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. 


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.


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?


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!”


“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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

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.


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.


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.


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.”

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


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]


“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.

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.


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?


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.

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.


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…”

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   


  • 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.

241 Comments leave one →
  1. 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:
    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.


    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.”

    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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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?

  5. 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?

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

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

  7. 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 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.”

  8. 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?

  9. 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.

  10. 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?

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. April 29, 2014 6:30 pm

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

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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:

    This piece was published on Helena’s page too.

  27. 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.


    “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:

    This information was also placed on Helena’s page.

  28. 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.

  29. 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)

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


    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.


    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.

  31. 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!!!

  32. 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 :)

  33. 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.

  34. April 20, 2014 6:08 am

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

  35. 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

  36. 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: and

    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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

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

    *beautiful way of being (sorry for the misspeling)

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. April 6, 2014 4:35 pm

    This is what Suzy said about the song in her 2010 post:

    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.

  44. 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

  45. 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:

    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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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
    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.

  49. 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.

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

    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..

  51. 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.

  52. April 5, 2014 7:29 am

    Let me also repeat the earlier comment which was devoted to the same subject:

    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:

    “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

    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.

  53. 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: 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:


    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.

  54. 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

  55. 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.

  56. 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:

    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:
    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.

  57. 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 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.

  58. 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.

  59. April 1, 2014 4:50 am

    You are welcome Susannerb :)

  60. 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.

  61. 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”

  62. 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.

  63. 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..

  64. 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.

  65. 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.

  66. 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.’

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

  67. 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.

    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’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?

    Michelle Cho

  68. 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.

    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.

  69. 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.” – 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.”

  70. 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!

  71. 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. 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?

  72. 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!

  73. 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.

  74. 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. 

  75. 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.

  76. 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.

  77. 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.

  78. 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.

  79. 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.

  80. March 29, 2014 8:06 pm

    Felt this link is useful, hence posting. 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.

  81. 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

  82. 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.

  83. 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.

  84. susannerb permalink*
    March 29, 2014 5:53 am

    Guys, this is worth posting. It’s a story Seven once told on her blog:
    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?

  85. susannerb permalink*
    March 29, 2014 5:30 am

    Sanemjfan is covering the whole 2005 trial on his blog. You can read Janet Arvizo’s testimony there:

    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:
    I read it again and it’s mentioned in Part I (see endnotes).

  86. 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.

  87. 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.

  88. 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 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.

  89. 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.

  90. 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?

Leave a Reply

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

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

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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,277 other followers

%d bloggers like this: