Skip to content

Barresi, Pellicano and Michael Jackson ‘FBI’ files. Part 2

April 13, 2014

This is part 2 of the post about Michael Jackson so-called secret FBI files. The subject of the discussion is 6 pages disclosed in June 2013 by some UK tabloids and a certain Barresi who claims that the papers come from Pellicano and that Barresi once worked for him.

To see that the papers are not FBI and are no secret, and to learn who Barresi is, you need to go to the first part of this post.

And over here we will focus on Barresi having no right to speak on behalf of Pellicano at all, and on Barresi’s story about MJ being the opposite of Pellicano’s, and the fact that even today Pellicano insists that there was not a single shred of evidence against Michael Jackson in 1993 or ever.

This post will also look into the 6 documents presented by UK tabloids as some kind of a sensation which they are not –  except the sensation, of course, that some of them are fake.


The Sunday People article of June 30, 2011 speaks of Barresi as Pellicano’s “senior snoop”. From the way they present Barresi here it looks like he is Pellicano’s right hand who is fully entitled to speak on his behalf:

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.

Barresi is Pellicano’s “senior” snoop? So every story told by Barresi now should be regarded as first-hand information direct from the investigator who looked into the scandal around Michael Jackson in 1993?

Noooo, guys. Of all lies told by Barresi this will be one of the biggest ones. Barresi wasn’t Pellicano’s investigator, senior or any other, and he had no access to any of Pellicano’s files – firstly, because Pellicano was not in the habit of sharing his secrets with anyone and secondly, because he didn’t regard Barresi as a credible source.

To describe Pellicano’s secrecy and unwillingness to let anyone into his investigative work Barresi himself said that even Pellicano’s direct employer Bert Fields did not know a thing about the way Pellicano was going about his business. And this is the exact reason why Bert Fields didn’t have to answer for Pellicano’s methods for which he is now serving a term in prison.

Barresi said about it:

“He had a lot of extraordinary trade secrets, and for Pellicano to share with his long-term clients — Mr. Fields was a long-term client — would be like a magician telling the audience how he did his tricks,” said Paul Barresi, a former legman for Mr. Pellicano.  Mr. Barresi has been aiding the defense team for Mr. Fields in hopes of a later payday.

When Pellicano was arrested Barresi was arrested too, but was set free, and from this fact alone we know that the magician did not share his trade secrets with Barresi either.

The above piece is also a tacit explanation of the role played by Barresi in all those investigations  – he volunteered his services, most probably by offering dirt on someone, and this dirt could then be paid or unpaid depending on the situation. So his style was closer to that of a blackmailer than an investigator, especially since the dirt was not necessarily to be true.

This voluntary informant’s work is actually what Barrisi did for Pellicano. The field he was working in was the one he knew best – it was gay sex industry.

Barresi also regularly freelanced for Pellicano. “Whenever there was a damaging story involving a celebrity client that involved sex, then I was involved,” Barresi said

The difference of an informant is that he brings in any dirt he is able to dig up, whether true or not. He doesn’t check up the veracity of the story and doesn’t analyze things in order to arrive at the truth which is the job of an investigator proper. “Legman” is exactly the right word for Barresi.

But the most important proof that Barresi wasn’t Pellicano’s investigator, especially the one entitled to speak on his behalf, is the fact that Pellicano was asked a direct question about his cooperation with Barresi and Pellicano said “No”.

The question was asked in October 2006 by Martin Lasden, a journalist working for the California Lawyer Daily Journal who approached Steven Gruel, Pellicano’s attorney with this and other questions.

And what answer did he get? Pellicano fully disavowed Barresi and said that he never hired Barresi to do any investigative work for him. The word “any” was put in italics by Martin Lasden himself.

Martin Lasden’s account about Barresi is very detailed and I couldn’t resist making a long quote from it because it was only here that I realized one other important thing about Barresi. Back in 1993 he not only worked both sides of the street – with LAPD (prosecution) and Pellicano (defense) over the Lemarques’ tapes, but he used them to a threefold advantage for himself.

To LAPD and Pellicano he told the true story of Lemarques, but to two tabloids he sold the false version of the same.

Do you think Pellicano could regard a person like that as a credible source and trust him with his own findings? Absolutely not! Barresi would have sold Pellicano’s secrets at the first corner had he had known any of them.

Here is Martin Lasden’s story:

Of all the people I interviewed about Anthony Pellicano, Paul Barresi had the most-vivid stories to tell. A former porn star who quit the business in 1989 because he was afraid of getting AIDS, Barresi worked for a while as a sales rep for a courier service. He also capitalized on his Hollywood contacts by occasionally selling information to the tabloids, and later he got back into the porn business as a producer. He met Pellicano in 1993.

“I found out about Pellicano through what I read in the media,” he says. “I knew he was Michael Jackson’s PI. I also knew that we had certain things in common. For one thing, we were both Sicilian. And when I saw him on TV, he acted a lot like the kids I grew up with. I said to myself, ‘I should get along with this guy.’ So I called him up and said, ‘Look, I can’t discuss this over the phone, but I got something that will be useful to you in the Michael Jackson case.’ ”

The next day, Barresi sat on a black leather sofa in Pellicano’s office, describing the contents of two surreptitiously recorded conversations he had had with one of Jackson’s cooks, Philip LeMarque, and his wife, Stella. The LeMarques, Barresi says, claimed they observed Jackson molesting child actor Macaulay Culkin. They also told him they wanted to sell their story to the tabloids.

Barresi agreed to act as their broker, and he quickly secured a $150,000 offer from the National Enquirer, with the understanding that he would get a 15 percent cut. The deal turned sour, though, when the LeMarques hired an attorney who promised to get them half a million dollars instead. Naturally, Barresi was upset, and he wanted to get back at them if he could. This was where the tapes came in.

When the LeMarques first told Barresi their story, they said they saw Jackson’s hand over Culkin’s pants. But as time passed, their narrative evolved and had Jackson’s hand inside the boy’s pants. Barresi had this discrepancy on tape, and now he was alerting Pellicano.

“He was very attentive,” Barresi says of that first meeting. “He looked at the transcripts, evaluated what I had to say about the inconsistencies between one transcript and another. … I could tell he liked my handiwork. That is how the relationship started.”

For the next ten years, Pellicano hired Barresi from time to time to dig up dirt on famous people. Barresi says he was always paid in crisp $100 bills and was never told the reason for a particular assignment.

And here comes a piece about Pellicano denying that he ever hired Barresi:

I inform him of Pellicano’s latest denial, which is that he never hired Barresi to do any investigative work for him. My source on this is Steven Gruel, Pellicano’s attorney. But, as I say to Barresi, it’s not a claim I take seriously. Not with the emails and faxes Barresi has shared with me that document the relationship. And then there are all the other people I’ve talked to who vouch for Pellicano and Barresi’s association. Yet Barresi is still upset. And so the next day he sits down and writes Pellicano a letter.

“Look, I got proof I worked for you,” Barresi writes. “Proof positive. You paid one of my sources in cash yourself. You mailed him money, $200 cash, in an envelope. … How about that male hustler who said he was with Tom Cruise? I brought him to your office on your instruction. You said you needed to interrogate him. I still get e-mails from that cocksucker, all pissed off at me. Also, several of your secretaries, who John Connolly spoke with, and other people associated with you confirmed I did jobs for you. “Reflect on this, please. Be honest. Write me back.”

Raymond Strait, Barresi’s unsuccessful book partner described the situation with the male hustler in the opposite way – Pellicano didn’t give him any assignments in respect of this man. On the contrary, when the hustler approached Barresi with his story and requested him to get a movie deal based on it, Barresi started thinking of how to “spin the story into a small fortune” with a 15% commission for himself. The first call was to the National Enquirer, but when that deal went sour the second call was to Pellicano who asked (or agreed) to interrogate the hustler to check his credibility. In the end Barresi got $5,000, the hustler got nothing and had to flee the country.  Now Barresi is saying that he has done “investigative work on behalf of Cruise”.

This is the usual routine with Barresi. He learns of some dirt about someone (fictional or real) and offers it to all interested parties expecting a lavish pay for it, and when things don’t go his way he favors those who pay most. No wonder Pellicano said he never hired Barresi – a style like Barresi’s can compromise any true investigation.

But what worries me most about Barresi’s letter is its last sentence –  “Reflect on this, please”. To me it sounds like a threat. It sounds like if Pellicano doesn’t reflect on it the right way Barresi will make Pellicano regret it.

Pellicano is in prison now and will stay there for long, and won’t be able to defend himself or anyone from behind prison bars. In circumstances like these Barresi can easily take his little revenge on Pellicano. For example, by distorting his words. For example, about the person whom Pellicano fiercely supported. Someone like Michael Jackson, for example. Especially if he is paid good money for it.

The big difference between Barresi and Pellicano is that Barresi can say anything about Michael depending on the sum, while Pellicano is an investigator who cherishes his reputation of a man-who-knows-all and who, once he learned the truth, will stick to it no matter what.

And as regards Michael Jackson Pellicano always spoke of his innocence. And he did not just say it – he was adamant about it. He said it at all times while he worked for Michael Jackson and after the work was over too, when he quit the job in solidarity with his employer Bert Fields who was fired in December 1993.

But the most interesting point in Pellicano’s story is that recently, in August 2011 he spoke in the defense of Michael’s Jackson again. It was in an interview he gave from behind prison bars to a journalist of the Daily Beast. The majority of people think that in that interview Pellicano recanted on his words.

No, he didn’t. He was simply talking about a different thing.


The story by the Daily Beast of August 7, 2011 was intentionally structured to produce the effect that Pellicano knew some unwelcome truth about MJ. In reality the same Daily Beast provided irrefutable proof that in his interview Pellicano was speaking about Michael’s innocence and the dark secret found during his 1993 investigation was about someone else.

Since there is a very big danger that in the wake of Wade Robson’s case someone will be tempted to replace Pellicano’s views on Michael Jackson by those of Barresi (opposite to Pellicano’s), I need to describe here how the Daily Beast did their best to mask the fact that in his prison interview Pellicano supported Michael again.

The trick was simple but practically unnoticeable.

In the Daily Beast article of August 7, 2011 called Hollywood Hacker Breaks His Silence  Pellicano was quoted saying that he quit the Chandler case because he had found out some truths. Then he allegedly dropped an ambiguous phrase saying that MJ ‘did something much worse than molestation’.

Pellicano's reach was published by the Daily Beast the same day as the article

“Pellicano’s reach” was published by the Daily Beast the same day as the article

And in the chart published the same day by the same Daily Beast but only on a different page called Pellicano’s Reach, Pellicano said that he had indeed found some damning evidence, only it was not about MJ, but was about the accuser’s family.

This way those who read the article knew one thing, and those who saw the chart knew another thing. And it never occurred to anyone to bring the two pieces of information together.

However if they did bring them together the true message from Pellicano would read as follows:

  • Pellicano did find some truths … and it was damning information about the accuser’s family.

The way the whole thing was done makes me think that it was a deliberate lie told by the Daily Beast journalist who snatched Pellicano’s words from the context and all those ambiguous phrases dropped by her were meant to mask the truth who Pellicano was really talking about.

Please reread the respective piece from the article again and please first take note of the fact that Pellicano warned Jackson that he had better not be guilty or Pellicano would be the first person Michael to “fuck him over”. Knowing Pellicano’s Cicilian temper I easily believe that he would have done it had he really found anything bad about MJ, especially since Pellicano himself is a father of nine children.

Also please take note of the dots in the Daily Beast article which can easily stand for a gap in the journalist’s narration:

“Later in the interview, Pellicano reveals that when he agreed to work for Jackson during the star’s 1993 child-molestation case, he warned Jackson that he’d better not be guilty. “I said, ‘You don’t have to worry about cops or lawyers. If I find out anything, I will f–k you over.’ ” The detective took the assignment, but says, “I quit because I found out some truths . . .  He did something far worse to young boys than molest them.”

But he refuses to say anything more about it. It’s as if Pellicano wants to send Hollywood a reminder: I know which closets hold the skeletons.

And here is information from the “Pellicano reach” chart published the same day on the Daily Beast parallel page which contained the actual truth found by Pellicano. The text accompanying point 7 of the chart says:

“Facing molestation charges, Michael Jackson reportedly used Pellicano, who claims he found damning information about the accuser’s family”

Pellicano found damning information about the accuser's family

Pellicano found damning information about the accuser’s family

To hide the fact that the article about Pellicano’s interview and chart were published on one and the same day (August 7, 2011) the Daily Beast did not place the date on the chart at all. The date of the chart could be found only in its URL and this is what made all this masquarade all the more intriguing:

  • Note: Now I am told that the link to “Pellicano’s reach” is no longer working. Well, it means that my diagnosis of the plans of Michael’s adversaries is absolutely correct. They are erasing all traces of Pellicano’s support for Michael Jackson and intend to replace him with Barresi who will say the opposite of what Pellicano said.
  • April 14, 2013. The Pellicano Reach page was there but is no longer available now

    April 14, 2013. Pellicano Reach  chart WAS there but is no longer available now

    As proof that the Pellicano’s reach chart has been there I’m posting here a screenshot of today’s Google search for it, which shows that only recently the page was there but is no longer available (blocked). It looks like someone doesn’t want the innocent truth about Jackson to be ever known.

  • Actually here is a cached version of the chart:

As to things “far worse than molestation” any normal person will tell you that nothing can be worse than child molestation (except murder, of course).

So it was either a joke on Pellicano’s part or he was speaking about those families around Michael who initially thought that once they made friends with the famous Michael Jackson they would roll in gold ever since but later found all their hopes shattered into pieces.

When it turned out that MJ couldn’t sustain them for the rest of their lives and instead of fame their children were doomed to carry the label of Michael’s “boys” forever after, this could indeed be a heartbreaking experience for many of them. The children had to grow up in the ruthless atmosphere of media ridicule and harassment from their classmates and intrusive public, and this way Michael’s desire to help or just be a good friend of the family could indeed turn into their worst nightmare, and this experience was probably far more horrible than any molestation.

Other explanations of Pellicano’s words are also possible but all of them will amount to one and the same thing – Pellicano was talking not about molestation and this way even from behind bars Pellicano sent us a clear message of Michael’s innocence. 


Pellicano said he quit the 1993 case as he had found the truth – Michael was innocent, the investigation was complete and everything was now in the hands of his lawyers. But the real reason for his leave was of course his disagreement with the new team of MJ’s attorneys who wanted a settlement while Pellicano fiercely insisted on a fight.

Here is what Pellicano said about Michael Jackson throughout all times (it is interesting to see how we came a full circle and what Pellicano said at the beginning was repeated at the end).

On August 7, 2011, the Daily Beast article said:

“He warned Jackson that he’d better not be guilty. “I said, ‘You don’t have to worry about cops or lawyers. If I find out anything, I will f–k you over.’ ”

And the same was said 20 years ago, on August 31, 1993:

Of the molestation charges, the investigator said: “If this was a true and legitimate claim, why didn’t this guy go to law enforcement right off the bat? If you molested my kid, it would take an act of God to keep me from ripping your heart out of your frigging chest.”

August 24, 1993:

“People are always trying to extort him for all kinds of reasons because he’s a superstar,” Pellicano said. “I have worked for Michael Jackson for many years and have gone through many of these. “This one just happened to have gone too far. Michael is probably one of the most kind and decent men I’ve ever met, and this is horrible”.

January 25, 1994 (prior to the settlement):

Amid signs that a lawsuit accusing Michael Jackson of sexually molesting a young boy may soon be settled, prosecutors announced Monday that they will not bring charges against the boy’s father, whom Jackson and his advisers claimed tried to extort money from the entertainer.

Pellicano–who no longer works for Jackson but who still fiercely proclaims the entertainer’s innocence and opposes any effort to settle the civil case–scoffed at that and suggested that prosecutors and lawyers in the civil case are orchestrating an effort to dismiss all the cases.

January 26, 1994 (the day of the settlement):

In no way, shape or form does (my resignation) indicate that Michael Jackson is guilty,” Pellicano said. “Michael Jackson is not guilty, and all the things I said in the past I reaffirm.”  

Pellicano insisted that he pulled out of the case because it was taking too much of his time and because his investigation was essentially complete. “The investigation has all been done and is now in the hands of the lawyers,” he said. Anthony Pellicano, an outspoken private investigator who worked for Jackson until resigning last month, said the settlement merely reaffirmed his belief that the boy and his family were after the singer’s money. “I have maintained Michael Jackson’s innocence from the very start, and I still maintain that he is innocent,” Pellicano said. “Obviously, there has been an exchange of money to settle this case. It all boils down to money.”

January 1994 (about the events on July 12, 1993):

After listening to the tape with the mother and stepfather, Fields and Pellicano believed that the father had Jackson spend time at his house only so that he could bug the room the star and Jamie shared….Fields raised that possibility with Jackson. “Michael’s response was completely inconsistent with guilt. When I told him what he said, he was completely unafraid of any tape that might have been made during that week. It was not the attitude of somebody who was worried about what was on the tape.”

Anthony Pellicano decided to go right over to Jackson’s condo and question Jamie [Jordan]. “I went in there with an attitude that I was not going to prove that Michael was innocent. I was going to prove that Michael was guilty.

According to Pellicano, Jamie told him a lot in 45 minutes. “He’s a very bright, articulate, intelligent, manipulative boy.” Pellicano, who has fathered nine children by two wives, says he asked Jamie many sexually specific questions. “And I’m looking dead into his eyes. And I’m watching in his eyes for any sign of fear or anticipation—anything. And I see none,” Pellicano says.

“And I keep asking him, ‘Did Michael ever touch you?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did you ever see Michael nude?’ ‘No.’ He laughed about it. He giggled a lot, like it was a funny thing. Michael would never be nude… . ‘Did you and Michael ever masturbate?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did Michael ever masturbate in front of you?’ ‘No.’ ‘Did you guys ever talk about masturbation?’ ‘No.’

“‘So you never saw Michael’s body?’ ‘One time, he lifted up his shirt and he showed me those blotches.‘” Then Pellicano asked Jackson to come downstairs. “And I sit Michael next to him and go through exactly the same thing,” he says. Pellicano claims they both maintained that nothing happened, and Jamie began to disparage his father. “He’s talking to me about his father never wanting to let him be a boy and never wanting to let him do the things he wants to do. ‘He wants me to stay in the house and write these screenplays.’ … And he said to me several times during this conversation, ‘He just wants money.’ I said, ‘What are you talking about?'”

Then, Pellicano claims, Jamie told him the story, confirmed by Michael, that when Michael was over at his father’s house his father told Michael he really didn’t have the room for him to stay there. “Why don’t you build me an addition?” Then he went and checked with the zoning board, and he couldn’t put the addition on, “so he asked Michael just to build him a whole new house.” Larry Feldman, Jamie’s attorney, calls this story “ludicrous and factually incorrect. I checked with the zoning board, and there are no such restrictions.” Pellicano says he also learned that the dentist wanted to close down his practice and get involved in screenplays with Michael.

The GQ article by Mary Fischer, October 1994:

Remember, this case was always about money,” Pellicano says, “and Evan Chandler wound up getting what he wanted.”

Was Michael Jackson Framed? by Mary A. Fisсher GQ magazine 1994

And in September 1994 Pellicano spoke with tabloid reporter Jim Mitteager (friend of Barresi).

The tape of this conversation has a story of its own. It was first passed over to Barresi by Mitteager’s widow together with all other tapes in Mitteager’s file, then Barresi gave it to Aphrodite Jones who placed it on her website, but after Aphrodite Jones fell into Barresi’s disfavor (didn’t pay for it?) she had to pull it down from her site. I made a copy of its cashed variant:

PELLICANO: You have to understand something. I have nine kids. Michael [Jackson] plays with my baby. They crawl all over him. They pull his hair. They pull his nose. Sometimes he wears a bandage across his face. If I let my own kids (unintelligible) do you think there’s a chance?

MITTEAGER: Well, all things being equal, I would say, no.

PELLICANO: Not only that. If you sat this kid [Jordie Chandler] down like I did, as a matter of fact, he couldn’t wait to get up and go play video games. I said, “you don’t understand how serious this is. Your dad [Evan Chandler] is going to accuse Michael of sexual molestation. He going to say all kinds of stuff.”

He [Jordie] says, “Yeah, my dad’s trying to get money.” As a matter of fact, I (unintelligible) for 45 minutes. Then I tried tricking him. I mean, I want you to know, I’m a vegetarian. I picked this kid with a fine tooth comb. So we’re there (unintelligible) with this kid… and if you sat down and talked to this kid, there wouldn’t be any doubt in your mind either. And I said Michael is all upset. We went over and over.

I tried to get him to sit down and he wants to play video games while I’m sitting there. I’m sitting there with the kid’s mother [June Chandler] and David Swartrz walks in and (unintelligible) what’s this all about? And [Barry] Rothman (unintelligible) asking questions. There is no question that Rothman (unintelligible) what this is all about.”

What’s absolutely invaluable about this piece is that Pellicano doesn’t know that he is being recorded. He is speaking not for the sake of impressing the public but is just telling things the way he really knows them.

The moral of this chapter is that Pellicano first made sure of Michael’s innocence and only then started defending him. And once he made sure of it he stuck to his words and supported Michael till the end.

And therefore any attempt to present Barresi’s stories about Jackson as Pellicano’s views is the most horrible, insolent and unconscionable LIE.


Sunday People Front Page, June 30, 2013

Sunday People Front Page, June 30, 2013

The headline of the June 30, 2013 UK tabloid and the last quote from its article about the so-called ‘FBI’ files suddenly break on its readers a fictional number of “Jacko’s victims”.

The headline gives one number, the quote gives another one, however none of them matter as any number of “victims” is actually a lie.

But the author (James Desborough) doesn’t care. He is so carried away by his story that takes it so far as to claim that MJ was fixated with “child porn”.

First, let us state it once and for all – there was no child porn found in Neverland.  If it had been found Michael Jackson would have been put into prison long time ago on this charge alone.

And the rest of Desborough’s article is a no less outrageous lie:

“The paedophile allegations – sandwiched between thousands of pages of information about Jackson, his career and his accusers – include interviews with ex-aides 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 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.

Whether 24 boys (in the headline) or 17 boys (in the text) where does this crazy number come from? The only source it can come from is Gutierrez’s list of the alleged “victims” which he presented to Diane Dimond and sent to the Los Angeles Police Department in 1993.

Let me remind you that the police took the matter of Chandler’s allegations so seriously that when the news broke out they interviewed Gutierrez for two days running, but then let him go as this clown had absolutely no proof for his stories. The policemen were evidently so disgusted with his lies that they never even mentioned his name ever since (though all of them read his book, including Tom Sneddon).

Gutierrez told us about his fiasco himself in the British GQ magazine of October 2006. He complained that he had sent his findings to LAPD, but they didn’t pay attention, as he was “a nobody for them, just a Latino reporter”….

Victor Gutierrez about LAPD:

Victor Gutierrez about LAPD: “I was a nobody for them. Just a Latino reporter in L.A.”

But how did Gutierrez come to the list of 17 boys? Easily. He simply made rounds of all parents of boys in Michael’s vicinity and told them his crazy stories about Michael – just as he explained it in his book. Remember the way he “interviewed” Joy Robson in 1992?

By the way Joy Robson is the mother whom Desborough describes as the one knew that her son was molested but “turned a blind eye to it, because if it didn’t bother him, it didn’t bother her”.

This great statement enables us to make a couple of interesting conclusions.

If Joy Robson knew all about it and it didn’t bother her because it didn’t bother her son, it means that Wade Robson also knew everything, and his story about ‘amnesia’ or whatever new version he is voicing now is complete BS.

If you recall Gutierrez’s book you will remember that Gutierrez also made it clear that Wade Robson was present when Gutierrez was talking to his mother.

So how could this boy “never realize” that it was “abuse” until he reached age 30 if Gutierrez was telling them that it was already in 1992?

And why did all of them speak of MJ’s innocence at the 2005 trial? If it was a lie told under oath, but now it turns out that she knew of the “molestation” all along and just “turned a blind eye to it”, shouldn’t the mother be the first to go to prison for perjury and for pimping her son?

Joy Robson, I demand answers to these questions.


Now finally let us have a look at those 6 pages which Desborough and his followers gave a false name of ‘FBI’ files. These ‘files’ may be found on the Daily Mirror site (of course):


Document 1

Document 1

The first piece is the receipt given to Barresi for passing over the tape with the Lemarque’s revelations to the LAPD on August 30, 1993.

This document actually enabled us to establish Barresi’s identity and proved to us that back in 1993 the authorities were well aware of the Lemarques’ interview which James Desborough attemps to present now as something novel, sensational and top secret.


The second piece is the receipt given to somebody (Barresi?) in return for 3 more tapes about Jackson recorded on  September 9, 1993; December 21, 1993 and January 1-13, 1994.

The interviewees are evidently the same Lemarques as the article told us about “hours and hours of interviews with ex-aides”, but some tapes may also be the recordings of Jim Mitteager’s conversations with Pellicano and the Newt family.

Document 2

Document 2

You don’t remember the story of the Newts?

The Fox News article has an excellent material about that family and the conversation Jim Mitteager had with them. In that conversation the tabloid journalist implored the boy and his father to accuse Michael of molestation for the sum of $200,000.

However nothing came of it. Initially the father was tempted by the money but finally tore up the agreement. But though the story went nowhere the tape of Jim Matteager talking to the Newts still remained – first in Pellicano’s and then in FBI’s possession, and the second receipt must be covering that tape too.

Here are some details about Jim Mitteager speaking to one of the Newt brothers:

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

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

“He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said ‘You know, it’s going to be a huge scandal. You’ll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You’re going to be famous!’ But to me, you’d be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn’t do anything even close to trying to molest us.”,2933,152708,00.html

The 30 minute tape of Newt’s conversation with Jim Mitteager must be part of Document 2 by all means. I wish the Sunday People had published the transcript of that conversation instead of the Lemarques.


The next document is a sort of a report addressed to Pellicano. It is dated July 26, 1993.

Document 3

Document 3

I’ve retyped it so that anyone can translate this great “document” into their own language:

FAX: July 26, 1993


FROM: [ blacked out]

Jackson’s former lawyer, …… who specializes in corporate law stated money was paid to ……. No money was paid to…….. According to source, Jackson has paid off child victim’s parents dating back to the summer of 1992. Jackson settled with the mother of child actor/dancer wantobe…., AKA …. I was unable to obtain copy of said settlement worked out by lawyer named Howard Weitzman reads as follows:

1. On this seventh day of July 1992 by and between the Michael Jackson organization, herein referred to as the “organization” and ….. herein referred to as “claimaint”. Witnesses said, in consideration of the mutual covenant and agreements to be kept and performed on the part of set parties hereto, respectively as here and stated said party of the first part, the organization does hereby covenants and agree that it shall, 1. Have no contact of any sort, written verbal or telephonic with claimant and claimants minor child, …. Furthermore, the sum of six hundered thousand dollars ($600,000) shall be paid to claimant upon execution of this agreement. In addition, the organization shall make no attempt to extort, intimidate, harass, impede or liable in any way claimant, either now or in the future. In said party of the second part claimant convenants and agreements that it shall, in

2. In consideration of receipt of above stated monies, in the amount of six hundred thousand dollars, ($600,000) refrain from any and all contact with media and communications, newspapers, television, radio, film, books. Furthermore, claimant shall make no attempt to extort, intimidate, harass, impede or liable in any way the organization, either now or in the future. This agreement shall be binding upon the parties by their successors assigned the personal representatives. This agreement shall be enforced according to the laws of the state of California, County of Los Angeles. Seventh day of July 1992

In the end, Jackson allegedly paid off the following victims:

[17 blacked out names]

A detailed analysis of the above manuscript was made by this blog:, so I won’t repeat what was said there and will just express my own opinion about this paper.

Everything in it makes me wonder. For example, the name of Howard Weitzman.

This paper refers to some alleged settlement and a paper “worked out by Weitzman” already in 1992 –  but Weitzman started working for Michael only a year later, in 1993!

Below is an article which explains that Pellicano enlisted Howard Weitzman’s services only on August 21, 1993 when he learned that the police had raided Michael’s property. Pellicano was on a tour together with Michael Jackson and learned of the surprise raid by telephone and it was only after that that he hired Howard Wietzman.

Gloves Come Off in Damage Control by Jackson Camp


The instant the phone call arrived, Anthony Pellicano knew there was trouble–possibly big trouble. The caller told him there had been a raid. Police had confiscated photos and videotapes from the homes of the private investigator’s top client, pop superstar Michael Jackson.

For Pellicano, who was accompanying the singer on the Asian leg of a world concert tour, the bombshell was sufficiently jarring to prompt his own phone call moments later to Los Angeles, where it was not yet dawn.

“Wake up,” Pellicano told an old ally, criminal attorney Howard Weitzman, whose high-profile legal battles have been waged on behalf of former auto maker John DeLorean, actress Kim Basinger and, most recently, a Columbia Studios executive rumored to have crossed paths with alleged Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss. This time, it was Jackson who needed him, Pellicano said to Weitzman.

As the Aug. 21 police raid threatened to spill the accusations into the public realm, Pellicano sought to act quickly, enlisting Weitzman’s services before flying from Bangkok, Thailand, to Los Angeles.

Strategy for Jackson’s defense, Weitzman said, is being mapped out through constant communication among Weitzman, Pellicano and Jackson’s entertainment attorney, Bertram Fields. “Michael is kept regularly advised,” Weitzman said. “I talk to him almost daily. I know that Anthony and Bert talk to him almost daily.”

So what fictional “settlement worked out by Weitzman in 1992” is this paper talking of if this attorney was hired only a year later?

The riddle is easily solved when you realize that the author of the fabrication evidently heard Weitzman’s name in the media in August 1993 when he had just been hired (and when this fake was made) and assumed that Weitzman had always been Michael Jackson’s lawyer – while in reality Michael’s long-time lawyer was civil attorney Bert Fields.

The author of the fake hints that he saw the original of the settlement and is even quoting from it, but says he was unable to obtain a copy of it (and this is supposed to explain why he cannot enclose it as proof of his fake).

But we know that it is a fake not only from Weitzman’s name, but from the simple fact that the “legal” text he is quoting is not even proper English – look at this grammar, for example:

  • In said party of the second part claimant convenants and agreements that it shall.

Or at this gibberish:

  • “Witnesses said, in consideration of the mutual covenants and  agreements to be kept and performed on the part of set parties hereto respectively as here and stated said party of the first part, the organization does hereby covenants and agree that is shall…”

The above is simply a totally meaningless and random choice of words! It probably produces the impression of a legal document but is absolutely not. It is simply illiterate. And someone is telling us that this paper was written by Howard Weitzman?

And this attorney didn’t even know what was the proper name of Michael Jackson’s company and simply said that it was MJ’s “organization”?

No, a mere suggestion that the above may be a sort of an “agreement” with MJ is simply preposterous! It is so big a fake that it is even unreal. But now we at least know from what kind of a crazy document the number of 17 alleged “victims” came from…


Document 4

Document 4

If sorted out by the date the next paper will be the Lemarques’ transcript dated August 28, 1993 about a theatre in Neverland where MJ and children allegedly watched “porn movies”.

Over here I have only one comment. The Lemarques forgot that the movies were shown by MJ’s special staff and that they were not a simple video which could be handled by MJ all by himself – so at the very least there must have been a witness and an accomplice to this activity.

However the witness was missing and there was absolutely no one who could prove this outrageous story. No wonder the police disregarded the Lemarques’ lies. They wanted to embellish them as much as they could, but overdid it to the extent that all these embellishments became their own ruin.


The next paper is dated December 10, 1993 and is called “Excerpt of conversation Globe Bureau Chief Jim Mitteager and Anthony Pellicano December 10, 1993”. The conversation was recorded secretely as was the habit with Jim Mitteager.

Document 5

Document 5

Pellicano is talking of the need to have every story come out before the trial so that nothing takes them by surprise later. This means that he is extremely interested in pulling into light every single story and every single claimant that can claim that he is a victim.

The time of the discussion is December 10th 1993. By now the investigation has been going on for several months, but even at this late stage of the investigation Pellicano says that “there is no other kid”. He says, “They keep looking and looking and calling and calling, and there is no other kid”.

Jim Mitteager asks him (with some hope): “What about Wade Robson?”

Pellicano suggests: “Call her” (evidently meaning Joy Robson)

Jim is in doubt: “Well, she is not going to talk to me”

Pellicano replies: “Well, call her and see what happens”

Jim: Well, we talked about you smoothing the way.

Pellicano: Yeah, I know but…

Isn’t it interesting that Pellicano was so sure of Joy Robson’s good opinion about Michael, that he shrugged his shoulders and actually insisted that the tabloid reporter from the Globe should talk to her?

The text may possibly suggest that Pellicano “smoothed the way” for Joy Robson to support Michael Jackson, but from another source we find out that he didn’t have to as she was speaking in support of Michael Jackson from the very start of it.  She was actually the first to defend Michael from any insinuations and take the matter of his defense into her own hands.

The confirmation of this comes from no other but Victor Gutierrez who in his book describes his conversation with Joy Robson in the summer of 1992 after which she complained to Norma Stakos, Michael’s manager and Norma evidently brought the issue to Pellicano’s attention. So Pellicano didn’t have to “smooth” Joy Robson – it was she who was the first to voice her protest against Victor Gutierrez’s activities.

The disappointed Gutierrez called Joy Robson an “opportunist”:

Joy turned out to be something of an opportunist. She tried to use my interview as a means of making good Jackson’s promise of the “good life.” The next day, Joy called the manager at Neverland Ranch, Norma Staikos… Joy told Norma that a journalist had an abudance of information and was asking questions about the relationship between Jackson, her son and other boys.  She explained that the journalist was writing a book about Jackson on the subject of his being a pedophile.

Joy told her that the journalist knew where Wade was and he would return to continue with the conversation.”

After reading texts like these it would be all the more interesting to talk to Joy Robson. Where is this esteemed lady now and why is she keeping silence?


Now comes the last document out of the great Sunday People file. It is called an “investigative report” sent by someone to Pellicano.  And if all the previous documents could simply surprise you this one will simply knock you off your feet.


Document 6

Document 6

Let’s have a look at the dates here.

The paper is about a parent who got $20,000 for her Hard Copy interview and who was escorted by detectives on March 2nd. This clearly refers to Blanca Francia as she was the one who spoke to Hard Copy (in November 1993).

On March 2, 1994 she could be escorted only by her lawyers who were starting to prepare a civil suit against Jackson. After learning of the Chandlers’ success in January that year Blanca Franca decided to step on the money extortion road too and actually got what she wanted.

The November 1993 date is okay as at that time Anthony Pellicano was still investigating the case. But the paper is written the next day after March 2, 1994 when Pellicano had already stopped working for the case by several months, so how can it be addressed to Pellicano if he quit his job so long ago?

This means that either the paper is a complete fake or Pellicano went on sleuthing on Michael after he stopped working for him.

If it is a fake let’s throw it away without spending a single more minute on it. But if Pellicano continued sleuthing on Michael even after he quit the job let us focus on this point as it produces all the more proof that Pellicano was very thorough in his job and wanted to know the truth just for himself.

To learn what Pellicano found out as a result of all his spying on Jackson all you need to do now is compare this “investigative report” of March 1994 with the transcript of Pellicano’s conversation with Jim Mitteager half a year later – the one that was dated September 1994 and provided by Barresi to Aphrodite Jones (see above please).

This small comparison will tell you all you need to know about Pellicano’s final conclusion about Michael as a result of spying on him for another 9 months after he officially stopped working for him (if we are to believe this document of course).

And from this second Pellicano’s conversation secretely recorded by Jim Mitteager in September 1994 we learn that after a whole year of investigating Michael, Pellicano still didn’t have a single shred of evidence against MJ.

This will automatically nullify all those 17 “victims” in the first paper and the story about Blanca Francia allegedly “eye-witnessing” some children molested in her presence – because all those things were mentioned in some dubious documents before Pellicano spoke to Jim Mitteager in September 1994.

And all the “facts” stated in those earlier documents had already been looked into by the time Pellicano had a frank conversation with Mitteager and made it clear to him that he had absolutely nothing against Jackson.

And by the way how on earth could anyone ever believe this “investigative report” which claims that Blanca Francia “eye-witnessed” some children being molested in her presence if in her 2005 testimony she said that she never saw MJ have any sexual contact with any child at all? 

Here is just one quote from her testimony (of which we have a lot) where she repeats her “No” twice:

27 Q. But you did say under oath that you had
28 never saw Mr. Jackson have sexual contact with
1 anyone, right?
2 A. No. No.

Will there be any more questions about these ‘FBI’ files, guys?

60 Comments leave one →
  1. February 10, 2019 7:44 pm

    “Lot of inaccuracies pertaining to Barresi. Be good to get his side of the story. lol –Paul Barresi”

    Well, if that is the case and you are the Paul Barresi I will be ready to hear your side of the story. I am always ready to correct the inaccuracies if there are any.


  2. Paul Barresi permalink
    February 10, 2019 7:08 pm

    Lot of inaccuracies pertaining to Barresi. Be good to get his side of the story. lol
    –Paul Barresi


  3. TatumMarie permalink
    June 7, 2014 9:47 am

    I got the book on Amazon kindle and used my phone kindle app to read it this weekend beginning to end. It was a good read for the most part, sad at times learning some things that would seem disappointing to learn about Michael but they told the stories in a way that even though they may have judged him, you were allowed to make your own conclusions and put the dots together.


  4. susannerb permalink*
    June 7, 2014 9:01 am

    @TatumMarie, I ordered it from Amazon, but it takes up to 3 weeks to receive it here in Europe.


  5. TatumMarie permalink
    June 7, 2014 12:58 am

    Did anyone happen to read the book written by the bodyguards called Remember the Time?


  6. Mariam permalink
    May 3, 2014 12:28 am

    Enjoy MJ’s original song “love never felt so good” on YouTube it is recently(today) put it on. It is much better than the new one. The original is more MJ and all kind of sound he put in is there has so much emotion it. You will love it, but hurry might disappear.

    ▶ Michael Jackson – Love Never Felt So Good (Original Demo) – YouTube


  7. Sina permalink
    April 27, 2014 12:45 pm

    “Sina, you right I may never talked to MJ, but isn’t it MJ’s life open book? “Mariam

    Congratulations that MJs life is an open book to you.
    I have been a Jacksons / MJ fan for as long as I can remember, which is 40+ years, but I still learn new things about him. Even about his music.
    I just wonder if in your opinion he is only an open book to you and others and not to his family . And if he is such an open book , why people are still 24/7 discussing and researching every single aspect of his life and him, including his body parts, secret girlfriends and what not?

    I wanted to respond to your post, but after reading this statement, I digress.
    “His brothers were not close to him as they were growing up”


  8. April 26, 2014 11:57 pm

    He was innocent. It was a conspiracy in which some countries were involved actually


  9. Mariam permalink
    April 26, 2014 7:40 pm

    “May I ask you how many times did you see Michael or talked to him? Do you know how he sounds or smells ?” Sina

    Sina, you right I may never talked to MJ, but isn’t it MJ’s life open book? The good and the bad all his privet life is in public, especially after CM and AEG trial. Some of his life journey is even well documented for example his, medical and finance record and all on public, so you don’t need to know how he sound or smell or talk to him, you could learn from others about him.

    Every person who was close to him for long time especially on his last 15 or 20 years of his life, all they know about him is on public, they put it out there, which I still think his family did not know all that from him, they themselves said they are not close as a family, listen there interviews.

    MJ mentioned many times that he did not want to be close to his father and he wasn’t how the family will know everything from him if they are not very close to him? His brothers were not close to him as they were growing up. As Janet said, I believe they lose him for long time.
    Sina, I say this because not only I heard from friends and co-workers who was close to him final years of his life, I have also impression from him and his sister Janet and brothers interview.

    Janet Jackson said on the interview ‘I am not close to Joe’, that mean something to me about the family.

    Michael also said on the interview” I love my father but I don’t know him”. Actually, God bless MJ, because he is trying to say not bad thing about his family as match as he could but they did say unpleasant thing about him in past. I heard Jemiays interview and Latoyas book etc.
    Yes, I can say I heard saying things from their mouth about each other. I don’t mean they don’t love him, but they are not close to him lately and so many things passed in MJ’s life the last 15/20 years which they don’t know much about it. Randy’s deposition was a perfect example for that.

    Janet Jackson on Oprah show she said Michael and her were close when they were kids and said she start losing him around/after Thriller. That speaks a volume about their closeness as a family. Ophra asked her if she is closest to him but Janet said reputedly “growing up” she meant they were close when they grow up not lately.

    Sina, if you are away for few years from your family, they will miss a lot about you and what was going on in your life within that few years, so it is very easy to miss it. So I believe that, for some reason, they did not know much about him in the last years of his life. If they were close to him, they all should experience that especially around early 2000.

    I wish they were their when he was crying alone , scared, ill and I wish they were there when he was emotionally and physically struggling alone, instead they were chasing him for their own benefit, please listen Wishna’s interview. Peoples who were working with him on the final week of his life knew how sick he was not his family.

    Friends know you better than your family sometimes.


  10. susannerb permalink*
    April 26, 2014 5:27 am

    @Sina, really, what has Michael’s earlier life with his family to do with his later life when he had some distance to them and had his own children? And what have these feelings among family members you describe to do with real facts?

    If you talk of second hand information you mean that nothing can be believed that was not said by Michael himself? So why believe what family members say?
    There were people who were much more around Michael on a daily basis than his family members in his last years, and you still think that his family members know more about him? This is not logic.
    And if several security people say that Michael didn’t want to see his father or brothers, what reason would they have to lie? Even Dieter Wiesner, who is friends with Joe Jackson, tells in his book that Michael didn’t want to see his father in Las Vegas because he always wants to press him into some business and interviews (for the benefit of Joe!)
    And if we heard only in hindsight that Michael’s mother called AEG because of the schedule, so what? We always knew that Michael and his mother were close, so that’s not surprising, she always was welcome in his house.
    Well, if everyone just chooses what they believe (and BTW, you seem to do the same), then we can stop writing on this blog, because this says that people are not capable to differentiate between feelings, assumptions, ideas, hearsay, rumors and facts and evidence. So you say that what we do here is reducing Michael’s 50 years of life to what we have read or heard about him? So in the end we know nothing because we didn’t hear all of it from Michael himself? So our work is in vain?
    Frankly, this is a weak argumentation.


  11. Sina permalink
    April 25, 2014 9:45 pm

    As regards Terry Harvey if you want to know what this scumbag said about Michael in spring 2009 while he was in close association with Joe Jackson I will probably make a post about it

    Helena sadly the Jacksons have very poor judgement of peoples characters . There is a looooong list of people who they associated with who were evil or harmful to them
    Sadly Michael encountered or befriended the most evil of all , which resulted in the Chandler extortion, Arvizo case that almost killed him and a doctor who did kill him. And inbetween other scumbags like Klein who kept him on demerol for cosmetic procedures that no other ethical doctor would do( I checked it and no doctor gives demerol for cosmetic procedures especally not with Michaels history) all the people he called friends including Uri Geller who sold him to Bsshir, Klein and others claiming paternity of his children.and now we have Scaffel and Rowe – again!.This is only a short list, not even including the AEG criminals.
    So in the department of scumbags yes I totally agree with you , maybe you can write a book about it.


  12. Sina permalink
    April 25, 2014 9:09 pm

    His father, brothers and sisters did not have clue what happened to MJ, they only know from rumour and tabloid story. That is why Rondy’s deposition sound difficult to believe. Because they have got together for some occasion or seeing him ones a while, it doesn’t mean they know about him. Mariam.

    May I aslk you how many times did you see Michael or talked to him? Do you know how he sounds or smells ? Did you raise him and spent 30 years of your life with him in one house as his parents did .Or travelled, rehearsed, slept performed, fought, laughed together day in day out for 20 years as his brothers did.? Anyone who has not spoken to Michael in person has their information second hand .Meaning you read it or heard it through a third party not from him. And the information you have , true or false -is not exclusive or secret . So how do you know that on top of knowing him personally they do not read or see the same information you read?.And know many more people that you have never even heard about because they are not known to the public.
    Its not only prersumptious but even laugable if you think you know more than them .
    Ofcourse he would not tell his family or anyone else for that matter certain things , such as Murrays presence in his house. The only ones who knew were his staf ( ironically his bodyguards knew and how they guarded him!) and AEG because they hired him.
    But did you know before the trial that his mother had warned AEG against the schedule they were forcing on him. No, you heard it HINDSIGHT, in court. I am sure there is much more that was not adressed in court that his family knows and you dont.
    Between all the stories that did come out everyone CHOOSE what they believe and its usually what backs up your opinion. That is anyones prerogative.
    But do not reduce Michaels 50 years of life to what you have read or heard about him.


  13. mariam permalink
    April 25, 2014 6:07 pm

    I was surprised about Randy Jackson deposition too, actually I found out that the fan know better about MJ than some of MJ’s family member.

    Specially, about his health and his struggle of pain killer independency, only his mom knows about his problems, because she knows he was not addicted as his brothers think he was.

    she was visiting him regularly and also she knows he took treatment and also probably he more open to her than the rest of the family. She knows he has vitiligo she did confirm that in public, but I didn’t hear from other family members. In contrast we know what Lotoya and Jennet Jackson said about MJ when he was facing the terrible allegation 1993, if they really did know their brother, they should not say that about him in public.

    Of course family is family no matter what, but did they know everything what was going on in MJ life? I would say I don’t think so.

    His father, brothers and sisters did not have clue what happened to MJ, they only know from rumour and tabloid story. That is why Rondy’s deposition sound difficult to believe. Because they have got together for some occasion or seeing him ones a while, it doesn’t mean they know about him.


  14. TatumMarie permalink
    April 25, 2014 5:11 pm

    It is not only what I THINK I know. It is also the matter of me KNOWING that Randy Jackson, for example, didn’t know the simplest things about Michael and showed it in his deposition at the AEG trial. – VMJ

    I agree. I also didn’t appreciate how Randy claimed what the media dubbed as pajama day was simply Michael not wanting to go to court. He went to the hospital and had a whole team with him, his walk was very telling and was equal to when I’ve hurt my back. He may have had a disc herniation of some kind.


  15. April 25, 2014 4:40 pm

    “Most people , men and women who got to know Michael speak about him with genuine love and respect. But that is something different than a love interest.” – Sina

    Sina, what are you trying to say? That you don’t believe the bodyguards? Well, it is your right though I don’t understand the reason why you should be so insistent that they are not credible. Or let me make a guess – it is because these bodyguards may say something about the Jacksons in their book?

    “Interesting that you are so ademant about what you know or THINK to know what the Jacksons know about Michael. While you yourself have never been anywhere near Michael. A little reality check will not hurt.”

    It is not only what I THINK I know. It is what I indeed know – for example about Randy Jackson who didn’t know the simplest things about Michael and showed it in his deposition at the AEG trial. It was “No” to everything – he didn’t remember even if he spoke with Michael in 2009, he didn’t know of his insomnia problem, he didn’t have a clue about a series of operations on Michael’s head after the burn, he always heard about Michael’s drugs from someone else – nanny Grace or Leonard Rowe for example, and he went to Carolwood to interfere not even knowing what it was about.

    It may surprise you, but I do know more than Randy about some periods of Michael’s life – for example about the spring of 2009, because I analyzed what drugs were given to Michael by Klein day by day and know how much Demerol was given on which day and why.

    All those injections were made as painkillers for proper procedures and I even know of a crisis moment when Michael had complications from injections under his armpits and in his groin against excessive sweating during his dance. The crisis came in the mid and end of April which is when Leonard Rowe most probably noticed “something” and he and producer Terry Harvey made a sort of an ultimatum to Joe Jackson – an intervention or there would be no concert with AllGoodEntertainment.

    As a result Randy and Joe went to break into Carolwood to “make an intervention” having no idea what was going on, but were not allowed in by the bodyguards. However the point is that Michael didn’t need any intervention – the treatment by Klein was subsiding on its own and he was given less and less Demerol during procedures anyway.
    Here are the details of the treatment provided to Michael by Klein:

    As regards Terry Harvey if you want to know what this scumbag said about Michael in spring 2009 while he was in close association with Joe Jackson I will probably make a post about it.


  16. Sina permalink
    April 24, 2014 4:12 pm

    “I don’t agree. When I recently reread her account of him I was very much impressed by her words. They sound like genuine love and admiration”- Helena

    Most people , men and women who got to know Michael speak about him with genuine love and respect. But that is something different than a love interest.
    There is a big difference in how LisaMary talks about Michael , the good and the bad talk- which only someone who got to know the man unguarded , in private with flaws and all can allow herself – and how Ruska and even karen Faye who had known him for decades talks about him. I had never before heard about Ruska untill I read her interview which is what I mean by going public.

    Interesting that you are so ademant about what you know or THINK to know what the Jacksons know about Michael. While you yourself have never been anywhere near Michael. A little reality check will not hurt.

    Everyone can take from the body guards story what they want, any opinion is as good as the other. Ive been around long enough to know that Michael was no wallflower dont need bogus stories to confirm that.
    They are the same bodyguards who said that Michael would not want us to judge Murray, but I bet that part is not in the book .


  17. April 24, 2014 12:14 pm

    “Maybe this was the way with some of the brothers and Joe but he never distanced himself from Katherine.” – TatumMarie

    Of course I didn’t mean Katherine! Michael was always close with her though he did try to protect her from excessive worry. But Katherine never thought Michael to be an addict either. Her heart was in the right place and with her heart she always knew the truth.


  18. TatumMarie permalink
    April 24, 2014 12:01 pm

    Maybe this was the way with some of the brothers and Joe but he never distanced himself from Katherine. I don’t think all the family believed he was an addict because on interviews the brothers have said that wasn’t the case. He distanced himself from them at times but they were slightly closer than the media portrayed.

    He had a strong mother figure which allowed him to choose women more wisely. I think its great that he had these relationships with women who did not exploit him. As far as we know there are no recordings of intimacy or book deals about the relationships.


  19. April 24, 2014 9:29 am

    “Frank Cascio mentioned a fan relationship in his book. We’re assuming the family didn’t know, they could have.” – TatumMarie

    Yes, Frank Cascio mentioned those fan relationships of Michael’s. But I am absolutely sure that the family knew nothing about them. The fact is that the family knew nothing of Michael at all. Michael surely loved them but kept them at a distance.

    I was about to write about it in connection with a certain Terry Harvey who was in cooperation with Joe Jackson in the last months of Michael’s life. Terry Harvey is the worst thing that could ever happen to Michael or anyone at all. He was the one who spread stories in the media about Michael being a drug addict and who convinced the Jacksons’ family that this was the case. And they believed this scumbag though he had nothing to prove his theory with except his visual observation of Michael.

    He saw him weak, tired and depressed sometime in April-June 2009, but instead of finding out what the real reason for it was (for example, lack of sleep or Conrad Murray feeding Michael with benzodiazepines) he announced to the whole world that it was the result of narcotics.

    He kept telling horrible stories both to the media and Jacksons, and since he was presented himself as the family “insider”, the media regarded them as first-hand information from the Jacksons. However the most the Jacksons themselves knew was from this Terry Harvey again.

    Harvey was to arrange a concert with AllGoodEntertainment and put as a condition for it that Michael should go to a rehab and it was for this reason that Joe Jackson wanted to break into Michael’s home. It never occurred to them that Terry Harvey was simply slandering Michael and doing it in the worst and cynical manner possible.

    Joe Jackson was probably a victim to Terry Harvey’s stories himself, but it was his and his family’s fault that they swallowed Terry Harvey’s stories hook, line and sinker – while they should have known better than believe the first person who came their way and should have been of better opinion of their own son and brother Michael.

    One day I’ll probably write about it with all the documents attached to prove what I’m saying. And if I haven’t made this post about Terry Harvey and Joe Jackson yet, it doesn’t mean that I don’t know what they did to Michael. I do.


  20. April 24, 2014 8:13 am

    “in a 3th rate hotel of all places (do you believe that?)” – Sina

    Yes, I do. If the hotel is really as 3rd rate as you say it is, then it was the place where they could least expect Michael Jackson and that is why it suited his purpose very much indeed. So yes, I believe it.

    “Moriarity wrote down what the bodyguards told her as well as other copy pasted stories I bet she never researched or double checked any of it.”

    So what? And why would the bodyguards lie about it?

    “Ruska sounds like a good friend, not like how one would describe a lover especially not one you want to keep a secret.”

    I don’t agree. When I recently reread her account of him I was very much impressed by her words. They sound like genuine love and admiration.

    Quote: “My phone rang on New Years. I picked up the phone and heard someone singing opera. I was completely baffled. I asked who it was and Michael responded, “Who do you think it is?” – He was very shy and I can’t even describe how gentle he was. But his talent, voice, music and charisma can’t be surpassed.” “The more I watched him, the more I loved him. He was simply magic. He was the most noble person in the world. No man on Earth can compare to his inner and outer beauty. I met so many stars, talked to them, worked with them, but no one was even close to Michael’s charisma. He was simply always ahead of everyone else” “The window of the limo would go down and Michael – guarded by six bodyguards in there – would wave at me and call me over. We loved and respected each other.” “He always asked me where I was hiding so long. A man like that will never come by again.”
    The last time she saw him was two weeks before his death. She was at his house five days in a row. “He was truly beautiful. As always, he was the gentlest person on the planet. It seemed almost as if he was ‘ours’ [of her own nation]. But Michael was so unusual, his warmth and love completely got me.”

    “If there had been a serious relationship, the Jacksons would have reached ot to Ruska since she went public about him,or to anyone for that matter and they would have welcomed that person with open arms.”

    Sina, as far as I understand Ruska doesn’t want anything of the Jacksons or anyone at all. And she didn’t “go public about him”. No woman, even Lisa-Marie Presley, is “going public” about him in the way others former ex-wives or girlfriends do. All these women respect his wish to keep it as private as it is only possible. And this can mean only one thing – they loved him so much that they respect his wish even when confronted by all the media in the world.


  21. Rodrigo permalink
    April 24, 2014 7:59 am

    Of course! Haha!
    I was thinking – just how could Frank know all those details?


  22. April 24, 2014 7:45 am

    “I’m referring to Frank’s letter, Helena. The one he wrote in response to Scott Thorson’s accusations.” – Rodrigo

    Rodrigo, but it couldn’t be written by Frank Cascio! Frank is a very young man while this person was by Michael’s side as early as the time when Michael was infatuated with Diana Ross.

    I’ve said it many times and will repeat it again that the message to the National Enquirer board was most probably sent by Bill Bray, head of Michael’s security for many years. At the moment of the message he was very old but he was still in contact with MJ and actually Michael paid for his upkeep even after he stopped working for him. Soon after that message was published Bill Bray died.

    Actually the person who kept up correspondence with the author of this message is Belinda and she knows his name (which she didn’t disclose to me). She is the author of this blog:, so if you are insistent enough she will probably tell you.

    I wasn’t insistent because I didn’t want her to break her promise not to disclose his name, and in my opinion it could be only Bill Bray anyway.


  23. April 23, 2014 2:38 pm

    Is it just me? I don’t think the comments about the women is a big deal. To me it sounds reserved considering the fact that at Michael’s status he could have slept with hundreds of women like most celebrity men have. The truth is we wouldn’t have known about Lisa Marie had he not married her so I don’t think we should be so quick to down play individuals who have been nothing but truthful just because they tell stories about women. Frank Cascio mentioned a fan relationship in his book. We’re assuming the family didn’t know, they could have.


  24. Sina permalink
    April 23, 2014 1:04 pm

    If Michael was secretive about his lovelife, and didnt want his children to know he was meeting someone, or 2 women, one in a 3th rate hotel of all places (do you believe that?), then why is it a bodyguards business to put Michaels secrets out for his children to hear.and open for speculation and insinuation – eg that a 50 year old man didnt want his mother to know because she didnt like it due to his fathers behavior. Wow.

    Furthermore It is a generic story that could have been told by anyone about anyone. There is no way to verify it, it is not specific and It ads nothing whatsoever to Michaels legacy or understanding.. Like the Halperin fables, but this one to cater to fans who will buy anything that in their opinion proves that Michael iwas a redblooded man. As if he need stories of secret or double dating to confirm that.
    Moriarity wrote down what the bodyguards told her as well as other copy pasted stories I bet she never researched or double checked any of it.
    Ruska sounds like a good friend, not like how one would describe a lover especially not one you want to keep a secret. And she is not the dropdead gorgeous as described by the bodyguards, but ofcourse beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
    If there had been a serious relationship, the Jacksons would have reached ot to Ruska since she went public about him,or to anyone for that matter and they would have welcomed that person with open arms. Like they did anyone who they , often wrongly thought were friends of Michaels.


  25. Rodrigo permalink
    April 22, 2014 11:10 am

    I’m referring to Frank’s letter, Helena. The one he wrote in response to Scott Thorson’s accusations.
    What Frank said, it was consistent with a lot of what was confirmed later on after Michael died. Still sleeping with Lisa-Marie, even after the divorce.

    And I’ll wager to this day that the singer Michael supposedly hooked up with, that according to Frank was once big, was Whitney Houston. That came out after she died.


  26. April 22, 2014 4:53 am

    “all this, it’s pretty fitting to his own private accounts and the post Frank Cascio wrote.” – Rodrigo

    Rodrigo, what post of Frank Cascio are talking about? His book where he mentions Michael’s women?

    “But he knew his mother didn’t like any of that, due to Joseph’s behaviour. He must’ve certainly didn’t want to hurt her like that.”

    Frankly, I think that at the age of 50 sons no longer pay attention to what their mothers think of their love life. It seems to me that Michael had so little privacy in his life that his relations with women were a safe harbor where he tried to enjoy the luxury of not being in the spotlight. He was like a small child who needed a secret place which no one could enter and where he could look at the treasures he had collected in his secret box.

    Those who pretend to be stars use every opportunity to be in the limelight as they keep up their “star status” this way – as long as tabloids talk about them they feel they are still afloat. But those who are real stars try to enjoy as much privacy as they can. Did Schumacher ever parade his love life? I don’t think so. The same with Michael.


  27. Rodrigo permalink
    April 21, 2014 6:12 pm

    It could very well be her, Helena.
    She speaks very, very highly of Michael.
    And she’s speaking in a sense of reflection of Michael’s views of privacy. That he spoke with her very personally. She respects, and seems to love him quite a lot.
    But all this, it’s pretty fitting to his own private accounts and the post Frank Cascio wrote.

    The privacy he had with this type of lifestyle, which I believe us true – is not just about the media. A lot of it, I suspect, is for the sake and respect he had for his mother. He didn’t want Katherine knowing that about him. He was only human, of course. But he knew his mother didn’t like any of that, due to Joseph’s behaviour. He must’ve certainly didn’t want to hurt her like that.


  28. April 21, 2014 3:17 pm

    I don’t know whether it is Ruska or not, but here is her account of the two and a half years she knew Michael:

    RUSKA BERGMAN: The Last Dinner With Michael Jackson
    Michael Jackson’s stylist – in her own words The orginal article was written is in Croatian/Serbian and someone was kind enough to translate them.
    Famous New York stylist who was born in Takov, the woman who enchanted Steven Spielberg, Nicole Kidman and Hilary Clinton, for two and a half years she was inseparable with the tragic King of Pop, who said a month before he left this world’s stage that he will forever be with her.
    Written by: Zaneta Apostolovski

    Michael Jackson was never selfish, he shared his love with the whole world, but that he’s the King of Pop – no one truly admitted that till he died. Michael wasn’t a freak, even though so many ugly things and lies were written about him. People simply didn’t understand him just like they didn’t understand Beethoven and Mozart but time has proven that they were musical geniuses as well. Jackson was an amazing artist. He lived in his own world with his music. I’m happy/lucky because I got to be his friend and that he chose me out of all people to be his stylist – says Ruska Bergman, the personal stylist of the late pop icon.

    She’s only worked for a few years in New York but she’s already worked with Hilary Clinton, Bjork, Cindy Crawford , Nicole Kidman, Gwyneth Paltrow and many other stars. She’s convinced that Michael Jackson was the most noble and sophisticated person that she worked with.

    “I work for the Italian ‘L’Uomo Vogue’, I styled lots of directors, athletes, actors and when we had to pick out a music icon for our photoshoot, I suggested Michael Jackson, so I sent him a letter. I was at the theatre when after three weeks I got a phonecall from his lawyer who said he was calling on behalf of Michael Jackson.” – I was completely caught off guard. I got scared that I did something wrong in the way I contacted him …so I started apologizing. When the lawyer told me that Michael agreed to do the photoshoot, I asked him to repeat that sentence again before I pass out …I called the editor of the magazine right away and told her that Michael Jackson agreed to do the photoshoot.”

    According to Ruska, the preparations for this photoshoot were the most intense preparations on the planet.
    “I got thousands of girls assisting us but by the end of it we decided on six. Completely impressed with what he saw, Michael simply shouted, “Girls, you are divine!” – but in order for Ruska to hear that sentence she worked very hard for five months.

    Even though he was a megastar, Michael never acted like one on the set. He was very professional, he knew that he was working with the best stylists, make-up artists and photographers and he never saw their work as something beneath him.

    There were hundreds of people on set. We played his Thriller album, he immediately stood in front of the camera and started dancing and a few moments later everyone was in tears. He had so much energy that I then, and many times later, thought that he must be from a different planet.

    Michael Jackson thought the same about Ruska though. He was amazed how much love she put into her work . Because of similar sensibilities, they continued to work together and their professional association quickly turned into friendship. He loved her character and honesty. He appreciated the fact that she was always honest about what she could and couldn’t do as far as her work goes.

    The change in Jackson’s style over the last couple of years was very noticeable and noticed by the world media…on the internet blogs, everyone was asking who was behind the new look of this 20th century pop icon; His secret weapon was of course RUSKA BERGMAN!

    “He trusted my taste a lot and he used to always tell me to never stop because I’m the most interesting person he’s ever met! When we became friends, he told me when I first showed up on his door in Vegas he could smell the Mediterranean sea on me”

    Ruska and Michael were working intensely with one another over the last two years. They saw each other often and stayed in touch regularly.
    “My phone rang on New Years. I picked up the phone and heard someone singing opera. I was completely baffled. I asked who it was and Michael responded, “Who do you think it is?” – He was very shy and I can’t even describe how gentle he was. But his talent, voice, music and charisma can’t be surpassed.”

    From the first time they met, Ruska was convinced he was a genius. After that meeting in Vegas, her whole world changed. She walked down the street and suddenly compared to Michael, all the people seemed so ordinary.

    “The more I watched him, the more I loved him”, He was simply magic. He was the most noble person in the world. No man on Earth can compare to his inner and outer beauty. I met so many stars, talked to them, worked with them, but no one was even close to Michael’s charisma. He was simply always ahead of everyone else and I can’t believe that my dear friend died. How can I believe it when we actively worked so much together lately? I was getting the styling ideas ready for the tour, which unfortunately he will never get to do now – and it would’ve been a true spectacle.

    According to Forbes magazine, Jackson would’ve earned 2.5 billion dollars from that tour, But he wasn’t too concerned about that. He had over 30 people who took care of everything and he had eleven lawyers, he lived in complete isolation but he was able to see who his true friends are. The moment Ruska came to LA, Michael would call her and sometimes he himself would pick her up at the Beverly Hills Hotel.

    “The window of the limo would go down and Michael – guarded by six bodyguards in there – would wave at me and call me over. We loved and respected each other. He loved everything that I wore, and he always wanted to wear it. He always asked me where I was hiding so long. A man like that will never come by again, but I’m convinced that his music will live for hundreds of years. Everyone copies him, but only when Michael himself showed up would people actually faint.”

    The woman who works in the biggest fashion house and gives advice to Tom Ford, Givenchy and many others, she fascinated the King of Pop when it came to how humble she was and her general view when it came to money.

    When we had dinner just a month ago, Michael asked me, “Do you know why I love working with you? You never asked me for money. And we never talked about some agreements. You trusted me as I trusted you. I changed six managers in two years. You’re the only person who stuck with me. Everyone else came and went, and you, my dear, will be with me forever.”

    The last time she saw him was two weeks before his death. She was at his house five days in a row.
    “He was truly beautiful. He didn’t seem depressed or sad at all. He even danced a bit. Didn’t seem to have a care in the world. As always, he was the gentlest person on the planet. It seemed almost as if he was ‘ours’ . I never felt that about anyone aside from ~Steven Spielberg. But Michael was so unusual, his warmth and love completely got me. Everything was just fine. I can’t believe that he’s gone all of a sudden.”

    She heard the news about his death while she was in the studio. The moment she heard it she thought she would fall off the chair. The only thing she could possibly say was that it was simply impossible, it can’t be. She couldn’t stop crying for days. All the material and the photographs and data that she has, she’s keeping for the movie, This is It, that’s coming out.

    “I know I was very privileged because I had the chance to be so close to him, to see him as a real person. We perfectly understood eachother. I feel sad that the media was so unfair and cruel to him. He didn’t have cancer, his nose wasn’t falling off, all those things are just fabrications, stupidities and lies. The pop icon is among angels right now, but his music will live forever.”
    Ruska Bergman, the Serbian stylist In response to the one on rare/rarely seen

    Read more:


  29. April 21, 2014 3:06 pm

    Can the one called “Friend” and having the East European accent be Ruska Bergman?


  30. April 21, 2014 2:54 pm

    “This should be interesting” – Rodrigo

    Very interesting, Rodrigo. The Friend and Flower women were also described by Karen Moriarty who spoke to those two bodyguards.

    It always surprised me that Michael had a pattern of behavior totally different from other celebrities – his love life was kept as private and well-guarded as it was only possible, while his friendship with people was never a secret. With various families and their children he went out publicly and was seen and photographed with them a thousand times, but of the women with whom he was intimate we know nothing. So he was quite serious when he said “Keep it in the closet”.

    This pattern is important because once we realize it, we understand that when Michael was indeed in love and an intimate relationship, he hid it from those around him. And when he did not hide anything, there was no intimacy involved. Now remember his child friends – he practically paraded his friendship with them! Why? Because, following Michael’s pattern, there was nothing to hide.

    Information about the book:

    New book has ‘poop’ on Michael Jackson as former bodyguards pen tell-all detailing King of Pop’s home life

    Former bodyguards of Michael Jackson detail his money problems and visits from women with names such as ‘Flower’ and ‘Friend’ in an upcoming tell-all.

    Former bodyguards of Michael Jackson detail his money problems and visits from women with names such as ‘Flower’ and ‘Friend’ in an upcoming tell-all.

    Michael Jackson’s former bodyguards have penned a tell-all on the oddball pop star, detailing how he sent them to pick up mystery women, disciplined his kids and suffered major money issues.

    Confidenti@l got an advance galley of “Remember the Time: Protecting Michael Jackson in His Final Days,” written by the King of Pop’s former staffers Javon Beard and Bill Whitfield.

    They reveal that Jackson’s son Prince, now 17, once got a dog as a present and didn’t clean up after it. Jackson moonwalked right into the dog’s poop, infuriating him.

    According to Beard, the Gloved One “chewed Prince out, big time.” Prince soon began following the dog with a broom and dustpan to make sure he wasn’t dumped on again.

    Michael Jackson’s former bodyguards and book authors Javon Beard and Bill Whitfield appear on ABC’s GMA in a 2010 interview.

    The duo claim that during their employment, they picked up several women for their boss, including one with an Eastern European accent who was referred to only as “Friend.” They said she stayed at a nearby Hampton Inn, where Jackson would visit her at night after his kids went to sleep.
    The bodyguards describe the King of Pop’s gal pal as “drop-dead gorgeous,” standing about 5-feet-4 with a slender physique.

    Another lady friend nicknamed “Flower” came a few days after “Friend” had left.

    It was Whitfield’s sense that Jackson was closer with “Friend” than he was with “Flower.” He says that when “Friend” came to town, it was a big deal. Jackson would even send his musclemen to buy presents from high-end shops like Tiffany in anticipation of her visit.

    According to the book, Jackson and “Friend” would hug and kiss while being driven around town.

    Jackson’s money troubles are detailed throughout the book, with the bodyguards claiming they didn’t get paid on time and would go months without a paycheck.

    Whitfield says Jackson once saw dolls in a shop and asked him if he was going to buy anything for his daughter. Whitfield replied that he couldn’t, because he hadn’t been paid.

    According to Whitfield, Jackson nevertheless went on a $10,000 shopping spree that ended when his credit card was declined.
    The authors claim that despite passages in the book that may reflect poorly on Jackson, they are not trying to embarrass their former boss.
    “It’s not a bitter tell-all,” says one industry insider of the duo’s goal in penning the book. “They were very fond of him and loved his kids, but they describe someone who was surrounded by thieving managers and assistants.”

    The book will be published in June.


  31. Rodrigo permalink
    April 21, 2014 10:00 am

    This should be interesting

    It doesn’t anything negative. More positive. These guys claiming Michael liked women, which is a breath of fresh air, what with it being true.


  32. April 17, 2014 8:12 am

    @Amaya: Thank you for finding the excerpt of Margaret Maldonado’s book again.
    The book can be read here:
    The excerpt is on page 224-225.


  33. April 17, 2014 5:01 am

    MJ VIP Radio, good to get something in Spanish. Not that I understand it ,Spanish I mean, but did learn a bit while in NYC.Is V.G. still running his infamous show in Chile?I know some people in other European countries have seen it. He, Victor ,would need more than slaps on his behind (for all I know he may even enjoy that) but something more serious. He still owes Michael millions + interest. It is soon 5 years since Michaels death and they will start all that smut -rumba on him all over. Esp.DD must be feeing on top of the world again. When she was sued by Michael Sneddon arranged it so that she got protection from the journalists shield. A shame for the journalists association or whatever it is called.They should take some action for matters like this. Many individual journalist have protested.


  34. Nan permalink
    April 17, 2014 12:40 am

    You can skip over the negatives in this article regarding some of the Jackson family , but Rager Friedman spoke to Margaret Maldanado in 2005, and here she is again stating that nothing happened to her children with MJ.
    The important part to me, in this article is it shows how the sherrifs /prosecutors worked because she says they waited until her son turned 18 and was home alone then went and talked to him.What a witch hunt.


  35. Francesca del greco permalink
    April 16, 2014 11:15 pm

    The fact that people said he was a p-phile doesn’t stand as a proof. To incriminate somebody you must have evidence otherwise you are making money out of a sad story and a sad man. There is a lot to say about it but i repeat, in order to point your finger at someone you have to be sure and you have got to OBTAIN proof. Latins say carta canta verba volant.


  36. Amaya permalink
    April 16, 2014 10:46 pm

    I searched on the blog here real quick and found this quote from Margaret Maldonado. It was taken from a book she wrote. Granted, a deposition would be better to have, but this is the best quote we can get from her right now.

    “I received a telephone call from a writer named Ruth Robinson. I had known Ruth for quite a while and respected her integrity. It made what she had to tell me all the more difficult to hear.

    “I wanted to warn you, Margaret,” she said. “There’s a story going around that there is a videotape of Michael molesting one of your sons, and that you have the tape.”

    If anyone else had said those words, I would have hung up the phone. Given the long relationship I had with Ruth, however, I gave her the courtesy of a response. I told her that it wasn’t true, of course, and that I wanted the story stopped in its tracks.

    She had been in contact with someone who worked at the National Enquirer who had alerted her that a story was being written for that paper. Ruth cross-connected me with the woman, and I vehemently denied the story. Moreover, I told her that if the story ran, I would own the National Enquirer before the lawsuits I brought were finished. To its credit, the National Enquirer never ran the piece.

    “Hard Copy,” however, decided it would. “Hard Copy” correspondent Diane Dimond had reported that authorities were reopening the child molestation case against Michael. She had also made the allegations on L.A. radio station KABC-AM on a morning talk show hosted by Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard. Dimond’s claims were based on the word of a freelance writer named Victor Gutierrez. The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I’d never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.”


  37. April 16, 2014 3:22 pm

    Reblogged this on Espacio de Nancy.


  38. Nan permalink
    April 16, 2014 12:50 pm

    I havent read the book Jackson Family Values , for some time , but I think Ms Maldanado mentioned the thing with VG in it and how it was all baloney.
    Nevermind the nephews are grown men now and Im sure are more than willing to go to court themselves
    She had nothing but praise for Michael in her book, and completely believed in his innocence
    I think that book is still available.
    Hopefully the estate is already contacting these people.
    The fact that some stuff is missing off the internet doesnt surprise me.
    People have worked hand in hand with the tabloids before because they would both profit off a salacious story.
    To me the last place Robson wants to show up is in a court of law,
    His story is absolutely ridiculous., so I think his game plan is bad publicity and hoping the estate will pay him to go away, just like ,the lawyers advised in 94.
    I dont think it will happen this time .
    The FBI files support MJ innocence , in all the cases as well as the testimony and verdicts in 2005 .Wade Robson was not the only deciding factor, he was one of many..


  39. April 15, 2014 3:35 pm

    Margaret Maldenado is still alive and well.Maybe she could be contacted, Certainly she will still remamber the deposition and what she said.I think she was rather shocked and mad being questioned about such a matter.


  40. April 15, 2014 1:31 am

    “Helena it’s been missing for a very long time. Not just when the fans went to the archives. Whoever has it either destroyed it or has no intention of letting anyone see it.” – Lynande51

    This is exactly what I’m talking about. The date when the deposition disappeared doesn’t matter. What matters is that someone doesn’t want any material exonerating Michael to be seen by the public.

    I haven’t checked Pellicano’s reach for some time but a year ago it was still in its place. And now it is gone.


  41. Francesca del greco permalink
    April 14, 2014 10:49 pm

    I remember that from russia and brasil he was like smoke into The eyes.


  42. lynande51 permalink
    April 14, 2014 5:28 pm

    Helena it’s been missing for a very long time. Not just when the fans went to the archives. Whoever has it either destroyed it or has no intention of letting anyone see it.


  43. April 14, 2014 2:22 pm

    My worst thought is that there is some kind of cleaning operation going on re certain older documents.” – W.
    “There is a cleaning operation going on because Margaret Maldonado’s deposition is missing.”- lynande51

    Friends, I haven’t got this deposition but hope that you do. These days we need to copy and make screenshots of every little thing that comes our way. It is incredible but Evil uses the same method on both sides of the ocean – it is erasure of the Truth.

    If their lies are so good why are they doing it? Why erase the truth? Do their lies feel so weak that they can win only if they destroy us?


  44. lynande51 permalink
    April 14, 2014 7:04 am

    There is a cleaning operation going on because Margaret Maldonado’s deposition is missing.


  45. April 14, 2014 3:40 am

    The meeting, or rather the imaginary meeting, of minds between Michael and Evan almost destroyed Michaels life, made these alllegation issues drain him psychologically and physically and finally greatly contibuted to his premature death.Helena, you are marvellous, I dont understand how you find all the materials needed for this blog.All this is important as they led to great injustice,suffering and death of a great, and a good man.


  46. April 14, 2014 3:31 am

    Great that something was found out about Evan. My worst thought is that there is some kind of cleaning operation going on re certain older documents.You know some that would benefit from such.


  47. April 14, 2014 3:20 am

    “And there’s proof that Gutierrez was in the Chandler household in May of 1993 before MJ ever met Evan Chandler.” – lynande51

    Good. Never doubted it even for a moment.


  48. April 14, 2014 3:01 am

    Oh okay, thanks! I saw fans arguing about where these sudden documents came from on Twitter and I hope Tia can straighten this out! Thanks for the insight!


  49. April 14, 2014 2:54 am

    “Hey Helena hope you are doing well and that you are safe! 🙂 I was wondering if you heard anything about these files being discovered today concerning Evan Chandler?” -ettelra

    Hi Ettelra, thank you very much. I’m fine, only extremely nervous about what’s going on with my nation now. Hope they will soon come to their senses.

    As regards this paper I think that it comes from a huge pile of information posted by Tia on her twitter account. As far as I understand Tia has made a comment on this particular document:

    Tia ‏@tinklove05
    @WeloveyouMJJ @thedangerouspyt @Annies_NOTokmj lost her case and her own attorney was fed up with her, ugh

    Though the complainant did lose the case I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some truth behind her words. The first thing that attracts attention is Evan Chandler’s overuse of intravenous sedation. This, as we know, very much fits with Evan’s own words about his practices – he gave Sodium Amytal to his son, he gave narcotics to Carrie Fisher, he even gave Toradol to Michael when he invited MJ to his home and interrogated him under the effect of the drug. All this is highly unusual for a doctor and extremely unprofessional too. And this is just what we know, so there may be much-much more to that.

    Carrie about Evan Chandler:

    In the late 1980’s, addict Fisher would get unnecessary dental surgery just to obtain morphine from him. Fisher claimed Chandler could be persuaded via financial incentives or “favors” to come to a patient’s house to administer the drug. His license plate read “SLEEP MD”.

    Chandler was also very much a womanizer with a tendency for abuse. He had some complexes about women – this we know from his conversation with David Schwartz. Tia’s documents say that he assaulted his wife Natalie (at least once) though she was the one who supported him with money. To deal with the suit of this and other patient (as well as his own suit against Jackson for $60mln) Natalie lent him more than $400,000 which he returned to her only after she had to sue him too.

    Natalie’s court papers say that even prior to her lawsuit Evan had absolutely no interest for their children – he didn’t support them and had no desire to see them. The children didn’t understand it and had to go to therapy to deal with their father’s rejection of them.

    In short Evan was well below the norm. But we knew it long ago.

    Tia posted all these documents on her twitter account. I want to analyze them one by one, but first will ask Tia to publish her own findings herself as she actually paid her own money for those documents. I invited her to make posts in this blog if she wants to.

    Her documents are here:


  50. lynande51 permalink
    April 14, 2014 12:09 am

    And there’s proof that Gutierrez was in the Chandler household in May of 1993 before MJ ever met Evan Chandler.


  51. lynande51 permalink
    April 14, 2014 12:06 am

    Not yet Tatum.It was included in other documents that have been obtained by a group of Michael Jackson fans that were in an archive that I was attempting to get from the LA Superior Court Archives. It was included as part of the Gutierrez case. Much more information to come.


  52. April 13, 2014 11:36 pm

    We should authenticate the document first. Are there any other sources it links through other than a Facebook page?


  53. newrodrigo permalink
    April 13, 2014 9:59 pm

    Evan sexually abused a woman over a period of 3 years?

    But I thought he closed his dentistry down before 97?


  54. April 13, 2014 4:43 pm

    Hey Helena hope you are doing well and that you are safe! 🙂 I was wondering if you heard anything about these files being discovered today concerning Evan Chandler?


  55. April 13, 2014 11:33 am

    “Helena it is good to have you back – Please be careful.” – Denise

    Dear Denise, TatumMarie and everybody, thank you for welcoming me back. I will try to do my best as long as I can. Why the site is no longer sending the notification about new posts I don’t know – probably some settings have gone wrong. Will check up.


  56. April 13, 2014 11:13 am

    “Helena, why is it the link to the “Pellicano’s Reach” article on the Daily Beast doesn’t work for me? “Page not found”! Does it work for you or do we have to assume that it was taken down suddenly?” – Susannerb

    Susanne, I’ve checked it up and it HAS been taken down. So the diagnosis of their intentions is correct. They are taking away all signs of Pellicano’s current support for Michael and will replace him with Barresi who will sing the tune opposite to Pellicano’s.

    If someone can help find the page in the archives please do. Below is the screenshot of the Google search showing that Pellicano’s reach WAS there:

    If you click on “learn more” you will see information about “blocking or removing pages using a robots.txt file”. What this means I have no idea but the page has been blocked.

    I will now include the full picture of Pellicano’s chart into the post.


  57. Denise permalink
    April 13, 2014 9:03 am

    Helena it is good to have you back – Please be careful.


  58. susannerb permalink*
    April 13, 2014 7:26 am

    Helena, why is it the link to the “Pellicano’s Reach” article on the Daily Beast doesn’t work for me? “Page not found”!
    Does it work for you or do we have to assume that it was taken down suddenly?

    ALL MY BEST WISHES for your rally!


  59. April 13, 2014 6:38 am

    Guys, this is a preliminary version of the 2nd part of this post. I must be running now. Just wanted to make it before I go to a rally. Hope to be with you later.



  1. The Mirror, The People ja leping, mida pole olemas… | Michael Jackson tõde ja õigus

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: