Skip to content

Barresi and Michael Jackson ‘FBI’ Files. Part 1

April 12, 2014
Strange pairing: Dr. Conrad Murray met up with Janet Jackson's ex-husband James DeBarge on Tuesday for a lunch in Beverly Hills, California. Daily Mirror, March 27, 2104

Strange pairing: Dr. Conrad Murray met up with Janet Jackson’s ex-husband James DeBarge on Tuesday for a lunch in Beverly Hills, California. Daily Mirror, March 27, 2104

What is there in common between Conrad Murray seen together with Janet Jackson’s former husband, questions about FBI files and Michael Jackson’s “victims being afraid of speaking out”, and a certain Paul Barresi recently calling Michael a “serial molester” in a comment in this blog?

The correct answer is that all these factors point to a new thunderous lie to be soon told about Michael Jackson.

The lie will be about his “victims” who were previously unwilling to speak out but have suddenly “remembered it all” and are not longer afraid to tell the “truth”.

You will ask how Conrad Murray seen in the company of Janet Jackson’s ex-husband comes into all this? Well, this is easy – Murray was apparently interviewing him about Michael’s child friends and their parents.

These plans of Michael’s vilifiers are the reason why I took the vicious remark made in this blog on April 1st by someone called Paul Barresi quite seriously.

It doesn’t matter whether the commentator was indeed Paul Barresi or someone who only used his name in order to spread heinous lies about MJ – the point is that these people are already probing ground for their lie and even put their finger on a person who may be one of the key players in the game.


For technical reasons Pellicano will not be able to tell the truth in the near future, and this is playing into the hands of Michael’s adversaries as they are going to introduce to the public a fake “long-time associate” of Pellicano who will “tell it all” in the name of Pellicano.

His version will actually be the opposite of Pellicano’s opinion about Michael Jackson but in the absence of real Pellicano no one will be able to check up. The impostor will claim that he is using Pellicano’s secret files which he supposedly had access to.

The above outlines the main disposition of forces in the new scheme against Jackson. The main players will be the private investigator speaking on behalf of Pellicano, Conrad Murray now collecting “evidence” against Michael and Wade Robson who will be presented as one of the million boys molested by Jackson. The scheme was already started in the summer of 2013.

One of the central figures is the private eye who was allegedly Pellicano’s associate. The basis for his lies is the so-called Pellicano’s file seized by the FBI in 2002 when they were probing him for illegal possession of weapons.

The unscrupulous journalists have already called these papers FBI files and secret ones at that – and this for the sole reason that as a result of the 2002 Pellicano operation the papers fell into the FBI hands but were not published by them together with the 330 pages disclosed in 2010. Those 330 pages showed extensive operations conducted by the FBI to investigate Michael which nevertheless brought not a single proof of MJ’s guilt.

Pellicano’s papers were not published, but not because the FBI was covering up for the criminal (MJ) but because there was simply nothing to publish. Everyone who was investigating Michael’s case in 1993 saw those papers long time ago.

The papers are the transcripts of interviews of Stella and Philip Lemarque (former Michael Jackson’s employees) recorded by a certain Paul Barresi in 1993 who – attention please – first took them to the Los Angeles Police Department and only then decided to present them to Pellicano in a hope that he would take him into his employment as a private investigator.

Pellicano studied the tapes, had them transcribed and the transcripts were held in his office until 2002 when they were finally taken over by the FBI.

This way the FBI “seized” in 2002 what the Los Angeles Police Department had had for almost 10 years prior to that. The Lemarques’ revelations were surely presented to the Grand jury in 1994 when more than 400 witnesses testified before the two Grand juries in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, but neither of them found anything to indict Michael Jackson for.

For those who don’t know that the Grand jury procedure is much more favorable for the prosecution than taking the documents to the judge let me explain that the Grand Jury hearings take place behind closed doors, in the presence of prosecutors only, in the absence of defendant’s attorneys  thus ruling out the possibility of cross-examinions and even allowing for some misrepresentation of facts on the part of the prosecution as there is no one to control them there.

However despite all that both Grand jury teams which looked into the Michael Jackson case in 1994 didn’t indict him and the prosecution had to close the case without bringing any charges. So this is how weak the prosecution case against Michael Jackson was! It was actually weaker than the Arvizo case as in 2004 Tom Sneddon did manage to get an indictment.

The 2005 trial was when the Lemarque’s hour of shine finally arrived.  Tom Sneddon, Santa Barbara District Attorney had Philip Lemarque testify and he repeated everything they had previously said on the tapes (the ones in the FBI possession) and again the jury didn’t regard him as anyone close to being credible.

So any claims like the ones made by Diane Dimond now that the tapes “have remained in FBI storage and—unbelievably—never offered to prosecutors in Santa Barbara who conducted the unsuccessful criminal case against Jackson in 2005” have no leg to stand on.

The Santa Barbara prosecution had a chance to listen not only to some witnesses’ tapes, but to the witnesses live, and these witnesses could repeat to him anything they were willing to, only their stories looked so horrible that even the Smoking Gun was disgusted with them and thought that they did more harm to the prosecution than good.


Stella and Philip Lemarque worked for MJ (she as a chef, he as a “major d’homo in charge of organizing Michael’s entertainment activities”) for an unclear amount of time – their initial version was 2 years, then it turned into 10 months and finally they settled on 9 months.

After their dismissal from Neverland they opened a restaurant which went bust and they found themselves $450,000 in debt. Later their finances improved. This was when Philip Lemarque started a highly lucrative porn site which he proudly named the “most sinful site on the Internet”.

The Smoking gun tells the story:

Jackson Case: D.A.’s Sleazy Witness

Former Neverland employee turned porno “authority” to testify that he saw Michael Jackson molest Macaulay Culkin at ranch

Philippe Lamarque, a potential witness who ultimately did not testify, was the host of a porn site called "Virtual Sin". Tapes of a conversation he had with Paul Baressi showed that for $100,000, Lamarque would say he saw Jackson touch Macaulay Culkin's crotch outside of his shorts, but for $500,000, the hand would go inside the shorts. Journalist Matt Taibbi wrote: "the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case...the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles."

Journalist Matt Taibbi about witnesses like Philip Lemarque: “The chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles.”

In a 1993 “Frontline” documentary about the media frenzy surrounding the original Jackson probe, Barresi said that as the Lemarque asking price spiraled into the mid-six figures, Phillip tweaked his account of the Culkin incident. While Lemarque initially reported that Jackson’s hand was outside Culkin’s clothing, Barresi told “Frontline,” his tabloid asking price rose when his story shifted to claim that the entertainer actually had his hand inside the young actor’s pants.

While it is unclear if the Lemarques ever consummated a tabloid deal, Barresi himself pulled an end-around on the couple, selling their story to the Globe after surreptitiously taping a meeting during which the pair laid out their charges against Jackson (the resulting piece was headlined “We Saw Michael Molesting Child Star”). Barresi made sure to have a photographer secretly memorialize an August 1993 chat with the Lemarques at an outdoor café (he is pictured at left with the couple).

According to published reports, the couple actually first reached out to a supermarket tabloid in 1991 with their Jackson molestation tales, though no story was ever published. While this contact came before the 1993 tabloid feeding frenzy, Lemarque was peddling a Jackson story at the same time he was enmeshed in a personal bankruptcy proceeding. According to court records, Lemarque reported debts of $455,000, which he amassed through his operation of Bourbon Street, an Encino restaurant

Stella Microft (wife of Philip Lemarque) knew Paul Barresi from her previous experience

Stella Microft, wife of Philip Lemarque knew Paul Barresi from her previous experience

In 1997, Lemarque launched Virtual Sin, a web site he operated until last year. Billed as “the most sinful site on the internet,” Lemarque’s flagship porn offered explicit photos and videos and greeted web surfers with the words, “Welcome Beaver Hunters.” With photo galleries devoted to “Blowjobs” and “ANAL,” Lemarque’s hardcore site was loaded with the kind of photos and pronouncements (“Ass fuckin’ is lickin’ gooood!!” and “We will give you a big lick on your big or small one”) that would certainly make Sneddon, a respectable father of nine, blanche.

In addition to Virtual Sin, Lemarque also operated Galaxy 2001, a how-to site for wannabe online porn operators. “Selling SEX is not difficult if you know how to manage your boat through the intricacies of the Internet,” noted Lemarque. He claimed that Galaxy 2001 doubled as a web host and housed “hundred of adult web site” on its servers. Among the porn tutorials sold by Lemarque was one offering instruction on how to shoot your own sex videos. The site also contained a flashing link with the words “TEENS TEENS TEENS” that went to another Lemarque site where the X-rated photos featured women clearly beyond 19.”

The above is very well-known information but I couldn’t resist reminding everyone that these owners of “TEENS TEENS TEENS” porn site had the audacity to tell dirty stories about young and innocent Macaulay Culkin and were actually the ones who ruined his career.

When Macaulay Culkin was testifying at the trial he was absolutely disgusted by their lies and spoke of Michael’s complete innocence. But the biggest shock for him was not even the lies of these sleazebags, but the fact that the police had never taken the trouble to check them up with him.

These people were telling lies about Culkin for so many years and no one ever bothered to check them up with the person they were so openly slandering? It is indeed incredible to say the very least.


Diane Dimond has already been mentioned here, so let her be the first to present the story of the “private investigator” central to our discussion today. I’ve chosen this piece from Diane Dimond not because it is necessarily true (you know Diane Dimond) but because she placed the events in their chronology and this way they are easier to understand.

Of course she calls the Lemarque tapes ‘FBI’ files and of course she says that they are secret. Both are untrue but I won’t argue. In this article she is masterfully balancing between blatant lies (about poor Sneddon not knowing of Lemarques stories) and telling half truths (everything else). The result is this:

Here’s what I know. The FBI files are still secret. The documents and cassette tapes reviewed by Sunday People were offered by a private detective who has been knocking around Hollywood with them for a long time. He remained unnamed in the U.K. paper and will remain so here, but he’s hardly a shadowy figure. I have known him personally for many years.

Here’s the backstory: This detective used to work for Jackson’s high-profile private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, in the days immediately following the first child sex-abuse allegations against Jackson in 1993. The pair was tasked with identifying possible trouble for the accused entertainer, and in doing so this Pellicano associate called upon a dogged tabloid reporter named Jim Mitteager to see what information he might have developed. At Mitteager’s home he learned that the National Enquirer reporter had died. His widow gave the private eye a box full of tapes marked “JACKSON” that her husband had been working on.

Included among the hours of salacious interviews was a long discussion with a live-in domestic couple named Stella and Philip LeMarque which was generously quoted by the Sunday People in a companion article. The couple told a story of boys being shown pornography and sexually molested in the Jackson house, the theater area, and in teepees pitched on the landscaped grounds. Among the alleged victims were five child actors, two dancers, and at least 10 other young Jackson admirers dating back to 1989. The children were isolated from their parents, according to the couple, who were housed a quarter mile away in guest quarters while the young boys slept with Jackson.

(Much of what the LeMarques said on the Mitteager tapes—and to me in 1994—was similar to stories told by other Jackson employees. But the couple’s veracity has been questioned, because they repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to sell their version of events to the media.)

Once in the detective’s possession, all the Mitteager audio tapes were turned into printed reports for Pellicano and filed among his vast cabinets full of Hollywood secrets.

In 2002, when Pellicano was arrested on weapons charges, the FBI scooped up all of the gumshoe’s files.  They have remained in FBI storage and—unbelievably—never offered to prosecutors in Santa Barbara who conducted the unsuccessful criminal case against Jackson in 2005. Jackson was acquitted of all molestation charges and denied all the accusations up until his 2009 death.

I hope you see the true worth of Diane Dimond’s lamentations about her poor friend Tom Sneddon not having access to Pellicano’s tapes and therefore “not knowing” about this abundance of MJ’s “victims”.

Beginning with 1993 Tom Sneddon had access to the Lemarques live and he actually examined them at the 2005 trial, and the result was a huge fiasco, so what’s the point in lamenting now about him not listening to their tapes? Especially since even this may not be true and LAPD surely shared with Sneddon everything they had back in 1993.

Now that we know the Lemarques-private eye-Pellicano- Jim Mitteager back story it will be easier for us to look into the new allegations made against Jackson in the series of articles Diane Dimond is referring to. These were published in the summer of 2013 by freelance journalist James Desborough, former US editor of News of the World. He was the one who compiled some Pellicano tapes and presented them to the public with hysterical headlines claiming that “two dozens of victims were paid off by Michael Jackson.”


The Wiki article on James Desborough covers all periods of his career, including his work for the News of the World, his involvement in the phone hacking scandal, arrest in August 2011, release from bail in March 2012, his life as freelancer since then in the capacity of “Hollywood correspondent/consultant”– yes, it covers it all except his recent scandalous articles in British tabloids claiming that MJ spent $30 mln. to pay off his “victims”.

This wasn’t the only time James Desborough meddled with the good name of Michael Jackson. When the AEG trial was over one British TV channel made a documentary about Michael Jackson’s autopsy and over there James Desborough was again one of the key talking heads, and again his Wiki biography does not say a single word about this episode in Desborough’s career.

This notable silence about selected James Desborough’s activities makes me think that their veracity is such that he is simply too shy to mention them. And since he doesn’t talk of it himself let me make up for this deficiency and place the picture of our hero beside the headline where he is telling his blatant lie.

James Desborough lies about MJ

The author of this BS is James Desborough, former US editor of the News of the World, now freelancer who is “looking forward to resuming his career”


The first lie was dangled to the public on June 29, 2013 when James Desborough and David Gardner published an article in the Daily Mirror alerting its readers to the news that ‘can be revealed” by their Sunday People edition the next day.

Below is their masterpiece provided here in full for the sake of the record. Please take note of Desborough’s style which all tabloid journalists habitually fall into whenever they start throwing dirt at Jackson – I mean standard words like ‘sordid’, ‘chilling’, ‘shocking’, ‘sick’, ‘twisted’, ‘prey” and the like which simply abound in this article:

Michael Jackson enticed “lost boys” into sordid fantasy world hidden from their parents

By James Desborough, David Gardner

29 Jun 2013 22:02

The “lost boys” lured to Michael Jackson’s Neverland ranch were enticed into a sordid fantasy world hidden from their parents, the Sunday People can reveal.

Shocking audio tapes from the singer’s secret FBI file offer a chilling insight into the superstar’s depravity. They reveal how groups of kids would be invited to Jackson’s estate, where he would then isolate his prey. The twisted star would sleep with children in a tepee as well as his bed and was even seen groping two boys.

Jackson’s sick secrets were exposed in a recorded interview with his ex-butler Philip LeMarque and wife Stella, taped on August 28, 1993 – 12 years before the star stood trial accused of molesting children. The charges followed a TV documentary showing the singer holding hands with 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo in 2003. Jacko was acquitted of seven child abuse charges in June 2005.

The couple said Jackson – who used the code name Blue Fox – would watch porn films with young boys in his private bedroom behind a secret wall in a 70-seat Neverland cinema. They claimed the ONLY adult who ever complained about Jackson’s disappearing acts with young boys was screen legend Marlon Brando.

Stella said: “He’d come to the ranch and always see Michael playing, disappear with the children. Michael would never spend time with the adults at the ranch. “He said, ‘What the hell is Michael doing with those kids!’’’ She said another famous guest, the late Elizabeth Taylor, “never” complained. French-born Philip and Stella worked at Neverland in Santa Clara, California, for nine months and were the only live-in staff. The other staff were sent home at 4pm.

They were interviewed by a private investigator working for Hollywood sleuth Anthony Pellicano. The tape was among material seized by FBI agents probing Pellicano – who was employed by Jackson to uncover the skeletons in his closet.

The following are excerpts from a copy he made of the recording:

PHILIP: The theatre is like a regular theatre. He’s got 70 seats.

STELLA: And behind the wall, he has two bedrooms. Sometimes he’d be there with the kids. I wanted to take a picture of the bedroom but couldn’t.

PHILIP: He could watch porn.

STELLA: He’d stay with the kids all night long. All night long!

PHILIP: From 7pm until eight the next morning… nine in the morning, they are still up playing around.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR: Where are the adults?

PHILIP: The adults are in separate buildings.

STELLA: Boy A came to see Michael… The parents were in the room smoking pot with a five-month-old baby. At the time, he was crazy about Boy A and his little brother. [about Macaulay Culkin’s parents]

PHILIP: Michael likes them young. Boy A was getting too old. The first time when Michael saw Boy A in the movie, XXXX XXXX, he told Boy A he wanted to meet him.

PI: Wait a minute. She (a former member of Jackson’s staff) makes deals with the parents?

PHILIP: She makes the deals with the parents to bring everybody… the parents with the kids to the ranch. If there are five kids, then Michael will take the one he wants.

PI: You’re saying (the Jackson staffer) brings a selection of kids for Michael to choose from? Like a pimp?


STELLA: If you really like children, you like all of them, boy or girl. Not only one while the others run around.

PHILIP: We saw a little boy and girl running around the ranch at 3am. We were the ones who found them.

PI: Michael gave no attention to those he had no interest in?

PHILIP: Yes, they didn’t know where to go. The ranch is very large. The arcade… Michael invites a whole bunch of kids, boys and girls so it doesn’t sound to be unnatural. Everyone is playing and doing things. This gives Michael the chance to break one of the children away from the rest.

PI: Sounds like he has a plan that he puts in to motion, in stages.

PHILIP: First the children just go on the amusements.

PI: You mean they just play? It’s innocent?

PHILIP: Yes, but as time progresses, the next time, (the staffer) invites only the kids Michael is interested in. The activity goes on mostly in the night.

PI: Where are the damn parents! Jesus Christ!

PHILIP: The parents do their own thing. Michael and the kids sleep in the tepee.

STELLA: And Michael sleeps in the bedroom with the children he loves. That’s true.

PHILIP: There is a stairway inside Michael’s room. It leads to the guest room…no other access …where he says the children sleep, but they never do. The bedroom upstairs …the bedroom is never undone. When Boy A came, Michael told his parents, “Boy A will stay with me.” Michael has warning alarms that go off when someone is walking close to the bedroom.

PI: I want to know about the other kids. I imagine there were a few.

PHILIP: More than a few.

PI: OK, we’ll get to them but tell me what you know about Michael and Boy A.

PHILIP: (Michael) called me at 2am that night to say, “Philip, would you please bring me some French fries?” OK, I get up and I go make him some French fries. So, then I take the two-way radio and you call security and you ask, ‘Where is Blue Fox?’ They say, ‘Oh, he’s in the arcade.’ … I went around the other entrance and entered through there and that’s when I saw Michael groping the kid.

PI: Michael had his hand touching his private parts over the pants?

PHILIP: No, no, no… In the pants.

STELLA: Boy C in the cinema, Michael did the same thing with him… and the mother was two or three rows in the front.

PI: They weren’t watching porn?

STELLA: No but they were kissing.

PI: Like a peck on the cheek?

STELLA: No, like lovers. I saw them. That’s not normal.

PI: And Boy A’s father… You said he didn’t know what was going on?

STELLA: The father is an ***hole. He is only interested in the money.

PHILIP: The father did ask me one time what was happening with Michael and Boy A. Why they were with each other all the time.

STELLA: Michael took an apartment back near the studio. Michael would pick him up in the limo and they would always be together.

PHILIP: He would keep the parents busy doing things around the house. Michael would give the parents things to do and he would treat them like kings! He (a Jackson staffer) would give them whatever they wanted.

STELLA: Well, the mother of the boy from Switzerland was crying and saying, “Why does Michael always want to be with my son to sleep? Why is it I have four other children and why doesn’t he want to spend time with them, if he loves all children?”

PI: What was the mother from Switzerland doing there?

STELLA: Michael sent them tickets.

PHILIP: Michael liked variety. (laughing)

STELLA: Yes. Boy B was there very often, but then he got too old and stopped coming to the ranch.

PHILIP: He would call all the time, but Michael would say, “Tell him I’m not here.” Then he’d smile about it.

PI: A sinister reaction. That’s dark and cold.

PHILIP: Michael and Boy B watched porn together. The boy didn’t want to touch himself and Michael told him he would do it for him.

PI: Did any adults witness this?

STELLA: Yes, (Jackson staffer) saw everything. She told us… Michael always thought everybody was stealing from him.

PI: Maybe it stems from his own guilt… from stealing young boys’ ­childhoods. Any other weird behaviour or something you want to mention?

PHILIP: Michael would never let the kids look at clocks or know what day it was. He didn’t want anybody to worry about the time because it was never bedtime. Sometimes he’d be up all night with the kids.

The investigator, speaking now, said: “I don’t believe the world understood how much power and influence Jackson wielded. He could spend millions to silence anyone – and he did that with Jordie (Chandler). Back then the victims couldn’t speak for themselves. I understand some of their parents were paid money and the kids didn’t know. Now the kids are grown up, they have the chance to speak. I feel that Wade is now taking his chance to speak up.

“I hope it helps his other victims. It might even give them the courage to make a complaint to the police.”

The main message of the story is in its ending of course. The private investigator claims that “back then the silenced victims” could not talk, and now he suggests that they should please speak up and the first he expects to do so is Wade Robson of course.

Actually the invitation is not needed as Wade Robson already made his first try several months prior to that – at the end of April when the AEG trial was just starting.

I mention the AEG trial as this way the timeline of allegations about Michael is easier to remember – the day before the trial opened Wade Robson broke his story, the day before the first AEG witness started his testimony the J.Desborough tabloid series began to unfold, and several days after the trial the UK channel showed a Jackson autopsy program where the same characters (Desborough, Conrad Murray) were also taking part.

Now a word about the article and some of its details.

Among the many lies told the lie about Macaulay’s parents “smoking pot with in a room a five-month old baby” offended me most for some reason. It is the worst black humor joke I’ve ever heard, especially after reading the book by Kit Culkin which made it clear from chapter one what a bore and unbearable disciplinarian he was.

By the time the Lemarques were telling their dirt Kit Culkin had not written his book yet. If they had had a chance to read it in advance they would have never dared to tell this lie as it so terrribly goes against Kit Culkin’s character that it immediately betrays them the horrendous liars they are.

It is almost like saying that Katherine Jackson likes smoking pot while reading the bible. Sorry guys, but this is the only comparison I could think of to show you how preposterous Lemarque’s lies are – this and all the rest of them.

When you have so flashy a story like the one about smoking pot, small but significant lies may go absolutely unnoticed. And this is what indeed happens with a statement that the private eye interviewed the French couple when he was working for Pellicano. No, he wasn’t. The recording was made well before the private eye came into contact with Pellicano and the tapes were actually a sort of a gift to Pellicano with the intention to get a job with him and assure him of the applicant’s skills.

Pellicano did get interested and used this guy for some specific tasks but despite occasional jobs done for him still thought it necessary to recently communicate to the general public that this person had never been in Pellicano’s employment and had never done any real investigative work for him (more about it in the 2nd half of the post).

As to Pellicano’s own services for Michael, he was indeed employed by Michael’s lawyer Bert Fields, for whom Pellicano was working as a private investigator, and the apparent reason for this hire was not “to uncover the skeletons in his closet” as the article alleges, but most probably for investigating Victor Gutierrez who was dogging Michael’s friends.

Gutierrez was interviewing the parents of children around Michael and spreading heinous lies about him and at some point Pellicano approached him as he wanted to know why.


We know of this fact from Gutierrez’s book where he says that in 1992 he “interviewed” Joy Robson. The word interview is in quotes as Gutierrez’s interviewing was actually spreading nasty lies about Jackson.

Here is the description of how he talked to Joy Robson in the middle of 1992:

On a summer’s day in June 1992, I went with a friend to Venice Beach, California… I realized that it was Wade Robson…I couldn’t believe it, I had been looking for this boy and his mother for more than five months [since approx. Dec.1991] without any luck and here, by chance, I found both of them…. I introduced myself to the mother saying that I was a journalist and that I was writing a book about Jackson which concerned his relationship with minors, including his being a pedophile….I asked her to at least let me explain what I had found out up until now, and then ask her if there was anything that she wanted to add.”

And then Gutierrez told Joy Robson his story about Michael including all his own pedophilia fantasies about him (by his own admission Gutierrez is an attendee of NABLA conferences, you know). When he finished his story Joy Robson exclaimed: “It is not true!”:

When I finished speaking, Joy exclaimed “It’s not true!” I told her that the truth was going to come out one day.

Let us also note that according to Gutierrez Wade Robson was present at least at a part of their conversation:

“Now that she knew the details of my investigation, Joy sat down on the grass and began to confide in me. Wade was reading a magazine, but was close enough to hear his mother’s story.”

Joy Robson complained about that conversation to Norma Stakos (MJ’s manager) and two months later Pellicano arose at Guterrez’s door and asked him why he was telling stories about Michael. Gutierrez said he was writing a book. The conversation ended on a threatening note, however obviously not threatening enough as three years later, in 1995 Gutierrez did publish his monstrosity and never stopped vilifying Michael Jackson until the end of his life.

Considering that Pellicano was arrested in 2002 and full ten years passed since he allegedly threatened Gutierrez with taking his life and all this time Gutierrez was alive and kicking, and worked for Diane Dimond, and had to flee the country only when he let her down by claiming that he had a video of MJ molesting a boy, and she trumpted it all over the media, and it turned out to be a lie, and Michael Jackson sued both of them, and Gutierrez lost and was court ordered to pay $2,7 million to MJ, but never did as he declared bankruptcy and fled to his native Chile to hide from the authorities only to return to the US some time later – no, considering all this I think that the danger of Pellicano to Gutierrez (or to anyone at all) is highly overestimated.

And this overestimation of Pellicano’s might surely goes for MJ’s so-called “victims” who were allegedly too afraid to speak up. At the trial in 2005 they had every opportunity to make their presence and if they, the grown-up people 23-25 years old,  did not do it then and even vehemently spoke in Michael’s defense (as Wade Robsons did),  let them shut up now please as otherwise they will look like complete clowns who are in this business for money extortion only.


The next day after the Daily Mirror teaser was published on June 29, 2013,  James Desborough presented to the public his main story in the Sunday edition of their paper called People.

In that article he finally disclosed what ‘FBI’ files the fuss was all about. These turned out to be 6 pages – 1 page of the Lemarques’ transcripts, 1 page of a transcript of Pellicano’s talk with a tabloid journalist Jim Mitteager (mentioned by Diane Dimond), 2 messages addressed to Pellicano which looked like some “investigative reports” and 2 receipts from the Los Angleles Police Department testifying to the fact that their bereau of investigations received the Lemarques’ tapes.

None of these papers confirmed the bold statement made in the headline which claimed that Michael Jackson had spent $30 mln (£23million) to silence some boys.

No matter how thoroughly you read the articles and scrutinize the 6 papers attached to them you will not find a single shred of evidence to support this outrageous lie.

However our friend James Desborough can’t care less:

Michael Jackson paid £23MILLION buying silence of at least TWO DOZEN young boys he abused over 15 years

By James Desborough, David Gardner

30 Jun 2013 11:21

Secret FBI files exclusively seen by the Sunday People reveal Michael Jackson spent £23million buying the silence of at least two dozen young boys he abused over 15 years.

The documents – case numbers CADCE MJ-02463 and CR 01046 – were not passed on to prosecutors in the King of Pop’s 2005 trial, when he was cleared of molesting a child.

But they throw a disturbing new light on the megastar’s insistence he never laid a finger on any of the scores of kids he invited to his home for unsupervised sleep-overs.

Agents have thousands of pages of evidence dating back to 1989 indicating Jacko groomed and molested children – sometimes right under the noses of their starstruck parents. The FBI files include private investigators’ reports, phone transcripts and hours of audio tapes. [the link takes you to article #1 of June 29, 2013]

They describe how the Thriller hit-maker was once caught by a member of his household staff groping a world-famous child star, watching porn films while molesting another boy and fondling the genitals of a third in his private cinema.The mother of one of the youngsters was sitting two or three rows in front of them at the time – unaware of the vile abuse her son was suffering.

Ironically, many of the damning reports in the FBI collection had been commissioned by Jacko himself.

Terrified the parents of boys who spent nights with him at his Neverland ranch might go to the cops or expose him in the media, the desperate singer hired “private eye to the stars” Anthony Pellicano to target potential skeletons in his closet – and make sure they stayed out of the limelight.

But when Pellicano was investigated himself in 2002 for bugging Hollywood stars such as Sylvester Stallone, the FBI seized all his files – including many about Jackson. It is copies of these to which the Sunday People has had exclusive access.

The latest revelations about Jacko’s lurid past come as his private life is once again in the spotlight – even though four years have passed since he died from heart failure aged 50.

His family are currently suing gig promoters AEG Live for £26billion, claiming they hired Dr Conrad Murray, who gave Jacko the dose of the anaesthetic propofol that killed him. AEG deny employing Murray, now serving a four-year jail term for involuntary manslaughter.

The files will also dismay Jacko’s kids Prince, 16, Paris, 15, and 11-year-old Blanket, who have not yet come to terms with losing their father. In fact, Paris tried to kill herself by slashing her wrists just three weeks ago and is still in hospital. But there is yet more shocking news for the singer’s family – Jackson’s former child pal Wade Robson, a dancer and once one of his most stalwart defenders, has just launched a major lawsuit against his estate.

Robson, now 30, claims he was often molested at Neverland during his regular visits to the infamous ranch during the 1990s. The Aussie-born choreographer for pop stars such as Britney Spears and Demi Lovato claims the abuse started when he was only seven and continued until he was 14.

The files seen by this newspaper appear to confirm Robson’s claim to be one of many child victims who were invited to fulfil Jackson’s sick fantasies at his isolated playground in the Californian countryside.

Pellicano is now behind bars serving a 15-year jail sentence for racketeering and wire-tapping. But one of his senior snoops – who worked extensively on the Jackson case – has broken his silence to speak exclusively to the Sunday People. The investigator, whose name we are withholding, said he was among those quizzed by FBI agents probing his old boss. And he kept copies of many of the Jackson documents now held in the bureau’s archives.

The paedophile allegations – sandwiched between thousands of pages of information about Jackson, his career and his accusers – include interviews with ex-aides [Lemarques]who claim their boss was fixated with child porn. The files name 17 boys – including five child actors and two dancers – Jacko singled out for abuse.Other kids the singer preyed on include a European boy and the sons of a screenwriter.

At least three boys got hush-money, the investigator said, with the family of one well-known young film actor ­being given £392,000 “to refrain from any and all contact with media and communications, newspapers, television, radio, film and books”. The gagging order also insisted there would not be any attempt now or in the future to “extort, intimidate, harass or impede” the Jackson organisation.

A maid who worked for the singer at Neverland was said to have been paid off with about £1.3million after complaining her son had been abused by her employer. And the investigator told of one shocking case of a mother who knew her young son was being molested by Jackson “but turned a blind eye to it because if it didn’t bother him, it didn’t bother her”. Many of the files on the victims – whose names are not being published for legal reasons – were originally pulled together by lawyers drawing up a list of a potential threats to Jackson’s paedophile secret in the early 1990s.

The legal team was scrambled after the dentist dad of 13-year-old Jordan Chandler went public with claims his son had been abused – opening the door to a string of accusations involving other kids.

The sleuth who worked for Pellicano said: “Around 1993 things were really heating up. The suggestions were Jordie was not the only victim. The momentum became so great Jackson needed a private investigator to go straight for the jugular and produce results.

“His actress friend Elizabeth Taylor encouraged him to hire Pellicano ­because she had used him to stop dirt on her drug problems being released in the media – Pellicano was a master of negotiation and keeping stars’ ­reputations clean.

“I was hired by him to find out where the fires needed putting out and, in this case, where allegations would be coming from.”  “But I have never worked on a case with as many potential claimants as the Jackson case.”

The investigator, who spent two years on the case, saw Pellicano’s ruthless methods first-hand in the frantic bid to salvage Jackson’s Mr Clean image. He said his boss encouraged his extensive contacts in the media to call the singer’s victims after he paid them off so they could publicly deny he ever touched them. It was part of a relentless campaign to clear the megastar’s name.

The investigator said: “There was a mountain of allegations levelled at Jackson and Pellicano was determined to prove his client innocent. “He promised Jackson, ‘I can make this go away’ and he wanted me to dig up everything that was around on him and then began smoothing it over.

“Pellicano had links to key figures in the US media and made them dance to his tune. He was very good at starting fires – but also at putting them out. By the end we had at least 10 boxes of documents about Jackson.” He went on: “The FBI had all that information long before Jackson’s 2005 trial. I’m surprised this evidence never came to light.

“Then again, if the pay-offs were successfully executed, no one would have spoken. “At the time, Jackson was on a world tour, battling drug addiction and planning his next CD and future. “If these files had been released then, Jackson’s career would have been over. But he was the King of Pop and spending the equivalent of a year’s royalties was worth it to keep him on his throne. With the help of people like Pellicano, the world and his fans never heard what took place at Neverland over 15 years.”

At his 2005 trial, Jackson was acquitted of abusing and feeding ­alcohol to a 13-year-old boy who had survived cancer. But the private eye said: “Our reports painted the picture that Jackson was a serial child predator. “It showed at least two dozen children were given money to stay quiet – which came to around ­$35million (£23million).

“Wade Robson was one of the kids identified as a victim while our reports show many others were paid off before their names even emerged.”

Two dozen of children! Wade Robson among them! See where the article is taking us? It takes us in the direction of a huge scandal where Pellicano’s alleged “right hand” will open the eyes of the public to MJ being a “serial child predator” and this is supposed to be established on the basis of some of “their” (his and Pellicano’s) reports.

In view of the looming danger of these terrible disclosures to be made I think it is high time for us to find out who the mysterious private eye is.


As you guessed long ago his name is Paul Barresi and it is only the proof that the incongito private eye and Barresi is one and the same person is what’s is still missing. This proof has been provided by two blogs who looked into the matter well before me.

They are: mjjustice4some and MichaelJacksonallegations

Both compared the invoice Barresi showed in the Frontline 1994 documentary and the so-called ‘FBI’ file presented in the 2013 People article. The paper turned out to be one and same document – same handwriting, same serial number, same everything.


baressi proof final

On the left you see the so-called ‘FBI’ file from the recent British tabloids collection and on the right you see the screenshot from the Frontline documentary made by journalist Richard Ben Cramer in 1994.

The paper is actually nothing else but an official receipt given by the Los Angeles District Attorney Bureau of Investigation to Barresi in return for his passing to them a 60-minute long tape of Lemarques’ interview recorded on August 28, 1993.

So while the 2013 People’s version is claiming that the receipt is supposed to prove that FBI was hiding some important evidence from the unsuspecting public, the receipt shown by Barresi on Frontline is proof of exactly the opposite – the fact that this evidence was passed over to the authorities on August 30, 1993 just two days after the recording was made.

To prove that the receipt comes from Barresi and the private eye we are talking of now is actually him (and not someone else) here is the original Frontline documentary made by Richard Cramer in 1994 where Barresi shows the receipt and explains what his interest in the whole things was. It was strictly money, of course.

32:05 Another couple, Stella and Philippe LeMarque, would emerge as key witnesses in the Jackson investigation. Their stories of child abuse reached the cops by happenestance – as a spinoff to a tabloid story. This French couple worked for Jackson for two years, until 1991. When the scandal broke, they turned to their friend, Paul Barresi, a former porn star who claimed he’d once made a hundred-grand selling a story to The Enquirer.

32:35 Barresi: “My interest in helping them was that they promised me a percentage of what they got. I was not on any kind of crusade to bring anyone to justice; and whether Michael was guilty or innocent at that point was inconsequential. My interest was strictly for the money. As was their interest too, I might add. ”

34:30 Splash News: “Originally it was $100,000 and they said, “Okay, let’s go with it”. I think they might have though – well, if it’s so easy, let’s try a bit more, and then they kept going like this until they got half a million dollars.

34:47 Barresi: “We met –  Stella and myself and this correspondent from Inside Edition. By then I heard the story probably half a dozen times and the only difference is that this time I had a tape recorder in my belt. I wanted to seize an opportunity to sell their story myself. Monday morning I got up and I realized what I wanted to do with the tape – I wanted to take it to the District Attorney’s office and turn it over to them as evidence. I knew that the DA would be happy to receive the information with open arms and, two, I knew how to play the tabloids like a harp.

35:30 Narrator: If Barresi brought the tape to the DA he had nothing to fear for his illegal tape recording. Besides it would juice up the story. If the DA is working on the story that’s action, that’s “inside information”.

Barresi: “That was the edge that worked well. If my story appeared in the slightest innoculous they would throw it out of the window. So that was one way to do it in a grand style. So I called the editor at The Globe and I said, ‘I have a tape, I’m on the way down town to hand it to the District Attorney.’ And his words were, ‘let us come with you.’ And then I knew I had him. The next thought in my mind was I’m going to ask for $30,000. You always ask for twice as much as what you hope to get. He put me on hold, and within less than a minute he came back and he said ‘well, we can’t give you thirty, we’ll give you ten.’ I said ‘make if fifteen,’ he said ‘you have a deal.’

36:40 Narrator: Barresi did not stop with the Globe. When Splash News retell this story to Sunday Mirror Barresi showed up at their office with a gun. Splash quickly arranged for him a thousand dollar check.  “This is the $1,000 check I received from the Mirror group”.

The full transcript of the video is here:

Barresi in Frontline: "Oh, come on..."

Barresi in Frontline: “Oh, come on…”

At one point of the documentary Barresi is shown speaking on the phone and ridiculing Lemarques for asking $100,000 for the story about a hand outside the boy’s pants and $500,000 for the hand inside the boy’s pants.

When saying all this he is rolling his eyes and ends it with “Oh, come on…”. The screenshot from the documentary shows him at exactly that very moment.

Barresi as a private eye in the Daily Mirror, June 2013

Barresi as THE private eye speaking in the Sunday People in June 2013

Now that we know that the “private eye” is actually Barresi you will also recognize him in the blurred picture posted in James Desborough’s article of June 29, 2013.


But how did it happen that Barresi turned on Lemarques? He and the French couple were so happily starting on the project together…

The truth  about that relationship is told by author Raymond Strait, who agreed to work on Barresi’s book but the project went nowhere as according to some hearsay Strait was arrested in April 2009 for drugs.

Here is Strait’s beautiful story:

In the early ’90s, Barresi [ ] became an unlicensed private eye and a retailer of tabloid news. In 1994, he got involved in the Michael Jackson child-molestation scandal when he was approached by two of Jackson’s servants who claimed they’d seen the performer rubbing a young boy’s thighs in an inappropriate way. The couple wanted Barresi’s help in selling their story to the tabloids, and Barresi says he obtained a $150,000 offer from the Enquirer. He was to receive a 10 percent commission.

But the servants, Barresi says, screwed him by hiring a Beverly Hills lawyer who promised he could get them much more tabloid cash, as well as book and movie deals. Angry at being cut out of the action, Barresi decided to sell the couple’s story without them. He taped them several times as they related their tale of supposed celebrity perversion.

Two of the tapes were made surreptitiously, with Barresi slipping a recorder into his pocket before joining the Jackson hirelings at their lawyer’s office. But with each retelling, Barresi says, the details of the alleged molestation grew more lurid. “Every time they told the story, they would add a little more,” he says. “Jackson’s hand went from outside the kid’s pants to inside the kid’s pants. It was outside the kid’s pants when they were offered fifty grand, and inside the kid’s pants when they were offered a hundred thousand.”

Most journalists would shy away from basing a news story on taped voices that couldn’t be positively identified. But the tabs were in frenzied pursuit of Jacko, and Barresi figured out a clever way to assuage any qualms they might have about the recordings. He called the Globe and said he was going to present the tapes as evidence to the L.A. County district attorney’s office. Did the paper want copies? Did it want to assign a reporter to accompany him downtown when he delivered the tapes? It sure as hell did.

On the day the Globe story came out, Barresi met again with the servants and their lawyer, his recorder again whirring quietly in his pocket. The woman retainer angrily confronted him, demanding to know if he was the source of the Globe story. Barresi smoothly lied through his teeth. “I already got fifteen grand in my pocket from selling the story, but I say, ‘Of course not,'” he recalls happily. “The attorney jumps in, saying ‘Of course not, he wouldn’t be sitting here right now if he did.’ And I’m so calm. I’m just sitting there. I go, ‘Search me.’ And I had the recorder going.

Meanwhile, Barresi contacted noted Beverly Hills private investigator Anthony Pellicano, who was working for Jackson to try to quash the scandal. Barresi told Pellicano about the tapes, saying they contained inconsistencies that would help undercut the servants’ allegations. “It was great because after that I took all the information to Pellicano and just discredited the shit outta them. They didn’t make a dime.”

Working both sides of the street proved highly lucrative for Barresi. By first spreading ugly rumors about Jackson and then casting doubt on them, he pocketed nearly $60,000. He got a sweet bonus, too: revenge on two people who’d dissed him.

“It’s very simple,” says the Sicilian welder’s son. “If someone’s not gonna give me respect, I’m not gonna respect them.

Oh Lord, your works are full of wonders indeed.

So the truth about these sleazebags became known only because they were too greedy and turned to another agent who promised them much more and it hurt Paul Barresi’s feelings? And this is why he decided to have his vendetta on them and took the tape not only to LAPD but to a fellow Cicilian Pellicano? To whom he specially explained the inconsistency in the witnesses’ testimonies and this is why the sleazebags didn’t make a dime?

Of course they still had to testify at the 2005 trial, but you understand that it is absolutely not the same as selling the story to a tabloid for half a million dollars.


The above shows Paul Barresi to be a somewhat unconventional villain. He seems almost like a sort of Robin Hood who does rob on the high road but for noble reasons too.

Another possible explanation is that he is looking down on all people around him as the scum of the earth as he himself has a higher moral code. He, for example, doesn’t approve of incest which (what a revelation!!) turns out to be nothing unusual in gay porn films.

This article of 2000 for example, shows Barresi resentful of the fact that in gay porn movies it is common to show a father having sex with a son but violence on the other hand is not much welcome (and Barresi is very much into violence). When telling this story its author remarks that Barresi fails to mention that he himself took part in porn films of “incest” type:

One of the reasons for the animosity between Barresi and the gay porn industry, revolves around, it seems, Barresi’s moral code, which, according to him, is quite a few notches higher than the others. Barresi expounds expansively on the low moral standards in the industry, mentioning names of directors and producers that, according to him, are guilty of pedophilia, prostitution and all around sleazy scum behavior.

<Barresi is well-known for his egocentric arrogance and profane tirades, which was in true form in 1999 when he responded to a ‘gay porn forum’ where he was the focus of the discussion... see> [link not working]

Aside from that, Barresi also has a problem with the subject matter of some gay videos. “In the gay genre whenever you come up with a movie that suggests you’re having sex with your son, or your father or relative, I mean the fucking video is a sell out, and the <gay porn> critics don’t criticize it. But if you co-mingle some good straight man-to-man sex with scenes that have some violence…. for example, I did a movie called “The Underboss’ and I got so much fucking criticism for that. The righteous gay-porn world put that and me down, and it really pisses me off…. They don’t condone that, but they condone and support incest. Now explain that to me, buddy.”

<Barresi fails to mention that theme of many of the gay porn videos in which he starred placed him as the daddy or authority figure engaging in sex with young men in the 18-20’s crowd.>

“I’m talking to you because I want to set the record straight about these people,” says Barresi. “Why should I be the only one that always gets criticized and ridiculed? I’m not recognized by my peers in the porn industry. I’m discriminated against – maybe because I live my life as a straight man.”

<It should be noted that 25% of those models that appear in gay porn videos claim, like Barresi, to be straight “gay-for-pay” persons.>!topic/

The same article points to Barresi’s huge vindictiveness as a reason why he turns on most of his friends. One of the examples is John Travolta:

“It was not out of jealousy and it was not out of revenge,” explains Barresi at first, but after a few seconds he recants. “Well maybe, there was some kind of a vendetta. Let me give it to you straight. In late 1983  when I was working with John Travolta on the film “Perfect,” he promised me that I would be his new personal fitness trainer once his present trainer – Dan Isaacson – leaves. So, in 1990, I went to see John in Bel Air – he was staying in a hotel <Hotel Bel Air according to an earlier bio> and he introduced me to a gentleman that was in his suite and said, “This is my new trainer.” I said, “Really? Nice to meet you,” but that pissed me off.”

Outspoken, opinionated, rebel, snitch…or is he just misunderstood? Porn actor-director Paul Barresi is one angry man. With 52 films under his belt and a career that has endured 30 years, Barresi maintains a quirky love-hate relationship with the adult film industry, the gay community and Hollywood in general.”

In his anger Barresi had his revenge on Michael Jackson too when Michael didn’t pay him for a tip that his videographer Schaffel used to be a porn director. Michael simply fired Schaffel without paying Barresi – and had to pay a dear price for it because in return Barresi sold the secret to tabloids. It was evidently then that Michael’s new video “What more can I give” was ruined – it couldn’t be afforded to be shot by a former porn director, especially in a situation when every tabloid was talking about it.

This episode is mentioned in the comments on a book about Hollywood morals:

Barresi went on to warn Michael Jackson that his latest videographer was also a gay porn director. But when Jackson wouldn’t pay for the information, Barresi leaked the story to the tabloids. Instead of calling Barresi a blackmailer, the authors announce that “he has a code of ethics emphasizing loyalty and respect.”

Other sources describe the big U-turns Barresi is capable of when good money is at stake. Indeed, the easiness and readiness with which he changes his story depending on the amount of money offered seems to be one of his most remarkable features:

Barresi is a hypocrite! He constantly changes his stories (and there are many!) for the convenience of instant gratification – – he has changed stories on Michael Jackson, TC, Travolta, Paul Lynde, Pellicano  and etc. to fit whatever is going on in the current press.

I know Paul Baressi, personally, and have friends that used to do porn videos & they all have very bad things to say about Barresi’s abusive & violent nature.. and the stories are horrific.

If you Google Barresi & his history, you will see he has long been a flagrant opportunist who will say or do anything to make him a profit and he often misconstrues the facts in his videos.

Fact: Barresi was paid $100,000 by the National Enquirer to talk about his “long time love affair” with Travolta. Later, he was paid $25,000 by a Scientology attorney to retract the article, going so far as to claim that the editors at the Enquirer made up much of the story, which the Enquirer was quick to deny. In the retraction, he apologizes to Travolta, but then later tried to sell personal correspondence sent to him from Travolta (when he was in Asia shooting a movie) for $250,000, saying that Travolta ended his with “Love, John” inferring this proved Travolta’s homosexuality. No one took Barresi up on his offer, not only because of his controversial reputation but a reporter learned that Travolta signs all his letters with “Love, John.”

Aside from a stint in the Air Force, appearing in Playgirl 3-4 times in the 80’s, Barresi’s main career was performing in & later directing gay & bisexual porn videos. He has made numerous claims which all panned out to be false. Now he claims to be a licensed PI, a check with the state licensing board does not show this to be true.$lcev2.startup?p_qte_code=PI&p_qte_pgm_code=2420

I did check it up and indeed there is no private investigator named Paul Barresi. So most of the time when he presented himself as a private eye he went about as an unlicensed investigator or to be more exact, as an informant who just used his ties in porn business to obtain all sort of dirt about people.

In 2009 he did obtain a license but soon lost it due to fabricating the evidence.

This CNN article talks about Barresi in connection with the fake FBI file and says that he had to file for bankruptcy in 2010:

Tabloid report on Michael Jackson ‘FBI files’ questioned

By Alan Duke, CNN

Thu July 4, 2013

Los Angeles (CNN) — A London tabloid declared Sunday that “secret FBI files” reveal Michael Jackson paid millions to silence dozens of boys he abused.

‘Recycled tabloid reports’

None of this is new — zero — and there was no FBI involvement,” said CNN Special Investigations reporter Drew Griffin. “It just sounds like recycled tabloid reports from 20 years ago.”

Griffin saw and reported on the same material more than a decade ago as a local Los Angeles reporter.

“The bottom line is this stuff was not in the FBI files,” said Tom Mesereau, the lawyer who successfully defended Jackson against child molestation charges in a lengthy trial in 2005. “The FBI closed the investigation. It sounds like a bunch of utter nonsense.”

Journalist Diane Dimond, who is no defender of the pop icon, also attacked the Sunday People article.

“It is obvious the paper took this old story and proceeded to make it seem new by adding numbers to it — 24 boys paid off $35 million by Michael Jackson,” Dimond said. “The problem is there’s no evidence to back up the claim that Jackson made that many payoffs.”

Griffin, Dimond and Mesereau each point to Paul Barresi, a former porn actor who lost his private investigator’s license for fabricating evidence, as the person who possessed the material published Sunday.

Porn star turned P.I.

“Since Barresi has fairly recently been stripped of his P.I.’s license, I can imagine that money has been tight for him,” Dimond said. “My best guess is that the UK paper offered Mr. Barresi several thousand dollars for his copies of the old Pellicano files.”

Barresi’s films, with titles such as “Married Men with Men on the Side” and “Leather Bears and Smooth Chested Huskies,” won him the X-Rated Critics’ award for best “group grope scene” in 1985 and he was inducted into the GayVN’s Hall of Fame in 2008.

Barresi, now 60, retired from the porn business to focus more on his investigative work, but court records suggest he was not as successful in that work.

He obtained a California private investigator’s license in 2009, but lost it three years later. He signed a “stipulated settlement” with the state admitting that he faked a report about an ex-girlfriend’s drug use to get her fired from her hospital job as a nurse in 2011.

Federal court records also show Barresi and his wife filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2010.

Full story:

Out of everything I’ve read about Barresi it seems that Raymond Strait (the author who started writing a book but was arrested for drugs) captured his style and character best of all. He portrayed Barresi as almost cheerfully amoral and this is probably indeed the most precise way to describe him:

“Barresi is a classic Tinseltown hustler. Like more than a few actor wannabes, he dreamed of becoming a star but wound up in a genre in which his best performances were delivered without benefit of clothes. Besides making numerous porn movies, he’s earned his daily bread as a fitness trainer, debt collector, tabloid gossip broker and self-styled private eye. Now 52, handsome and still buff, he lands occasional bit parts in mainstream TV shows. Hardened by years in the porn business, Barresi is smoothly cunning and almost cheerfully amoral. He’s of Sicilian descent and craves respect the way most people crave oxygen, which is perhaps understandable given his background.”

This happy and open amorality is indeed a totally outstanding feature of Barresi and in a way is even attractive. When people are so openly corrupt and make no bones about it you at least know what to expect of them – today they will say that Michael Jackson is a saint, and tomorrow they will claim that he was a “serial molester”.

It all depends on how much money you pay him and it is nothing personal, understand?

This is what Barresi actually said to Maureen Orth to whom he explained some details of his adventure with the Lemarque tapes. I’m sorry that I’m telling this story again and again, but firstly, each time we learn something new about it and secondly, this alone should tell the reader how stale the story is and what an incredible lie was told by James Desborough when he published it in 2013 as if for the first time.

Through Barresi, the Lemarques had tried to sell their story a few years ago to the National Enquirer for $100,000, but were told that it would take too much investigation to prove and was therefore legally tricky. But now that [Jordan’s] charges had broken, they were out hawking again, and they had upped their price to $500,000.

Barresi told me he thought the Lemarques were being greedy—they could easily get $100,000 now, and he would take 10 percent. Barresi had contacted the Globe in London and was on hold for $15,000 from them for a few days when he got impatient and went to Kevin Smith [of Splash]. He faxed Smith his story, and Smith placed it for $2,400 with the London Mirror.

Then Barresi heard from the Globe that it was a go, so he told Smith to stop the deal with the Mirror. Smith’s failure to prevent the Mirror (“JACKO’S NEW HOME ALONE SLUR”) from scooping the Globe (“PETER PAN OR PERVERT—WE CAUGHT JACKSON ABUSING CHILD STAR”) enraged Barresi. The Globe still paid him, but the Mirror didn’t.

The Mirror’s recalcitrance prompted Barresi to arrive at the Splash office, Smith says, with a gun and a huge bodyguard. Smith hastily placed a call to the Mirror and assured Barresi he would be paid $1,000.

Barresi, who eventually made $23,500 off the story, gave me transcripts of the tapes he had also given to the police and the D.A. The transcripts were carefully annotated as to “inconsistency”: for example, when the Lemarques were asking $100,000, according to Barresi, Jackson’s hand was on the outside of Macaulay Culkin’s pants; when the price rose to $500,000, the hand was inside.

A few weeks later, Barresi called to say that he had decided to pass on his information to Anthony Pellicano. As a fellow Sicilian, Barresi said, he felt simpatico with Pellicano and admired his handiwork. “What he’s doing is painting a clear picture of a dysfunctional family.” Barresi wanted to make one thing clear, however: “I take no sides. I’m in this strictly for the money.”

He takes no sides. He is in this strictly for the money.

The reason why I’m focusing on Barresi’s character so much is because his nature is a key for understanding the story about the “two dozens boys molested by MJ”.

This big number of victims has a price, and I think that the sum paid to Barresi during the AEG trial was not bad. Not bad at all.

Another sum like that and he will put up  for us an unforgettable show. Working both sides of the street is absolutely no problem for Barresi – it is as easy for him as breathing the air. His problem, which is actually more of our problem now, is that truth is inconsequential to him in principle. It is pure business, you know.

It is also highly unfortunate for us (and Michael Jackson) that these days Barresi is apparently in dire straits and will make any kind of a somersault in order to earn an extra thousand dollars. He is a father of three and we need to understand.

He has lost his license and according to some sources is working as a driver now. Not just anybody’s driver – in 2012 he was the driver for Ron Tutor, the new head of Miramax – but still a driver, and Barresi wants fame and respect as you remember. In 2008 he was inducted into the GayVN’s Hall of Fame …

In addition to all that Barresi has lots of personal troubles. He is so much resented by his own family that he was banned by his mother and brothers from attending his father’s funeral and had to follow it by means of binoculars from the bushes:

“This was the most painful experience of my life,” Barresi tells FishbowlLA via telephone. “One of my brothers was too sick to attend, but the other two–Matthew and Mark—finally spotted me about halfway through the burial service. They squinted and looked at me with such anger and disdain. I didn’t care that they spotted me. At that point, I came out of the bushes, about 100 yards away.” He had been warned that if he tried to enter the church, he would be thrown out by an off-duty cop in attendance who is also a close friend of his mother.

In short, Barresi’s life is not easy.

This is why I sincerely hope that his situation will improve and that he will come into really good money, as otherwise we will surely be in for a big pile of new lies about Michael Jackson.

So let us wish Barresi all the best. After all he sometimes acted as Robin Hood and will probably not rob people of their reputations if he has a chance to make money in some other way.


I was asked whether I was kidding when I wished Barresi an improved financial situation hoping that will keep him from dissing Michael Jackson yet again. Yes, I was kidding – but only partially.  I believe that all people are capable of change. Of course in this case there is very little hope, but you never know.

Please see the 2nd part of this post for the analysis of each “FBI” paper.


41 Comments leave one →
  1. lisa kemp permalink
    April 12, 2014 9:19 pm

    To whom it may concern; You don’t know me but I am a psychic and I know when things are wrong in the universe. And this is wrong, Michael didn’t hurt any child he would rather cut off his arm than to hurt anyone. Michael would look at a child and see gods loving ways and treat the children so. I supposed because Jesus put a child on his lap that he was a child molester. No he only showed understanding and love to those children. Michael saw this and did the same. So if others want to debate Michaels love then let’s go I am ready to protect an innocent man from any and all persecution from others. Lisa


  2. April 13, 2014 12:53 am

    Hi Helena.:)


  3. April 13, 2014 12:55 am

    This is a good article, I don’t understand why I’m no longer getting notified when something is posted. Oh well, it’s great that you have returned, it’s nice to read from you.


  4. April 13, 2014 5:45 am

    Murray was left without an opportunity to smear Michael himself. He has had to turn to other people ,mostly those, of the sleziest kind. involved in pornography . Times are hard and even porn is not as profitable as before.Everybody there does whatever it takes to get
    money for food and rent. And smearing Michael used to be a good bet.And there is always hope of some assistance from AEG.Old stories are repeated with somwe new twists and turns.,Was not JamesDeBarge and murray fellow inmtes for some time?.
    Michael is dead and times are hard so now old material has to be rehashed.I hear the foodlines in LA are long indeed.


  5. masch11 permalink
    April 13, 2014 2:08 pm

    i dont believe what I read!!!


  6. Kelley permalink
    April 13, 2014 10:33 pm

    I dont believe a word of this terrible article!!!! I am so tired of seeing and hearing people say michael is a child molseter and vindicter…he loved kids ..plain and simple and not in the way hes always being percived as a child molester!! Why would someone who is a so called child molester be able to have custody of his own children?? Michael’s only mistake was paying the people off for saying he touched their son just to get it over with not to admit he did it …these people knew he was rich and very famous and all they saw were $$$ signs not caring of the person they were about to hurt and ruin his reputation none the less!! He’s passed on now we need to just leave him alone but never forget the most talented, caring person that ever lived!! Rip michael!! I will always love you!!


  7. April 14, 2014 2:10 am

    “I dont believe a word of this terrible article!!!! I am so tired of seeing and hearing people say michael is a child molseter” – Kelly

    Kelly, I probably didn’t make myself clear enough but I am 200% sure that Michael was innocent. I will reread the article once again to see what made you think that I could be of a different opinion. It is probably my English, sorry.


  8. kenjxn permalink
    April 14, 2014 5:28 am

    Michael would not hurt any child in any way. This article makes me sick. What people do for a dollar.


  9. Judith Mason permalink
    April 15, 2014 12:47 am

    Thank you for this posting, and I will certainly read Part 2. I always learn something new here. BUT, surely you can’t be serious (in your closing) about wishing Barresi an improved financial situation — hoping that will keep him from dissing Michael Jackson yet again. The guy, as reported, is totally amoral and will do whatever strikes him. If he has money, he will want more. He’s a gutter rat on the prowl at all times and without scruples– whatever wonky code his twisted mind may conceive. It’s especially gruesome that he and his brothers are all named after Apostles.

    Anyway, I really hope you were kidding.


  10. April 15, 2014 1:42 am

    “surely you can’t be serious (in your closing) about wishing Barresi an improved financial situation. I really hope you were kidding.” – Judith Mason

    Judith, I was kidding but only partially. I believe that people are capable of change and that each person has something good inside. And it depends wholly on him whether he will allow this good to take the upper hand over his ugliness. Of course I have very little hope, but you never know.

    “I will certainly read Part 2”

    Please do. I’ve finally edited it to a more or less acceptable variant. Initially I posted it in very much hurry and it was too raw. Now you see the updated version.


  11. April 16, 2014 3:21 pm

    Reblogged this on Espacio de Nancy.


  12. April 17, 2014 5:46 am

    Re the pic. om top of part 1. of the 2 former jailmates;Murray has put on a lot of weight,has lost hair,is sloppily dressed.He no longer can work as a MD so is the Insstrument supporting him now and what about the his numerous other children?Looks as if he has aged fast. His now friend James DeBarge is thin and looks in the end stages of some illness.
    Jailmates who do not like the Jacksons.At least I suspect that Murray hopes still to live off Michael in some roundabout way.Just another shameless guy.
    lisa kemp,April 12 2014 you are right.and in more than one aspect.


  13. Amaya permalink
    April 18, 2014 12:25 am

    James DeBarge defended Michael in the past. Michael talked him out of suicide and DeBarge seems grateful for it, so I don’t think he would betray him now. At least… I *hope* he wouldn’t.

    I’m really hoping these new allegations won’t go anywhere. Hardly anyone seems to be paying attention to them, which I think is a good sign.


  14. appleh permalink
    April 20, 2014 3:25 pm

    @ Amya, a lot of people defended Michael in the past like GA, WR and so on, but when it comes to money they all threw him under the bus. Like all these “friends” who abandoned him during the trial and after, and then these jerks had the nerve to speak at his funeral how close friends they were ! I don´t give much to that MJ helped James DeBarge, he helped GA also and we all know how the thanked him that !!!


  15. appleh permalink
    April 20, 2014 3:30 pm

    Had James De Barge really MJ´s best in his heart, he never had befriended CM nor met him after released from prison, I think we have to be prepared for the worst !!!


  16. April 21, 2014 6:40 am

    And I just hate it when jermaine is talking about Debbies looks. She was a very attractive young woman.The recent stresses may have caused some eating problems. Jermaine should rather speak about his child support problems,that is his own problems. Katherine gave him the money and he buys himself a Ferrari..sorry to speak about the J. family but some things are just too much.
    I hope very much lisa kemp, here above me, the one who was the first poster on this article.


  17. April 21, 2014 6:46 am

    Lisa Kemp, many things are wrong in the universe.You are so right about Michael. And I know many things are wrong in the universe we live in today.


  18. April 21, 2014 4:53 pm

    “Katherine gave him the money and he buys himself a Ferrari..sorry to speak about the J. family but some things are just too much.” W

    W, I’m thankful that you mentioned Debbie and Jermaine. I didn’t know anything and have learned just now. Though I don’t know the situation well enough my first impression is that Debbie is right. Katherine is a perfect guardian for the children but she is indeed too old for that. And time is working against her too. Debbie is the next best person for being a guardian. I don’t understand how the Jacksons can be against it.

    Debbie Rowe
    I’m Going to Court To Get Michael Jackson’s Kids
    4/11/2014 1:00 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

    Debbie Rowe will wage legal war to get guardianship of the 2 kids she had with Michael Jackson … and if she could she’d gladly take all 3.

    Sources familiar with the situation tell TMZ … Rowe is deeply concerned about the environment in the Jackson home. She likes Katherine Jackson but believes she has gotten way too old to serve as guardian … “Katherine’s not connected with the kids or involved in their lives” Rowe told a friend.

    Rowe is also concerned Michael’s brothers are hanging around the Calabasas house a lot and have been a terrible influence. She’s complained Prince has developed a filthy mouth and is rebellious because no one is even trying to keep him in line.

    Rowe is especially upset with Jermaine, who will appear on “Celebrity Wife Swap.” Rowe thinks he’s just plain creepy and extremely inappropriate, and wants him as far away from the kids as possible.

    She feels Blanket — the 12-year-old who is not her biological kid — is actually the most vulnerable and most in danger.

    As for Paris … Rowe fears she’s not made the kind of improvement which is necessary after her suicide attempt and wants control so she can take steps to ensure her safety.

    TJ Jackson is a co-guardian … we’re told Rowe likes him but is worried that he’s been on tour and away from the kids for long stretches.

    Rowe will file legal docs asking the judge to appoint her guardian so she can move the children to her ranch in Palmdale CA, where she has a business raising and breeding horses.

    Fact is … Rowe has not asked the Estate for money and our sources say she’s not interested in a payday. She wants the kids because she loves them and fears for their well-being.


  19. April 21, 2014 5:41 pm

    “Had James De Barge really MJ´s best in his heart, he never had befriended CM nor met him after released from prison, I think we have to be prepared for the worst!!!” – appleh
    “James DeBarge defended Michael in the past. Michael talked him out of suicide and DeBarge seems grateful for it, so I don’t think he would betray him now. At least… I *hope* he wouldn’t.” – Amaya

    Hopefully DeBarge is an honest man and will not turn on Michael, but there are two factors which put me on my guard. The first one is his own behavior which Wiki describes as follows: “James DeBarge is currently being housed in the administrative segregation unit of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department County Jail for men after being arrested on drug and assault with a deadly weapon charges”.

    And the second factor is that Conrad Murray’s interest in DeBarge could only be connected with Michael. As far as I know DeBarge was married to Janet in 1984 and in 1985 their marriage was annuled. There were rumors that Janet had a baby and some thought that it is Omer Bhatti who was born in 1985. Conrad Murray could easily approach DeBarge to find out whether the story was true.

    And it doesn’t even matter whether he was or wasn’t checking up the Omer Bhatti story. What matters is that Conrad Murray is evidently looking into Michael’s past. I won’t be surprised if he is now tracing the history of each boy around Michael.

    “Even Jackson’s three-month first marriage to singer James DeBarge, when she was 18, has some lingering secrecy—although the reports there are harder to take seriously. Gossip rags chased stories for years in the 2000s alleging that Jackson had a secret child with DeBarge. Rumors ran rampant in 2005 that Jackson had given birth to a girl during their marriage. At one point, it was speculated that it was a son named Omer Bhatti and he would now be in his late 20s.”

    By the way, the above article points to Janet Jackson’s incredible secrecy about her private life. And this makes secrecy a pattern not only with Michael but with Janet too. It runs in the family and is most probably the result of Katherine’s religion and upbringing. They don’t make their love life public. And the reason for that is that they are very much afraid that publicity will ruin the relationship and it won’t be allowed to evolve the natural way.


    The “Control” singer proved an uncanny ability to do just that—control—her private life when she announced Monday that she’s no longer Ms. Jackson (if you’re nasty), but Mrs. Al Mana. Shocking the entertainment press, Jackson said that she married Qatari tycoon Wissam Al Mana … and that the wedding happened last year.

    In a culture of such rabid celebrity obsession and microscopic coverage of even the most D-list of stars’ daily lives (Breaking: Hilary Duff and Mike Comrie make date night a priority!) a key member of one of the world’s most public families managing to keep an entire marriage secret for any amount of time is astonishing, let alone for months. More impressive is that this is the second time Jackson has managed to keep her nuptials a secret from the press. In fact, looking back, Michael’s little sister has had a remarkably—almost implausibly, given her notoriety—private life.

    News of her marriage to Rene Elizondo Jr. in 1991 didn’t surface until the couple separated in 1999. When the news broke, it was called “the best kept secret in Hollywood.” At the time, even Elizondo said he “was surprised we kept it a secret so long.”

    At the time of their divorce in 2000, Elizondo told JET magazine that keeping a secret marriage with one of the most famous people in the world was difficult, but worth the effort. “We decided early on that we wanted to preserve our marriage by keeping it private. We noticed that couples that are always in the media seem to break up quickly in Hollywood.”


  20. Mariam permalink
    April 21, 2014 10:53 pm

    I really don’t understand what CM wants from MJ now? All I can say is, that day, the day MJ meet CM for the first time is the worst and horrible day, bad day of all days. He took his life, he did leave the kids without father, and basically he destroyed his kids and family life. Look at what he did to Parice , CM is the reason for all this mess. Now, he is after his legacy and attacking his name?

    Now, he is going around still attacking MJ? CM is the worst enemy to MJ and his kids and family so far. Not AEG or Sony, I am not saying they are not, but CM is the worst of all or #1 enemy. What does he want from him now? Why he so resentment/bitter towards MJ? Michael Jackson is the one who lost his life not him? He is the one who killed MJ not Michael. I don’t understand him at all.

    Usually, people who killed someone accidentally, regret and feet guilty the fact that they simply took someone life even if it is accident they still feel bad, I mean most of them not all, they feel tremendous guilt for taking someone’s life and for hurting the family and friends. It hunts them all their life, for some case.

    He should disappear and hide somewhere at least for some time, and should never talk about MJ at all and should think not to cause any pain in any way again to this family.

    This is why it makes me think sometimes, CM probably killed MJ deliberately with cooperation of others. I have this suspicion allways, even though there is no proof.

    Sorry guys, I am upset a little bit.


  21. April 22, 2014 4:38 am

    “What does he want from him now?” Mariam

    Mariam, Conrad Murray is psychotic and selfish. He hoped to make millions and be on top of the world, but instead found himself in prison. He thinks that MJ ruined his life. And he is some half a million dollars in debt. He will do anything for money now.


  22. April 22, 2014 4:50 am

    Guys! I know this hasn’t anything to do with this post, but I am really happy to see MJ’s name associated with the “Earth Day”. Even if they just mention his name. I wish to see more of this posts, because he really wanted to preserve our earth.

    “Was hatten der verstorbene Superstar Michael Jackson, Boliviens Präsident Evo Morales und der Zimtkolibri oder der Schneeaffe gemeinsam? Sie alle stehen für den “Earth Day”, den “Tag der Erde”, einen Feiertag, der in mehr als 175 Ländern über alle Kulturen und Religionen hinweg zu Ehren von Mutter Erde begangen wird – auch wenn an diesem Tag gearbeitet werden muss.”

    * * *
    Google translation: “What did the late Superstar Michael Jackson, Bolivia’s President Evo Morales and the Zimtkolibri or the Schneeaffe have in common? They all stand for the “Earth Day”, “day of the earth”, a holiday celebrated in more than 175 countries across all cultures and religions, in honor of mother earth – even if on this day, work must be done.


  23. susannerb permalink
    April 22, 2014 9:54 am

    @Claire Detune: Thank you very much for making us aware of the “Earth Day” today.
    There is one more sentence about Michael in the article further below:

    “In 1995 Michael Jackson played his “Earth Song” which is not only about ecological aspects in the treatment of the planet, but also about the devastating consequences of war.”

    This has not only a current reference to the Earth Day, but also to the serious situation in Eastern Europe, Syria and other places on our planet.


  24. Nan permalink
    April 22, 2014 9:58 am

    I just thought I would put this link up ..I think it might be some research for Tia , who was nice enough to share info on her twitter , as it references the documents she had up….


  25. Judith Mason permalink
    April 22, 2014 10:21 am

    Clare Detune: It also warms my heart to see Michael Jackson tributes continually popping up all over the world — Earth Day, a dedication, praise and remembrance for his kindnesses and good works (some of which the world knew nothing about at the time), a flash mob, a sculpture, a painting, a good book or article, a topic of study in a school or university, a performance or release of new music. Besides all this, there are many thousands of echoes of Michael that remain in the world — for those who can see and hear them. Over time, all of these things bit by bit,help tilt the scales in favor of a balanced and fair presentation of Michael Jackson’s life and legacy.


  26. Sina permalink
    April 22, 2014 3:27 pm

    ‘ W, I’m thankful that you mentioned Debbie and Jermaine. I didn’t know anything and have learned just now. Though I don’t know the situation well enough my first impression is that Debbie is right. Katherine is a perfect guardian for the children but she is indeed too old for that. And time is working against her too. Debbie is the next best person for being a guardian. I don’t understand how the Jacksons can be against it.’

    Helena if you dont know the situation well enough then you should inform yourself about Debbie Rowes latest conduct.
    She started a storm by callng into TMZ that she thought she had cancer than it wasnt cancer, but an autoimmune desease , then she was seen with Marc Schaffel joking that they were engaged and then again not. And all of a sudden she was going to marry Schaffel and ask custody for all three children. Meanwhile she was throwing jabs at the Jacksons upon which Jermaine rightfully responded. What mother acts like that while you have a suicidal kid who is still recovering. What if the children hear about these so called health problems of hers from the media or about her interference with a tabloid. Michael will turn in his grave on the idea that Marc Schaffel might become stepfather to his kids.
    Thank God that the children are old enough to say what they want , that a judge will take into account the childs vulnerable situation and that she has nothing to do with Blanket. Michael knew what he was doing when he didnt name her as a guardian in his will.


  27. lynande51 permalink
    April 22, 2014 7:54 pm

    Nan it is Tia and her friends that went and got the documents that are blogging the information.


  28. April 23, 2014 3:31 am

    Regarding the matter with Debbie and Jermaine, in my opinion it doesn’t make sense to discuss it here. The only information we have about it is from tabloids, mainly TMZ, and I don’t think this is a source we should take too serious. I don’t think it’s advisable to “inform” ourselves on TMZ. They create headlines that are huge exaggerations and their articles hype things to an extent that readers are attracted and write comments. We don’t know if these are accurate accounts of the matter and in my opinion should refrain from judging.


  29. April 23, 2014 1:20 pm

    Debbie has known Michael since they were both about 20 yo.I think she really always loved him, but also knew that he was or was becominng a great star. And that he would not marry her. She did not ask for money to have the babies. He just had some at the time and gave it to her. Naturally- the trial made her nervous, she could not now the out come.And I dont really think she did not care for the children. It was a facade. Just remember how she testified at the AEG trial.”Det var ord och inga visor” as we say.And she has been the target for some unnecessarty nasty comments.Prince seems a very independent young man, maybe he does not need a mother at this point. Blanket will. as predicted suffer the most from the loss of his father.Well, Michael did marry her,that is why Debbie is the legally the parent of the 2 oldest. (translation to above saying is difficult, something like: “it was WORDS and no little twittter”)


  30. Sina permalink
    April 23, 2014 1:26 pm

    The only information we have about it is from tabloids, mainly TMZ, and I don’t think this is a source we should take too serious:” Susannerb.

    I agree I despise them. That makes it even worse that someone voluntarily calls them and is on record telling them personal stuff.


  31. Nan permalink
    April 23, 2014 8:02 pm

    Hi lynande51

    I meant to to say I thought it was Tia, ..I type as bad as I tweet LOL
    I recommend everyone look at the information Tia and her friends put out.
    I have to say after reading so many blogs and gaining insight into, what Michael was put through, I am just amazed at the resilience and decency of MJ after all he was subjected to.
    And it is a testament, to what Michael put out, to the world , his character and decency, that were attacked , that so many are willing to take time from their own lives , to explain what happened in his life.
    Thanks to all , who share continue to contribute and share knowledge.


  32. April 24, 2014 9:02 am

    “Helena if you dont know the situation well enough then you should inform yourself about Debbie Rowes latest conduct.” -Sina

    I’ve read about Debbie planning to marry Marc Schaffel and I am abhorred by her choice. But she is still a mother to those two children whom she loves very much, so whether a guardian or no guardian, but there should be some contacts between her and the children by all means.

    She complained that Prince developed “foul mouth” and I think that she heard his swear language addressed at herself, otherwise she would not have flared up so much. She naturally assumed that the Jacksons are turning Prince against her and this is where I think the root of the problem is.

    With the exception of her affair with Marc Schaffel, Debbie always produced on me the impression of a very sensible woman. And I am sure that it would be in the best interests of the children if the Jacksons tried to find common language with her instead of accusing her of selling her children to Michael.

    This is NOT TRUE and it is an INSULT to her as a mother. The Jacksons evidently don’t understand it and as a result got a statement from Debbie that she would seek guardianship for the children.

    All this is the result of grown people’s fights who don’t behave in a wise and loving way they should. Michael’s siblings were not around him in the later part of his life either, and given the history of their relationship with Michael I’m not sure that people like Jermaine or LaToya have the right to have their say at all. Irrespective of their warm feelings for Michael now.


  33. April 24, 2014 10:13 am

    “Nan it is Tia and her friends that went and got the documents that are blogging the information.”- Lynande51

    Yes, Tia and her friends put in that blog the documents she bought from the court archives and they are indeed very interesting for learning the true character and nature of Evan Chandler. And they’ve have made a great timeline for the Chandlers’ activities before and after Michael Jackson. I highly recommend everyone to read the blog:

    It has been added to the blogroll now and I’ve put a notice about it on top of the home page.

    Actually Paula (real name for Tia) allowed us to reblog her findings, so this is what I’ll probably do too.


  34. Judith Mason permalink
    April 24, 2014 11:59 am

    Apparently Debbie Rowe is scheduled to appear today on ET (Entertainment Tonight). I really don’t know what she wants (we only know what we read or are told after all). So many people in Michael Jackson’s life have IMO behaved ‘unwisely’ by trying to use the tabloid press to their own advantage. The results are usually regrettable as they often wind up either being shredded big-time or appearing confused, erratic and irresponsible (whether they are or not). The celebrity press is master of picking and parsing statements, cutting and pasting quotes, presenting conflicting stories, and manipulating public perception.

    IF Debbie Rowe wants to pursue custody at some point, she hasn’t IMO made a good start by becoming a character in a public drama. Certainly Debbie Rowe is entitled to marry whoever she wishes. IF Marc Schaffel is her choice, I can’t help wondering — given his background — if his physical presence as new stepfather in the home presents the most wholesome environment for Paris, a beautiful, precocious, engaging, and very rich young woman who is also emotionally fragile (at the moment).

    There are so many things to consider IF there is a custody case. Next year, Prince will be 18, Paris,17 and Blanket, 13. No doubt they have their own opinions.

    I was hoping for a long, long hiatus from public spectacles involving Michael Jackson, but that is not in the cards this year. I don’t see any clear winners here.


  35. Nan permalink
    April 24, 2014 12:04 pm

    As far as custody of MJ children goes , my guess is that Debbie Rowe wants to have more say in what is happening with Paris.She has been in the care of others , for quite a while now, and I think she is just asking for custody of all 3 kids,as leverage for the one child that needs help.I think her concern is for her daughter.
    It is ridiculous to think that a 17 yr old person ,( Prince) who is , no doubt, looking into colleges , is going to be uprooted from his friends and family , when he is a honor student and by all accounts doing well.He could emancipate himself , he is so old..
    I dont know what is going on with Debbie Rowe , but her relationship with Schaffel, is very disturbing, given her own testimony in 2005.
    I remember the 2 of them, going with him to Japan ,after MJ died, when he was hawking footage of MJ in Indiana.
    He has always been about making money off MJ.Debbie isnt above using Mj either, imo
    And the fact that she is using TMZ and Harvey Levin, given the amount of negative stories , they do on MJ,, makes me sick.
    I am not a big Jackson family fan, but why on Earth, would she play this out in tabloids , when you have a child who has tried to commit suicide ,..
    Nevermind putting her son in the middle , by saying MJ made certain remarks., which I am not sure I believe , given she has said Mj called her all the time regarding parenting.
    She said in her testimony , she hadn’t spoken to him in years.
    I doubt he would be calling her , after the trial , when she had agreed to wear a wire for the prosecutors.


  36. April 24, 2014 12:26 pm

    “I dont know what is going on with Debbie Rowe , but her relationship with Schaffel, is very disturbing, given her own testimony in 2005.” – Nan

    This affair with Schaffel is indeed disturbing. I wouldn’t even believe it if I didn’t hear her speaking to Harvey Levin about it. Incredible.

    As to her children it seems to me that it is natural for a mother to want to be closer to her children. Evidently her friction with the Jacksons came to so boiling a point that she resorted to these drastic measures. She was never too subtle in her actions and was never the one to hold her tongue, but generally she was manageable enough. It seems to me that something provoked her for the dramatic step of seeking to be a guardian.

    IF Marc Schaffel is her choice, I can’t help wondering — given his background — if his physical presence as new stepfather in the home presents the most wholesome environment for Paris, a beautiful, precocious, engaging, and very rich young woman who is also emotionally fragile (at the moment).- Judith Mason

    I agree. Marc Schaffel is not the right company for Michael’s children. At least this Debbie should be able to understand.

    But guardianship does not necessarily mean living together with the children. And it could be added to Katherine’s guardianship and not be a replacement for it. I think that she simply wants a guaranteed chance to see her children.


  37. Sina permalink
    April 24, 2014 2:49 pm

    No one is really interested in who Debbie Rowe chooses to marry, no one was before Michael died.
    But it does raise eyebrows considering the history of this man with Michael, her own testimony against him and the fact that she chooses this man to start a family with while seeking custody. She is playing a dangerous game and I am shocked that she blatantly lies about things that can easily be debunked.
    Nothing provoked Debie Rowe but her current endeavours with Marc Schaffel that needed PR and she has no qualms to use her children and the Jackson name for it.


  38. Mariam permalink
    April 24, 2014 11:10 pm

    Debbie Rowe associated with a people who were a problem to MJ in the past. Contacting TMZ, ET and now she chooses to marry Marc Schaffel is indeed disturbing.

    Who knows if this custody request, going to TMZ and ET be Marc Schaffel idea, try to make money. Don’t forget, he was also a problem to MJ he tried extortion/scam from MJ. You know, probably she influenced by Marc Schaffel.

    I am just wish and hope if his kids stay where their father wants them to be with. His will should be respected, he purposely omitted Debbie from his will, and it was clear he do not want his kids raised by Debbie, why? We don’t know but he only knows. I wish if she respect his wish too as she was loyal for him before, would be nice if she continue to be.

    If anybody wants to honour MJ, should respect his will because his will is his voice/his word. He took time and he put his mind in to it and prepared this WILL because he knew this request will be raised one day. The purpose of writing the will is to eliminate those kinds of situations and confusion. We all need to respect that. This is just my opinion.

    My understanding is, he never wants her in his kid’s life, as many peoples say, it seemed that she had a deal with him not to ask him his kids and gave her some money she disappeared quietly for many years and enjoyed her millions, and she was living her life. Now what? Because he is dead?

    I do remember what MJ say on one of his interview, he said “she does not care she only care about her horses”. Yes she didn’t care. She herself said “I don’t want them to call me mother, I have them for him not for me” the question is, so now why? She is really disturbing the kid’s peace and she is messing up their mind or confusing them.

    It is very bad for kids, she should just wait there will in patient until they become mature and can realized everything. I am sure they will go to her one day, but it has to come from them not by forcing them or by creating a lot of drama. Because they never know her as a mother,

    If she really cares about her kid’s wellbeing, she should not talk about them in public or do anything now.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean she is not a mother or not mean she does not have feeling for her kids, but she should keep her word and promised that she gave to MJ when he was alive.

    I actually think very strange about her, what kind of mother is left behind her children all this years? To me she is very strange mother, whom I don’t understand. Please forgive me for saying that.

    I am afraid if all this drama affected the kids and also I am afraid if MJ’s worst fear happening.


  39. Helen-Marie permalink
    April 28, 2014 6:42 am

    Hi Helena, I hope you are having brighter days. Sorry for the late comment but I was not notified of a new post!

    Thank you for bringing these somewhat sordid details to the forefront. I’m on tender hooks regarding the pending wade case and holding my breath just thinking about all the monsters that will come creeping out of the woodwork to get their monies worth once again. Your article, although hard to digest, is an eye opener and once again my thoughts lead to how Michael must have felt at this time with seemingly no one around him to trust.

    I’ve studied the human mind and behaviour closely for many years and yet it always amazes me what lengths people will go to for money. We all have the ability to act this way, but for many of us our moral code is embedded more deeply. Moreover, we can certainly smell a rat when presented with a lie. I think you are absolutely right when you say Barresi has no problem working for both sides of the street and I too hope that his side is Michael’s during this trying period, for only knows what lies will be told for money.

    On the subject of Debbie Rowe, I had not heard the latest news, but again nothing surprises me about her behaviour. I once found her outspokenness refreshing, but after the AEG trial I grew wise of her hidden self serving agenda.

    As a mother myself I can see her need to now be involved with her children and we must not forget that she is the biological mother of two of them and without Michael the original ‘agreement’ of sole custody is no longer relevant. We also have to be mindful that she had a close relationship with Michael spanning decades and during that time Michael would have confided with her time and time again about his dysfunctional family.

    Up until the time Paris tried to end her life Debbie probably saw no need to go against Michaels wishes for his mother to have full custody, but her views have changed since she has been in closer contact. I feel what we are seeing here is a mother trying to do what she feels is ‘right’ for ‘her’ children in a rather clumsy and ill informed way.


  40. newrodrigo permalink
    August 17, 2014 4:25 pm

    I often wonder how the Mirror would have the balls to say the FBI covered up Michael’s crimes?

    No, they just wanted to throw doubt on them. The FBI essentially confirmed that Michael was innocent in over 10 years of investigation.
    I’m betting this paper was hoping that we’d start to believe the FBI knew of Michael’s guilt and did what they were accused of doing back in the 80’s – covering it up. That’s low for a paper to steep.



  1. Michael Jackson's Real Leaving Neverland: Exposed, Framed By NAMBLA

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: