, it can very well mean that the bikini was seen from the back, side and was surely not displaying any private parts.

    5) The second photo was “believed to be Jonathan Spence” and was “fully nude”. Again no “frontal nudity” is mentioned which means that the boy could be shown from his back, side, lying on the beach and his private parts may not be seen at all, as otherwise “frontal nudity” would have been mentioned. The boy is also very small as it is impossible to say who it belongs to and it is only believed to be Spence.

    Why Sneddon couldn’t contact Spence’s parents and find whether the photo was indeed of their son is unclear. Well, probably he did and probably his people even made rounds of all parents who were friends with Michael to check if this could be a photo of their son. And most probably none of them recognized their son there, Spence’s parents included. So it surely wasn’t Spence.

    Now what does one photo of an unknown baby (?) boy, even fully nude (but not in “full frontal nudity”) mean in terms of the big ranch like Neverland? And its innumerable guests who stayed there for days or weeks and left there whatever they cared to leave? Or people sending tons of letters to Michael with their photos and whatnot inside? And some of them not being friends of Michael at all and sending him things of doubtful nature – in order to test him, provoke him or probably even with the idea to plant some things in his home like this “Rhonda” thing?

    What does this one photo of a baby boy mean when nothing else was ever found against Michael – either in 1993 or in 2003-2004 when Neverland was raided by the police several times and even when Michael was not there?

    I’ll tell you what it means. It means NOTHING.

    Let me also note that despite the defense’s objections this horrid evidence WAS admitted at the 2005 trial and the jurors looked into all of it, possibly including the photos mentioned above, however none of them were impressed – because there was nothing to be impressed about.

    P.S. Let me add that the above is the ONLY evidence which Michael’s haters call the so-called “child pornography”. Naturally it isn’t pornography but why and how even these books found their way into Michael’s home is extremely interesting to further investigate.

    Also please note that there is no evidence that Michael went any further with those books than just writing a message to someone on one of its covers. Surprisingly both were found in a closed cupboard in a closet and a maid had to be summoned from her home to be able to open it.

    Liked by 1 person

  74. April 5, 2014 7:19 am

    “just because a useless jury said the words “not guilty” that die hard fans take that as an OK to rewrite history and continue the worship of this dead pedophile.” – Garrett

    Warning: Keep to Rule 1 of this blog if you don’t want to be banned.

    “Juries said “not guilty” to OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. Yet still the entire planet knows of their guilt due to people’s assessment of the evidence.”

    In OJ Simpson’s case the multimillion TV audience saw the evidence and drew their conclusions, different from that of the jury. In Michael Jackson’s case the TV audience didn’t see the evidence and drew their conclusions from the reports of people like Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace which is already a medical diagnosis. At the MJ trial only the jury (and not the audience) saw the evidence and as a result of that made the only conclusion possible – NOT GUILTY.

    For you to be able to check up the work of the jury all you need to do is read the transcripts of the 2005 trial. If you have no time for the transcripts you can read the book by Aphrodite Jones based on the transcripts. If one book is too much for you, you can read a chapter on the trial in Randall Sullivan’s book – this way you will at least have some idea of what you are talking about.

    We have read all the three of the above – the transcripts, book and chapter, and can certify with a clear conscience that there was not a single shred of evidence proving any of the accusers’ claims. Do the same work and only then please come and talk to us. Otherwise there is no point in the discussion. How can those who can see discuss things with those who are blind?

    “He had an unhealthy and excessive interest in boys and was found to possess child pornography when authorities raided his Neverland home.”

    The two books that were “seized” in 1993 included: 1) a present from a so-called “fan” 2) a book inscribed and signed by Michael for a fan, so it was meant to be passed back. How and why it remained in his possession is an interesting question.

    “Why did he keep these items locked in his bedroom?”

    Because his maid, Adrian McManus (or his earlier maid Blanca Francia?) locked it there. McManus had to be summoned from home to produce the key. When Michael was told that some books were found in a closed cupboard in his closet he was very surprised.

    “Why did he keep a photo of a naked boy he shared his bed with?”

    Who told you that, dear? The boy was naked but no “frontal nudity” was mentioned, so it could be a baby lying on his belly. I have a dozen of such pictures in my home. And no one could identify who the boy was. We don’t even know his age.

    “was Michael doing with a copy of the book “Chronos” by Bill Andriette, who is a self proclaimed pedophile and well known member of NAMBLA?”

    Cronos was one of the books “seized” in 2003. The book in possession of Michael Jackson was by author Pere Formiguera (see the police source: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/060804sdcontsheet.pdf). A screenshot of it:

    The book is about the way people age. The photographer took pictures of one and the same person at different periods of his/her life.

    Here are the typical photos from that book:

    “WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT THE PURPOSE THAT THIS TYPE OF MATERIAL IS MEANT FOR?’

    The two books presented to Michael and found in 1993 were a provocation which I will try to prove when I write a new post about those books (in some time). The Cronos book was probably a reflection of Michael’s interest in how people age. Or his interest in people and life processes in general. He was curious. Aren’t you?

    “Fans need to wake up”

    It is his critics who need to wake up and read a little more than what Topix (very selectively) presents to them.

    God bless.

    God bless you too.

    Like

  75. Mariam permalink
    April 4, 2014 9:30 pm

    “Sneddon didn’t have anything except the word of Janet Arvizo, and she was totally crazy,” says Backerman. “And I know that because I was there and I saw her. She had a track record as long as my right arm. Sneddon just wanted to get Jackson. “ Backerman

    http://www.charles-thomson.net/one_more_chance.html

    Like

  76. Mariam permalink
    April 4, 2014 2:48 pm

    Helena, it is amazing how detail and incredible is your post about the items that was brought as evidence against to MJ. That explain very well what it was, if we really investigate it in open and fair mind without siding or blaming MJ but if our intention is just to know the truth we will get it.

    According to the evidence list, the only thing they found in his bedroom bathroom is a pornographic magazine and books which are commercially manufactured. Remember, MJ is not different than any other man, he has sexual interest and desire as anybody else; he had a pornography material which a majority man has. It cannot be illegal because MJ has it, do not forget that he is a human too and he is not saint or nuns. Because he has a pornographic material in his bedroom, it doesn’t mean he is child molester, if that is the case all men are guilty including our loved once and friends.

    I am not trying to accept as it is good thing(but for some it is, I heard some people use it as sexual therapy), or I do not endorse this kind of activity at all, however we cannot accused him as he did horrible thing and thinking as he is guilty. If you hate him that is another thing but making him guilty for crime he never did is totally unfair and evil thing.

    All the books has child and adult picture found (Room to play, Underworld, Drew and Jimmy, Cronos) in the packed/sealed package found downstairs cellar area of the video/arcade area not in his bedroom. They are unopened. None of these books meet legal requirements to be considered child pornography.

    Those books got positive comment as “collections of classic photography” or admired the photographers “pictures taken by the world’s most renowned photographers”, “ Visually pleasing as well as heart felt sincerity”, “Beautiful and thoughtful” “Totally a good book to buy” – Odd but awesome book! an expressionistic piece of art”, “book as a top serious study”, so it is art for so many people including MJ, it is not porn at all for a lot of people and it is on Amazon.

    There were also found closing, sweet case, computer, porn DVD’s and staffs which are not belonging to MJ. In different rooms found different items other than MJ bedroom. Frank and his friends, also Omer and many people sleepover and lived in Neverland time to time. For those Items, MJ shouldn’t be responsible, hundreds of peoples visiting Neverland stayed for week or more. Who know who left what and who know whose belonging are there? Frank mention in his book”My friend Michael Jackson” about some material including (a drug, I am not sure what kind) found Neverland are belonging to him.

    One thing I notice when I review the evidence is a letters and cards wrote to MJ from the accuser himself.

    Some letters says “ Mr.potter” “Daddy Micheal” with large heart with many plastic happy face. “Dear Appel hade” and all of the that was changed immediately.

    Like

  77. susannerb permalink*
    April 4, 2014 10:39 am

    Garrett: Sorry, but you seem to be brainwashed by the lies of the Topix guys. I’m sure Helena will have a suitable answer for you, but for the moment just let me tell you that you are totally wrong about the book “Cronos”. These books were all discussed here long ago. See here which books were found among Michael’s more than 10,000 books and what they were about:
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/porn-found-in-michael-jacksons-home-2/

    The book you talk about is an art book of several authors, has nothing to do with child pornography and has nothing to do with Bill Andriette. You can find it on Amazon:
    http://www.amazon.com/Cronos-Chantal-Grande/dp/8495273349/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261076273&sr=1-1
    The authors are: Chantal Grande (Author), Miquel i Poli Marto (Author), Manel Clot (Author), Emili Teixidor (Author), Serge Tisseron (Author), Patrick Roegiers (Editor), Pere Formiguera (Artist)

    Stop spreading lies! Is this the way you do research, going to haters’ sites and believe their nonsense without checking the facts?
    There was no child pornography among Michael’s books, otherwise it would have been evidence against him. The Topix and MJLies boys can try as much as they want to find something, there was nothing like that.

    Like

  78. Mariam permalink
    April 4, 2014 12:24 am

    “There will never be vindication for MJ. Ever. He molested kids and the whole world knows it” Garrett

    First of all, don’t be fool about this, because you and some people like you, who wiped out by tabloid lie, and by some racist journalist whose making money with a cost of someone life and pain become believing MJ is molester, not mean whole world believe he is. I will tell you, especially now days almost the whole world understood why MJ went through what was going through. I am one of them until personally studied his life.

    Especially, after he died millions of people got it, because his life is open book now than before, so everybody got their own conclusion. 70,000 fan which I found out on facebook only are not all foolish, most of them whom I talk to are highly intelligent and smart people, trust me, they are not worshiping a molester. By the way, worshiping a human is not right thing, should be only God. I don’t think we worship MJ but we love him and respect him for his incredible work as a musician, as loving beautiful person he was and as a great humanitarian.

    Second, I advised you to study the real molester behaviour and evidence that brought against them and then compare to the evidence they brought against MJ that will help you to see who is real child molester and who is not .

    Third, those juries are not useless, don’t make a mistake on this too, they are 12 or 9 and 12 brain did see the evidence and analyzed it and found nothing to convict him. I do believe the court and those 12 people who were the firsthand to see and evaluate the evidence and decide what they believe is right than you and me. So to me, useless is the person who is rely on or guided with a tabloid lie and some haters, racist comments. They are brainwashed and believed everything they see and heard on TV are foolish to me not the those 12 juries .

    You mentioned about those books and pictures of boys in his bed room, let me ask you a question, where should be kept those play boy magazines or a book about sexuality he had, on the living room shelf? No, he has 12 and 11 years kids and he had to keep them somewhere the kids can’t rich them.

    Child pornography? There was no child pornography found MJ’s house, do you think if they found he would be free? They will put him in jail within a second that was what they want desperately to put him jail and take possession of his assets (catalogues, Neverland) and take away his kids that is why all this accusation brought up to begin with to destroy him. He paid this entire price the last 14 years of his life. As far as I know people who possessed child pornography are punished for their crime and will be convicted for that. MJ was quitted from all charges. He never charged for child pornography. Again, I advise you to see all exhibit or evident carefully.

    The court verdict itself vindicating him, that itself should make you think he is not guilty of any crime.

    Here is some hint about those books, MJ bombarded with all kinds of books, child (toddler) pictures, I saw on tv the fan who is a good artist himself present his one of beautiful drawing (art) to MJ, by his fan because the fan knows he is Crazy reader, they know he loves art, and they know he adored children. Some of the books even not taken out from the box, he never looked at them there were in the box, because it was to many for him.

    Yes, MJ loves art; he is also an artist and he purchase a lot of arts that is artist fantasy buying something interested them in art. Yes, some people loves children some in fact the opposite. Some people love animals and they ended up with 10 cats and 4 dogs in their house, some not. Because someone loves children doesn’t make him child molester, or if someone loves animal, I don’t know what they could be suspected for, I don’t know? so please, don’t be ignorant, see things and use your own brain to analyzed it fairly. Don’t just take in whatever you read or heard.

    I hope, Helena will provide you what exactly was found (the exhibit they are out there on public, no hide) in MJ house and what was happened. Unfortunately, his everything, even his underwear size, his dead body, his medical record, his financial record, is personal life etc.you name it, you can find it on the internet, you can even get court document from the court if you want, that is what I heard, when it comes MJ no privacy, no citizen right, no nothing. His private life is invaded, and it is OK for everybody because he is Michael Jackson, that is how he was/is treated on his on land by his own people.

    Like

  79. Garrett permalink
    April 3, 2014 8:35 pm

    There will never be vindication for MJ. Ever. He molested kids and the whole world knows it. I find it truly funny that just because a useless jury said the words “not guilty” that die hard fans take that as an OK to rewrite history and continue the worship of this dead pedophile.

    Juries said “not guilty” to OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. Yet still the entire planet knows of their guilt due to people’s assessment of the evidence. The same is true of Michael Joseph Jackson. He had an unhealthy and excessive interest in boys and was found to possess child pornography when authorities raided his Neverland home. I realize most fans will try to dismiss this as “art” so I will ask you: Why did he keep these items locked in his bedroom? Why did he keep a photo of a naked boy he shared his bed with? What was Michael doing with a copy of the book “Chronos” by Bill Andriette, who is a self proclaimed pedophile and well known member of NAMBLA? That book alone is filled with pictures of nude boys and had a hand written inscription. Now I’m going to ask you one more thing and sorry for the caps but it helps get my point across: WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT THE PURPOSE THAT THIS TYPE OF MATERIAL IS MEANT FOR? Again, sorry about the caps but I want you people to really think about that. I will tell you right now its not for “art”.

    Where there is smoke there is fire. The child pornography Michael owned is just one example. If I wanted to go over all of it I would be sitting here typing all night. His obsession with boys was absolutely ludicrous and that alone speaks volumes in and of itself. Fans need to wake up and stop trying to make excuses for the man’s sickening behavior. What Michael did was NOT OK. I hope that at least some of you who read this post will at least try to give it just a little bit of thought before dismissing it as “hate” rather than “some helpful facts”.

    God bless.


    VMJ: Garrett, read Rule 1 if you don’t want to be banned here.

    Like

  80. April 1, 2014 4:50 am

    You are welcome Susannerb:)

    Like

  81. April 1, 2014 4:04 am

    These persistent haters are a bit of a puzzle. It is often true that people hate that what they cannot accept in themselves, so much so they are not even conscious of it.And that is a clue to their pesistance.

    Like

  82. April 1, 2014 3:37 am

    Brainwashing is a phenomenon that happens often when people are not at all conscious that it actually happens.Time is on it ´s side and people become convinced”because we always knew”

    Like

  83. April 1, 2014 3:29 am

    I have a diffrent take on Michael and children.Debby came rather near to it. I will not expound
    on it yet as it will take some time to word it correctly, and so that ill-wishers will not costruct new lies on good,lovely MJJ.

    Like

  84. Nan permalink
    March 31, 2014 11:32 pm

    I think that part about Janet visiting a lawyer about MJ before he ever, even met them , lines up perfectly with Gavin and Starr asking to sleep in MJ bedroom when they went to visit his ranch,
    That was the initial situation according to Gavin, .and Frank Cascio said in his book, that MJ was not happy and said maybe you should check with your mother, and they said they already did
    …he and Star slept with mj kids,in the bed and Frank and MJ took the floor.This kid was introduced to MJ as a dying childs wish , so he tried to accommodate him , but protect himself as well.
    I think she was already setting this in motion, but couldnt get MJ alone with Gavin , so instead she went the route of calling him family and having the kids keep writing to him.
    Couple all this information , with Stanley Katz saying MJ was not a criminal, but a regressed 10 yr old……….and this is the Chandler doctor also..these cops had to have known, it was a set up, and they should have known the Chandlers were as well.

    Nobody cared , because it was like a relay race ..If they all carry their part , they will all get a prize when the cross the finish line, someone gets the anchor job at Nightline ( Bashir)somebody gets rich,(Arvizo) somebody gets a book deal,(Dimond) somebody gets to do legal commentary in future television cases, and be heroes (Zonen and /or Sneddon, higher political office,( Sneddon/Zonen) and of course those terrific ratings.
    It is really a disgrace,on so many levels.
    This person Tia, has some very interesting documents ., and I hope she doesnt mind me putting her twitter up here.She has something up from Louise Palanker blog the day after verdict , saying her heart belongs to Ron Zonen..
    Talk about one big happy family..
    https://twitter.com/tinklove05/with_replies

    Like

  85. March 31, 2014 4:27 pm

    Mariam, a great find! I’m sorry for not looking up your comment before writing mine and making a complete fool of myself. But I am happy that you found it.

    Let us print it in bold letters and hang it on the wall in every kitchen – Janet Arvizo did “investigate” Michael Jackson and spoke with her civil lawyer about Michael’s “interaction with her and her children” even before she met him:

    Q. … Now, do you remember signing a document prepared by the sheriff’s department that said the following: “From time to time, between January 1st, 2000, and the present date, I consulted one or more of those lawyers concerning Michael Jackson’s interaction with me and my children at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County and elsewhere, in this and other states, and concerning the return of some furniture stored by or in the name of Brad Miller at Dino’s Storage in North Hollywood, Los Angeles County.”
    Do you remember signing a document that had those words?

    A. Do you want me to have the document, like we’ve had this discussion over since August.
    MR. MESEREAU: Object, Your Honor.
    THE WITNESS: Since August, the same thing –
    THE COURT: Just a moment. I want you to answer the question. The question is, do you remember signing that document?
    THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes.

    Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And the document said that you had started investigating Michael Jackson sometime between January 1st, 2000, and the date you signed the document, which is December 18th, 2003, right?

    A. Yes. If that’s — those words are on there.

    Q. Why would you start investigating Michael Jackson around January 1st, 2000, if you didn’t meet him till August 2000?

    A. Okay. Let me explain something to you. And this has already been discussed, and he knows the answers. This was discussed at the end of September….

    A great find. So she began discussing with her lawyers Michael’s “interaction with her and her children” almost 8 months before meeting him?
    Nice, very nice indeed.

    Like

  86. March 31, 2014 4:15 pm

    “I think that Michael may have sexually abused the poor chimp as well. How you people still try to stand up for this dead pervert is something I will never understand. You all live in another world.” – Liz

    As to this part of your statement well… you and we definitely live in different worlds. We live in a world where any such statement will require proof or at least some basis besides a person’s dirty fantasy. And you live in a world where it is enough just to “think” some disgusting thought for you to consider it a reality.

    By the way I think you need to know that psychologists regard the thoughts people think a form of self-revelation or testimony about themselves. “Tell me what you think and I’ll tell you who you are”. So your thoughts about the chimp and MJ are extremely revealing of your own nature.

    It’s science, you know.

    Like

  87. March 31, 2014 4:01 pm

    More about Michael Jackson’s animals:

    The beasts of Neverland: what became of Bubbles and Thriller the tiger?
    By Ewan Fletcher 1:06PM BST 22 Jun 2010

    When Michael Jackson died a year ago he left behind three children, eight brothers and sisters and millions of bereft fans. He also left a zoo’s worth of exotic animals.
    Perhaps it shouldn’t have come as a surprise – his first solo number one, after all, was Ben, an ode to a pet rat – but the media and fans alike were fascinated by the private zoo that the King of Pop created at his 2,600-acre Californian ranch, Neverland.
    Among the residents were tigers, chimpanzees, zebras, giraffes, alpacas, snakes, alligators and elephants. Their upkeep, though, cost a fortune, and, as personal and financial woes piled up, Jackson was forced to move out of Neverland and find his animals new homes.
    He gave the job to his well-respected vet, Martin Dinnes.
    ‘Michael told me that he didn’t care about making money from selling his animals, he just wanted me to make sure that they went to the best homes possible,’ Dinnes says.

    ‘So I took two years, from 2006 to 2008. Some were sold and some were given away but Michael approved of all the places they went.’
    Not everybody agrees. Animal rights campaigners say many animals are living at substandard facilities, while some new owners criticise Jackson, whose estate has raked in $250 million since his death, for making no provision to fund the lifestyles of his beloved pets.
    One year after his death, we tracked down the animals of Neverland to see how they are adjusting to life in a world where animals do grow old.

    Bubbles the chimpanzee

    Few will need reminding that Jackson’s highest-profile pet was a chimpanzee named Bubbles. After rescuing him from a research centre in the early Eighties he took him on his Bad world tour.
    Bubbles wowed fans by mimicking his moonwalk on stage and the two became inseparable. At Neverland, the ape slept in a cot in the singer’s bedroom and used his lavatory.
    However, after the birth of Jackson’s son Prince Michael Jnr, Bubbles – who was growing into moody adolescence – was deemed potentially dangerous and moved to a sanctuary for Hollywood animals.
    For the past six years he has resided in Florida at the Center For Great Apes. Half of the money needed for his care – which costs £12,000 per year – is still provided by Jackson’s estate.
    ‘Michael owned Bubbles all these years,’ says Patti Ragan, who runs the centre. ‘He would visit him, but he couldn’t handle him any more.
    ‘Chimps that appear on television are almost always very young. When they grow up they get very big and have huge canine teeth. They become very dangerous so can’t work around actors and entertainers.’
    Bubbles, Ragan says, is now 26 years old and weighs nearly 13 stone. He’s changed in other ways too. In a mirror-image of Jackson’s own metamorphosis, Bubbles’ face has become significantly blacker.
    ‘It isn’t pink anymore,’ Ragan says. ‘When chimpanzees get older their faces get covered in more and more black freckles and turn a beautiful, dark rich colour.’
    The chimp, like his owner, is also very fond of children.
    ‘There are some youngsters in his group, little kids, and he loves to play games with them,’ she says. ‘He likes to be groomed by the others in his group and sometimes he’ll groom them.’
    However, Ragan says categorically that Bubbles does not dance and dismisses reports that he attempted to commit suicide after hearing of Jackson’s death, or that there were ever any plans for him to attend the funeral.
    ‘All chimpanzees walk backwards if they’re playing so his moonwalking was nothing special,’ she says.
    ‘This is a 180lb great ape, not a chimp baby in a red suit. He is not a person.’

    The giraffes and parrots

    Jackson’s four giraffes – Rambo, Jabbar Jnr, Princess and Annie Sue – along with his collection of parrots, left Neverland in 2007 and moved to Page, in Arizona, to live with a couple of well-meaning but inexperienced animal enthusiasts called Tommy and Freddie Hancock.
    The husband and wife team, who had made their fortune selling jet skis, planned to open a 175-acre wildlife reserve and spend their retirement looking after abandoned animals. But their plans went awry almost immediately.
    First, the animal rights group PETA accused the Hancocks of mistreating the giraffes and keeping them in ‘cramped temporary pens’.
    Then the couple became mired in a legal battle with the local council over the terms of the lease agreement for the proposed reserve. Both the Hancocks and the giraffes faced eviction.
    And then, within the space of a few weeks at the end of last year, both Rambo and Jabba Jnr died.
    PETA blamed the Hancocks, accusing them of neglect. But the Hancocks insisted they were the victims of a local smear campaign and said they thought the giraffes had been poisoned.
    ‘It has to be said that the circumstances around the deaths are suspect,’ Freddie says.
    ‘The veterinarian said Rambo was in excellent health. It’s very difficult to prove anything but I know that somebody did that to these animals and of course we have our suspicions who. Someone has a personal vendetta against us.’
    Freddie and her husband have now found a new site in South Utah and plan to move the surviving giraffes and the rest of their animals there. As yet, there has been no official investigation into the deaths of either Rambo or Jabba Jnr.

    The alligators and snakes

    One suspects that the Peter Pan of Pop would have approved of the GW Exotic Animal Memorial Park in Oklahoma, where most of his reptiles now live.
    A sanctuary for animals that have been neglected or abused, it was set up in 1997 by Francis and Shirley Schreibvogel in memory of their son Garold Wayne, who died in a road traffic accident.
    Today, the park has 12,000 exotic animals – including Madonna, Jackson’s albino python, and the singer’s alligators – many of which are sponsored by the friends or family of people who have died. Three people (although not Jackson) are buried on the site.
    The pop star’s two alligators live in the Steve Irwin Memorial Complex, an indoor alligator centre, built in memory of the Australian ‘Crocodile Hunter’, which has two indoor pools. A door gives them exclusive access to two pools outside.
    ‘The big alligator we call MJ,’ says John Reinke, the park manager. ‘We have a sign on the cage that says he belonged to Michael Jackson.
    ‘MJ is about 14ft long and weighs about 1,100lbs [half a ton]. He eats whole raw chickens like you get in the grocery store,’ Reinke says.
    ‘The python is 18ft long and she weighs 300lbs,’ he adds.
    ‘When we tell people that we got Michael Jackson’s animals they get pretty excited and want to see them but we don’t get crazy fanatics.’

    The tigers: Thriller and Sabu

    Although named after the best-selling album of all time, Thriller the tiger was not the cub pictured cradled in Jackson’s arms on the record sleeve.
    Nevertheless, she and her brother Sabu, born in 1998, were two of the pop star’s most beloved pets. They now live on the Shambala Preserve in California, which is owned and run by the actress Tippi Hedren – Melanie Griffith’s mother – best known for her starring role in Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds.
    ‘The tigers came to us in 2006 when Michael decided never to return to Neverland,’ says Hedren, who is now 80 and has run Shambala since the early Seventies.
    ‘They were the first animals to be placed. Thriller and Sabu live in a very large compound of their own and are very happy.’ As soon as Hedren heard about Jackson’s death, she says she went to their compound and told them the news.
    ‘I have no idea if they understood what had happened or not,’ she says. ‘But I talk to the animals a lot. I often sit outside their enclosure and get to know their personality.’
    The actress has been in love with big cats since 1969 when she made a film in Zimbabwe. She now has around 70 at Shambala, including lions, cougars, leopards, servals and one ‘very magnificent’ liger, all of which have been rescued from illegal zoos or private individuals.
    She also has several domestic cats, one called Melanie Griffith and one called Antonio Banderas (after Melanie’s husband). The others are named Sean Connery, Marlon Brando and Rod Taylor (after Hedren’s co-star in The Birds).
    Thriller, Sabu and the rest of the animals at Shambala enjoy a pampered existence. They are fed on specially flavoured beef and receive the best health care that money can buy. When Thriller developed a swelling on her neck she was taken to hospital for an MRI scan.
    However, Hedren says Jackson never contributed a penny to their upkeep.
    ‘It’s disappointing because Michael was known for his love of animals and I don’t know why he completely abandoned them,’ she says. ‘It would be wonderful if someone in the family stepped up.’
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/7843202/Michael-Jacksons-menagerie.html

    I think that if Michael had had some ready money he would have contributed to the tigers’ upkeep. He simply couldn’t.

    Like

  88. March 31, 2014 3:55 pm

    “According to Jane Goodall Michael’s chimp Bubbles was physically abused under his care.” Liz

    If you look beyond the headline you will realize that Jane Goodall did not speak of Michael Jackson and she only told him about what she had seen others doing. Even this idiotic article admits it:

    Michael Jackson’s chimp Bubbles abused, Jane Goodall says
    Compiled by Tony Hicks

    POSTED: 03/14/2014 10:20:46 AM PDT

    Jane Goodall says Michael Jackson’s chimp, Bubbles, was abused while in Jackson’s care.

    While recently leaving an event in Washington, D.C., the famous chimpanzee expert told TMZ that Bubbles was beaten at Neverland, though she didn’t say who did the beating. Goodall said she confronted Jackson about the matter and it “ticked him off.”

    That must have been awkward, dealing with an angry Michael Jackson … with all that spinning, squealing and pointing of jazz hands.

    LaToya Jackson’s ex-husband Jack Gordon — who, it must be said, isn’t exactly the most reliable source — reportedly once said, “I saw Michael punch Bubbles, kick him in the stomach. Michael used to say, ‘He doesn’t feel it. He’s a chimpanzee. I have to discipline him.'”

    If that’s the case, clearly someone needed to take a good look at the man in the mirror

    TMZ said “various” people in Jackson’s camp denied Bubbles was abused. Of course, those were probably the same people who denied Jackson ever got a nose job. The website also pointed out that there have been stories circulating for years that Bubbles was treated better than some humans, eating at the dining room table with Jackson and enjoying access to the fridge for Haagen-Dazs.

    Bubbles is now 30 and reportedly is living in a Florida animal sanctuary.http://www.mercurynews.com/celebrities/ci_25344432/michael-jacksons-chimp-bubbles-was-abused-jane-goodall

    And here is the true and serious information from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) – see how they praise Michael for his love of animals:

    PETA Calls On Michael Jackson’s Kids to Make Neverland a True Animal Sanctuary, Not a Roadside Zoo

    April 11, 2011

    Santa Barbara, Calif. — PETA has sent a letter to the children of late pop icon Michael Jackson urging them to use the Neverland Ranch’s 2,800 acres to establish a sanctuary for rescued exotic animals, rather than the planned menagerie. PETA’s request follows reports that the children, Prince Michael and Paris, would like to convert the property into a “community park and center for animals.”

    In the letter, PETA points out that to use Neverland as a roadside zoo for caged animals would be contrary to the respect for animals that Michael demonstrated when he placed Bubbles, the chimpanzee he raised, in a true sanctuary so that Bubbles could enjoy the freedom to move about, the company of other chimpanzees, and professional care.

    “Michael realized that Bubbles belonged with others of his kind in a loving and safe environment, and we hope that Prince Michael and Paris will honor his memory by doing the same for other animals,” says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. “Turning the Neverland Ranch into just another roadside zoo would make it a monument to exploitation and animal suffering.”

    For more information, please visit PETA.org.
    PETA’s letter to Michael Jackson’s children follows.

    April 11, 2011
    To: Prince Michael and Paris Jackson, c/o L. Londell McMillan
    cc: Thomas J. Barrack Jr.
    From: Michelle Cho

    Dear Prince Michael and Paris,
    PETA is an international nonprofit organization with more than 2 million members and supporters dedicated to the protection of animals. We are writing because it has come to our attention that you hope to one day turn your father’s Neverland Ranch into a community park and center for animals. We encourage you to call for this vast refuge to be turned into a true wildlife sanctuary where animals can be properly taken care of instead of a zoo, where people are encouraged to gawk at imprisoned animals in the name of profit.

    Your father showed his well-known love for exotic animals by building a zoo at Neverland and through his notable affection for his chimpanzee companion, Bubbles. We praised your father for having made the responsible decision to relocate Bubbles to a true sanctuary where he could live with other primates. By turning Neverland into a sanctuary, you could both honor your father’s memory and provide a safe haven for animals like Bubbles—while also educating the public about the plight of captive exotic animals.

    Much would have to be done, but with some of the necessary facilities already in place, Neverland Ranch could be a suitable location for an animal sanctuary. You could establish an organization that would provide rescued animals of all shapes and sizes with a safe, permanent home on the ranch’s more than 2,800 acres. The best way to gain a realistic understanding of everything that is involved in operating a sanctuary is by familiarizing yourself with the Standards of Excellence established by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries and by visiting existing sanctuaries, such as Save the Chimps in Florida and the Performing Animal Welfare Society’s wildlife sanctuaries in California.

    We encourage you to review these resources and begin planning for the eventual transformation of Neverland Ranch into a sanctuary similar in nature to that of its namesake—a place where to animals can escape from their former lives of abuse and neglect. With that in mind, I would like to offer you PETA’s support if you choose to go forward with plans to turn the Neverland Ranch into a true sanctuary. Can I please hear from you?
    Respectfully,

    Michelle Cho
    PETA
    http://www.peta.org/mediacenter/news-releases/PETA-Calls-On-Michael-Jackson-s-Kids-to-Make-Neverland-a-True-Animal-Sanctuary–Not-a-Roadside-Zoo.aspx

    Like

  89. March 31, 2014 3:32 pm

    “Thank you susannerb , I am reading it and so far I do not find her statement which is the mother admitting that she planned it before she met MJ.” – Mariam

    Mariam, Deborah Kunesh mentioned that it was Thomas Mesereau who said it. As to the Veritas project their study refers to it in its opening statement:

    “In January 2000, a woman named Janet Arvizo consulted with a civil lawyer about suing Michael Jackson for having allegedly molested her son.1”

    They also give a source for this statement, however now that ten years have passed none of the links work:

    “Ms. Doe testifies that she hired a lawyer before meeting Michael.” Online posting. 18 Sept. 2004. http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/part1.html

    The disappearance of sources of information is our huge problem. When the team of analysts were making their study in 2004 they did not expect all those articles to vanish, however they did and now we face a deplorable situation. This is why I always try to reprint the whole text from some source (though it makes the posts extremely long) as you never know whether it will be there in the future.

    I hope that Thomas Mesereau remembers this point but considering that 9 years have passed, well, I don’t know. Hopefully it is stated in some documents – like Janet’s deposition for example, which is probably available to Thomas Mesereau. We should probably make some enquiries or look for the respective articles in the archives.

    Like

  90. March 31, 2014 3:13 pm

    “I have seen people talking about it on FB, so I thought I would put it here in case people hadnt seen them if you click on this persons twitter and scroll down to photos ,and click on photos, you can read the papers. https://twitter.com/tinklove05/with_replies” – Nan

    Nan, I’m sorry for not seeing your comment earlier. These days I am running between so many subjects and sources of information that it’s inevitable to miss something.

    All the documents are extremely informative and if I have a chance I would like to analyze some. Some are absolutely smashing. Look at this one –Gutierrez admits that most of his stories (about Michael Jackson) are BS:

    He said “he had sold many stories some of which had been BS, and were simply made up”. Gutierrez said “that money in the tabloid business was easy, even for false stories.”

    Like

  91. March 31, 2014 12:54 pm

    I also highly recommend everyone the absolutely smashing documents procured and published on Twitter by Tia. The documents concern the relationship between Evan, Jordan and Natalie Chandler after the settlement in 1993 AND lots of information about Victor Gutierrez!

    https://twitter.com/tinklove05/

    Like

  92. March 31, 2014 6:38 am

    Hey Liz- I have watched the video on TMZ’s website where Jane comments that Bubble was beaten when he was with Michael. Do not colour this statement with your imagination please. You would be surprised and disapponted to know that one of TMZ’s own staff actually ended up defending Michael- here is the link. http://www.tmz.com/2014/03/14/michael-jackson-bubbles-never-abused-jane-goodall/. Please also have a link at this other link where Jane seemed to be harbouring a grudge that Michael did not make any donations to her charity from the income generated from the song ‘Heal the World’. In this link she praises him but does not seem to be very happy that though the song was inspired by the chimps’ plight, it did not generate any income for her organization. SO may be this is just an offshoot of the grudge? http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/10/09/ent.jackson.goodall/index.html?eref=ew

    Like

  93. March 31, 2014 3:49 am

    My heartfelt thanks to all the good posters for MJJ-Of late I had illness,harassment by fake parkingtickets, gave me alot of headache and work to ,
    clear, isolation, sleepless nights. A broken Computer. All this and still so much less Michael had to cope with.I so much hope that this blog will give MJJ.s family some comfort and knowledge that many people care about his fate..Thank you VMJ!

    Like

  94. March 31, 2014 2:05 am

    @Mariam: Great you found that. I couldn’t remember. So they definitely spoke about it in the trial.

    As to Liz: With this kind of sick implications, the comment shows again who are the real freaks and perverts.

    Like

  95. Mariam permalink
    March 30, 2014 8:06 pm

    People who are choosing being hater is something I will never understand; I don’t think I will; How can people hate the person who doesn’t even know him probably they don’t even meet him? I don’t understand this, I don’t think I will get answer for this.

    Choosing hate instead of love? Very strange, at the same time scary to me.

    It is a choice dear Liz. Hate is strong almost as love is and those are the people who destroyed so many people’s life and sprite. They hate themselves the same as they do to others and for some reason they are miserable inside, they don’t have peace with themselves and with others too, and they are frustrated, angry that is why they are who they are.

    If we really know who God is, I guarantee you; we will not be capable of hating a human being or behaving like this. We just can’t be this person or behave like this, God is love, and we need to love people and also we need to be loved. Love is beautiful thing and it is much better to choose loving instead of hate someone for the sake of our wellbeing. Also it doesn’t cost money. 

    Like

  96. Mariam permalink
    March 30, 2014 6:51 pm

    Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When did you meet Michael Jackson?
    A. I think it was, my best estimate, August of 2000.
    Q. Do you remember signing a document prepared by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department on December 18th, 2003?
    A. Okay, I think — is it the paper you just showed me?
    Q. Yes. But I have a –
    A. I can’t answer unless you tell me exactly. You know, there was a lot of paperwork.
    Q. Would you like to see it?
    A. Well, I’m asking you, please, is it the same one that you just came up here and showed me?
    Q. It is.
    A. Okay. Then, yes. I’ve signed many paper works of theirs.
    Q. Let me ask you the question again.
    A. Okay.
    Q. Do you recall signing a document prepared by the Sheriff’s Department of Santa Barbara County on
    December 18th, 2003?
    A. I think so.
    Q. Would it refresh your recollection just to look at the date and your signature?
    A. No. That’s — is that the one that you just showed me?
    Q. It is.
    A. Then — then, yes
    Q. You did sign that document –
    A. Yes.
    Q. — on December 18th –
    A. Yes.
    Q. — 2003?
    A. Yes.
    Q. All right. Now, do you remember signing a document prepared by the sheriff’s department that said the following: “From time to time, between January 1st, 2000, and the present date, I consulted one or more of those lawyers concerning Michael Jackson’s interaction with me and my children at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County and elsewhere, in this and other states, and concerning the return of some furniture stored by or in the name of Brad Miller at Dino’s Storage in North Hollywood, Los Angeles County.”
    Do you remember signing a document that had those words?

    A. Do you want me to have the document, like we’ve had this discussion over since August.
    MR. MESEREAU: Object, Your Honor.
    THE WITNESS: Since August, the same thing –
    THE COURT: Just a moment. I want you to answer the question. The question is, do you remember signing that document?
    THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes.

    Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And the document said that you had started investigating Michael Jackson
    Sometime between January 1st, 2000, and the date you signed the document, which is December 18th, 2003, right?

    A. Yes. If that’s — those words are on there.

    Q. Why would you start investigating Michael Jackson around January 1st, 2000, if you didn’t meet him till August 2000?

    A. Okay. Let me explain something to you. And this has already been discussed, and he knows the answers. This was discussed at the end of September.
    MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object to this part of the answer as nonresponsive.
    THE COURT: Sustained.
    THE WITNESS: This — when the sheriffs were doing their investigation, they wanted to know every single detail about me. George Owen Feldman is — I think he’s associated in the same law firm of Rothstein. So the — the police department did an extensive, extensive search on me as a person, and so they want — they put everything in a general form so they can have access to everything about me and my past, because they wanted to verify and make sure that what they were going to do towards this goliath was going to be accurate and truthful. And that’s why this — this paper was made in such a general way.

    Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are you now telling the jury that George Owen Feldman did represent you
    A. No, he didn’t represent me.
    Q. At any time?
    A. No, he didn’t represent me. He is one of the people inside the civil law firm. But my understanding — my understanding was that it was only the Rothstein — Rothstein and another attorney named Adler, another attorney named Ramieri. That was my understanding, and it still is today

    Q. Let me try and ask the question again okay? – in a clearer form, because perhaps I was not clear. And I apologize if I wasn’t. You signed a document that said from time to time between January 1st, 2000, and the date you signed the document, you were investigating Michael Jackson through various lawyers, correct?

    A. Okay. There’s more information on that paperwork which he purposely has taken out of context. It’s — certain events are attached to specific attorneys. Certain situations are attached to certain attorneys. Like I said, the police wanted to do an extensive, thorough investigation on me prior to doing it on him. So they wanted everything about me. So they made it in a general form. But he keeps taking it out of context
    MR. MESEREAU: I don’t want to offend the Court, Your Honor. I don’t think I actually got an answer to that, but I will leave it to the Court’s discretion.
    THE COURT: Ask your next question.
    MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor.

    Q. You did sign this document, correct?
    A. Yes, I did.
    MR. MESEREAU: I would move it into evidence, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: It’s admitted.
    MR. ZONEN: I will object, given the prior ruling dealing with confidentiality of the
    MR. MESEREAU: It’s redacted.
    MR. ZONEN: Perhaps we could argue this at the next break or the conclusion of the proceedings.
    THE COURT: All right. I’ll withhold ruling on it, on its admissibility, till –
    MR. MESEREAU: Shall I submit it to your clerk, Your Honor?
    THE COURT: Have you numbered it?
    MR. MESEREAU: I have not.
    THE COURT: Will you do that now, so we have a record of what you’re talking about? 6503
    THE CLERK: 5007.
    2 THE COURT: 5-0 –
    THE CLERK: 5007.
    THE COURT: All right. I’ll withhold ruling until we hear from the District Attorney.
    MR. MESEREAU: Yes, Your Honor, at this time

    susannerb , I think she admitted in court about investigating MJ prior to the meeting MJ, additional that she signed on the document that says “You signed a document that said from time to time between January 1st, 2000, and the date you signed the document, you were investigating Michael Jackson through various lawyers, correct?” even though she tried to manipulate what she said to the lawyers; don’t you think?

    Around that time when she was trying to scam or get money from celebrity and JC penne Michael was also on her list and she finally got close to him using her ill son who has cancer however she got some money and car from MJ but was not enough for her so she come up with this accusation, again I am glad she didn’t get penne.

    Like

  97. Liz permalink
    March 30, 2014 6:00 pm

    According to Jane Goodall Michael’s chimp Bubbles was physically abused under his care. I find this to be horrible and think that Michael may have sexually abused the poor chimp as well. How you people still try to stand up for this dead pervert is something I will never understand. You all live in another world.

    Like

  98. Mariam permalink
    March 30, 2014 5:19 pm

    Thank you susannerb , I am reading it and so far I do not find her statement which is the mother admitting that she planned it before she met MJ.

    But in general, unluckily, Michael did meet very wrong family who has very disturbing character, who was driven and very desperate to get money and be fames themselves with a cost of someone life. The mother is really corrupt person who has no hart who also make her kids life miserable for the sake of her own selfish desire. Who would do this to the person who helped you and your family in the most difficult time of your life? Who literally helped your sick child to survive, who was going through a lot and who was in between life and death situation, how could she do this to Michael? She is very, very cold and cruel person.

    Well, “it goes around it comes around”, one day there is a payment for what we have done wrong if we do not get mercy from God, because God seeing the victims who is hurt and crying, and He is a faithful and honest judge. It is just my opinion.

    Helena, thank you for posting Chris Cantore interview and once again it is very beautiful story of the man we all respect, again no matter what how bad is his enemies critics, his good did will challenge them and live for ever because it is very hard to denied that, it is existing truth because it is there like statue (MJ’s good did) in front of their eyes and is going to be challenging for his enemies and they will be furies about this truth. That is why that hater “Hello” was posted nasty comment the other day after we post about Bella Farcas’s.

    True is truth we cannot suppress or denied that. That makes me feel confident about his legacy.

    Dear Fan’s , God is in our side because we have a truth about this wonderful person called Michael Josephe Jackson, God will never forget his good did and his contribution to the poor’s and the disadvantage people, and so do we. I love him for that very much.

    Helena, your hard work all these years are not in vain, you are in the right side of the comp and your work is worthy. I do appreciate and respect you very much for that.

    Like

  99. Nan permalink
    March 30, 2014 12:46 pm

    I am just putting this link, that I saw through following Spielberg prophecies on twitter , who was having a conversation with tinklove05, Through these peoples efforts, I saw these court papers about Sneddons declaration for DDimond.and the Chandler stuff
    I have seen people talking about it on FB, so I thought I would put it here in case people hadnt seen them
    if you click on this persons twitter and scroll down to photos ,and click on photos, you can read the papers.
    https://twitter.com/tinklove05/with_replies

    Like

  100. susannerb permalink*
    March 30, 2014 4:58 am

    Thank you, Suparna. I will try to make a post about the film for those who couldn’t purchase the DVD.

    Like

  101. March 29, 2014 8:06 pm

    Felt this link is useful, hence posting. http://www.examiner.com/article/the-trials-of-michael-jackson-the-media-exposed. Lines from this link : The Trials of Michael Jackson is an extraordinary documentary/movie. Dana Gedrick and Barry Shaw, who produced the movie, came like others to film the trial. However, as they began to see the unspeakable reality, they stopped filming the trial. They began to film the media and the fans. “No one could have been prepared for what was to come. They had not anticipated all the compassion that would come from Michael’s fans, more importantly, they had no idea of how vicious the media was. Money grabbing media had already prepared headline reading guilty, and the verdict hadn’t even come in! Journalists, who for money did all they could possibly do remove fans from the trial, even assaulting them. The trial was a money maker for journalists, but this movie was their nightmare!” Riogirl left this comment for Dana and Barry, who were joined by Gregory Son on their broadcast.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/a-place-in-your-heart/2014/02/01/the-trials

    Like

  102. March 29, 2014 9:33 am

    “It’s another fact about Michael that supports his innocence. How can a person caring so much for his fellow men be the predator some haters try to make of him?”- Susannerb

    Susannerb, a very nice story from Chris Cantore. So his grandmother fainted when on a flight, Michael Jackson came running to her help and had her carried to the first class where he was staying, and made room for her there, and when they landed he offered to take her home, and when the car pulled at their house Chris’s mother saw her old parents leaving Michael Jackson’s car and him carrying their things for them? And he came into the house and admired their Christmas tree and sort of lingered there saying how warm the atmosphere in that house was? And they couldn’t believe that this was really happening?

    Now let us imagine a boy in the place of those elders and the terrible story they could have made out of it. This was the technology of their lies – out of thousands of good things done by Michael Jackson they selected only those that fit their agenda (about boys) and embellished them with further lies (“disadvantages child”, “grooming” and all other crap).

    And the remaining 99% of the good Michael did went overboard because it didn’t fit those people’s goals.

    The truth of the matter is that Michael behaved that way with ALL people who needed help – girls, boys, their parents, old people, just everyone. And he helped people on a routine basis – wherever he saw anyone in trouble. We know it because there are other instances of the same.

    These photos, for example, show Michael taking care of another old lady. See the tender and zealous way he is protecting her – the pictures were taken in 2002:

    MJ and old woman Michael Jackson taking care of an old woman 2002

    Like

  103. March 29, 2014 6:59 am

    “Helena, can we get the Janet Arvizo testimony which was done by Mr.Mesereau cross examination?” – Mariam

    Yes, of course we can. I’m just more dead than alive at the moment, and to be frank my thoughts are elsewhere too, but everyone who has an opportunity to search for it please do. And we can always ask Thomas Mesereau for more details.

    “To me it is a prove that indicates the accusation was pre-meditated plan.”

    I always thought that it was pre-mediated.

    The first time I realized the undercurrents running behind this case was when reading Dr. Katz’s conversation with Detective Zelis. What surprised me was that the psychiatrist was actually telling Gavin of the advantages of the civil suit and it sounded like he was persuading him to do it. This was completely unprofessional as all he was supposed to do was interviewing him in the best neutral manner possible.

    And the second thing that was standing out was the fact that even Janet Jackson was “ambivalent” about accusing Michael and at some point said that “they can’t do this”. This sounded to me like their refusal to go with the plan from the police, Sneddon, Larry Feldman and the psychiatrist, or at least very much doubt.

    Katz is talking to Detective Zelis:

    8 I sat down with Gavin, I said Gavin look, if you go ahead with the civil lawsuit,
    9 your family will get money if you win.

    10 PZ: Mmhm
    11 SK: I want you to understand that, but you also will be, your identity may be
    12 known.
    13 PZ: Right
    14 SK: And he sat there and started crying. So…I….I don’t feel like ya know, from
    15 Gavin’s point of view at all this is something he wants to do.
    16 PZ: Right
    17 SK: I think he feels really caught.
    18 PZ: Right right….well, my concern is….it’s not so much the kids wanting
    19 because like you said, they….they….they may not even know, ya know, the ins
    20 and outs of ya know, suing and getting’ money and all that, but urn, ya know, my
    21 thoughts would be,.well, is…is mom, ya know,
    22 SK: Is she doing something
    23 PZ: Leading them
    24 SK: Ya know….I….I get…I don’t think so. I….I….because mother’s been very
    25 ambivalent about it from the beginning

    26 PZ: Mmhm
    27 SK: And ya know, she’d call me back one day and canceled interview and said
    28 we can’t do it. Like just feel it’s too much, ya know. We just can’t do this.
    29 PZ: Right

    However once they decided to step on the accusation road all of it became totally different. Janet Arvizo did lead and coach the boys and they went for it hoping for a huge reward. And now they can’t retreat their steps.

    Well, of course they can, but it seems that they are in a deal with Sneddon and his people and are sort of their hostages. Too much is at stake and this is why the Arvizos are so well taken care of by these people now.

    Like

  104. March 29, 2014 6:49 am

    “the Arvizos and their case are very transparent and need no further study, but I think the spectacle and the behavior of the media that surrounded the trial are still worth to be exposed as an example for biased reporting, for media gone wild and for a society out of control.” – Susanne

    Yes, of course. I was just talking about the Arvizos’ case per se because up till now some people like quoting Star Arvizo’s reply to one MJ fan saying that “we just wanted to show the world the disgusting man you know as MJ”. Usually those who refer to it ask questions like “So what will you say to that now? They still think of him that way!”

    What can I say to that? Only that in order not to look like liars in the eyes of the whole world Arvizos have chosen to continue dragging the innocent man through the mud. And that they decided to show “what a disgusting man he was” seven months before they ever met him.

    It points not only to their own agenda but possibly even to a certain “request” from the authorities which they agreed to fulfil. It is well known that Janet Arvizo was on very good terms with the police before her meeting Michael. And it is also known that she was doubtful whether they would be able to implement it as at some point she informed the police that “they couldn’t do that”. She was referring to Gavin who initially was in much doubt.

    This makes me think that they agreed to work as sort of provocateurs for the police – to trigger off a new “molestation case” for Michael Jackson. In return people like Tom Sneddon could easily promise them help in a triumphant civil case where he would assist with the “evidence” and they would win millions.

    Like

  105. susannerb permalink*
    March 29, 2014 5:53 am

    Guys, this is worth posting. It’s a story Seven once told on her blog:
    http://www.mj-777.com/?s=Chris+Cantore
    The original link to the story told by Chris Cantore on his blog is no longer existing, but he also told his story on radio which is now posted on YT:

    It’s another fact about Michael that supports his innocence. How can a person caring so much for his fellow men be the predator some haters try to make of him?

    Like

  106. susannerb permalink*
    March 29, 2014 5:30 am

    Mariam:
    Sanemjfan is covering the whole 2005 trial on his blog. You can read Janet Arvizo’s testimony there: http://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/?s=Janet+Arvizo+testimony

    I don’t think Janet admitted this in court. But she apparently said something in this regard in a deposition before the trial, though I think she never would have admitted that she had a plan.
    On this blog you can find a link to the Veritas Project: http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/index2.html
    I read it again and it’s mentioned in Part I (see endnotes).

    Like

  107. Mariam permalink
    March 28, 2014 11:52 pm

    “These details were brought out before the trial by Mr. Mesereau” Deborah L. Kunesh

    “And you know, she admitted that in open court during Mesereau cross examination..SHAME on Sneddon …This is just one reason why I think they KNEW MJ was innocent before he ever walked into court” Nan Foster

    INTERESTING, very much. If this is true and she admitted, why the trial needs to go on for 6 month? Isn’t this fact itself exonerating MJ? If she admitted it in court, shouldn’t be the case closed? To me it is a prove that indicates the accusation was pre-meditated plan.

    Helena, can we get the Janet Arvizo testimony which was done by Mr.Mesereau cross examination? That will be our prove. If she admitted that in court, nobody can argue with this story. I will check TeamMichealJackson777 blog, I read that the site is back, thank God about that blog, because it is very good source for us.

    Like

  108. susannerb permalink*
    March 28, 2014 5:59 pm

    Helena, if I remember right this was mentioned in the Veritas Project. I will have to read it again, it was one of the first websites I found and studied after Michael’s death.

    Yes, the Arvizos and their case are very transparent and need no further study, but I think the spectacle and the behavior of the media that surrounded the trial are still worth to be exposed as an example for biased reporting, for media gone wild and for a society out of control.

    Like

  109. March 28, 2014 1:58 pm

    Guys, when I was looking through my facebook page today (where I spend a lot of time now due to the latest events) I found that Deborah Kunesh posted very important information about the Arvizo case. If this was discussed before I’m sorry as I evidently missed it. Here it is:

    Deborah L. Kunesh
    DID YOU KNOW THAT GAVIN ARVIZO’S MOTHER JANET CONSULTED A CIVIL LAWYER ABOUT HER SON BEING MOLESTED BY MICHAEL JACKSON MANY MONTHS BEFORE THEY EVER MET MICHAEL JACKSON???

    Did you know that Janet Arvizo (the mother of Gavin Arvizo, the boy who claimed abuse and the subsequent 2005 Michael Jackson trial) consulted with a civil lawyer about suing Michael Jackson for molesting her son and that, in January 2000, when she met with this civil lawyer, neither she, nor her son, had ever MET Michael Jackson??? TRUTH. In fact, the Arvizo’s would not meet Michael Jackson until many months later. These details were brought out before the trial by Mr. Mesereau.

    “In January 2000, a woman named Janet Arvizo consulted with a civil lawyer about suing Michael Jackson for having allegedly molested her son.1 This would have been the second child molestation lawsuit filed against Jackson, the first being the result of sexual abuse allegations that were made by a 13-year-old boy in 1993.

    The problem, however, is that in January 2000, Janet Arvizo had never met Michael Jackson; neither had her son. In fact, it would still be another seven months before Jackson would even be introduced to the Arvizo family.

    Three years after their initial meeting in August 2000, Janet Arvizo’s son accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse; the pop star is currently preparing to fight these claims in court. During a recent pre-trial hearing, Arvizo’s plans to sue Michael Jackson before she had even met him were made public by Jackson’s lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. According to Mesereau, Arvizo had revealed this information to investigators in June 2003, when she and her children first made accusations against Jackson.”

    Now if this is the case we don’t need to learn anything else about the Arvizos. No need to discuss their testimonies at the trial, no need to talk about Sneddon and all the rest of that 2005 trial absurdity.

    If Janet Arvizo consulted her civil lawyer about her son being “molested” SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE THEY EVEN MET MICHAEL, the matter should be closed forever after without ever even looking their way.

    This argument alone is killing the Arvizos’ case.

    Like

  110. anny permalink
    March 26, 2014 7:41 am

    Bella Farcas’s question is strange. I think Michael already answered why. He always wanted to heal the world. If they were ill, he tried to cure them, if they needed mental support, he was there. For him, Bella and Dave Dave are also his sons. But I want to thank all MJ fans or anyone who baught his music, without your support, Bella wouldn’t survive. He isn’t only Michael’s son, he is also your son. That’s what Michael always tried to tell us, he loves all children of the world. Michael would be very happy to know he has a grand daughter now. I can imagine how happy he would be while holding his grand daughter.

    Like

  111. March 26, 2014 1:27 am

    Randall Sullivan’s book was a notable commercial failure, selling fewer than four thousand copies. How does it rate a paperback edition – there’s no demand for it?

    Like

  112. March 24, 2014 1:03 pm

    Guys, King Jordan informs of a new program with Thomas Mesereau in two days:

    Tom Mesereau returns to King Jordan Radio this Wednesday March 26. 2014. He will be covering The BladeRunner Trial and the latest on Wade Robson.
    Mr. Mesereau who last joined us on Jan 2 ,2014 will also be covering the new paperback edition of Randall Sullivan’s book .
    We will be taking your calls. If you have any questions please call and we will try to answer all of your questions.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan-king/2014/03/27/tom-mesereau-on-the-bladerunner-trial-and-the-latest-on-wade-robson

    Like

  113. Amaya permalink
    March 23, 2014 5:26 pm

    Hi, just stopping by and would like to give a shout out to a true hero and a great man Dr. Conrad Murray. A man who knows how to take out the trash. Keep up the great work doc and kill more child molesters. The people are behind you!

    This is why people can’t take haters seriously. They keep sprouting off contrived, disgusting bullshit like this. The more I see comments like this, the more I hate humanity despite all my efforts to be kind and hopeful like Michael said we should be.

    Like

  114. March 23, 2014 4:36 pm

    “Hi, just stopping by and would like to give a shout out to a true hero and a great man Dr. Conrad Murray. A man who knows how to take out the trash. Keep up the great work doc and kill more child molesters. The people are behind you!”

    Murderers are saluting another murderer.

    Like

  115. March 23, 2014 4:27 pm

    The fact that Michael not only paid for Bella Farcas’s operation but also took care of the boy’s treatment for 10 years after that will tell people all they need to know about Michael.

    If they don’t understand at least now the spirit that was driving Michael it means that they are hopeless.

    So Michael saw a boy with a yellow face and swollen belly, found a donor, paid $150,000 for the operation, took care of the boy’s treatment for ten years after that and no one knew about it, and kept sending the boy gifts and stayed in contact with him. And the orphan that was doomed to death at the age of 4 lived long enough to be 24 and become a father himself. And Michael never boasted about it and always sounded as if it was the most natural thing to do in life.

    Now it is especially interesting to see how this story was presented by the press in 1994. Please note the irony and sarcasm of the media and how they look down on everything Michael is doing. The overall attitude is that of scorn and ridicule:

    Hungarian Rhapsody
    By DAN SANTOW
    UPDATED 08/22/1994 at 01:00 AM EDT • Originally published 08/22/1994 at 01:00 AM EDT

    IT’S HOT, IT’S SWEATY, IT’S BUDAPEST IN AUGUST. WITH cameras rolling, Michael Jackson, portraying a sort of Liberator of the Eastern Bloc, marches across the courtyard of a 13th-century castle while 300 extras in Red Army uniforms follow. Fireworks detonate, wind machines blow, confetti flies. Cut!

    Michael, carrying on his shoulder a satin-clad midget named Michu, his longtime friend and frequent traveling companion, strolls back to his trailer. His wife, Lisa Marie, is holding his hand. Moments later, a blue Mercedes pulls up, bearing lunch. Foie gras? Truffles? A bottle of Dom Perignon, maybe? Nope, just a Pizza Hut cheese special for two. Price? $8.71.

    Days into a surprise visit by the World’s Most Famous Newlyweds, Hungarians don’t know whether to try to make sense of Michael, 35, and Lisa Marie, 26, or give way to temptation and make fun. The concept behind Jackson’s video—which will help launch his upcoming greatest hits album, History—has done the most to raise eyebrows. “Geopolitically, it’s wacky,” says Alan Krauss, managing editor of the English-language weekly Budapest San. “I think the idea of Michael Jackson showing himself liberating Eastern Europe is in questionable taste.” Nonetheless, he grudgingly concedes, “Michael Jackson certainly seems to know more about what the human race will accept than I do.”

    No question there. Thousands of fans camped outside the Grand Hotel Corvinus Kempinksi, where the honeymooners settled into a pair of $3,800-a-night adjoining suites. “We love him,” gushes Carmen Zurita, a 24-year-old secretary who traveled from her home in Madrid to see Jackson. She adds, though, that “it’s a little different now that he’s married.”

    Jackson could testify to that. In well-orchestrated photo-op appearances, Michael and Lisa Marie were always side by side, holding hands (hers with wedding band, his without) and whispering private jokes. On Saturday they doled out thousands of gifts—toys, diapers, formula, linens—to two children’s hospitals. Two days later Michael’s spokesman announced that the singer would pay $150,000 for a liver transplant necessary to save the life of a 4-year-old named Bela Farkas. Some saw Jackson’s actions as too blatant an attempt to garner good press in the wake of career-damaging child molestation allegations. “We are anxious Bela does not become a toy of the pop world,” said Dr. Dizseri Tamas of the Hungarian Reform Church Bethesda Children’s Hospital. “But we need all the friends we can get.”

    The couple seemed happy with each other and oblivious to skepticism. While Michael performed for the cameras, Lisa Marie stood nearby, chewing gum and blowing bubbles. Said a member of the Jackson entourage: “She is like a proud parent watching her child at a school play.”

    DAN SANTOW
    PETER MIKELBANK in Budapest

    http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20103723,00.html

    By the way I don’t know whether Michael liberated the whole of Eastern Europe but he liberated me for sure. If it were not for Michael Jackson I wouldn’t be what I am now.

    Like

  116. Hello permalink
    March 23, 2014 3:18 pm

    Hi, just stopping by and would like to give a shout out to a true hero and a great man Dr. Conrad Murray. A man who knows how to take out the trash. Keep up the great work doc and kill more child molesters. The people are behind you!

    Like

  117. March 23, 2014 2:12 pm

    I hope this will make you cry or smile or both at the same time. Do you remember this young man? -Mariam

    Mariam, Bella Farcas’s story is like a true ray of light in this sea of darkness. This site has the full story:

    http://www.michaeljackson.ru/eng/bela-farkas/

    Hungarian magazine “Story” published a surprising article about Bela Farkas, the young man from Hungary, whose life Michael Jackson saved 20 years ago. The story was prompted by a happy occasion: Bela recently became a father.
    The young man on the picture is Bela, the same little boy whom Michael and his then wife Lisa Marie met in a children’s hospital in Budapest in 1994 (Bela’s story was briefly told in one of the previous articles). He never gave an interview before – this was his first conversation with journalists in 20 years.

    Bela was born with a serious anomaly: an undeveloped hepatic lobe, a life-threatening condition that required a liver transplant. Such surgeries were not performed in Hungary at the time and were very expensive abroad. Bela’s parents abandoned him at birth, so he had no hope to get the money.
    When Michael visited the hospital, he asked doctors why the boy was so thin and yellow in the face and was explained Bela’s condition. Michael immediately said that he would pay for the surgery. It was a rare occasion when Jackson’s charitable act received publicity and media coverage.

    Michael himself recounted Bela’s story in documentary “Michael Jackson: The Private Home Movies” eight years later:

    What Michael didn’t mention in the film was that he not only found a donor for the boy and paid for the surgery, but also continued paying for Bela’s treatment for the next ten years. “I don’t even like to think about it,” says Bela. “The treatment cost $15 thousand a year. Michael spent over 50 million forints on me – just because he happened to meet me in the hospital.”

    Shortly after his surgery Bela was adopted, so he grew up with loving parents eventually. This TV spot about Bela was made about a year after his surgery:

    When Michael returned to Hungary in 1996 with his History our, he met with Bela again. The boy then said to him: “You are like my dad. Thanks to you, I was born for the second time.” Michael laughed and answered: “Then you are my son.”

    They stayed in touch until Michael’s death. Michael sent Bela cards, birthday and Christmas gifts, and Bela answered with drawings and photos. When Michael passed away, Bela cried as if he had lost his dad.

    Bela is 24 now, and in February 2014 he became a father of a healthy newborn girl. He says the doctors predicted he would not live past his 18th birthday, and here he is at 24 still doing well. He will always be very grateful to Michael. “If I could,” admits Bela, “I would ask him, ‘Of all children in that hospital, why did you choose me?’”

    MJ and Bella Farcas in 1996

    So Michael not only paid for Bella’s operation but he also paid for his treatment for 10 years after that!

    Like

  118. mariam permalink
    March 22, 2014 10:00 pm

    I hope this will make you cry or smile or both at the same time. Do you remember this young man?

    No matter what, his goodness and generosity cannot be denied, because there are people who witnessed that and their testimony speaks loud. His legacy will live for long, long time.

    Liked by 1 person

  119. Kate permalink
    March 22, 2014 7:04 pm

    Hi there! Sorry this is so off topic, but I can’t seem to find the answer anywhere and you guys are so knowledgeable I was hoping one of you might be able to tell me. Who is the guy in this photo with Michael and where might they be? I’ve always wanted to know for some reason, so if anyone knows or has a clue, that would be great. Thank you!

    Like

  120. March 17, 2014 2:18 am

    Dear Helena,

    Hope you are well. I understand that the political situation in Russia is volatile at this stage. Do take care. Thanks a tonne for revisiting this topic of Michael’s child molestation- post the ugly comment that was left by a freak about Michael. You have handled the same topic with a lot of novelty. Kudos to that.

    Like

  121. Mariam permalink
    March 16, 2014 5:45 pm

    Unfortunately, it is getting difficult to find, trustworthy, fair, honest, caring, loving, generous people who has integrity to work or to be friend with anymore.

    We have seen, some of people who are genuinely care and helped a thousand people vanished systematically like Princes Diana and Michael Jackson e.t.c that is the sad part of our history.

    We have still a lot of beautiful people who has beautiful heart and sole and thank God about them. A lot of us survived because of them and we also know a lot of ill and starved children, young’s and adults survived because of Princes Diana and Michael Jackson contribution itself.

    We just don’t fully understand how big is our lost how valuable they were especially, for those who needs them.

    Like

  122. March 16, 2014 4:59 pm

    People making inane statements about things like raping babies should be advised to read VMJ article of May 17:th 2010 for a dose of reality.It is easyly found via the calendar.

    Like

  123. Mariam permalink
    March 16, 2014 4:23 pm

    When I read something like this it makes me wonder and feel to share it with you. Sorry, for posting unrelated topic.

    “ I made no attempt to work with a conventional publishing company because many “knowers” assured me that the American publishing industry was not interested in a positive book about Michael Jackson. It was trash that sold – sensationalism, rumor, innuendo, allegations, and sordid stories. I self-published Defending A King ~ His Life & Legacy in December 2011.” Dr. Karen Moriarty

    I don’t read the book but I saw her comment on Amazon site

    “American publishing industry was not interested in a positive book about Michael” wow!

    American publishing industry, Music industry, the media, Santa Barbara County sheriff’s deputies (attorney Tom Sneddon), Sony (Tome Mettola), joules and back stabber friends and former employees, haters you name it, it is countless if you want to list his enemies.

    It is amazing to see, how big and organized his enemies are. Even if is alive, I don’t think he could live in his own home land anymore, even if he would, they will sue him with everything and make his life miserable. He was treated really badly by his own people. As Chandler’s said and eventually did, they destroyed the man.

    I think MJ’s situation and what happened to him should awake everybody and be aware of what is going on. Being naive is a greatest fail this days in my opinion that is how I see it now, because there is a lot of wicked people who took advantage of that.

    Unfortunately, it is getting difficult to find, trustworthy, fair, honest, caring, loving, generous people who has integrity to work or to be friend with anymore. Harder to find now days, that should be really a concern for future generation. I am afraid that our children will be accepted as it is smartness or civilization, and gradually human lose a value and dignity and, as result hate, selfishness, greed, controlling, ignorant and crime will take a place.

    Like

  124. susannerb permalink*
    March 16, 2014 8:12 am

    Thank you for your comments, guys.
    29mj, you’ve said it in great words. People who leave comments like this Jacko guy will never take responsibility for their words and actions and have no noble goals.

    Let’s leave the comment there for everybody to see who the real freaks are.

    Like

  125. 29mj permalink
    March 15, 2014 8:41 pm

    ”Pedo clown Jack raped babies and fapped off to child porn. How can you people stand for this nonsense?”

    Dear Jacko… Every human being has the freedom to express themselves freely. But, we must not forget the laws which are required to know and respect them.
    To be free, clean, credible persons means to assume our statements. Furthermore, when we are questioned should to have the good sense to respond with proofs, with doings. Only then we can show that we are responsible persons and certainly we know our rights and obligations. I would very much like to know whose is your noble goal, aim which you have dedicated your knowledge and for what? I would like to think that you are a responsible person? Isn’t that right? Do you think it’s a nonsense of you will assume, to prove such great responsibility?

    Like

  126. March 15, 2014 12:42 pm

    Splotces and discolourations may have changed over the years, from 1993 to 2009,but the uncircumcision does not..And especially you do not make any error judging an erect penis.

    Like

  127. Amaya permalink
    March 14, 2014 7:49 pm

    Sweet merciful crap you trolls aren’t even trying now. -_- If anyone here thought he did that, this blog would not exist and we wouldn’t be fans. Simple as that.

    Like

  128. newrodrigo permalink
    March 14, 2014 6:27 pm

    He did?!

    Prove it.

    Like

  129. Jacko was a freak permalink
    March 14, 2014 3:57 pm

    Pedo clown Jack raped babies and fapped off to child porn. How can you people stand for this nonsense?

    Like

  130. March 13, 2014 4:26 am

    “I notice how when you were discussing the possibility that Jordie was referring to Michael Jackson’s penis as being “a light color similar to the color of his face”, you never concluded whether he was talking about the splotches or the penis. Instead, you changed the subject to Seth Clerk Silberman.” – Creamcakes

    Creamcakes, if I didn’t make myself clear enough I will correct the post. I always try to write in a manner to make people think on their own and don’t push ready-made ideas into their heads.

    However if you say that my statements were not clear enough I will look them up again (a little later today) and change them to express my views in a more definite way. Thank you for your criticism, I hope it will improve the post.

    And yes, Jordan was speaking of a light splotch. Sorry, I thought it was obvious.

    And I didn’t “change the subject” by referring to Seth Clerk Silberman. I used him as proof that I and everyone in the media who trumpeted of “a light splotch the color of his face” understood Jordan’s words correctly.

    P.S. I’ve rewritten it a bit.

    Like

  131. Creamcakes permalink
    March 13, 2014 3:57 am

    I notice how when you were discussing the possibility that Jordie was referring to Michael Jackson’s penis as being “a light color similar to the color of his face”, you never concluded whether he was talking about the splotches or the penis. Instead, you changed the subject to Seth Clerk Silberman.

    I’m not trying to be negative at all, but I’m just pointing this out. It would seem that Jordie said that it was Michael’s penis that was a light color.

    Like

  132. March 13, 2014 2:52 am

    “I’m confused now. I checked on the Wayback machine and that site never said MJ was circumcized?? Maybe someone else can find it.” – Crantzo

    Crantzo, as far as I know their website has changed its layout and turned from a “black” background into a “white” one. Together with changing the color scheme they probably changed the text too (I haven’t checked it up myself).

    When I was writing about their changing history tactics in February 2012 in this post about MJ’s
    unpredictable past (https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/rewriting-history-or-michael-jacksons-unpredictable-past/) I made a screenshot of what they were saying and placed it in the post to illustrate my point.

    Here it is:

    Ah, but Jordan said Michael Jackson was circumcised, yet he wasn’t.
    Where did the information come from? Where did Jordan say Jackson was circumcised? Once again, I refer readers to one of the opening paragraphs – only a few law enforcement officers have seen both the photos and Jordan’s description – so we can be sure the information that Jackson was circumcised certainly didn’t come from Jordan’s actual description.

    So they allege that Jordan didn’t say it, while actually he did.

    If this piece is no longer there, well … this chameleonic behavior is absolutely typical of the scum whose job is to lie about Michael. They hit and run, then remove all stains of dirt they’ve left behind, then throw a new lie and remove all the stains again.

    The result is overwhelming confusion which is actually their main goal. Nobody understands anything and the overall impression is the usual: “No one will know the whole truth now” and “There must be something to it as there is no smoke without fire”.

    The problem is that ordinary people will never have time or desire to really look and check up. If they did they would realize that all the smoke was created by these very liars. Liars who first tell one lie, then contradict it, then tell a dozen more lies, then contradict them again, and so on and so forth.

    It reminds me of a joke about a stolen fur coat:

    – “Do you remember that fur coat story and X.?”
    – “Of course I do. It is something about him stealing a fur coat or a fur coat stolen from him.”

    What I mean is that everyone remembers the story and a “fur coat theft” label stuck to MJ, and it is no longer important whether the man was a culprit or a victim in this story.

    Like

  133. Crantzo permalink
    March 12, 2014 11:23 pm

    I’m confused now. I checked on the Wayback machine and that site never said MJ was circumcized?? Maybe someone else can find it.

    Like

  134. Nan permalink
    March 12, 2014 5:22 pm

    Interestingly enough , regarding the Alison Weiner article regarding powerful people moving on, from blackballing Mel Gibson, Roger Friedman , who is also Jewish , has responded to her article almost immediately and taken a different stance regarding Mr Gibson.

    I would not have thought that many people would have even noticed her article , much less taken the time to rebut it , but we have an immediate response, regarding Gibson, because Mr Friedman has a platform and it is obviously important enough to him to take the time to reply to her article..however, I didnt notice him disagree on the powerful people she talks about , ..
    http://www.showbiz411.com/2014/03/12/mel-gibson-defense-omits-his-70-million-private-church-thats-anti-pope-modern-catholic-beliefs

    BYW he came out swinging at Mia Farrow regarding the accusations made against Woody Allen also,, and immediately sided with Allen..

    Like

  135. Nan permalink
    March 12, 2014 4:46 pm

    Helena , you are right about Stanley Katz ..I cant believe that Detective Ronel agreed with Katz regarding his assessment of MJ, knowing full well , that he was Chandlers guy, and of course if you believe Chandler , of course it would follow , it was criminal behavior……Which would follow that that entire thing was a lie….Whole thing was a witchhunt.

    Regarding Woody Allen, you could very well be right.
    It is amazing how there is a campaign to clear his name and a campaign to dirty MJ, isnt it..
    But the business world , media , entertainment business is largely run by people who are Jewish and I think that is the big difference we have all mentioned before

    This article was written by Alison Weiner, ..You may recall Mr Mesereau has been on her show as well as Mr Weitzman.
    When Wade made his accusations , she brought it up to Weitzman , and he just looked at her , and she said , more or less, ok it is BS.., however she initially treated it as a possibility of being true…
    However for Woody Allen she immediately gave him the benefit of the doubt.
    Anyway , I dont like to jump to conclusions about Woody Allen either because of what was done to MJ.But I found this article very interesting she wrote about forgiving Mel Gibson, because he has been black balled in the entertainment business due to his remarks about Jewish people..
    She openly acknowledges his career tanked because powerful people made it tank.And also other people jumping on to sabotage him , which of course we know happened to MJ ..
    It is too bad we cant have someone acknowledge in print that happened to him.
    Just seems like a really ugly business to be in ..

    Long and short of it , I think Michael angered alot of powerful people in that business, when he wrote the original lyrics to They Dont Really Care About Us..I think there was a thing about his video reminding some of old Nazi propaganda film or something too.
    Plus, Evan Chandler being Jewish ,and a half Jewish boy supposedly violated , all the lawyers he used, Katz etc…people tend to stick together
    http://www.deadline.com/2014/03/mel-gibson-career-hollywood-deserves-chance/

    Anyway Im sure people have probably seen Stanley Katz youtube station , Mr Mesereau had mention under cross that he wanted to be a tv personality and here his is , looking quite pleased to be on television

    Like

  136. March 12, 2014 2:56 pm

    “Why are people afraid to touch the subject of MJ innocence in the mainstream media..This is what makes me believe that powerful people would like everyone ot forget about how the trial ended. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/us/the-trial-that-unleashed-hysteria-over-child-abuse.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0” – Nan

    Nan, I’ve read the article and think that the general attitude of it is correct though it is clear that its ultimate goal is to whitewash Woody Allen. If it weren’t for him the NYTimes would have never written this. They don’t give a damn that Michael was wrongly accused and their present text about the false allegations in McMartin’s school case is only because of Woody Allen.

    But the end result is still good. They are right in restraining the public from the mass frenzy in case of such allegations. If people learn to react this way it will already be great progress.

    As regards McMartin’s case let me remind everybody that the person who trained the interviewers and worked out methods of interviewing those children was no other but Dr. Katz who was also the one who analyzed Jordan Chandler’s taped interview (with Dr. Richard Gardner in 1993) and who was also involved in the Arvizo case.

    And it was this same Dr. Katz who said in a telephone conversation with Detective Paul Zelis that Michael Jackson did NOT fit the profile of a ped-le.

    He called him a “regressed 10-year old”. Though this type of an assessment is also wrong and rather offensive to Michael, the truth of the matter still remains the same – even Dr. Katz, the one who stood behind the terrible McMartin school case, didn’t think bad of Michael:

    … “you know, he doesn’t even really qualify as a pedophile. He’s really just this regressed 10-year-old.”
    “Yeah, yeah, I agree,” replied Zelis.
    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jackson-case-psychologist

    What’s top important to remember here is Dr. Katz analyzed BOTH allegations against Michael – those by Jordan Chandler and Arvizos. And this means that even after watching Jordan Chandler’s video tape with Dr. Gardner (it was a video tape) he still didn’t believe him.

    So when Michael’s haters clatter about some psychologists who – never seeing the “victims” or the accused man – say various crap about Michael, they forget that even their best analyst Dr. Katz thought that Michael was not fitting that profile.

    And this was the man who had first-hand information about both cases.

    Like

  137. susannerb permalink*
    March 12, 2014 11:57 am

    Thank you, Amaya.
    As Ckuck’s comment was indeed disgusting and highly offending and even worse than what our rule #1 implies, I have deleted his/her comment.

    Like

  138. Amaya permalink
    March 11, 2014 7:46 pm

    Ckuck – What a horrible person you are. You’re quick to make harsh, sickening, holier-than-thou remarks and don’t even consider other possibilities despite all the other viewpoints standing before you. I hope Helena deletes your disgusting, poisonous comment.

    Like

  139. MICHAELX permalink
    March 11, 2014 4:41 pm

    Helena, I hope you’re well.

    Like

  140. Nan permalink
    March 10, 2014 9:17 pm

    I also wanted to mention in the comments many people recognize that the accusations to the McMartin trial came therapists leading the children into saying things and ambitious prosecutors etc..sounds familiar to me regarding MJ

    Like

  141. Nan permalink
    March 10, 2014 9:11 pm

    Helena , I hope everything is alright with you ..
    I was just putting this article up regarding the McMartin preschool accusations and what a witchhunt it was.
    The author is talking about accusations ruining peoples lives , and the media playing a part in it .He mentions people wondering about Woody Allen., but no mention of MJ and the incredible horror he was put through that resulted in vindication and 14 not guilty verdicts.
    He was and remains probably the most famous person in the world…
    Why are people afraid to touch the subject of MJ innocence in the mainstream media..This is what makes me believe that powerful people would like everyone ot forget about how the trial ended.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/us/the-trial-that-unleashed-hysteria-over-child-abuse.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

    Like

  142. March 8, 2014 12:51 pm

    Helena we are all concerned about the present situation.I have tries to contact you ,but the mails do not get through.Hope you are well.

    Like

  143. Sina permalink
    March 6, 2014 5:17 pm

    Helena its reckless powerplay. I hope it does not escalate to the next Bosnia.and that someone with common sense will stand up.
    There will be no winners here , only losers , the innocent .

    Like

  144. March 6, 2014 3:20 pm

    Guys, the only thing I want to say is that whatever madness some people in my country are falling into I DON’T SUPPORT IT. I can’t even believe that all this nightmare is really happening. Every Russian would welcome the Crimea back – there is no denial that, but not at THIS price.

    In fact now I am ashamed to be a Russian.

    Like

  145. Amaya permalink
    March 5, 2014 8:46 pm

    Perhaps to stop spambots? They’ve started to creep up in the comments recently. Could also be a reason why some older articles are getting popular again.

    Like

  146. March 5, 2014 9:02 am

    Mye-mail accounts have been disabled “temporarily” hmm.

    Like

  147. Mariam permalink
    March 4, 2014 6:37 pm

    Sorry about the situation you and the country going through Helena. I hope God will interfere and everything will be resolve peacefully. We will pray and God will hear, take care.

    Like

  148. March 4, 2014 1:15 pm

    Guys, thank you very much for your comments.
    Unfortunately we are occupied with other stuff right now due to the tense situation in Eastern Europe. I’m sorry to tell you that Helena is not able at the moment to reply or write a new post because the developments in her home country keep her busy and in low spirits, too.
    We hope that this situation will be solved soon. It is important that we all pray for peace!!!

    Like

  149. March 3, 2014 7:00 am

    very good information about micheal jakson ! we cannot find such information like on this site

    Like

  150. 29mj permalink
    March 2, 2014 12:47 pm

    Dear Miriam,
    Do not worry! Michael can not be accused of anyone child, never, I assure you of that! His innocence is known, was proven. And there is something, something very important, something that doesn’t forget anymore – there is no evidence for these claims. Judges and prosecutors are straight people, too smart, routine and will not admit to the cause than evidence – proofs. It is a “no” definitive whatever false, even if we admit and we know these is fakes and are the intentions accusers. They didn’t will earn money from lies and forgeries. Shame, defeat will be their success will be their final sentence. Now more than ever the truth will win, is our revelation, is fulfillment Michael’s desire. I am more than convinced of the innocence of Michael and I trust in the ability, alertness those people from justice whom will be entrusted the case. It’s time that the pain, suffering of Michael to end, to stop here and now and light the truth to be the way of silence, peace, love that Michael wanted all his life! God bless all of us.

    Like

  151. 29mj permalink
    March 2, 2014 11:35 am

    Today, 5.30 pm I left a message on nj.com and I wroted what I felt on behalf of the fans of Michael J. We know once and forever that Michael’s innocence was proved. I indicated the source of truth and I will not return, even if that person will come back with other comments. I will access the link only to vote for Michael. It is very clear that it is not necessary to return each time to explain just because these people are living and feed their own inability causing attacks scandal on various sites. Their inability must be treated with apathy. I believe that if we do not respond to their outrageous challenges they automatically self-destruct. It is my opinion. Thus and only so we can avoid polemics.
    Dear W, I haven’t read that book – V.G´s book. All my love.

    Like

  152. lynande51 permalink
    March 1, 2014 7:33 pm

    I don’t worry about the Estate making a deal with Wade. That rumor tried to take hold last summer introduced by no other than Adrian McManus on her FB page or her Twitter .

    Like

  153. Mariam permalink
    March 1, 2014 6:49 pm

    A correction “Murray and Wad has a deal/ paid by AEG to do whatever they are doing now to potentially hurt MJ’s legacy and KJ.”

    Please read it as “Murray and Waed may/might have a deal/paid by AEG to do….” I am not certain or I have no prove that indicate they has/had deal or paid to them, but highly suspicious.

    Like

  154. Mariam permalink
    March 1, 2014 6:40 pm

    I am worried though, if the rumour is true, Estate may settle the case with WR, I am afraid that will encourage all those children who were around Michael all those years, because it is a million dollars game and they too want get millions. Don’t you think?

    Like

  155. Mariam permalink
    March 1, 2014 6:07 pm

    “Just watching the statements and the interviews where he talks about it, he never says, even when directly asked, that he didn’t do it. He always says “I would never harm a child” (why didn’t he flat out say “I didn’t do it” in those terms?)” Deana

    Deana, I have a question for you, what do you say about those criminals/p++ile who said boldly “I didn’t do it”?. They do say that all the time and they pleaded not guilty under oath even though they know they did it and even though the evidence prove their guilt clearly. Do you think they are innocent and does that change your mind and do you let them go free because they said to you “I didn’t do it”? If you are a jury, you will make a big mistake with that assumption and you probably free the criminal and throwing innocent person to jail.

    I think, MJ also said “I didn’t do it” sometime, somewhere, I will check his interviews again.

    Anyway, It is better to find a solid prove to convict that person. There is the way of saying “the person is not guilty unless proven” I think that is right thinking to start, because that person is also deserve justice, he is a human, we need to care for the accused person life too.

    I don’t think the real criminals/p++ile are investigated/tracked intensively as done to MJ in USA. But nothing found that relevant to make me think he is guilty, not even suspicious.

    Beside the police investigation, FBI also was involving with this investigation for years, nothing relevant evidence found to convict him as per FBI report and also 12 jurors did not found him guilty, so the whole thing is a drama as far as I see it.

    “Is it at all possible that he really just didn’t think he was “harming” them and that it wasn’t sexual?” Deana

    Again, this is also wrong justification. Don’t make no mistake on this, Deana.
    Michal Jackson is 50 years old man who is married two times and has 3 children. He was not a child but childlike. Yes, he has pure heart and innocent like a child but in contrast Michael Jackson was very smart sophisticated man in many ways. A lot of people who works with him and work for him for long time witnessed that. They called him geniuses, brilliant, smart business man and he was also very serious reader. They said he was very knowledgeable.

    Moreover, he was the person who was accused with this kind of case not once but twice. He definitely knows what is appropriate and what is not; actually I will say probably none of us know about this better than him because of life experience he had.

    He was going through with this accusation a lot and learned a lot even advised to be careful by his friends and his lawyers, and for sure by his family, so I guaranty you that, he knows having sex with kids or conducting with such kind of behaviour is highly inappropriate and also knows that it is such a big crime in North America.
    Also knows he would go jail for 10 or 20 years for even for small innocent mistakes when it comes harming children.

    I am telling you, I even learned a lot from his accusation, I can say I am learning even from his suffering, what he was going through and still is unbelievable, what a battle he had? what a journey he had? It blows my mind every time when I think about it. O my dear, it is hard to think about his pain and his life. It hurts.

    Now, if anybody trying to tell that MJ did not know what is right and what is wrong is not really good thing, It just makes me smile.

    But this is what I observed about Michael if I am not mistaken, he believed loving children, playing and being friend with them, even children’s coming in and out from his bedroom, watching a move with them, even sleeping in one room with them, hugging and kissing them (which he did it in public, in front of camera all the time) is absolutely innocent, for him it is just the expiration of his love and care for children.

    Which is absolutely normal in the other part of the world, his mind was not dirty at all. It is true, he was trying to tell the world that loving and care about children is very important, because he knew that from his personal life, he learn from his own childhood experience, he was more advanced and understanding how healthy childhood is very important in the child’s future and even for future of our world.

    His ambition and goal was to be heard and help children’s as much as he can. He said it in public “I will fight for children for the rest of my life” that was in his mind nothing else. He was trying to remove their pain, sickness and depression every way he can. He was trying to take their burden and make life easier and helping to take away their depression for those sick kids. Wishing them to have and giving them the childhood that he never had.

    But his enemies are chosen to turn that around against him that is the WHOLE TRUTH we don’t understand. That was the only way they could get him down. We just go around and around but the truth was simple, his relationship with kids was innocent. Period, but we were so brainwashed by media constantly for long time, and finally the lie become truth to us.

    The ironic is this, his enemies knows the truth than me and you, they know MJ was not child molester, they know deep down he didn’t do it, but that was a little hole they can get in to, to get him and destroy him. Some people they wanted him go/vanished, they don’t want see him in music industry, they don’t want him to see raising again that was how I sense it during that time when he was alive. I wasn’t even follow up what was going on seriously at that time, from just seeing from far, what they were trying to do and to come up with was telling me that they just don’t want to see him.

    Black guy came from poor family from Indiana all of the sudden influencing all world that label, cause a serious headache to them. It bothers them the fact that he was owning Neverland , owning beatles catalogue ( sometimes I regret that for him having Neverland ,also I wish he shouldn’t never buy specially that beetles catalogue) I personally think, that beatles catalogue, having billion dollars’ worth of asset, was bothers them very much, seriously, because they want it for themselves. Lately, they even tried hard to take it from him and they did use any means they could to take it. I hope they will not taking it from his children.

    I had to stop here, I am saying too much because I am hurt.

    Like

  156. Mariam permalink
    March 1, 2014 3:21 pm

    “I think this is what we are seeing right now .A desperate person, with very few options “Nan

    And also do not forgot the suspicion that Wad has a tie with AEG, Murray and Wad has a deal/ paid by AEG to do whatever they are doing now to potentially hurt MJ’s legacy and KJ.

    AEG is behind all this, no doubt about that. I wish if Eastet lawyers work on that. All AEG presenting on the trial was making MJ look bad (as he was hopeless addicted, a looser, worthless, lazy, Freak e.t.c) they were not defending themselves really, they were just trying to destroy his legacy.

    AEG told us from the beginning that they were in the missions to destroy MJ “AEG Lawyer Says Ugly stuff to come in Michael Jackson death trial”. So they are in the mission then and still. it is on going war.

    Because, I believe what AEG did to MJ, hurts their reputation and that bothered/concerned them a lot, I believe AEG still biter and they will do whatever to revenge MJ &KJ, so they will be behind Waed Robson accusation.

    You know Money is a root of sin and it is evil if you really do not know how to live with a lot of money. People will do anything for money as MJ sing it. Love of money is crazy.

    Like

  157. March 1, 2014 3:18 pm

    I should have said:”his kind of love” when speaking about V.G.and his ilk.

    Like

  158. March 1, 2014 3:11 pm

    So true 29mj.Hatred, envy jealosy and the vengance felt by p–l´s ,like that of a rejected lover. They so much wanted him to be one of them.I feel V.G´s book is something like a thwarted love letter. It expresses both his love and is extremely hurtful all the same. Of course I have never read the book as such ,but it has freqvently been quoted. And what a source of inspiration for all the stories published in the media. And now maybe a source for furher academic students on MJ.

    Like

  159. 29mj permalink
    March 1, 2014 2:34 pm

    Helena, I want you know that wherever Michael J is mentioned for recognition , reward his genius , of his immense human values ​​there always exist some people (few in number , it is my opinion) always trying to discredit particularly Michael J because envy , hatred ground and will grind the void. They are always ready to manufacture lies, these untruths specifically characteristics their personality and their petty interests just because they both have only that, they can give just that and nothing else. Michael has been full merit to remain among the great geniuses in the history of the world, the most precious value among the true human values ​​that have lived on this earth! And yes,you’re right Michael’s fans ~It seems that I myself must be off to write another ABC post and give to Michael’s supporters more ammunition to fight for him with~
    Sometimes I’m feeling dimly that some who call themselves fans of Michael I think they have other interests. It is my own opinion and I hope from the bottom of my heart I’m wrong , I hope I am wrong ! I hope it wouldn’t be the truth!
    Helena, Heartily tank you so much!!! I love you!
    God bless you. Big hugs. Barbra same mj29.
    My facebook ID = Barbra Raica – Barbra

    Like

  160. Amaya permalink
    March 1, 2014 2:24 pm

    “More damaging is the suggestion, made years ago, that Wade wasn’t just a user but a dealer as well. Ecstasy is not socially accepted, and nobody loves a drug dealer.”

    That is true… like I said though I don’t want to jump to conclusions about that. Not to mention that since this is about Michael, people may defend WR regardless i.e. “Who cares if he did drugs/sold them? The poor man was hurt by that awful monster!”. It seems no matter what a person has done people will defend them if they’re going after Michael, even if they themselves are molesters like the guy who wrote that one book. More hypocrisy!

    “I just wanted to warn everyone of the danger that Robson may use those descriptions and I don’t want anyone to be surprised and shocked if (or when) it happens.”

    Even worse… he (or his lawyers) could use them as a guideline for what to NOT say and say something different. While it would prove those original descriptions wrong (finally), it would also make him look more believable even though all he did was take the existing descriptions and reverse them, which doesn’t prove anything. Not to mention since the autopsy report confirmed Michael was uncircumcised, he could very easily mention that and everyone would quickly assume the worst, completely forgetting that the info from the autopsy report is publicly available and therefore, ANYONE could say that.

    Like

  161. March 1, 2014 1:59 pm

    “the fact that you have discovered the truth, should not make you feel bad in case someone tries to use it for their benefit.” – Nan

    Nan, thank you, but it is not that I feel bad about it – we proved that Jordan Chandler lied, so how can we be sorry about it?

    I just wanted to warn everyone of the danger that Robson may use those descriptions and I don’t want anyone to be surprised and shocked if (or when) it happens.

    If he has the cheek to describe MJ’s genitalia, everyone should know that he has simply done his homework, studied this blog and learned from it things he would otherwise have never known.

    Like

  162. March 1, 2014 1:45 pm

    “Sorry, Helena. I’ve misinterpreted from this video” – newrodrigo

    Newrodrigo, this is my video. Since you misinterpreted it please tell me what I should change in its headline or the text to make it clearer? My message was that none of the experts were allowed to compare the photos and description themselves. All of them were told that there was a match (though there was none).

    Like

  163. February 28, 2014 10:28 pm

    Amaya, alcohol has been legal in the US for many years, and drinking in moderation is socially acceptable, but nobody wants to hire a drunk. “Pothead” is to marijuana as “drunk” is to alcohol. The pothead label does not enhance Wade’s reputation. More damaging is the suggestion, made years ago, that Wade wasn’t just a user but a dealer as well. Ecstasy is not socially accepted, and nobody loves a drug dealer.

    Like

  164. newrodrigo permalink
    February 28, 2014 9:34 pm

    “Sorry, I didn’t get it. What are you referring to? When did the coroner confirm anything like this? The only thing coroner wrote in his autopsy report was that Michael was not circumcised.Is there anything I don’t know? Please provide the necessary links to look into.”

    Sorry, Helena. I’ve misinterpreted from this video

    Like

  165. Amaya permalink
    February 28, 2014 9:02 pm

    I remember checking out topics on MJJC before they made their Trials and Tribulations section members-only, and someone said Joy had sold her house and moved back to Australia. They were also saying that she was thanking people for their support on Facebook, so she apparently hasn’t kept COMPLETELY quiet. However, if saying a “thank you” is all she’s done, it could be she’s done so just as a common courtesy. Her leaving the country does indeed raise an eyebrow. I believe it was said that she moved in late 2012…

    Never knew about WR possibly being tied to drugs, but I don’t want to jump to any conclusions. I will say though if he’s *only* tied to pot that may not hurt him much. Public opinion of marijuana is more positive now than it was a few decades ago, at least in the U.S. If it turns out he does smoke weed and refused drug testing for employment a lot of people would rush to defend him by saying “Pot doesn’t kill or harm you! It makes you a better person and doesn’t affect your working ability THAT much, so who cares if he tests positive for weed?”, etc. Since this involves Michael that mindset would be amplified.

    Like

  166. lynande51 permalink
    February 28, 2014 7:21 pm

    Personally my heart is broken for Joy. The opposition that I read on Twitter and the unfriendly blog is this ” Joy Robson knew something was wrong and pimped her son”. At least that is their interpretation of if. It is also hinted at in the filing papers. Remember the papers that were being touted about in the UK tabs as ‘secret FBI files”. Well the source of those files said as much in one of those letters. You can tell because it was poorly redacted. My question has always been who was the source of those papers that they got hold of and how long did they have them..

    Like

  167. Nan permalink
    February 28, 2014 7:06 pm

    Well, I make a point of not discussing Wade much ,or his case or accusations, but as far as your research Helena, I am always grateful for it and the fact that you have discovered the truth, should not make you feel bad in case someone tries to use it for their benefit.
    We know Wade is following the Chandler playbook,at least that is what I think.

    Whatever he says , if he is using your research regarding that issue, then it wont match Jordans , which just shows that Jordan who started this whole thing is lying and there really isnt any actual pattern other than lawyers threatening bad publicity and threatening to ruin his brand, unless they got a settlement
    And we now know , and the general public should have figured it out , but was being mislead ,that if his description matched , mj would have been arrested.
    I would assume the last place Wade would like to be is in a courtroom , having to answer any questions, because his story is ludicrous, he just made the one statement , because he was given a platform to threaten the estate with further damage and ran away.
    I was rereading Gavin Arvizo testimony about how he supposedly had a conversation with MJ naked..
    I wondered why Sneddon didnt go into detail about what Mj looked like naked, markings etc, and get a court order to do yet another invasive body stripping like he did with Chandler, off the Arvizo accusation siting the last photo session and Chandler description

    Which leads me yet again to think Sneddon knew MJ was innocent all along, he was just abusing the authority of his office for a personal vendetta and public glory
    .
    As far as Wades mother, I thought of that too,,She has been silent..You might think if she was a mother who child had been violated, she would out there front and center, should have been sitting next to him at the Today show.
    I do not think she believes him, myself., and to me the point is to ay low and try and get a settlement anyway ..I think the latest TMZ story is trying to bait the estate into an argument in the tabloid media , where is the only place they can win this thing , with bad publicity.
    .
    Joy Robson has done many interviews herself regarding MJ and her son..I recall her saying on a radio show that Wade knew at 10 yrs old that dancing was too strenuous and didnt pay enough and wanted to do other things..but I will just leave it at that.
    Lets just say all the Robsons would have an uphill battle in court.
    Zonen implied Wade was there to defend MJ because he owed him but wade and his mother said MJ really didnt do that much for him and they had some very lean years in LA, the first few years., so that wont fly…
    But Zonen was right, that Wade has no education, no skills other then what can be used in the entertainment business and nothing to fall back on. He has even said that he had wished that he took more dance lessons but MJ didnt want him to lose his natural ability and he regretted it

    If he couldnt cut it,and lost the jobs like he did… nobody in that industry is going to give him a project that is worth millions and hope for the best.
    He is all done , and doesnt have anything else to fall back on.
    I think this is what we are seeing right now ..A desperate person, with very few options

    Like

  168. February 28, 2014 5:55 pm

    This Dr. May seems rather confused on several issues.Not too long ago we saw pictures of Gavin and also reports on his present life.He seems very much to live on the sunny side of the street. And married too.Still under the fatherly protection and guidance of Zonen and his wife Palanker I presume.

    Like

  169. February 28, 2014 4:11 pm

    “Obviously much of this is a made up parody, but like all parodies, it has one foot grounded in reality. Wade, your reputation preceded your breakdown…For Michael Jackson’s defenders, it’s long past the time for the gloves to come off. More to come, Wade, but I think this makes a good start.” – VC

    VC, great comment. And very enlightening too. Frankly I never thought of drugs in case of Robson, but now have looked up some sources, and see that this is quite possible. He is called by many a “pot head” and is said to have refused to do a routine drug test for Britney Spears’s show. And this is why he lost this and other jobs. Oh my God.

    Like

  170. February 28, 2014 12:26 pm

    “Also. I wonder to this day how the coroner told everybody that the Police confirmed Jordan’s description matched what he (the coroner) saw?” – newrodrigo

    Sorry, I didn’t get it. What are you referring to? When did the coroner confirm anything like this? The only thing coroner wrote in his autopsy report was that Michael was not circumcised.

    Is there anything I don’t know? Please provide the necessary links to look into.

    Like

  171. February 28, 2014 12:21 pm

    Helena, you did nothing wrong in exploring the genitalia issue. It won’t help Wade. There is a huge difference between a child describing a grown man’s genitalia, and another grown man doing so. Men “check each other out” in public urinals every day.

    But on the off chance that Wade reads what we post here and reacts to it publicly, here’s a few points I’d love to have him address:

    Some of your biggest fans ascribe your recent failures to your reputation of being a big pothead. You can’t work in Las Vegas, or for Britney Spears, without passing a drug test. Movie companies can’t insure a director with a known drug problem, even a piece of schlock like Step Up 4. Is your drug habit the reason why your job outlook has dried up? And how about this item – your comments please:

    http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com/night-court-rihanna-chris-brown-hollywood-extacy/

    Note the date, February of 2009. Obviously much of this is a made up parody, but like all parodies, it has one foot grounded in reality. Wade, your reputation preceded your breakdown.

    What does your mother Joy Robson think about all this? Why has she vanished off the face of the earth? She’s the one who dragged you to the US, foisted herself on Michael Jackson, drove you to three and four auditions every day for years, with precious little to show for it. She stole your childhood, Wade. Why aren’t you suing her? Isn’t this all about your unresolved mommy issues?

    Is it true that your son is a special needs child, and you’re desperate to get the money needed to care for him, by any means necessary? Is that why the only real emotion you displayed on the Today show was when you talked about him? Is it true that this whole plot was your wife’s idea, because your inability to earn a living threatened your marriage?

    For Michael Jackson’s defenders, it’s long past the time for the gloves to come off. More to come, Wade, but I think this makes a good start.

    Like

  172. February 28, 2014 11:37 am

    “I’m again shocked that some people keep discrediting Michael J using the same sources and methods despicable to lie again and again.” – 29mj

    29mj, I’ve just started watching the film someone gave a link to (in the comments) and the beginning of it doesn’t promise much truth, but the thing that drew my attention was that the film was made by BBC!

    We’ve just mentioned BBC as a media source which is refusing to report the recent scandal in the UK about years of child abuse in orphanages and a cover-up for pedophiles in the then UK government, and turned a blind eye on Saville’s crimes and now we see BBC extremely busy with Michael Jackson instead and collecting every scrap of lies about him?

    This is not funny, guys.

    Here is the link to the film:

    And Barbra, thank you very much for quoting my article. Hope it helps to open some people’s eyes. It seems that I myself must be off to write another ABC post and give to Michael’s supporters more ammunition to fight for him with.

    Liked by 1 person

  173. February 28, 2014 10:52 am

    “I bet my last pound that they knew Jimmy Savile to an extent was guilty as he was investigated when he was alive. And nobody within the media bothered a single dicky bird to delve into it when they had the chance. They must’ve known something about what was going on. And I bet they did.But you see, Savile was too big a UK hero for them to chase after. He had lots of powerful friends and connections. The BBC protected him for sure.” – newrodrigo

    I don’t understand which newspaper or TV channel expresses which party’s views but from a recent article about this scandal realized that BBC was evidently more on the Labour side – at least judging by this headline:

    “Surprise, surprise, the BBC has ignored our expose of Labour’s links to a child sex scandal. QUENTIN LETTS imagines its reaction if those involved were Tory”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2564334/QUENTIN-LETTS-From-Today-Newsnight-Beebs-frenzy-Can-evil-Tories-survive-scandal.html

    So if BBC is not really reporting this scandal now (though it has already received much publicity), we can be sure that when a couple of girls complained about Saville at that time they did turn a blind eye on those complaints. For those victims it was indeed absolutely useless to speak up – the BBC management didn’t care and Savile had lots of supporters among the political elite.

    But first and foremost the supporters were in the academic circles. It was with them that the process started. In this regard let me remind everyone of those professors who supported O’Carroll’s book. The first time we met them was when they recommended “for family reading” the book about MJ written by a pedophile and the second time I came across the same names was when I was studying Victor Gutierrez and his attendace of a NAMBLA conference.

    James Kincaid of the University of Southern California and William Armstrong Percy, III of the Massachusetts University are only two names in a whole legion of them.

    Here are some quotes from the post I made on March 2011 called “Victor Gutierrez, NAMBLA and the same gang of professors who recommended Carl Toms’ book”:

    James Kincaid: ”If we didn’t have NAMBLA, we would undoubtedly find a new national monster,” says Kincaid, an English professor at the University of Southern California. We need an enemy, because the endless talk of child sex abuse allows us the vicarious, titillating thrill of talking about children and sex, while at the same time allowing us to shake our heads at someone else’s depravity. And while we find a threat to loathe and deplore, we will continue to promote child sexuality [in entertainment], and we will continue to position at the center of our national desirability women — and sometimes men — who look 14 years old.”

    And the unforgettable William A. Persy, is giving advice to NAMBLA people on how they should be going about their business if they want to be a success:

    “Arguably most damaging to NAMBLA, was its refusal to change its position calling for the repeal of all age-of-consent laws, despite the argument made by a vocal minority of members that such a stance — with its implication, sometimes stated and sometimes not, that a prepubescent child can consent to sex — was political suicide.

    “I have been trying to convince the NAMBLA people for years that they should argue for an age of 14 or 15, something that people could see as a little more reasonable,” says William A. Percy, a professor of history at UMass/Boston and the author of Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece. “But they’re a small group of inbred and fanatical ideologues. They only talk to each other. They won’t listen to ideas of compromise.”

    Now guys, why does it always happen? I mean, why does this ‘coincidence’ always happen – each time we mention the worst Michael Jackson’s detractors they turn out to be closely associated with one and the same suspicious gang of people?

    First it was Tom O’Carroll who wrote 600 plus pages of dirt about Michael, then came university professors who supported the book and recommended it for family reading and then came the turn of Victor Gutierrez who looks too much of a pedophile to me and who is a self-admitted attendee of at least one highly secretive congress of NAMBLA?

    And now the same university professors surface again– this time as advisors on the policy NAMBLA should pursue in order to be a success (?)

    And why do all of them turn out to be the worst Michael’s detractors too – especially Victor Gutierrez who was probably the one who triggered off Michael’s vilification campaign long before any allegations started? Remember that he began interviewing the alleged “victims” all over the country at least five years before the 1993 case.

    I half-expect Michael’s haters to shrug off the problem saying that if Michael was one of them it would be no surprise to see this kind of people revolving round him, but this makes me exclaim in more surprise than ever – if they thought he was one of them, then why did they so ruthlessly harass him?

    Wasn’t Victor Gutierrez’s life-long harassment of Michael Jackson – starting in 1986 and not finished until now – the major reason that brought about his untimely death? And weren’t Guiterrez’s lies immediately translated into TV reports by Diane Dimond who considered Gutierrez her “best source”?

    Why are some of them so keen on “exposing” innocent Michael while with people who really belong to their circle they are so considerate that none of them ever report on each other as the secret and successful functioning of NAMBLA and their meetings shows it?

    Shall I rephrase the well-known proverb “Tell me who your friend is and I’ll tell you who you are” into a new one, “Tell me who your enemy is and we’ll know who you are”?

    Now that we know for sure that at least several people who consistently worked against Michael and were absolutely no friends to him were pedophilia oriented, does this mean they knew that Michael Jackson had nothing to do with them and considered him an enemy to their cause?

    Because Michael was the one who prayed to children’s innocence while these guys think that children are ripe for adult love…
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/victor-gutierrez-nambla-and-the-same-gang-of-professors-who-recommended-carl-toms-book/

    Like

  174. 29mj permalink
    February 28, 2014 10:24 am

    Hello, welcome my dears Michael’s lovers and Michael’s reasearchers
    I’m finding this link http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/02/steve_jobs_new_stamp_us_postal_service.html
    and I’m again shocked that some people keep discrediting Michael J using the same sources and methods despicable to lie again and again. I said there and I gave my opinion and source of truth. Even just recently. Please, please help there with the whole truth about our Michael J!!! Thank you and I hope I did the right. Love and peace! Big Hugs! All from & for LOVE!!!

    Like

  175. newrodrigo permalink
    February 28, 2014 9:36 am

    Nobody can blame you of anything, Helena.

    Yes, the truth you discovered may now be used against us, against Michael.
    But what is important, is that you found the truth for a lot of us that doubted and were hurt by the thought of Michael’s innocence in the allegations.
    What we can only do is is go out and spread the word about the truth. Not give anybody the pleasure of creating their own truth about Michael and poisoning him in the masses.

    It’s not what we wanted of course, but it’s what we can still do to put things right.

    Also. I wonder to this day how the coroner told everybody that the Police confirmed Jordan’s description matched what he (the coroner) saw?
    Surely Michael’s genitals changed color over the last 15 years before his death?
    I think porkies were being told.

    Like

  176. newrodrigo permalink
    February 28, 2014 9:22 am

    Well in the last few days, I’m extremely shocked by the state my country is in.
    A paedophile lobby in our own government.

    I’m not a huge fan of any party, but my town is very Labour. And it turns out the lobby was within that particular party. I can’t speak for all of them knowing this obviously, because that’s not the case. But it’ll leave a devastating impact to its regional sectors I can imagine.
    I have no hope anyway in them helping this town if Milliband was to become our next Prime Minister.

    But the fact that this has gone on anyway, in the minds of people that are supposed to help and preserve this country, is more devastating. How can anybody in their right minds imagine such a thing to happen?

    I don’t whether to applaud The Sun newspaper for uncovering a lot of what has gone on.
    But that’s just because it leaves me with the fury of why Michael was treated in such a terrible way.
    I bet my last pound that they knew Jimmy Savile to an extent was guilty as he was investigated when he was alive. And nobody within the media bothered a single dicky bird to delve into it when they had the chance. They must’ve known something about what was going on. And I bet they did.
    But you see, Savile was too big a UK hero for them to chase after. He had lots of powerful friends and connections. The BBC protected him for sure.
    Was he protected and ignored by the media? A blind eye turned? I can imagine so.
    In the same way Woody Allen was and still is being protected.

    So who knows exactly what state our country is in. I think they’ll only expose what they want for their own agendas.
    Hell, maybe they knew about what’s been going on in the government and are simply using this sick disgrace as a weapon for the Conservative party.

    I know for a FACT the media will twist and invent stories to sell the most papers, get the most hits for their websites. Like I’ve said before and before, I’ve seen it happen. Others out there have too.
    They’ll protect “heroes” in fear of what might happen amongst public reaction and that in turn damages their reputation. Rival papers get only too pleased when that happens as well.

    MP’s are often met with disdain with the public. The papers know that, and they’ll aid whoever the public likes best and be an enemy to they hate most.
    But the papers have their own agendas and goals born from this.

    Jimmy Savile was a massive hero for all the years he started in showbiz. So naturally, the media left him alone because of that.
    Whereas Michael Jackson was an eccentric freak according to them. Twisting and inventing his life, and this was before the accusations, remember.
    He was an enemy of the media. He refused to give them what they wanted and so they hounded him with absurdity, masked by Michael’s very character, something he couldn’t help with.
    But…The media in America is very different from here. They’ll treat the alleged crimes of an innocent star as a game of entertainment for the public, while all the while, their profiting.

    Do our UK papers profit? Of course they do. But our entertainment system is different from the US’, so we have to cause a big a stick as we can from the papers. Like the Mirror paper. It used to be rather respectful newspaper.
    But journalists on their website write disgusting and offensive articles, full of swear words. The C word used is quite a bit.
    And as we know only too well, they make things up about Michael without a shred of proof to back up their claims.

    I’m seriously worried about where this country is heading. Just who the hell do we trust?

    Like

  177. February 28, 2014 8:38 am

    The only thing I would probably discuss about Robson is what he learned from our own websites. All those true small and big details which can make his story look credible. Something like -“he can say this” and “he can say that”. And when/if he really tells them we can go over the list and tick away those which he learned from our findings. And see what remains of his story after that.

    One of the crucial things he may easily do is give a correct description of MJ’s genitalia. And I will be the first person responsible for it.

    Sorry guys. I never knew it would turn out that way. The only thing I wanted was refuting Jordan’s false story and explaining why it was all wrong. And the correct description just emerged on its own, as a consequence of that analysis.

    Like

  178. February 28, 2014 8:13 am

    – “They just hate Michael Jackson – for whatever reason. And probably hate his children, too” – Susannerb
    – “It isn’t that they hate Michael Jackson. What they exist for and do more than anything else is to hate Michael Jackson fans.” – Lynande51

    Let us put it this way – they hate the innocent truth about Michael Jackson and are doing their best for the public to never know it. Their preoccupation only with Michael betrays their personal agenda fixated on him. To everything else these people are absolutely indifferent. And about real child abuse they can’t care less. Actually in some Youtube conversations with me one or two of them revealed their own pedophilia inclinations.

    “What they really are is “professional” internet trolls. Their job is to seek out Michael Jackson fans and incite them to say something that they can deem a threat to Wade and ‘the other victims” to prove that is why no others have come forward. You have to have read their Tweets to fans and their remarks to them on Facebook to understand what that is.” – Lynande51

    I always thought them to be professionals. So now they are working in one more direction? Inciting fans to threaten Robson and other “victims” and if no one else speaks in support of Robson’s allegations proclaim that these people were simply too fearful of MJ fans?

    Look, but this way they are already explaining well in advance why Robson will probably not receive any support. Nothing of it has yet happened but they are already working for a way to explain it in case he fails. So this is how far-sighted these guys are.

    It looks like it is a big war campaign where each division is working according to plan and is busy with its own task.

    But then the obvious thing to do is to completely forget about Wade Robson and declare a moratorium on any talk about his allegations. Forget him for a time being as much as we can.

    Like

  179. lynande51 permalink
    February 28, 2014 7:39 am

    It isn’t that they hate Michael Jackson. What they exist for and do more than anything else is to hate Michael Jackson fans. They were around for a short time before mostly on news articles about him and on Topix and other Michael Jackson boards. What they really are is “professional” internet trolls. Their job is to seek out Michael Jackson fans and incite them to say something that they can deem a threat to Wade and ‘the other victims” to prove that is why no others have come forward. You have to have read their Tweets to fans and their remarks to them on Facebook to understand what that is.
    I have spent several months watching them and what they do on Facebook and Twitter. I have kept screen caps of many of their remarks. I know what they are doing and what they hope to gain and maybe even what their true intentions are.

    Like

  180. February 28, 2014 6:17 am

    Yes, Helena, I agree, and we can also openly expose their motivations.

    The astounding thing to me is that these haters prove their personal hate for Michael Jackson permanently by their fixation on him. I mean, the man is dead. If they are of the opinion that he molested children they now should think, okay, he is gone, he cannot harm children anymore, so let’s look for those who are still living and abusing children. But no, they are not interested in those who abuse children on a daily basis, they don’t fight against child abuse and expose molesters who have been convicted, they don’t research real molesters and talk about how they could be stopped and how the children could be protected. They don’t care for all these poor unprotected kids who need our help. No, they just hate Michael Jackson – for whatever reason. And probably hate his children, too, because they don’t care how these kids suffer from their activities.

    Why are these trolls still asking questions and challenging us with their comments when they could invest their energy in helping to stop living criminals from molesting children? Because it’s a personal agenda which is only fixated on Michael Jackson. And this agenda combines all those who are part of this plot, of this conspiracy, whether it’s the tabloids, journalists who cannot withdraw their formerly published unproved opinions and admit mistakes, accusers who are trapped in their lies, dissappointed private individuals and former friends who have an axe to grind, people who just want money, accomplices who have no life, members of the establishment who need him to distract from their activities – in short all those who need to have the myth kept alive because otherwise their lives would fall into pieces.
    I have not seen that any one of all these people has ever become active in exposing and persecuting true suspected and proven child abusers in this way. They are ONLY talking about Michael Jackson. This is proof that their motivations are dishonest, sick and disgraceful.

    Like

  181. February 28, 2014 5:24 am

    Let me move into this thread some comments which are extremely important for realizing where we stand at the moment.

    Lynande51 said about it:

    “I spoke with Mr. Mesereau that night about Wade and mentioned that I was a psychiatric nurse. I discussed the stories that were circulating about repressed memory and the fact that Wade Robson’s life did not support repressed memory or him being a victim. Well we know what he said the next day. The next day it was no longer repressed. I sometimes wonder what he would have said the next morning if I would not have called… They take it to an extreme that we do not.” – Lynande51

    That’s absolutely right. The link between us discussing Robson’s story and him changing it the next day is obvious.

    With so many supporters from the media, Topix and boys from mjfacts there are too many people in the Internet hanging on each of our words – not because they believe us, but because they immediately rush to change their story depending on what we say. This is why I am terribly reluctant to discuss Wade Robson’s theories now. When he presents his story in full, then we will see what we can do about it.

    However there is one big exception to it.

    Amaya raised this point and I fully agree with her that Michael is facing a very big and real danger now and not without our help, alas. Let me repeat here what we said about on a different thread:

    “I’ve had a bad feeling the past few months that the hard work that the fans have done regarding Michael’s innocence could suddenly be turned against them, and seeing that older entries in this blog were getting more views in the past few days made that feeling re-emerge.” – Amaya

    I was thinking of exactly the same. And now that Lynande51 shared the same apprehensions it becomes clear that if this idea occurred to at least three of us it surely occurred to Wade Robson and all those who are helping him now with the allegations.

    It seems that we should prepare ourselves for THE WORST.

    And the worst is that these people may and will most probably turn our own findings proving Michael’s innocence against Michael now.

    Now that I myself have shown how mistaken Jordan Chandler was in describing Michael’s genitalia and even supposed how his private parts must have really looked like, nothing can be easier for Wade Robson, Murray or anyone willing to take part in this terrible scam for USING THE CORRECT DESCRIPTION and making up their FALSE molestation stories on its basis.

    Actually I can even see how Robson and Murray can cooperate here. Robson breaks on the public what he allegedly “saw” of MJ’s private parts when he was 7-14 and Murray confirms that MJ’s private parts indeed looked that way. You can imagine the effect of it.

    Who will be interested to know that Robson learned about this description from this site? The general public for sure will not.

    And the danger of this happening is absolutely REAL.

    The only way we can probably overcome this danger is to speak OPENLY about it and speak NOW. Warn people of what they might hear in the very near future.

    This way we will at least steal Robson of the pleasure of taking everyone by a horrible surprise.

    Like

  182. February 28, 2014 2:59 am

    “He always says “I would never harm a child” (why didn’t he flat out say “I didn’t do it” in those terms?) and never mentions precisely what the charges against him are, remaining ambiguous. Or am I mistaken and reading too much into it?” – Deana

    Reading too much for sure. But if we are serious about it we must understand that even if the journalist had ever asked him pointblank “Did you do it?” the only possible answer from Michael would have been: “Did what?” and then it would have been the journalist’s job to clarify what he/she actually meant.

    This is why Michael was speaking in general. He wanted people realize that he was unable to harm a child in principle. And this was true as even hearing parents scream at their children made him shudder.

    I think that when he was answering journalists the way he did he was actually quoting the Scripture and saying it in the same way it was said there (whatever it might mean):

    Luke 17:2
    It is better for him that a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were cast into the sea, then that he should offend one of these little ones.

    In fact I have much more to say on this and other subjects and am thinking of making a sequel to the ABC post.

    Like

  183. Amaya permalink
    February 28, 2014 2:12 am

    VC – For some reason I interpreted your post to mean that you were referring to the comments that were posted by Brian May here, not what Mariam quoted. My bad! Reading that quote again I do see the passive-aggressive stuff, mainly the “changes to his body”. It’s like he was trying to put a positive spin on it, but I think we all know what many people will REALLY think when they read stuff like that. -_-

    Like

  184. February 28, 2014 1:57 am

    Amaya, Mariam’s quote is from the real Brian May, on the Queen website, not from the troll who has posted here using that name. I’m not impressed by either one.

    Why is it so hard to accept that Michael Jackson was a normal man, who was sexually active with adult women? He didn’t need to watch his brothers in action to know what sex was. No need to write about him as if he were developmentally challenged. The man had two wives and three children. Lisa Marie Presley kept having sex with him for years after the divorce – whatever their arguments, no complaints in the bedroom! Besides his word, which is good enough for me, there is ZERO evidence that he had a sexual interest in young boys. ZERO. If there had been even a credible suggestion of guilt, he would have been convicted, of something, even the BS alcohol charge. He didn’t do it, Deana. Chill.

    Like

  185. Amaya permalink
    February 28, 2014 1:24 am

    VC I highly doubt it’s the same person. This is either someone who just happens to have the same name or they’re using an alias and just happened to pick that name, be it intentionally or not.

    As for the whole “Michael did it but didn’t realize it was wrong/sexual” thing, while that COULD be a good argument I don’t see that being possible here. One reason that comes to mind is how Michael’s brothers would have one-night-stands with groupies, and Michael heard it all happening. As sad as that is, this might’ve actually helped Michael realize early on what sex was and wasn’t, and who you did, or didn’t, do it with. It’s like how people claim to have seen R-rated movies when they were young but they turned out to be pretty healthy adults despite all the early exposure to graphic violence and sex they had.

    Like

  186. February 27, 2014 11:56 pm

    If the real Brian May said that, I’m not impressed. May is damning MJ with faint praise, and throwing “shade” – passive-aggressive derogatory phrases – at the same time. Jealousy is a bitch.

    Like

  187. lynande51 permalink
    February 27, 2014 11:48 pm

    Don’t worry it wasn’t him. The thing that haters love to do is pretend they know what they are talking about,

    Like

  188. Mariam permalink
    February 27, 2014 11:39 pm

    “I think the world is a more colourful place thanks to Michael’s work … he was a truly wonderful performer at his peak – and had a great team around him, including, of course, genius Quincy Jones. I think he qualifies as a great artist; he devoted his whole body and soul to his art. It’s as if, with all the changes he introduced to his body, his art actually became his body and his persona. Yes, I only hope he passed away in happiness, in great hopes and anticipation of his glorious comeback tour. RIP Michael” Brian May

    I just read his beautiful comment about Michael Jackson the next day he died and if he is him, I am really disappointed with his comment here on VMJ. A fellow musician who knows Michael since he was a young boy and who knows him personally should be a little bit carful what he is writing unless he investigate every aspect of story and evidence that was brought against MJ.

    If MJ was in fact that criminal and if there was really solid evidence against him, I don’t believe for a second that Michael as black man, who has got a lot of enemies lately, could/would survive or would live free for one day on USA land. I just don’t believe that.

    They tried hard for so many years over 10 years to get something and to put him jail.
    Of course they tried with all their power and spend all resources and a lot of tax payer’s money (remember 70 police cares in Neverland just to search MJ’s home, and they found what? Two books and two photos which are not even known where came from, that is all the evidence they brought to court? Amazing!), with God grace they couldn’t, thank God for that.

    In a way, they hurt him badly already which cause a lot of pain to him that did affect his overall health anyway, however I am still glad that they did not put him in jail.

    His status, because he was/is well known all over the world, makes it difficult for them to do whatever they want to him, because what was going on his life was under microscope and watched intensively by all world.

    They could just through him to jail or kill him long time ago; probably nobody would ask them why, if he was not Michael Jackson and if they did not have that pressure from outside world. They had to make sure that they are 100% certain what they were doing was right, in order to put him jail or kill him.

    Finally, the whole situation exposed what was their motive behind their accusation and makes them look like silly. It action was unnecessary, silly, waste of money, destroyed the talent and the value of the person. That is a sad story and is going to be bad history of the country, unfortunately.

    Like

  189. lynande51 permalink
    February 27, 2014 10:37 pm

    And Michael obviously knew what was and what wasn’t sexual according to his nephew Taj that said it was Michael that was his support when he was molested. Kind of hard to say that he didn’t understand what was sexual when his nephew told him what it was.

    Like

  190. lynande51 permalink
    February 27, 2014 10:24 pm

    And large sums of money were asked for not just a few hundred bucks. Don’t let the Diane Dimonds the Ron Zonens and Tom Sneddons fool you. The Arvizos asked for money to make the rebuttal video.

    Like

  191. lynande51 permalink
    February 27, 2014 10:11 pm

    You are using that lovely thing that is a favorite of exactly the particular haters mentioned in this post. They love to use something called “Statement Analysis” by Mark McGlish. They use this “method” to analyze the words said or written by a person like Michael and witnesses that they like to ridicule like Brett Barnes and his sister Karlee..
    The statement that Michael made immediately after the body search s one of their favorites. That is the man who started saying “he never said he didn’t do it”.
    What about some collateral information that might have an influence on the wording that Michael used? This was right after the body search. Michael was under police investigation and in the middle of the Chandler civil case. Now considering that any statement he might have made could be used by both police and the Chandler attorneys in court who do you suppose wrote that speech and or speeches? He had to speak in generalities because the whole premise behind the negligence claim was that Michael had accused Jordan not Evan but Jordan of extortion. That is what led to the negligence claim being settled. Feldman knew better but that is that legal tact that he took in the case to win an award for his client.
    Does statement analysis take into account the affect, tone and demeanor of the person that has said those words? No it does not and tone and affect are just as important as the words themselves. In other words it isn’t just words but the emotion behind them. the context of the statement as a whole, and the circumstances surrounding them.
    Human behavior is very intricate and is not as simple as these people make it sound. If it were the simple fact that all three accusers parents asked for money before making the accusation tells me that it was about money.

    Like

  192. Deana permalink
    February 27, 2014 9:12 pm

    Is it at all possible that he really just didn’t think he was “harming” them and that it wasn’t sexual? (Apparently some of these criminals really do not think it is?) Just watching the statements and the interviews where he talks about it, he never says, even when directly asked, that he didn’t do it. He always says “I would never harm a child” (why didn’t he flat out say “I didn’t do it” in those terms?) and never mentions precisely what the charges against him are, remaining ambiguous. Or am I mistaken and reading too much into it?

    Like

  193. lynande51 permalink
    February 27, 2014 7:19 pm

    Oh and here I was hoping that it was Dr. Brian May astrophysicist former guitarist for the rock group Queen. Just another one of those coincidences and just another disappointment.I love Queen and I would love to talk to Dr. May about Michael. He wrote such a wonderful piece on the Queen blog about him right after he died.

    http://www.queenonline.com/en/news-archive/michael-jackson-brian-may/

    Like

  194. February 27, 2014 3:05 pm

    “Apologies, I meant Jordan Chandler.” -Brian

    Good, Brian. You are making progress.

    Like

  195. Brian May permalink
    February 27, 2014 2:28 pm

    Apologies, I meant Jordan Chandler.

    Like

  196. February 27, 2014 7:20 am

    “Question: was there actually some sort of incriminating photo of Jonathan Spence found or was that another media lie?” – Deana

    I’ve never made a special study of this horrible evidence, but this is what I know.

    Since no photos or videos incriminating Jackson were found during the raids of Neverland in 2003-2004, on January 18, 2005 Sneddon requested that the evidence seized during the search in 1993 should be introduced at the 2005 trial. This evidence was three books with photos of children and two photos.

    Sneddon’s document described this damning evidence in the following terms:

    Books:
    “Boys will be boys” containing photographs of boys under the age of 14; full frontal nudity. The book is personally inscribed by Michael Jackson;
    “In search of Young Beauty”, containing photographs of children, both boys and girls; some nude;
    “The Boy, A Photographic Essay”, containing black-and-white photos of boys, some nude

    Photographs:
    A photograph of a boy, believed to be Jonathan Spence; fully nude.
    A photograph of a young boy holding an umbrella; wearing bikini bottoms, partially pulled down.

    My little comment on the above:

    1) The cover of “Boys will be boys” showed boys jumping into water. The inside of the cover had an inscription from MJ saying: “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces, this is the spirit of Boyhood. A life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.”

    This was followed by his “MJ” signature which means that the book was most probably given to him and he was inscribing it for a fan. Why and how it came back into his possession only God knows.

    2) “The boy, a photographic essay” was sent to him by a fan and was signed “From your fan, xxxooo, Rhonda. 1983 Chicago”. This whole thing looks very much like a provocation to me.

    3) The third book depicted boys and girls, “some nude” and since no “frontal nudity” was ever mentioned it suggests that the book was the most innocent of all. This is probably why the prosecution never addressed this issue again.

    Now come the two photos which were found after searching the whole of Neverland inside out (in 1993).

    4) One of it was of a boy in bikini and umbrella. The bikini was “partially pulled down” which was the worst they could say about it. Since no “frontal nudity” is mentioned, it can very well mean that the bikini was seen from the back, side and was surely not displaying any private parts.

    5) The second photo was “believed to be Jonathan Spence” and was “fully nude”. Again no “frontal nudity” is mentioned which means that the boy could be shown from his back, side, lying on the beach and his private parts may not be seen at all, as otherwise “frontal nudity” would have been mentioned. The boy is also very small as it is impossible to say who it belongs to and it is only believed to be Spence.

    Why Sneddon couldn’t contact Spence’s parents and find whether the photo was indeed of their son is unclear. Well, probably he did and probably his people even made rounds of all parents who were friends with Michael to check if this could be a photo of their son. And most probably none of them recognized their son there, Spence’s parents included. So it surely wasn’t Spence.

    Now what does one photo of an unknown baby (?) boy, even fully nude (but not in “full frontal nudity”) mean in terms of the big ranch like Neverland? And its innumerable guests who stayed there for days or weeks and left there whatever they cared to leave? Or people sending tons of letters to Michael with their photos and whatnot inside? And some of them not being friends of Michael at all and sending him things of doubtful nature – in order to test him, provoke him or probably even with the idea to plant some things in his home like this “Rhonda” thing?

    What does this one photo of a baby boy mean when nothing else was ever found against Michael – either in 1993 or in 2003-2004 when Neverland was raided by the police several times and even when Michael was not there?

    I’ll tell you what it means. It means NOTHING.

    Let me also note that despite the defense’s objections this horrid evidence WAS admitted at the 2005 trial and the jurors looked into all of it, possibly including the photos mentioned above, however from the outcome of that trial it seems that none of them were impressed.

    Like

  197. February 27, 2014 5:30 am

    “The whole thing is just ridiculous and makes me SICK TO MY STOMACH.” – newrodrigo

    Thank you very much to everyone here for your great comments and answers to trolls. The situation has indeed reached a state when all of it looks ridiculous and indeed can make you only sick to the stomach. The incredible hypocrisy of it, the unbearable injustice of it, having to talk for decades about one photo no one knows anything about while real monsters were ADMITTING that they did those horrible things but no one was paying attention – all this is indeed impossible and can make you only sick.

    Some quotes from the recently published Daily Mail articles about real child abusers help to understand the situation even better. These monsters were actually supported by the then politicians and (speaking of “psychologists”) by lots of academic scientists too who provided their psychological and historical justification for pedophilia by referring to the practices in ancient Greece, its democracy, the “beneficial” effect it had on children, etc.

    I don’t care which of the UK parties promoted these ideals – if Tory and the “far-right” would have done the same it would have been equally awful and reprehensible. Though for the UK people it may be purely political I regard this situation as an ethical and moral tragedy in the first place.

    A quote from the Daily Mail:

    …the initials PIE stand for Paedophile Information Exchange. This turns out to be the name of a far-Left lobby group which spent much of the Seventies and early Eighties publicly calling for the legalisation of child sex — and the age of consent to be lowered to four.

    Today, PIE has been widely forgotten. But at the time, it achieved prominence for circulating articles by tame psychologists and cod scientists promoting the ‘rights’ of paedophiles.

    … Among them was Peter Righton, a key government adviser on children’s homes, and a PIE founder, who was fined in 1992 for possessing child porn. He died in 2006, never prosecuted for abusing boys in his care — though he openly admitted doing so.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523526/How-Labour-Deputy-Harriet-Harman-shadow-minister-husband-Health-Secretary-Patricia-Hewitt-linked-group-lobbying-right-sex-children.html

    How was that even possible? In 1992 this person was just fined for possessing child porn and he was never prosecuted for abusing boys in his care though he openly admitted doing so?

    And this was a key government advisor on children homes at some point in time?

    Peter Righton was the founder of PIE and he openly boasted that every person in child care knew that he liked boys over 12:

    PIE’s founder Peter Righton — a prominent social worker later prosecuted for importing child pornography from Holland — was, for example, put in charge of training courses on which council staff learned how to care for vulnerable children. Righton, who had a flat in the borough (as did PIE’s one-time key member, his friend Morris Fraser) once boasted: ‘Every Islington care home manager knows I like boys from 12.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565352/Apologists-paedophilia-As-Mail-exposes-links-senior-Labour-figures-vile-paedophile-group-one-man-abused-child-asks-wont-admit-wrong.html

    And this person was put in charge of training courses where he taught social workers on “how to care for vulnerable children?”

    This is indeed what is making you sick to the stomach and makes your head spin.

    Like

  198. February 27, 2014 4:24 am

    “My heart of hearts grieves for poor Gavin, whose is likely to live out the remainder of his life a disturbed and distorted shell of a man.. much like Michael was. You see, I am a Psychologist with a Ph.D. from Cambridge University.This sort of happening is quite common, in fact, it is a perhaps a little too common for comfort. A warped and abused individual wishes to corrupt another Human Being. Michael attempted to corrupt young Gavin. Let us hope that his attempts were unsuccessful, and that Gavin can live his life to the fullest.. and put his foul, squalid, un-kosher days at Neverland Ranch behind him.” – Brian May

    Oh, I see how “psychology” is coming into the picture. So much effort to sound genuine, but still far from Dostoevsky. Even if we put aside the incorrect factual side of the matter.

    Like

  199. February 27, 2014 3:57 am

    “My heart of hearts grieves for poor Gavin, whose is likely to live out the remainder of his life a disturbed and distorted shell of a man.. much like Michael was. You see, I am a Psychologist with a Ph.D. from Cambridge University.” – Brian May

    Dear Brian, you may be a psychologist and even an Ph.D. but you don’t know even the simple fact that the boy in question was not Gavin but someone else. Please do some research and find the right name – just for a start of it, otherwise it is you who look totally ridiculous.

    I cannot boast to be a psychologist, but my mother can because she is a psychologist and a Ph.D. too and I’ve been raised in an atmosphere of university students’ workshops, psychological trainings and having to hear terms like “adequate behavior” since age 5.

    And I still have many friends among the university graduates, now Ph.D. and professors at Moscow University who can advise me on any psychological issue discussed.

    P.S. Well, in fact I forgot that I myself had studied psychology for several terms at a university too, lol. But what does it have to do with our “Gavin”?

    Like

  200. February 27, 2014 2:28 am

    Mariam, you do know this ‘bloke’ who calls himself “Dr. May” is just a troll, don’t you?

    Like

  201. Mariam permalink
    February 27, 2014 12:15 am

    Do you really believe that Doctor May, or you just don’t like Michael?

    Where did you get this info? MJ paid to Gavin is totally new lie to me. If Gavin paid and the case settled why the trial had to be done? Why the trial was necessary you think? Did you know that there was a court trial? Do you know that Michael was quitted from all charges? Do you know that he was NOT GUILTY, legally?

    For me, a court verdict is more convincing and trusted than your logic or rumour. As VC said, based on the evidence there was no settlement or Gavin not paid penny by Michael Jackson, so that based on your own judgment, MJ indeed was innocent.

    To me, you are one of a good example who is totally lost in the ocean of tabloid lies. It is sad but it is not late to correct it.

    Dr. May, I advised you to check the final result of “Michael Jackson Trail 2005” and also reading some court script and info from trust worthy source is helping a lot if you really wants to know the truth but if you are one of those people we shouldn’t even discussed with you, I prefer just wish you good luck and God bless you, that is all I can say, but if you have some questions or if you want to know more about Michael life and facts, I guaranty you this is the beast site to get answer and evidence and documents that you want to see about this man.

    Like

  202. Mariam permalink
    February 26, 2014 10:47 pm

    Thank you for your clarification newrodrigo, I was frustrated with my broken English, because I couldn’t put it all and clear as I want it. I am glad you put the truth very, very well.

    “His interest and attachments stem from that, care and a sense of loss that he could not reclaim. He was a friend, a brother and a father to children everywhere, not because he wanted to be…but because that was just who he was.” newrodrigo

    “The only traces of anything is innocence. Pure innocence. A man who regressed mentally to an extent into a childlike state.”

    Absolutely right, peoples do not understand how much could affect your sociological /physiological part of you when you have tough childhood /lost childhood.

    Peoples do not get it, do not understand that part of his life and straggle, this is one of the fact people missed about him.

    “Michael Jackson was a long story to explain. Yes, difficult to understand for some at times who get misled by forces out there”

    It might be difficult to understand but trying to make something form nothing is not right at all. Accusing innocent person as p….ple is a death sentence.

    We all have our own brain to analyse things and we have ability to find out the truth with our own way and method. And this blog helping you to learn about truth and to help you understand what was and is really going on regarding MJ, thanks for VMJ.

    Because he is little bit different, he shouldn’t be suspected or treated as bad guy or criminal. Because he has a picture of boys in his house, shouldn’t be related that with sex.

    What we are going to say about all that toddler pictures he had on his bedroom dresser, what do we suspecting him for that? You know sometime our mind/thinking is that is not clean, not that person.

    “But the simple fact is, he was not a p-le. He fit no profile”

    I agree, he is not even close to and to be honest, Michael is the opposite of p++ple, that is how I look at it. We are just comparing extremely bad with extremely good, it seems like comparing light with dark which shouldn’t be attempted to begin with.

    Unfortunately, the man paid unnecessary price for that because of driven people who is driven by evil forces.

    Again, we can find out that our self, we just need take time and look at some p..le profile and the evidence found against them from trusted source and then see Michael’s.

    The first and biggest mistake is listening/reading those tabloid and newspapers, and the worst is believing what we read and listen from them. The other mistake is judging peoples based on that lie and the worst is saying things or spread the rumor.

    “Profiting from the tragedy of a man” is simply evil/wicked, what can I say, God bless them, the end of the day we all will answer to God because he is the highest judge and may be they will realize what they did wrong that time.

    Like

  203. newrodrigo permalink
    February 26, 2014 10:09 pm

    If you do your research Doctor May, you’ll find Gavin is living quite a happy life. I think he’s getting married or was married.

    He’s living a life like nothing bad happened to him at all, hmm…

    Like

  204. February 26, 2014 9:44 pm

    Maybe things are different in ‘Cambridge’, “doc”, but in the US of A, you cannot settle a criminal case with money. Either way, Michael Jackson never paid Gavin a penny. Speaking of pennies, J.C. Penney department store paid Gavin’s crazy mother over a hundred thousand dollars when she sued them for supposedly sexually assaulting her when they busted her ass for shoplifting. Everyone knew she was lying; they just wanted to get rid of her. As far as guilt or innocence is concerned, settlements mean nothing.

    To everyone who isn’t Doc May, I wouldn’t bother answering this phony, but some one who isn’t a troll might find this post enlightening.

    Like

  205. Brian May permalink
    February 26, 2014 9:10 pm

    Ha! Good, yes. Good on you, Mr. “VC”. Does that stand for Varlet Concubine?

    But anyways- This truly is an open-shut case. That is why he settled out of court for millions of dollars. Or as we British say, millions of pounds.

    Checkmate, sir.

    Doctor May

    Like

  206. February 26, 2014 8:51 pm

    “The fact of the matter, Dearies, is that Michael Jackson paid cash to silence Gavin and the maid. If Jackson was innocent, he certainly would not have paid them.”

    “Brian May”, you’re absolutely right – Michael Jackson never paid Gavin a penny, and the maid wasn’t silenced, she was selling her lies to the highest bidder. Therefore according to your own reasoning, Michael Jackson was innocent. Duh.

    Like

  207. Brian May permalink
    February 26, 2014 8:21 pm

    This entire website is positively, absolutely, and irrefutably ridiculous. The fact of the matter, Dearies, is that Michael Jackson paid cash to silence Gavin and the maid. If Jackson was innocent, he certainly would not have paid them.

    This closes the case. Ah, is it not good to make use of common sense?

    My heart of hearts grieves for poor Gavin, whose is likely to live out the remainder of his life a disturbed and distorted shell of a man.. much like Michael was. You see, I am a Psychologist with a Ph.D. from Cambridge University.This sort of happening is quite common, in fact, it is a perhaps a little too common for comfort. A warped and abused individual wishes to corrupt another Human Being. Michael attempted to corrupt young Gavin. Let us hope that his attempts were unsuccessful, and that Gavin can live his life to the fullest.. and put his foul, squalid, un-kosher days at Neverland Ranch behind him.

    Doctor May

    Like

  208. newrodrigo permalink
    February 25, 2014 10:25 pm

    Honestly, just TRY and take the word “sexual” out of the equation when thinking why Michael Jackson did the things he did.

    Yes, I know it’s a simple and easy tool of coming to a conclusion about him…[anger fuels my sarcasm here]
    But it’s lazy and very incorrect to do so.

    Just remove the conclusion and word from your mind and then review the man and his situations in life in full. Hopefully then you’ll understand him and how he was innocent in every way possible and then hopefully my blood pressure will lower itself.

    Like

  209. newrodrigo permalink
    February 25, 2014 10:08 pm

    If such a picture of Spence was found, Michael would’ve been done on the spot.
    The media and haters exaggerate a hell of a lot deliberately for their purposes.

    They tailor to quite a few mugs out there who will instantly believe their bullshit without a seconds thought. Because they use powerful words and are in positions where people listen and look, and have all these questions running through their minds once they see and hear everything they say.
    They each have their motives for doing these things, but share the same ultimate goal: Destroy Michael Jackson.

    A supposedly damaging picture of Macaulay Culkin was found in Michael’s bathroom…It was a simple pic straight from Home Alone.
    Love letters to Jordan Chandler…were simple friendship letters that really showed Michael had an interest in June.

    See where I’m going?

    Now you ask…what sort of man has a picture of his child friend on his bathroom mirror or write letters to another?
    That’s reason enough to suspect he’s not right?

    Well I say, absolutely preposterous. Michael Jackson’s attachment and friendships towards children, his interest in them, had absolutely no sexual traces. And I dare anybody attempt to point them out if you think you can find them.

    The only traces of anything is innocence. Pure innocence. A man who regressed mentally to an extent into a childlike state.
    His interest and attachments stem from that, care and a sense of loss that he could not reclaim. He was a friend, a brother and a father to children everywhere, not because he wanted to be…but because that was just who he was.
    Michael Jackson was a long story to explain. Yes, difficult to understand for some at times who get misled by forces out there.
    But the simple fact is, he was not a p-le. He fit no profile. In over 10 year, they found zero evidence to suggest he was guilty of harming children.
    All they found was the evidence that he was a deeply misunderstood and tragic human being.
    Misunderstood by a cruel society hellbent on believing the worst, fuelled by hounds with agendas of profiting from the tragedy of a man who simply preferred and cared for children more in this world than anything else, because they are the future to healing a broken world…seen only by a broken man who nobody listened to…only now we wish we had what with the world heading down the path it is.

    Syria chemical attacks killing children. Seen the pictures of dead children? I have.

    Even exploitation of children. Modern Family’s Ariel Winter, at aged 15, posted all over websites with headlines about the size of her breasts. An industry that sets out to destroy Michael Jackson, that at the same time discusses what teenage girls are doing on beaches, with pics of them in their bikinis.

    Is it because Michael challenged them about the things that makes the world go around for them? War, sex, drugs?
    And someone like Woody Allen who encouraged what’s wrong with this world and was treated like a hero for it.

    The whole thing is just ridiculous and makes me SICK TO MY STOMACH.

    Like

  210. Deana permalink
    February 25, 2014 8:20 pm

    Question: was there actually some sort of incriminating photo of Jonathan Spence found or was that another media lie?

    Like

  211. February 25, 2014 3:58 am

    Of course Michael’s doubters need proof that Michael’s love for children was pure as otherwise they won’t believe anything. They will still claim that “all of them say that”.

    But to our amazement we know not only what Michael said, but what was on his mind too, because even his unconscious was tested, and tested not just once but three times.

    The first time it was done by no other but Evan Chandler who interrogated Michael under Toradol but could not force him into saying anything suspicious. We have Ray Chandler’s book to testify to that. The second was Uri Geller who asked him direct questions to which Michael said “NO” without any hesitation. And the third was Murray’s tape he was making for reasons we can only guess at.

    Murray’s recording reveals that Michael took children’s helplessness and ills so close to his heart that he was thinking about it even when half-asleep. He saw the root of all problems in their depressed state – because he himself went through it when he was very young. His recipe for healing children was through games, laugh and various joyous activities that would oust the depression. This is what he was offering to disadvantaged children in Neverland and this idea was so deep-rooted in his mind that he was thinking about it even when half-asleep.

    The tape:

    JACKSON: I’m taking that money, a million children, children’s hospital, the biggest in the world, Michael Jackson’s Children’s Hospital. Gonna have a movie theater, game room. Children are depressed. The –in those hospitals, no game room, no movie theater. They’re sick because they’re depressed. Their mind is depressing them. I want to give them that. I care about them, them angels. God wants me to do it. God wants me to do it. I’m gonna do it, Conrad.

    MURRAY: I know you would.

    JACKSON: I’m gonna do that for them. That will be remembered more than my performances. My performances will be up there helping my children and always be my dream. I love them. I love them, because I didn’t have a childhood. I had no childhood. I feel their pain. I feel their hurt. I can deal with it. “Heal the World,” “We are the World,” “Will You be There,” “The Lost Children.” These are the songs I’ve written because I hurt, you know, I hurt.

    The purity of Michael’s thoughts is simply incredible. How many of us would say something similar in a half conscious state? How many people would speak of God under these circumstances? How deeply rooted should all these beliefs be for us to think of them even under sedation?

    Compare it with the state of mind of those other guys. They make cynical jokes even when in full control of their thoughts and feelings, so what would they say if their unconscious were released?

    Like

  212. February 25, 2014 3:00 am

    Great comment from everyone, thank you very much. You are right in saying that the main difference from p-les is that Michael’s attitude to children totally lacked any sexual component. Frank Cascio grew side by side with Michael and specially noted it in his book:

    I want to be precise and clear, on the record, so that everyone can read and understand: Michael’s love for children was innocent, and it was profoundly misunderstood. People seemed to have trouble accepting all the good qualities of this incredible man, and were always asking how it could be that he was the greatest singer on earth, the greatest dancer on earth, and yet enjoy hanging around with children all day? How could he write and perform such explosively sexual, complex songs, and then have nothing but harmless interactions with the kids with whom he surrounded himself? How could he have so many idiosyncrasies that seemed weird to the outside observer—the plastic surgery, the bizarre purchases, the secrecy—and then not be “weird” in other, more offensive ways?

    Yes, Michael had different personas. The same way I myself became a different person depending on whether I was home with my family, traveling with Michael, or back in school in New Jersey. The same way we all put on different faces for dealing with different parts of our lives. If Michael’s different images seemed extreme, it was only because his life was more extreme than anyone else’s. For all the hard work he’d put in during his own childhood, for all the perfectionism that drove his music, Michael craved the simplicity and innocence of the youth he had never fully experienced. He revered it, he treasured it, and, especially through Neverland, he tried to offer it to others. People had trouble understanding all this, and many assumed the worst. This misunderstanding was the greatest sorrow of Michael’s life. He carried it with him to the end.

    I am here to say that I knew the real Michael Jackson. I knew him throughout my childhood. In all that time, he never showed himself to be anything but a perfect friend. Never did he make a questionable advance or a sexual remark.”

    Michael’s doubters forget that children are the best judges of adults themselves. If they feel that something is ‘wrong’, if they see an adult giving them a ‘funny’ look or if something is vaguely bothering them, the child will never seek the companionship of this adult. Children will give lots of pretexts to their parents to avoid such association, hide in closets not to be found, lock themselves in bathrooms (like Dylan did), etc.

    Anyone who read the accounts of abused children will note that they didn’t want to see those guys, and it was their parents who brushed off their fears as nonsense and insisted on those holidays with uncles, etc. who later turned out to be abusers.

    And as to Michael everyone says that he had an amazing connection with kids and they flocked to him and followed him everywhere he went. Including Lisa-Marie Presley who was recently quoted here. She even added: “He was a kid himself and kids sensed it in him”.

    June Chandler said the same and had to repeat it at the 2005 trial:

    15 Q. Okay. Do you remember telling Michael
    16 Jackson, “You’re like a magnet?”
    17 A. I don’t recall.
    18 Q. Do you remember telling Michael Jackson,
    19 “You’re like Peter Pan. Everybody wants to be
    20 around you and spend 24 hours”?
    21 A. Yes.
    22 Q. You told him, “Lily would too, except she’s
    23 not old enough”?
    24 A. Yes.

    Like

  213. Mariam permalink
    February 25, 2014 2:05 am

    “When a P+++phile says the things like ” I would never hurt a child” or uses terms like “innocent” or “pure” it is in defense of their actions after they are caught” lynande51

    That is very true lynande51, p+++phile do not love children, actually they see children as an adult and want them for sex they don’t see them as a child at all. I don’t heard that p++phile helped disadvantage children, never heard them visiting children hospital and provide what they need; I never heard them saying or protecting children publicly. I never heard them donating a lot of money for children’s charity or building up hospital or buying equipment for children hospital, in general they do not have that kind of heart or interest for children that are not what they want to do for children.

    This reminded me that record that was recorded by Murray on MJ’s last days of life when MJ was under influence of propofol. What was in his mind after his London show? ” building a big children hospital” it makes me cry that voice, and that it self tells his relationship with children how innocent and pure it was. I recommend that to leila21 to listen it, because for the person with right mind, that record giving you, what was in MJ’s heart. That voice record played in court, changes a lot of peoples minds about MJ.

    When we are talking about MJ, those criminals are far, far different than MJ. First of all MJ care about for all human affairs in general, not only children, that tells you how beautiful and sensitive person he was, with big heart, actually he cared about everything, when it comes humanity. This is him, this is who he was. That is what I think people miss about him or misunderstand him. Not for children’s only, Michael had a big, big heart and he is a caring person in general. Pure and simple, he was a great human being.

    But if we have to talk deep about it and if we want to see MJ’s inspiration, or his passion, we have to start from his childhood. MJ has that vision {helping children} since he was a little boy himself. He had dream to help starving children in Africa when he grew up, which he did when he became a millionaire young man/boy. He helped millions of Ethiopian children, I even read the article said “his contribution fed every single person in Africa” (we are the world time)” May be a little bit exaggerated but it is true he gave to millions.

    And also he never had childhood and I guess he was trying to compensate his lost childhood by playing with kids as a kid himself. That is also the factor why he is close or likes children or why he had that childlike behaviour.

    People say, why is he always with boys – because he is a boy, I guarantee you, if he played or spent time with young girls, they would say or accuse him exactly the same way. It didn’t matter at all, in my opinion.

    He was also betrayed and hurt by adults so much that he started distancing from adult even from his own families, he preferred to be around kids other than adults, because as MJ said himself, kids don’t betray you, they don’t steal from you, they don’t take advantage of you, instead he was actually inspired with their pureness and he said, he sees God in them, all that makes him safe and calm, he said that himself “I feel safe around them” and also they helped him with his creativity for his music. He was also inspired with what Jesus said about children, he likes that so much, as we know he is a believer and loves reading bible.

    Being around children, seeing them playing, talking to them, takes you away from your own life and it takes away your stress, you understand what I am taking about if you have children, so I can imaging Michael who had a lot of stresses which was associated with his personal and business life.

    The other reason was, he wants to use his celebrity status to help charities and to influence others to alarm about planet earth, global warming, to fight against war, racism and against HIV/AIDS e.t.c as any other good celebrity. He was trying and using his money and celebrity power towards many things not only children.

    If we want to compare MJ with those people, which I don’t want, but if we do, we need to see who Michael is and studying his nature and behaviour and his background, and his motive, learn about his childhood and also listen from who really knows him very well who knows him for over 20 years, not from the people who had conflict before, not tabloid or Diana Dimond or not those racist or not those people who had their own agenda and wanted to make money on him and who tried to destroy and hurt his legacy and his kids. You will never find the truth from them unless you yourself dig deep and do your own search, that is how I found the truth about MJ myself.

    Nobody here are foolish or uneducated or just simply brainwashed by anyone, some of them are lawyers, some of them are psychiatry, some of them are from medical, a writer e.t.c so we support and speak about innocent man after we did our homework. As humans we all need concerned about being Just, if we don’t who will? That is why we are here and defending MJ and people like MJ because we all did our own search first.

    Like

  214. lynande51 permalink
    February 24, 2014 10:50 pm

    Yes I was going to do the long response but thank you VC. Here is something that people don’t seem to understand. When a P+++phile says the things like ” I would never hurt a child” or uses terms like “innocent” or “pure” it is in defense of their actions after they are caught. They use them as a form of denial only when they are discovered, not before discovery, after discovery.

    Then once the punishment phase comes so comes the anger at being incarcerated and,more that any thing, the anger of being deprived of what they want, and what they really think comes out. That is when you will always hear them say things like ” they (the child) asked for it”, “he/she flirted with me”. In other word they are not much different than an adult sex offender in that it is more about overpowering than it is anything else. They like the power just like any rapist does. Because to these guys love =sex because that is what they “love” to do. However they lack the emotional capacity to love and there is no love for them only sex. They see children as sexual.That has been shown in brain scan after brain scan showing the changes or abnormalities in their brains.

    Michael Jackson clearly stated in more than one interview and in his book was that his interest in children and playing like them was for inspiration for his music because children were not jaded yet by the world and still had an innate optimism that adults lack. All of these statements came long before any accusations were made. He made it perfectly clear that he did not see them as sexual beings.

    The problem that I have with people that quote the analysis of Ken Lanning is that they are reading information and forming an opinion based on whatever drove them to read his analysis. Ken Lanning did a superb job from 1980-1984 in gathering and analyzing his data but it was in 1980. This may lead to many problems mostly because it was:
    1.It was written for law enforcement officers faced with having to look for these perpetrators.
    2. If you do not have a degree in psychology or psychiatry you do not have the proper tools to make the analysis/assessment because you are not trained in the intricate workings of human behavior. These are guidelines for law enforcement because they were asking how do we know one of these guys. It also is based on what they said to the people gathering the data for this study, how do we know they were all telling the truth?.
    3.It was written when it was written and based on information that was available back then. The world of psychiatry has made great progress since that time and that is the field of medicine where the analysis/assessment is done now/

    Also I would like to add that we in the psychiatric field here in the USA are leaps and bound ahead of what the media tells you. We have things in place now that prohibit them from re-entering the community to reoffend. As a matter of fact a group of them just lost a case in Minnesota where I live. You see what we do here and in most other states is when one of them is about to be released from prison we are asked to intervene and have them placed on civil commitment to one of our security hospitals depending on their diagnosis. They are not happy about this because this can be permanent based on their participation and progress in the programs in the respective hospitals.

    Like

  215. February 24, 2014 9:01 pm

    leila – the number one characteristic of p – philes is that they derive sexual gratification from pre-pubescent children. There is no such thing as a “nice guy” p – phile. Many adults enjoy the company of children; many adults enjoy toys and games. Thankfully not many adults are sexually aroused by the very young. Another characteristic of those who do is collecting child pornography; it’s near universal. NO such material was ever found in Michael Jackson’s possession. NO such material was found on any of his sixteen computers.

    leila, dear, I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but your post, along with other recent ones, is pretty transparent. Nice job. I hope they pay you well.

    Like

  216. Sina permalink
    February 24, 2014 7:40 pm

    “Sina, could you give a link to this Wallstreet journal please?” Helena

    I dont have a link of the article its a pdf. Trying to convert it to text to post or I could send it to you.

    “I’ve read in some source that when Michael arrived from England he didn’t expect to see the hysteria that was going in the US, and he and Branca did discuss it ” Helena

    The news of the allegations broke when Michael was in Thailand and the hysteria started right away. Michael expected and rightfully so, that during his absence a battery of high profile , well paid lawyers would handle the case properly.
    But too many cooks with huge ego’s spoil the broth.
    As for Pellicano, with his track record he should never have been hired by Michaels lawyers. He is serving a long sentence for many counts among which illegal wiretapping.
    I do not like his cryptic statements about Michael from out of jail. Actually, since Wade Robson I dont trrust anyone of Michaels selfserving entourage.

    Like

  217. February 24, 2014 7:03 pm

    In all the cases against Michael the prosecution could not get one p..dl expert on the stand. The reason was because Michael did not fit the profile at all. Michael said that having sexual relations with a child is harming them…period. Usually, real abusers can’t make that determination. Michael did not fit the profile of an abuser at all, and that’s another lie that the media spreads that has thoroughly been debunked.

    Like

  218. leila21 permalink
    February 24, 2014 6:35 pm

    i hate to have to ask this, but how come people just seem to ignore that michael fits the fbi’s profile of the ‘nice guy’ pedophile perfectly? the whole relating to them, thinking what they are doing isn’t harmful, using the terms ‘innocence’ and ‘pure’, interest in childlike activities/items… i know the facts are do make it seem like both were extortion attempts, but how can people just try and deny he fits the profile?

    Like

  219. February 24, 2014 5:43 pm

    Not settling the case would have been defense suicide to a degree. It’s my understanding that they had to do something to prevent the civil trial from taking place first. No doubt Michael would have won, but I can’t understand why the civil trial came before the criminal trial anyway.

    Like

  220. February 24, 2014 3:08 pm

    I just can’t get past the fact that Michael was actually subjected to this stripsearch in 1993. What other major celebrity, before or since, has been placed in such a position? No one. It’s almost impossible to discern for certain who represented him at that time or under what threat he or his representatives felt compelled to comply with the warrant when a criminal complaint had not even been filed. Sneddon obviously had the judicial system in his back pocket so as to find a judge who would order such an unconscionable invasion of Michael’s privacy.

    At this point, from everything I’ve read, I do believe insurance paid the settlement or at least a large part under its global negligence provisions, but at this point it seems of less significance than the fact that some judge went off the rails in total disregard of Michael Jackson’s civil rights in issuing the SS warrant, at the behest of a probably racist prosecutor with no moral compass who should have faced disbarment but was never even censured.

    Like

  221. February 24, 2014 6:19 am

    Helena, in addition to your answer to jay let me say that Gavin was very angry with his mother in the beginning when they had left Neverland for good. It was told in court that he even attacked his mother physically when they were back home, knowing he would never go back to Neverland again. It became clear during his cross-examination by Mesereau that he never wanted to leave Neverland and Michael. Gavin’s behavior after they left Neverland for good was conspicious, he was bad at school and very aggressive, and the prosecutors claimed it was because of the molestation, but it was because he was angry with his mother about having to leave Michael and never going back to Neverland.
    There were definitely many struggles in the family about Janet’s decision to accuse Michael and go forward with these allegations. But we could see how Gavin was pressured in this police interview, and if you consider Janet’s very dominant and manipulating personality it is not surprising that the boy (in 2003 he was only 12 or 13) gave in. And now, as you say correctly, as an adult he is trapped with all the others in their lies – it’s like living in a prison.

    BTW, there are some great recommendations for the Gedrick/Shaw film in this article:
    http://www.examiner.com/article/the-trials-of-michael-jackson-the-media-exposed

    Like

  222. February 24, 2014 2:52 am

    “do you know if gavin was in on the plan to extort michael? like, i know it was probably janet’s idea, but did gavin know it was going to happen before she set the plan in action? he looked friendly with michael in the documentary, but if he was really michael’s friend, i don’t see how he could betray him so easily unless he knew all along his mother would attempt to sue michael and was never really his friend” – jay

    I generally don’t comment on the Arvizos because they are so much a joke that discussing them isn’t even worth the time of it.

    But I’ll tell you about a surprise I once had about this family. I remember reading in some documents that at one point Janet said to the prosecutors that “they can’t do it” because Gavin was not going for it. This made me think that there was a lot of indecision even inside that family of con-artists.

    So Gavin was in doubt but the pressure was too big – from Janet, her boyfriend Jay Jackson, the prosecutors who evidently spoke of what a favor to the country he would do if they saved it from this “monster”, and from his own desire for money and for shining in the lights of fame, and finally he gave in. But it seems to me that initially he was not too supportive of the plan.

    And after they started on this road there was no way back. Now they are trapped by their own lies.

    Like

  223. February 24, 2014 2:20 am

    “What makes me wonder is not why the haters do what they do, but why Michael? That I am still looking for the answer. It is a choice; I choose LOVE because love is positive and covers everything and it is a foundation of everything. Michael showed us love and told us how love is important, moreover God is love.” – Mariam

    Mariam, I think you yourself answered the question you asked. They do it to Michael because he has shown to them how powerful Love can be. Love took different forms while Michael was alive – first it was girls’ simple screaming when Michael was young, then it grew into appreciation of his values in life when he began to sing Man in the mirror and other songs that made people think, and after his death love flared up with a new force and grew into a movement to defend, support and speak up for him.

    They hoped that with his death he would be finished as a phenomenon, but instead of him they now have to deal with all of us. What a surprise. Both for them and for us. Neither side expected this to happen.

    I see this process as Michael breaking up into millions of sparks and many of us suddenly catching them. This transformation was immediate and came in a bang.

    Who knows? Probably Love is so powerful a force that it is capable of such miracles.

    By the way this explains what sacrifice of an innocent is all about, the effect and meaning of it. The injustice of it shatters the earth.

    “I know love is powerful but I did not know how dynamic hate is.”

    Of course hate is dynamic and powerful. It kills.

    Like

  224. February 24, 2014 1:56 am

    Mariam, please don’t worry about your spelling mistakes. I’ve corrected them. My writing is far from impeccable too but when I manage to notice other people’s wrong spelling in the comments I correct it myself because otherwise the translation tool in this blog will not be able to recognize the word.

    Like

  225. jay permalink
    February 23, 2014 11:32 pm

    do you know if gavin was in on the plan to extort michael? like, i know it was probably janet’s idea, but did gavin know it was going to happen before she set the plan in action? he looked friendly with michael in the documentary, but if he was really michael’s friend, i don’t see how he could betray him so easily unless he knew all along his mother would attempt to sue michael and was never really his friend

    Like

  226. Mariam permalink
    February 23, 2014 8:22 pm

    Again apologized for my spelling error, I made quite many spelling mistakes. pls read it as “for sure they did not find nuclear bomb/chemical in Neverland(just for laugh)” also the word “hate” spelled as heat, pls read it as “hate”

    Like

  227. Mariam permalink
    February 23, 2014 7:02 pm

    Thank you Helena and this was another confusion that should be addressed and you put it clearly for everybody who is not still 100 % convinced about MJ’s innocence. It is again excellent information.

    “How much longer will this be allowed to happen? How long will people allow the image of MJ to be manipulated and in so gross a manner?”Helena

    Sneddon, Dimond, Silberman and those mjlies boys/ people who are creating blogs/sites just to attack MJ’s integrity and legacy even after he died, makes me learn how strong and dangerous hate is. to me, it is beyond making profit or for getting attention.

    It makes me think how evil and deadly the disease is. I know love is powerful but I did not know how dynamic hate is. When people behave like that, we have to wonder and concern where this comes from, it seems like they are possessed with something, they don’t even know what it is themselves, but their influence concerns me too much for future generation and also I am concerned about MJ’s children because these people hate the father and don’t know what they will do to them.

    Yes, we call terrorists “terrorists” because they manifest themselves very obviously and kill us physically, but the haters are acting silently and not very obvious. They may not be destroying you physically but they do destroy you physiologically and morally/destroy your spirit.

    People who are filled out with so much hate are not healthy people to be around. Because they have a tendency to poison your mind and it could be contagious too, it is better not to be around them and not to read and listen anything that comes out from them. We have to guard our heart and spirit from those people.

    Let’s say, they don’t like him growing/being successful or let’s say they are competing with him and he is a threat, let’s say for whatever reason they don’t like him, but after the person died, that should be the end of it, how come they don’t leave him or forget him even though he is no longer a threat to them/they will never see him rise or be successful again, what are they looking for from dead person now who does not speak or defend himself? I don’t get it.

    MJ is not politician/a president/scientist or someone who is powerful who could do something extraordinary to harm mankind, for sure they did not find nuclear bomb/chemical in Neverland (just for laugh), Yet the people still couldn’t leave him alone. It is a sickness.

    What makes me wonder is not why the haters do what they do, but why Michael? That I am still looking for the answer.

    It is a choice; I choose LOVE because love is positive and covers everything and it is a foundation of everything. Michael showed us love and told us how love is important, moreover God is love.

    Like

  228. February 23, 2014 5:34 pm

    I think the insurance company would never pay for sex allegations, because that would mean covering an alleged crime. But its likely that they did pay after the terms of the settlement- negligence- were agreed on. Of course they could not reveal it because of the confidentiality clause. – Sina

    Agree.

    “Michaels defense was a mess with 3 or 4 lawyers making contradicting statements in public. According to an article in the Wallstreet journal it was on Branca’s behest that Cochran was hired, to kick out Bert Fields and probably to settle the case”.

    Sina, could you give a link to this Wallstreet journal please? I’ve read in some source that when Michael arrived from England he didn’t expect to see the hysteria that was going in the US, and he and Branca did discuss it. But as regards the person who brought Cochran Lisa Campbell says it was Bob Jones, though she does say that Branca played a certain role in replacing Bert Fields:

    Michael’s manager, Sandy Gallin, told The Wall Street Journal that “When Michael was away and unreachable, there really wasn’t anybody in control.”
    On December 3 a letter, signed by Michael, was sent to Fields ousting him as chief of the civil case. On the 13th, he resigned under pressure. John Branca, the attorney who represented Michael throughout the eighties and helped negotiate his deal to purchase the Beatle catalog, was also exercising some influence in the decision to replace Fields.
    Attorney Johnnie Cochran Jr. then joined Michael’s defense team with Howard Weitzman. Cochran told Jet magazine, “I’m really pleased to be representing Mr. Jackson. I expect he will be totally vindicated. Their charges are false. He is innocent and it is outrageous the way he has been treated by the media. A lot of people will owe him an apology when it’s over.”
    Katherine Jackson, who had publicly criticized Michael’s defence team said with the changes, she could sleep better at night. Some in the media speculated that the family had had some influence on Michael’s decision to make the changes. This seems unlikely. Although Michael is very close to his mother, it is doubtful he would let her influence such a critical decision. He has never been one to agree with his family’s advice. It does seem plausible that another lady in his life would have such influence, Elizabeth Taylor. In fact her attorney, Neil Papiano, was also brought in to monitor the case. Field’s replacement Cochran, was actually suggested by Bob Jones. Jones had known Cochran since they went to high school together.

    When I looked into the history of Branca’s relations with MJ I found that the first time Branca was fired was because he was ousted by David Geffen/Sandy Gallin when Geffen went into a feud with Yetnikoff and Branca was on Yetnikoff’s side. And when David Geffen came he brought in his lawyer Bert Fields. And Pellicano was Fields’ investigator.

    So when Michael brought Branca back in 1993 what most probably happened is what usually happens when a new person comes and the new and old people cannot find common language. Personally I’m very sorry that Bert Fields had to leave, same as Pellicano.

    “By the time Cochran came in so much damage was already done, including illegal actvities by Pellicano that settling was the only option. I know most fans are pro Pellicano, and have a different view of what happened, but imo he harmed Michaels case more than anything. He may have exposed the extortion with his questioning of JC and the tape recordings, but there was no way these tapes or interview could be used as evidence in court, it would actually work against Michaels defense.”

    And I’ve read that in cases of extortion private detectives have the full right to tape those whom they suspect of extortion, so I think that those tapes could be used in court.

    By the way there was no team Cochran, but a team Weizman-Cochran, as Mesereau said Weizman was in charge of the defense team and hired Cochran. Its heartbreaking that a man who was such a perfectionist in his work had such amateurs defending him. Worlds apart from Mesereau.

    Lisa Campbell also says that it was Wietzman who fired Bert Fields and hired Cochran. And of course all of them are worlds apart from Thomas Mesereau, no doubt about it. Thomas Mesereau is not just a formal lawyer who does the job while he is paid money for it. He really cares and in fact the last portion of what Michael owed him was paid by the Estate after Michael’s death – and Thomas Mesereau never even spoke about that debt.

    And Cochran and all the rest of them were paid $100,000 a week as the media reported at that time. You remember how boastful Carl Douglas, Cochran’s assistant was of the amount of money they made on that case.

    If Michael had entered the civil trial with these lawyers they would have robbed him of millions – so whichever way you look at it he would have had to pay millions in any case.

    Like

  229. February 23, 2014 4:52 pm

    “Its becoming hard enough for Mr. Mesereau to remember everything that happened 10 years ago, let alone negotiations that took place 20 years ago.” – TatumMarie

    Tatum, I’ve also noticed that Thomas Mesereau is starting to forget even the things he himself asked about at the 2003 trial. I think it is not because his memory is failing him – he is sharp as ever – but because he has had so many other cases since then that it is inevitable for some points of that case to lose clarity. And as regards the Chandlers I think that by now we know probably even more than he ever knew. After all he was mostly focusing on the Arvizos.

    “To question the legal document that supports the insurance, claiming its a fake is ridiculous, it is directly linked from the Santa Barbara Superior Court electronic documents database, it was definitely filed. I wouldn’t care if Michael paid the settlement”

    In all honesty I wouldn’t care a bit either except that I would be sorry that he had to part with the money he earned by so hard work. As soon as I found that the civil trial was planned to be televised I realized that Michael had no other way out.

    To prove his innocence he would have had to provide his genitalia photos in court and risk that not only the jurors but the TV viewers would see them – and though they were proving his innocence I perfectly understand that he didn’t want to defend himself in this manner. It would have been his worst nightmare. In comparison with the humiliation it would have cost him those millions were peanuts.

    “It is irritating when you see people like Weitzman claiming they wanted to fight when in actuality, they were the ones behind the settlement.”

    Weitzman does not strike me as someone who is really ready to fight. This is probably why Thomas Mesereau sounded so worried that Wietzman and Branca would rather agree to pay to Robson than fight him in court. I wish Thomas Mesereau could handle that case.

    Like

  230. February 23, 2014 4:21 pm

    “How can you have such unwavering belief in his innocence?” – Deana

    Deana, I have such unwavering belief in his innocence because I looked into every dirty thing said about Michael. I went in rounds and rounds and rounds each time going deeper and deeper and deeper.

    The first few weeks I studied all that dirt out of curiosity, the next few months I did it out of surprise that the facts of his innocence were lying on the surface but no one bothered to pick them up, the next couple of years I did it with some trepidation that I could be mistaken after all and each new challenge sent me into a sort of fear that now I will find something that will overturn my perception of Michael, but each time it turned out to be another lie and I was sorry for entertaining even the possibility of a doubt.

    And the last couple of years I’ve lived with a sort of a feeling that I know him so well that can even say what he was thinking of in this or that particular moment in time. This is only a feeling of course but it helps to find solutions to questions which still baffle some people.

    If you want to have unwavering belief in Michael’s innocence my advice to you is to live your next four and a half years like I did and you will feel the same.

    Like

  231. February 23, 2014 3:59 pm

    “Now it is imperative to them , that no one find out what they did to an innocent man.” – Nan

    Nan, I think you are right. As regards Sneddon/Zonen/Diane Dimond it is indeed imperative for them that MJ is never found innocent. Because if he is proven innocent it will automatically make them guilty of the worst witch hunt ever.

    So now these people are “circling the wagons” and stand by each other’s lies. And Larry Feldman is most probably part of that team as well. Oh, and the Arvizos of course.

    Like

  232. February 23, 2014 3:42 pm

    “The general public needs to look at the prosecutors and police in Michael Jacksons case . As well as Dimond and her influence over them. I always like to point out that, in the end , it is going to be Diane Dimond and her record of lies that end up ruining these prosecutors personal and professional reputations.” – Nan

    Exactly.

    “- he said he had seen one but he was not able to get a photo of it because MJ “threw a fit”.
    – I think that is absurd.”

    Of course it is absurd. And it is absurd not because Michael was indeed crying and took it very hard. It is absurd because Sneddon had those photos with an alleged dark spot and even described them in his inimitable manner in his Declaration of May 26, 2005:

    5. I have reviewed the statements made by Jordan Chandler in his interview on December 1, 1993. I have examined the drawing made by Jordan Chandler at Detective Ferrufino’s request and the photographs taken of Defendant’s genitalia. The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant’s penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant’s erect penis. etc.

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

    So saying that the photographer was “unable to get a photo of it” is a little bit of an exaggeration.

    Like

  233. February 23, 2014 2:35 pm

    “Well all I can say to them is that I know what’s wrong and that is that not one of them has foreskin and they are all circumcised.” – Lynande51

    That’s the worst part of it. If they weren’t there wouldn’t be any questions left.

    “That is why they cling to the spots which don’t matter a damn if Jordan had actually seen it.”

    I’m afraid that people who slander Michael cling to every opportunity to tell a lie about MJ. This post is also about the fact that these people are changing absolutely every piece of evidence in Jordan Chandler’s case in order to adjust them to their present agenda and continue smearing Michael even after we clean him of “old” dirt. We clean him of old dirt, but they invent new one!

    When it turned out that Michael was not circumcised they began to speak from every arena that “Jordan never said that MJ was circumcised”. Even Seth Silberman, a lecturer from Yale University has the audacity to change history when it comes to MJ. Taking advantage of the fact that Gutierrez’s book is not in easy access Silberman even misquotes Victor Gutierrez in this respect. This is simply unheard of. And this is a university lecturer!

    And as regards those “splotches” the whole thing is either a bad comedy or a terrible nightmare depending on how you look at it. They change those splotches back and forth without batting an eyelid.

    First it was “a light splotch the color of his face” and the whole nation was abhorred by how graphic Jordan’s description was.

    Then photos were made and showed that a “light” splotch was wrong. A certain pause followed so that everyone forgets what they said before.

    Then a “dark spot” appeared and again the whole nation was abhorred and thrilled by the story, especially when Sneddon threatened to use the photos in court in 2005. I’m afraid that even in this blog half the people still don’t understand what a terrible bluff it was.

    And now Diane Dimond again speaks of some light splotches that “helped to identify it correctly”, and the majority again exclaim “how true the description was”. And the old mantra that “only the two of them know” is again used by every imbecile.

    It would be funny if it were not that tragic. People should at last start thinking. What is being done to Jackson is something akin to terrorism. How much longer will this be allowed to happen? How long will people allow the image of MJ to be manipulated and in so gross a manner?

    I think that for determining Michael’s innocence all those descriptions of MJ’s genitalia are absolutely unnecessary. By now we have collected so much information and so much evidence of his innocence that it is even indecent to talk about these details again. I did it only because I was practically attacked by all those guys with their questions.

    But the same details and this never-ending story of maneuvering with Jordan’s description done by lots of people – Sneddon, Dimond, Silberman and those mjlies boys – are necessary for proving that those who manipulate this evidence have a certain agenda. All these people know that Jordan’s description was wrong, however they keep changing the picture in order to make it “right” and continue fooling people.

    I can understand ordinary people who have been confused by all those lies because I myself was in their place and only through very hard work at reaching for the truth realized that Michael was innocent.

    But I cannot understand people who know the truth but change the evidence on purpose in order to proclaim Michael guilty on the basis of the evidence they themselves tampered with.

    This points to a grave agenda, and it is finding this agenda which is so necessary now. And this is why not a single episode of their manipulation with the evidence should be lost on us. Not a single one.

    All these episodes should turn into the evidence against these people, and not MJ.

    P.S. Lynette, I’ve updated the post with your information about Diane Dimond’s comment. Thank you very much.

    Like

  234. February 23, 2014 1:31 pm

    Diane Dimond’s assertion makes no sense. If MJ had “thrown a fit” and refused to comply with the police, they would have thrown him to the ground and manhandled him into position for the photo. They probably would have taken him into custody.

    Obviously Diane Dimond has a Michael Jackson sexual fetish, what with her pre-occupation with his genitals. She probably got a little thrill just typing the word “aroused”. Maybe her defense of Woody Allen serves as expiation for her sins against MJ in her warped little mind. Or maybe Woody, an odd-looking, homely, little old man, just doesn’t turn her on.

    Like

  235. Nan permalink
    February 23, 2014 12:23 pm

    this part..

    “I can tell you that in her book she quotes the police Photographer Gary Speigel when he gave his statement about the body search. This is where everyone gets their information that there was a dark spot because he said he had seen one but he was not able to get a photo of it because MJ “threw a fit”.

    I think that is absurd .
    That , they would be prevented from getting the picture they truly needed to take because the accused person is having a hissy fit it insane.
    I would assume MJ had a lot of hissy fits and yet they continued with all these search warrants and stuff.
    They didnt get what they wanted because it wasnt there.
    The problem to me , is that they were railroading somebody and were all going along with it, because they were all getting something out of it.
    Diane Dimond blocked me after I told her there were alot of people in that courtroom, using children for their own needs , but MJ wasnt one of them,,
    Because it is true.
    There is no way they believed the3 Arvizo family..It was complete BS.
    ALL these people hid their own agendas behind children , which is why they disgust me so much, all in the name of caring for helpless children.
    Now it is imperative to them , that no one find out what they did to an innocent man .
    So Zonen doesnt do interviews, Sneddon seems to be hiding , and they allow Dimonds poison pen to do their talking.
    Even without all this information,regarding the pictures, MJ was not arrested , which shows Jordan didnt get it right.
    They cant deny that.
    There is no way , you cant tell if someone isnt circumscized.
    A reasonable group of law enforcement people, would start eyeing Evan Chandler, but Sneddon was on a glory ride and refused to see the obvious.
    I think it speaks volumes , that when Stanley Katz was shut down by childrens services , Feldman knew enough to simply phone Sneddon, and he would move heaven and Earth to try and get a conviction, even as others had dismissed these bogus accusations.
    The general public needs to look at the prosecutors and police in Michael Jacksons case .
    As well as Dimond and her influence over them.
    I always like to point out that, in the end , it is going to be Diane Dimond and her record of lies that end up ruining these prosecutors personal and professional reputations.
    Frankly, I dont see how they dont know that now, but they are all stuck , together in the same boat as far as I am concerned.
    We notice D D followed the AEG trial and Alan Dukes coverage , so we know that she knows , not ONE person that testified for either side, thought mj ever did anything.
    We also know when the Chandler stuff was taking place, Mj was in agony from countless procedures on his scalp, so all these people know they lied..They are just trying to cover their lies, because it the truth went ,mainstream , they would be pariah.

    Like

  236. lynande51 permalink
    February 23, 2014 11:05 am

    Actually according to the two accounts out there , Diane Dimond’s and Taraborrelli’s the detective Russ Birchim asked/demanded that Michael lift his penis to see the underside of it not what was under his foreskin because they went in there believing Jordan’s description that he was circumcised.
    For years they have been propagating a lie that foreskin is just a layer of skin and not an actual functioning organ of the male body. And you can tell that they know better too just because they keep saying it would not have made any difference and covering up their lie by trying to convince the world that they asked for his description of an erect penis. It does not matter if it was erect or not because they simply do not look the same or work the same. That is why they cling to the spots which don’t matter a damn if Jordan had actually seen it. if he had seen it or if he had done what he said he did in that interview he would never have gotten that wrong or been “confused” by it.
    in his psychiatric interview with Richard Gardner Jordan said that he masturbated Michael. That interview took place on October 9th 1993 in New York. The body search took place on 12/20/93 at Neverland. On 12/28/93 Jordan gives a Declaration that completely omits that Michael had him perform sexual acts on him. What does that tell me. If you have to omit part of your original claim it is because the claim is a lie and your so called evidence did not pan out..
    The police detectives and Sneddon and Feldman all continue to propagate that lie to this day. Even the lawyers like Branca, Mesereau and Weitzman hesitate when they are questioned about the description. Carl Douglas called It a 300 pound gorilla in the room.
    Well all I can say to them is that I know what’s wrong and that is that not one of them has foreskin and they are all circumcised. .

    Like

  237. February 23, 2014 3:48 am

    “Uh, not to be indelicate, but if the police wanted to see what MJ’s erect penis looked like, how exactly did they expect to achieve that?” – Deana

    I don’t want to be indelicate either but have to explain it in really graphic terms. In order to see what was below the foreskin they were to ask him to draw the foreskin back (at least by 5-6 centimeters because this is how long the foreskin is) and the resulting picture would be more or less like the one when the penis is erect.

    And they did ask him “to adjust” himself as all descriptions of that scene say. And they did photograph him after he “adjusted himself”.

    Poor Michael, I can’t even imagine what a nightmare it must have been. It is the same as taking your pants down in front of people and then groping yourself in front of everyone, and these people photographing it!

    This alone can break anyone’s spirit and create a terrible psychological trauma with all the post-traumatic-symptoms haunting the person for the rest of his life. No wonder Michael was almost crying in that televised message of his.

    Like

  238. February 23, 2014 3:24 am

    “Diane Dimond said, “They were looking to see if the boy’s description of Jackson’s erect penis as having PINKISH splotches on it were correct.” – Lynande51

    Lynande, so now we have a comment from Diane Dimond also confirming what Jordan said in his description? This is absolutely great.

    I haven’t read her book but you did and said to me in an earlier comment that in her book she quotes a police photographer who saw a DARK spot on MJ’s private parts:

    “I can tell you that in her book she quotes the police Photographer Gary Speigel when he gave his statement about the body search. This is where everyone gets their information that there was a dark spot because he said he had seen one but he was not able to get a photo of it because MJ “threw a fit”. He also says that he already had 23 pictures of his body how many pictures can you take of someones genitals anyway? It is also quoted in the Maureen Orth Article from 1995 ” The Jackson Jive”. That is where Sneddon is quoted and so are Russ Birchim and Gary Speigel.”

    If we compare what Diane Dimond says in her comment and what she says in her book we realize that she was probably the first who started manipulations with that information.

    Jordan said one thing and the photographer saw the opposite but Dimond never minds. She knows that people will not look into details and all they will be interested in is that “there was a spot”.

    Based on that spot she, Sneddon and all the rest of them claim that Jordan “correctly identified” it but the crucial information is not in the spot itself – it is in the color of the penis (sorry for having to be graphic).

    So she says the photographer saw just “one dark spot” there but the poor thing couldn’t take a picture of it and all the rest of his/her bla-bla-bla? But doesn’t it mean that the penis was so light and so even colored that he could hardly find just one dark spot there?

    And Jordan, based on what they saw on Michael’s buttocks was making guesses about some light and pinkish splotches on the penis and thought that the whole of it was basically dark?

    Of course it is very easy to confuse people’s minds with all this intricate information about spots and this is why people are told: “There was a spot and forget about everything else”.

    But we can’t forget about “everything else” because this is exaclty where the devil is hiding. The photographer could hardly find ONE dark spot on MJ’s genitalia – so this is how light the thing was – and Jordan imagined it to be dark.

    And this is how deeply he was mistaken. This kind of a mistake can happen only if a person doesn’t have the slightest idea of what he is describing!

    But besides the fact that Jordan lied, all this information also betrays that Diane Dimond, Sneddon and all the rest of them are also lying like crazy about Michael though they perfectly know the truth – the description was all wrong and they are slandering an innocent man!

    “Jordan Chandler said in his psychiatrists interview with Richard Gardner that he masturbated Michael. If he did he would have seen and known what a difference it was and there would have been no confusion.- Lynande51”

    EXACTLY. In the so-called diary of Evan Chandler which was read on the radio at that time Evan Chandler also claimed that Jordan masturbated M. “many times”.

    Like

  239. February 23, 2014 2:19 am

    Uh, not to be indelicate, but if the police wanted to see what MJ’s erect penis looked like, how exactly did they expect to achieve that?

    Deana, you wonder how we can be so sure of Michael Jackson’s innocence? Consider the accusers. ALL they wanted was money. As Tom Mesereau said, why work when you can sue (or accuse) Michael Jackson? Evan Chandler is on tape boasting about ruining MJ because he wouldn’t build him a house, or get him a multi-million dollar screenplay deal. The Arvizos consulted an attorney about suing MJ before they even met him! Wade Robson is broke and unemployable, a failure in all his recent endeavors, so he blames MJ and wants millions so he can live a life of ease. Don’t you get it – these people are opportunists and crooks. There was NEVER any evidence against Michael Jackson. None. Don’t believe the hype. (Maybe you should find a new circle of friends.)

    Like

  240. lynande51 permalink
    February 23, 2014 1:10 am

    Helena I am going to leave a link to an article that DIane Dimond has on her blog. I would like you to scroll down to verify the comment that I will copy and paste. I also took screenshots of the same comment and her reply.It is about the circumcision and color of markings. Diane Dimond was/is friends with Russ Birchim and Chris Pappas from the Santa Barbara Sheriffs Department. They are pictured in her book with her and Birchim was the one that read the description to the photographer and Dr. Strick. It is absolutely possible and probably true that she has actually seen the description or may even have a copy. Here is the text of the comment and her reply. We can settle this for them using her description:

    Eilowny November 18, 2009 at 1:54 am
    Ms. Dimond, Pleas help…, The Michael Jacksons Freaks Make me worry that this man will become a martyr for Pedophiles and make it easier for this kind of predator to get away with their crimes: “ala look what false, evil accusations did to MJ…” (This is all Suvivors – like me – need because the pedophiles already have FMSF.) They’re all over saying that Jordy recanted… most can easily research that to see it’s a myth, but now they’ve got a new one. I saw this quote on YouTube, “For those who say Jordie’s description of MJ’s penis matched, you’re? wrong. The boy said MJ was circumcized, but he was not. ” I don’t remember the circumcision thing in your book. Is this another lie? I used to think that rational people can just look at the facts and believe the victimized child, but the disinformation is all around. This poor child has been villianized more than any other rape victim in my memory. Please, if you choose comment on this. I think this would make things a little bit better if we get the Truth or Lies on this.
    Reply DianeDimond November 28, 2009 at 10:47 pm
    Eilowny- Jordie Chandler was apparently confused about whether Jackson was circumcised. However, what he described about discolorations on Jackson’s penis was proven to be correct. In the opening chapter of my book I describe the day police went to serve a “body search warrant” on Mr. Jackson. They were looking to see if the boy’s description of Jackson’s ERECT penis as having pinkish splotches on it were correct. This was important to prove or disprove and they took along a police photographer to take pictures. Jackson’s attorneys had said that since Jordie and Jackson had gone swimming together (and changed clothes in front of each other) there could have been a perfectly innocent explanation as to how the boy could have seen and then described Jackson’s genitalia. However, Jordie was claiming to have seen the splotches on the side of Jackson’s penis that was exposed only when he was in a sexually aroused state. The photographs taken that day remain under lock and key in a bank safety deposit box in Santa Barbara, California. The Police and the District Attorney representatives there the day the search warrant photos were taken say Jordie’s description was exactly right. Reply – See more at: http://dianedimond.net/the-enigma-that-was-michael-jackson/#comments
    http://dianedimond.net/the-enigma-that-was-michael-jackson/#comments

    I also have a tweet that she sent one of my followers on twitter where she acknowledges that she does know them and they were sources.
    Jordan Chandler said in his psychiatrists interview with Richard Gardner that he masturbated Michael. If he did he would have seen and known what a difference it was and there would have been no confusion. We both know why.
    For years she, the Chandlers and the prosecution have been getting away with minimizing the importance of the uncircumcised and focusing on the discolored areas because it is information that can be manipulated to their needs for it to be a match. That is why they do that.

    Like

  241. Deana permalink
    February 23, 2014 12:31 am

    Hello. I am someone who has been a Michael fan for a long time, but unfortunately am constantly surrounded by people who are sure he’s guilty and have sadly enough even made me begin to question my beliefs that he’s innocent. I’m really upset with myself for even entertaining these notions but id just like to ask this straight from the heart and I in no way mean to come off as rude. How can you have such unwavering belief in his innocence? I want to have it so badly but I can’t stop exhausting all of these theories that I know are idiotic but they never seem to go away:(

    Like

  242. February 23, 2014 12:11 am

    Its becoming hard enough for Mr. Mesereau to remember everything that happened 10 years ago, let alone negotiations that took place 20 years ago. Michael paying the settlement was Tom’s understanding as well as many others, but that doesn’t mean its right because we have evidence of the contrary. To question the legal document that supports the insurance, claiming its a fake is ridiculous, it is directly linked from the Santa Barbara Superior Court electronic documents database, it was definitely filed. I wouldn’t care if Michael paid the settlement regardless, the fact is he was coerced by the judicial system as well as the business advisors to settle. It is irritating when you see people like Weitzman claiming they wanted to fight when in actuality, they were the ones behind the settlement.

    Like

  243. lynande51 permalink
    February 22, 2014 11:58 pm

    One of Al Malnik’s daughters

    Like

  244. Erin permalink
    February 22, 2014 11:24 pm

    Just out of curiosity, do you know who that little girl is in the plane in the picture?

    Like

  245. Sina permalink
    February 22, 2014 7:46 pm

    Helena, this article is a perfect reminder of what really happened and will hopefully help educate the inquisitive minds swarming your blog these days.

    From the SundayTimes article: ‘The newspaper Today said it has documents showing that the Illionois-based Transamerica Insurance Group was astounded by Jackson’s demand and told Jackson his personal liability policy didn’t cover sex allegations.

    I think the insurance company would never pay for sex allegations, because that would mean covering an alledged crime. But its likely that they did pay after the terms of the settlement- negligence- were agreed on. Ofcourse they could not reveal it because of the confidentiality clause.
    It is still not clear at what point and who decided to settle, because initially Michael wanted to fight. But one thing is clear , Michaels defense was a mess with 3 or 4 lawyers making contradicting statements in public, Elizabeth Taylor interfering with the defense and lawyers not agreeing on the defense strategy which weakened the defense and undermined his position.
    According to an article in the Wallstreet journal It was on Branca’s behest that Cochran was hired, to kick out Bert Fields and probably to settle the case which was JC s specialism.
    By the time Cochran came in so much damage was already done, including illegal actvities by Pellicano that settling was the only option.
    I know most fans are pro Pellicano, and have a different view of what happened, but imo he harmed Michaels case more than anything. He may have exposed the extortion with his questioning of JC and the tape recordings, but there was no way these tapes or interview could be used as evidence in court, it would actually work against Michaels defense. That is exactly why Pellicano is in jail now.
    By the way there was no team Cochran, but a team Weizman-Cochran, as Mesereau said Weizman was in charge of the defense team and hired Cochran. Both of them sorted out the settlement, but I think by then the case was already lost, Michael was completely broken and in rehab and had lost his fighting spirit. Read The Wall street Journal of December 27 1993 for an insight in the defense debacle.
    Its heartbreaking that a man who was such a perfectionist in his work had such amateurs defending him. Worlds apart from Mesereau.

    Like

  246. Helen-Marie permalink
    February 22, 2014 4:33 pm

    I sometimes wonder what it would take to convince those who would rather see MJ as a bad person to actually see who he really was. When you let doubt and hate into your heart people will always get hurt.

    We will never know what Michael endured, what pain he felt deep in his soul and yet nothing he could say or do, be it photographs of his most sacred parts, or talking openly and truthfully with the DCFC without a lawyer present, could get the dirty minds to change their lies and write the truth. Whatever he did to resolve the nightmare he found himself in was ever going to be the right choice.

    He was a pure soul who was crucified for his brilliance and for everything he stood for and those who feared the thought of living in a world filled with love and compassion tried to bring him down. They know who they are, the list is endless and the terrible crimes they committed will most definitely stay with them, let there be no doubt about that.

    The trouble is, we were blessed and yet now it feels like we are cursed, by all those who continue to darken his legacy and continue to believe the likes of Sneddon and Dimond and all the other spineless people who jumped on the guilty band waggon and continue to do so today.

    I really hope that one day people will open their minds and see the real crime committed here.

    Your efforts always astound me Helena, thank you.

    Like

  247. February 22, 2014 2:24 pm

    “I wonder, could they have been referring to the penis, that being “a light color similar to the color of his face”? …the wording is not completely clear, and will probably give those who want to believe the description matched a reason to cling to their assumption. As far as I can remember, I’ve read a response to that somewhere on your website, but I don’t remember what you said.:) – S.

    S, I’m happy you reminded me of this. The version you are talking of is actively promoted by the mjlies site. Of course I did look into their version, only I completely forgot about it.

    At the time I wrote a post about it called Rewriting History or Michael Jackson’s Unpredictable Past: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/rewriting-history-or-michael-jacksons-unpredictable-past/

    The short of the story is that the mjlies site claimed that Jordan’s words were misinterpreted. They said:

    “it is the penis “which is a light color similar to the color of his face”, not the “splotches”. Fans are confused by simple sentence structure.”

    By “fans” they meant me as I am the only one who ever talked about that issue. Naturally I took it seriously as English is a foreign language to me and to see whether I understood Jordan’s words right I needed someone else to look into the subject.

    And I found this person. It is not only just someone for whom English is a native language but he is also a researcher who claims to be a big authority on MJ issues. His name is Seth Clerk Silberman and he is a lecturer on gay and lesbian studies at Yale University who even arranged a two days university conference on MJ in September 2004.

    To make the long story short Silberman also discussed Michael’s intimate parts and quoted Jordan saying that MJ’s penis had “blotchy-pink patches like a cow”.

    There are some other interesting details to this story, but the crucial fact is that this big university authority on MJ issues attributes the SAME meaning to Jordan’s words as I did, and this means that I understood Jordan’s words in the right way.

    For details please look up the post. I’ve changed it a bit now. The main correction is that I no longer call those who rewrite Jordan’s words and change history Michael’s haters.

    Technically speaking they are not his haters – they simply have an agenda of their own and need Michael for their cause. Therefore it is totally unnecessary for them to actually hate him – they simply spread lies about him at every possible level including universities and are always ready to morph facts into their opposite in line with their agenda.

    Silberman is a lecturer at Yale. And by the way Yale University was also mentioned in Woody Allen’s case. The team of experts who came to Woody Allen’s help and determined that the girl had not been molested came from that university too.:)

    P.S. @S, your question has been now added to the post. Thank you very much, that was very helpful indeed.

    Like

  248. February 22, 2014 11:20 am

    I wonder, could they have been referring to the penis, that being “a light color similar to the color of his face”? That does sound far-fetched, since there is very little reason to even mention something like that. Who would expect somebody’s penis to be in a different color than the person’s face? Still, the wording is not completely clear, and will probably give those who want to believe the description matched a reason to cling to their assumption.

    As far as I can remember, I’ve read a response to that somewhere on your website, but I don’t remember what you said.:)

    Like

  249. MICHAELX permalink
    February 22, 2014 7:06 am

    Thanks for the response, Helena.

    Like

  250. February 22, 2014 6:35 am

    “Helena, this is a false document? (read particular sheet 3) http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf -MICHAELX

    MICHAELX, I remember this document. It was submitted by Brian Oxman as part of Michael’s defense team and is signed by him and not Thomas Mesereau.

    No, I don’t think it is false. At its very worst it may be poorly researched and telling only half the story. And this if we assume that what Thomas Mesereau said about non-payment is absolutely correct.

    But from the article I’ve found we see that Thomas Mesereau is NOT absolutely correct. Obviously he does not know the details of the deal. He says it is “his understanding” that the company did not pay – but we see it even from the article that they did make an offer which was later negotiated. And when the insurance company offers money one must be a complete fool not to accept it.

    So I am sure that the money from the insurance company WAS taken. And this means that they did pay.

    As to whether they insisted on payment or did it despite their will, we cannot be guided here by what the newspaper says. The insurers will never say out loud that they are pressing money on anyone – first of all because they never do and secondly because it goes against their nature.

    But over here they admit that they did “make an offer”. To me it sounded rather funny. The insurers made an offer to pay and admit it themselves?

    So after all Brian Oxman may not be that far off from the truth of the matter.

    Let us never forget that there is a big difference between what these officials declare in public and the real situation discussed behind closed doors. What it was really like only the people who took part in the negotiations know, but they will probably never tell.

    If Brian Oxman had access to those negotiations than he and not Thomas Mesereau knows better.

    What’s absolutely clear to me is that Thomas Mesereau doesn’t know even the basics of that insurance situation. I don’t blame him – he had so much work to do that he couldn’t know it all.

    Like

  251. Amaya permalink
    February 22, 2014 4:54 am

    Thanks for the response, Helena. Never knew that LMP’s uncle was stirring the pot too. I think that Rolling Stone interview you referenced is where that quote I remember seeing in one of the tribute mags came from. I remember it being very angry-sounding like she was there. May have to dig out those magazines to verify, but I hate to do so. Too much sadness there, not to mention a good chunk of those “tributes” contained more slander and bias. >.<

    Like

  252. February 22, 2014 4:50 am

    “i think MJ was being FRAMED ALL THE TIME because he was running away from the satanist lobby” – Yunus Karnabee

    Yunus, for sure Michael was framed all the time – by certain forces in the establishment. Whether they are “satanist” I don’t know. It is hard for me to believe that there are people in the US organized into some “satanic” lobbies and they are praying to the D.

    I think that this dark entity is actually sitting in all of us in the form of Lies and Hate which are the opposites of Truth and Love. Every person has all these four elements in his soul, and it is only the degree of each of them that decides it all. And it is also totally within the power of a person to shift the scale into either of the directions.

    From everything we hear about Michael he was almost wholly made up of Love and Truth. And it is absolutely “natural” (for want of a better word) that those in whom Hate and Lies prevailed regarded him as their worst enemy.

    As one person recently told me it is all about energies. Probably it is. Michael was the embodiment of positive energy – the energy of life, evolvement, love, birth and creation. And these people are full of negative energy – that of hate, destruction and physical and spiritual death. And also of lies that blind people, bind them hand and foot and make them helpless.

    How could these people ever understand Michael and leave him alone? No, they couldn’t. He was a living rebuke to their whole existence. He was a different alternative to everything they believe in and to these people themselves.

    In a symbolic meaning of it – yes, what they do and believe in is following the D. But this type of life does not even require any formal organization. These peole are attracted to each other in a natural way, same as those who are their opposites.

    Like

  253. February 22, 2014 4:18 am

    The closest LMP came to “doubting” Michael was when she gave her first interview in 2003 after their final breakup. At the time she was extremely angry with him, called him an “idiot” and was swearing in every sentence. When asked by the interviewer if she ever worried about those allegations she exclaimed that of course she did.

    Of course she did worry because the whole world around her was shouting about it, but even though she actually looked for those signs she never saw anything that might even start her to doubt him.

    And the fact that she was warned and knew what to look for and still never found it is even more precious than the state of total unawareness some mothers are in until the news of their children’s molestation comes to them in a thunderbolt.

    I am talking of this LMP’s interview:

    Q: People are still confused by Michael Jackson’s love of a certain kind of relationship with young kids, whether it’s totally innocent or not. And you made a huge defense in the Diane Sawyer interview of how you watched him with kids and how it was all totally innocent. Is that what you think on reflection?

    LMP: ‘The only thing I can say is that I didn’t see anything that would ever allude to that, ever. Otherwise I would have been the first one out there going, ‘You motherfucker’. I’ve got children.

    But I never saw anything like that. I meant what I said when I said it, because I didn’t see anything weird or bizarre like that ever. And I did notice that he had an amazing connection to kids, whether it be a small baby or a two-year-old girl or a four-year-old — children really responded to him’.

    Q: Back then did you ever worry or even think whether there could be any truth in what he was accused of?

    LMP: ‘Did I ever worry? Of course I fucking worried. Yeah. I did. But I could only come up with what he told me. The only two people that were in the room was him and that kid, so how the hell was I going to know? I could only go off what he told me’.

    Q: And what do you think now?

    She purses her lips.

    LMP: ‘I don’t know. I still don’t know. I wasn’t there. I never saw anything else that could possibly lead to that. And there’s two sides of it. There’s the side of the dad. Why would the dad take the fucking money? If I had a kid and he was molested, I would fucking take that guy and hang him by his balls off a tree and let him sit there and die like that. Nobody could buy me, ever, if my child were molested. Fuck that. I don’t care if I didn’t have a penny — I would take his ass down in front of everybody’.

    http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/interview_lisamarie_rollingstone.shtml/

    More about it in this post (I’ve changed it a bit to correct my awful grammar): https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/rick-stanley-michael-jackson-lisa-marie-presley/

    Like

  254. February 22, 2014 3:57 am

    “It was something along the lines of “Even ex-wife Lisa Marie Presley had doubts about his innocence” and then they used that quote. That could be why some feel that she has doubts.” – Amaya

    Amaya, there was a lot of similar stuff in the press. The articles ranged from totally crazy to those just speaking of “her doubts”. The latter ones were actually among the most reserved ones.

    The usual style was as follows:

    Lisa Marie’s Horror At Jacko’s ‘Secret Tapes’

    Posted on February 26, 2003 by popdirt

    WENN reports Lisa Marie Presley holds secrets about ex-husband Michael Jackson’s fixation with young boys, according to her uncle, the Reverend Rick Stanley.

    “Lisa Marie knows the sick truth about Michael Jackson,” Stanley said. “She’s known he has an unusual interest in young boys for years. That’s why she never allowed her own kids around him.”

    He added, “I asked Lisa Marie if she knew the allegations against Michael from the Jordy Chandler case were true, that he had a sexual interest in young boys.

    She said, ‘Ricky, I did not know it when I married Michael, but I know now.’ She’d discovered that Jackson seemed fixated on young boys when she stumbled on his secret video collection.”

    http://popdirt.com/lisa-maries-horror-at-jackos-secret-tapes/13464/

    This was a lie told by LMP’s uncle Rick Stanley who conveniently resurfaced – attention please – in February 2003 together with:
    1) Bashir’s film
    2) Jordan’s 1993 declaration also suddenly leaked to the press
    3) Sneddon’s press-release calling on new “victims” to please register with his office.

    All of it was an orchestrated campaign arranged by the establishment. And LMP’s uncle Rick Stanley was part of it. He invented the above story in the 90s (when there was a danger that LMP would reunite with Michael) and repeated it in February 2003 together with all the rest of them.

    Lisa Marie was outraged by his lies and the first time he told his story issued a statement saying he was selling false stories about her and was “in no position” to have knowledge about her and “most certainly should not be quoted as an authority”.

    In fact they had not been in contact for many years and this is the simple reason why he could not refer to any conversations with her:

    “Rick Stanley, son of Elvis’ father’s second wife Dee, has been featured in recent tabloid articles in which he claims to have a close relationship with Elvis’ daughter, Lisa Marie Presley.

    Lisa has had no contact with Rick Stanley for many years since he betrayed her and her family by selling false stories to the tabloids about her.

    Rick Stanley is in no position to have any direct knowledge of anything regarding Lisa or her personal life and most certainly should not be quoted as an authority.

    Should Lisa ever have any announcement to make about her personal or professional life, it will be posted on Lisa’s own web site.” http://www.tcb-world.com/archive/index.php/t-1630.html

    So the media not only wrote about LMP having “doubts” – they said much more outrageous things about him. But what they said does not matter. What matters is what she says – and she says that she never had any doubts.

    Like

  255. Amaya permalink
    February 22, 2014 12:54 am

    Great stuff! I’ve been coming to this blog for a while now and it’s refreshing to see things like this.

    In regards to LMP’s “The only two people who know are Michael and that kid in the room” comment, I remember one of the many tribute magazines that came out after Michael passed using that quote. I forget which one it was (I want to say it was either Rolling Stone or People), but they framed it in a way that made it sound like she did have doubts. It was something along the lines of “Even ex-wife Lisa Marie Presley had doubts about his innocence” and then they used that quote (although I recall it being worded differently than the one from the Playboy excerpt above). That could be why some feel that she has doubts.

    Like

  256. Yunus Karbanee permalink
    February 21, 2014 11:15 pm

    i think MJ was being FRAMED ALL THE TIME because he was running away from the satanist lobby

    Like

  257. cawobeth3 permalink
    February 21, 2014 10:49 pm

    Thank you Elena. This is a good article to refer to when educating doubters
    & hypocrites of MJ.
    ” Books should be written about Sneddon, but people always look at MJ.”
    good point Nan.

    Like

  258. MICHAELX permalink
    February 21, 2014 6:18 pm

    Helena, this is a false document? (read particular sheet 3) http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf

    Like

  259. February 21, 2014 5:33 pm

    Whenever something happened with Michael my sister would call me and this call was no different about those supposed allegations against Michael .. I told my sister He didn’t do ..and this shit is about a female the boys mother ..u know how he is when it comes to females and besides Michael isn’t even in Neverland like that.. she was crying & upset I told her they’re after his $$$$ … its all lies .. Jory was jealous of his junes relationship with Michael and Evans who didn’t give a rats ass about his son, it an opportunity 2 make some $$$ hes was biplor and very dangerous !! @ the time of that phone call I had 2 kids I was sitting @ my mothers table when I got this call .. on 6/25/2009 was no different … actually several days earlier I knew something was was wrong Y I hadn’t slept in 3 days.. my sister was crying I knew then it was Michael ….true story ..my response to her was The Dr.Killed him! ♥♬ツ

    Like

  260. Nan permalink
    February 21, 2014 5:22 pm

    I also wanted to point out something regarding the settlement amount.
    While paying someone millions over the course of a few years sounds like a lot of money , when considering what, that kind of money meant to MJ , doesnt mean alot.
    To the average person , it is alot but to MJ, he could earn 5 million walking into a birthday party for an Arab Sultan, for 5 minutes.
    this is just the way his life was.
    I think it should be pointed out that Diane Dimond were giving Blanca 20 grand which was a years salary, others were being offered amounts that would pay off their houses and more.
    Of course these people never went to the police, only to trusted tabloids.
    The money Evan was demanding was chump change to someone like MJ, and he refused to give in , even when they were strip searching him, and threatening his endorsements. They also waited until he went on tour to twist the knife also.
    So given the astronomical amount of money MJ generated , I can see his advisers telling him to throw these people a crumb and move on..I wish he didnt, but just as in 2005, he would have been cleared but the tabloids / media would have made millions off damaging his career
    Who would have been the injured parties in a court case in 94? not Larry Feldman and not Evan Chandler.
    Just MJ and Jordan, because the only way to win , would have been the same as 2005, to prove a child has lied for their parents. so there wouldnt have been any real winners , other than the lawyers..
    I still think ,all things considered the only adult that actually cared aabout Jordan Chandler well being was MJ

    Like

  261. Nan permalink
    February 21, 2014 4:54 pm

    Very interesting article..
    The thing with any of these accusations is they wouldnt have gone anywhere if Tom Sneddon had not been the DA
    The other day I noticed on Jordans show a clip I have seen a million times where Sneddon remarks how he could have made a million dollars regarding the 93 accusations.’Well , why didnt he ?
    Because he is an honorable professional(NO) , or because try as he might , there just wasnt any evidence.and we all know he kept trying for years..
    When Rita Cosby asked him after the verdicts , if he planned on writing a book he said “probably not”
    Why would he say that? It must have crossed his mind,or he would not have said “probably not ”
    He would have said , I havent even had time to think about it .. , his pal Diane Dimond was secretly writing one, so I think , Sneddon probably was too., , but Tom Mesereau is probably right , that since in 93, Sneddon has had visions of himself on TV, being famous, wealthy off this garbage , and heralded as some kind of hero for taking down MJ
    Plus he is very territorial, as Weitzman has mentioned.
    There was no stopping this nut.
    Honestly, remarks by the Chandlers , that MJ had short pubic hair, made him think , the kid was truthful?
    As opposed to what , dreadlocks..anyone can groom their private areas or not ..that doesnt mean a thing unless yo have a raging nutter like Sneddon,titillated by all this stuff, who refuses to see it and that is why Larry Feldman laughed all the way to the bank, and took it upon himself, in 2003 to call this nutter himself , when childrens services refused to reopen the case.
    Books should be written about Sneddon, but people always look at MJ.
    And the maniacal manhunt that this guy was on infected all his underlings , as well as the sheriffs dept.
    I cant believe a smart man like Zonen, would not have asked Jordan Chandler the obvious follow up question, to him saying he did his part.
    The fact that Zonen only shows up a the bar association and speaks of Gavin Arviao, in circumstances that are controlled, but refuses to attend the Harvard seminar or speak to Randall Sullivan , says alot to me.
    I saw him berate a little old lady on a local cable show with his same garbage about Gavin not looking for money , when we all know that is a bold faced lie.
    He actually stands by and lets Gavin bride be exploited by Diane Dimond and the daily Beast , to protect their own reputations..I wonder how much Gavin got paid for those pictures.
    While a lot of people want to keep the focus on MJ, the real criminals are those prosecutors who abused the power of their office and allowed the crimes of extortion to take place against MJ,
    Because any RATIONAL DA would have seen this for the obvious shakedowns it was ..And I think his camaraderie , with Dimond played a big part in it.
    He completely accepted her as a peer , because she looks like him , white aging conservative, and than you have MJ , who is an artistic eccentric.
    They must have spent hours dissecting him.

    Like

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,372 other followers

%d bloggers like this: