Skip to content

Michael Jackson’s Difference

August 29, 2017

Today Michael Jackson would have turned 59. It is more than eight years since his untimely death and yet the saga of his character assassination is far from being over.

Michael Jackson’s Estate has a very clear case against Robson and Safechuck and their slow but sure battle against these liars will one day put a stop to the profitable business of various rogues trying to make millions just by making false allegations against Michael.

This will be a welcome change as it will at least prevent the future fortune seekers from trying to make their living by accusing Michael Jackson of anything they want.

PROBLEMS

However even if the Estate’s legal battle is a success, the main problem will still remain there – Michael’s name will still be tarnished and the public will still be undecided as to who is right here.

Haters will claim that Robson’s and Safechuck’s case is legitimate and that they lost it due to a mere technicality – MJ’s companies had no control over their boss and cannot be found liable for the acts he might or might not have committed.

And as regards this latter point haters will be correct– the fact of non-responsibility has been perfectly clear from the start of it and one can only wonder why it is taking so long to prove so obvious a point.

Another point that makes you wonder is who is paying the liars’ attorneys for so prolonged a battle. Safechuck’s lawsuit, for example, has already been dismissed, but now he has filed an appeal and hired a special appeal lawyer to handle it. The appeal is costly business as I hear and this makes me suspect that there is someone behind the scenes who is paying the lawyers to keep the circus going.

In fact all the twists and turns to the case suggest that it is being intentionally prolonged and that the endlessness of the project is a separate goal in and of itself. The simple-minded actors went for the plan hoping for a quick settlement, while those who masterminded the project could have far-reaching plans and certainly don’t mind if the case lasts forever – because the longer it is, the longer Michael’s name is trashed and the more seeds of doubt are sown.

And this has been going on for 35 years now – generations come and go, and it is only Michael Jackson’s “case” that is still there.

So let us ask ourselves a simple question – is there a way to prove once and for all that Michael was not what his haters try to portray him to be?

I think there is a way to prove it, and in order to do that we need to turn to Anne Salter and listen to what she has to say on the subject – no, not about Michael Jackson, but about real sex predators.

ANNE SALTER

Who is Anne Salter?

Dr. Anne Salter is the favorite source of Michael Jackson’s detractors. Her official bio says that she is a licensed clinical psychologist who received her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology and Public Practice from Harvard University.

She is also the author of the best-selling book, Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders, Who They Are, How They Operate, and How We Can Protect Ourselves and Our Children about which she gave an interview to Sott Radio Network in 2013.

Dr. Salter’s biography says that she also provides expert testimony in high-profile criminal trials in the US, has addressed major conference groups throughout the world and has been the recipient of numerous grants for research on sexual offenders. In 1997, Dr. Salter was honored by The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) with their Significant Lifetime Achievement Award.

In short Dr. Anne Salter is one of the most qualified experts to approach if we want to know what real child abusers are like and how they operate.

Now why do Michael Jackson’s detractors like quoting Dr. Anne Salter?

The reason is because some of her statements formally look applicable to MJ and his behavior.

Then what is the detractors’ problem with Dr. Salter?

Their problem is that they can quote her only selectively and cannot mention her main argument which makes it clear that any superficial semblance of Michael Jackson to those “others” is invalid if her main argument, testifying to his innocence, is completely ignored. In fact her main conclusion regarding real child abusers is in direct contradiction with everything Michael Jackson ever did and said.

And what is her main conclusion?

The very short of it is that all sex offenders look so ‘normal’ that there is no way to tell them from really normal people. There is no universal pattern and no universal rule to apply to them that will make them easily recognizable from the usual crowd.

Dr. Salter says:

I had a neighbour come over and say “I don’t worry about this Anna, I can spot a paedophile”. And I said “Really? Because I can’t”. And she said “Oh sure you can. You’ve been working in this field for years, you write these books, you write academic books, you write mysteries about them. Sure you can spot them”. And I said “You know what my 30 years has brought? I know I can’t and you think you can”. And I truly believe that, I can’t spot them anymore than anybody else can. Anymore a doctor can spot which patient walking in his or her office has AIDS. The doctors know that and we seem to find it hard to believe.

Dr. Salter explains that all child abusers are successful in projecting an image of fine, upstanding citizens. All of them are trusted by those around them and nearly all are praised for their fine Christian testimony.

Predators keep up an appearance of kindness and likability. < > Likability is such a potent weapon that it protects predators for long periods of time and through almost incomprehensible numbers of victims. Mr. Saylor, an athletic director in an elementary school, operated undisturbed for almost twenty years. He tells me there is almost no limit to the number of molestations that one can get away with. (Salter, p. 26)

We expect child molesters to be monsters. It seems to be contrary to human nature to think that people who project “niceness” and normality could harbor such dark secrets. “But it is a misconception that child molesters are somehow different from the rest of us, outside their proclivities to molest. They can be loyal friends, good employees, and responsible members of the community in other ways” (Salter, p. 47).”

But Dr. Salter’s main observation is that though child molesters may be indistinguishable from the normal crowd all of them possess one common trait which is totally indispensable to their trade. The feature common to them is that all of them are exceptional liars who never do or say anything that may reveal their true nature and put them at the risk of being exposed.

They masquerade their evil intentions so skillfully that it makes them the last people to suspect and it is exactly their seeming normality and socially accepted behavior which is the reason why they manage to get away with their crimes for so long.

The problem is that child molesters take special care to never give themselves away by a single move or word. When asked about any patterns or rules in their behavior found as a result of her 30 years of research Dr. Salter said:

“The only rule for deception in sex offenders I have ever found is this: If it is in the offender’s best interests to lie, and if he can do it and not get caught, he will lie. “

Okay, but this idea is well-known to everyone, so what’s so new about it?

What’s new about it and why it is fully exonerating Michael Jackson dawned on me only when I was listening to Charles Thomson’s interview with Ryan Michaels on his show “Reason Bound” recorded on June 13th this summer.

The interview was called “Episode 058 – Vindication Day Special (Pirates in Neverland: The Michael Jackson Allegations)” and here is the full podcast to listen to (please don’t miss the comments section as the discussion was continued there too).

THE HOTTEST ISSUE

The subject of that particular episode was the child abuse allegations leveled at Michael Jackson throughout his life.

Ryan Michaels, the host of the show and his guest, a well-known journalist Charles Thomson discussed the allegations following the show’s usual parameters which are “looking at what people believe, why they believe it, and the importance of being able to recognise good and bad arguments.”

The two journalists discussed the most vulnerable points of Michael Jackson’s case, testing the theories and arguments that bother both Michael’s fans and his detractors.

Naturally, the hottest point of the discussion was the “bed-sharing” issue which Michael never kept a secret of and even insisted that it was the most loving thing to do towards others, children in particular.

Michael Jackson’s fans know that he used this term meaning to say that he was always ready to give his bed to others while he would sleep on the floor or  a couch nearby (as was indeed often the case).

But most people understand Michael’s statements as sleeping in one bed with a child, and it is in this (actually wrong) context that the two journalists discussed it and heavily criticized Michael.

Here are a couple of quotes from their dialog:

RYAN MICHAELS at about 12:35: “Why would you as a grown adult think it’s a good idea to sleep with kids in bed? It looks bad. It looks really, really bad.  It’s a hard thing to relate to…”

CHARLES THOMSON: “I’m not here to defend the idea in principle. Clearly it is a very irrational and stupid thing to do. The arguments of MJ fans are as irrational as those of his detractors – “He grew up in one house with nine kids in one bedroom, bla-bla-bla…”. But by the time this happened he lived in Neverland. Perhaps it may be excused as naivety and having never lived in the real world the first time round, but to go and do it again after 1993 was insane.”

(Note: According to Frank Cascio MJ never did it again and if he did, it was always in the presence of other adults as a precautionary measure meant for his own safety. In fact Frank Cascio was in the same room when Gavin Arvizo slept in Michael’s bed which was on one occasion only if I remember it right)

RYAN MICHAELS at about 19:55: “ During the 60 minutes during the trial Ed Bradley and Diane Sawyer prior had said in an interview with Lisa Marie Presley – both of them had said that this is a sticking point for a lot of people. “Are you going to keep doing it or are you going to stop? Are you going to continue sleeping in bed with kids?” And Michael’s attitude was: “You are the sick one. I am not doing anything wrong.” [laughter]

Ryan Michaels recalled seeing MJ on TV in the 1990s and him always being followed by a parade of children. This also made him wonder:

RYAN MICHAELS at about 25:15: “Every time I saw him he was with a parade of children. I remember thinking – what exactly is going on here?”

The two journalists diligently explored various theories why Michael had always been seen in the company of children and regularly talked about “sharing his bed” with others, as well as the arguments of MJ’s fans and his detractors, and what Michael himself said to defend his lifestyle.

Their conclusion was that while initially Michael’s behavior could be attributed to his naivety, his later insistence on it was insane and destructive for his own self, and in justifying his behavior his fans act as irrationally as his detractors do.

In the comments on the show the fans explained that they were not justifying anything, but simply understood where Michael was coming from, and though I completely agree with the fans (and partially with the journalists), it was at this point that I realized that all of us are looking in the wrong direction.

The main thing to discuss is not why Michael did this or that, but the fact that he kept talking about it.

And it is not that important whether his explanations were naïve or his actions looked strange to the outside world. The main thing is that he talked about it, and this is all there is to it.

The real offenders lie, pretend and feign disinterest in children, turning their vice into a closely guarded secret – and he talked, talked and talked about sharing a bed with a child (!) trying to make his point clear to everyone with whatever unconventional, naive and probably even silly arguments he had to make.

If he had been as lying and manipulative as Dr. Salter says all predators are, he would have never given a single clue to anyone that he was even interested in children. If he had really been like “them”, he would have chosen a profession that gives easy access to children, and would have pretended to be “kind” and “caring” towards them. However all of it would have been strictly within the socially acceptable limits and would have never raised the slightest suspicion, because it is exactly their ability to look normal that makes them so difficult to catch.

And Michael’s views on children were like an open book. What was written in that book was surprising and even shocking to some, but his fundamental difference from all those “others” is that his book was wide open for everyone to read.

People can argue about Michael’s views and can criticize, ridicule, get annoyed and even hate him for breaking the acceptable social norms, but they cannot deny that he never hid his attitude towards children and his love for them from public view.

And this is the only thing that matters here, guys.

“They” seek sex, but pretend that they are not interested.

And he sought and shared love and never thought it necessary to pretend that he didn’t.

In fact, the strangest thing of all is that if Michael had pretended the same way as real offenders do, people would have understood it. This is because a criminal pattern of behavior is understandable to us even if we talk about it in theory only. And according to this pattern if someone has criminal intentions he simply must keep it a secret, and if he doesn’t and even openly parades some unusual behavior, people will look at him as a totally immoral gangster, or someone mad, or …. an innocent guy who simply never learned the social rules of behavior and doesn’t know how to behave himself in public.

For various reasons neither of those variants (an utterly lost soul, madness and complete innocence) quite fit the image of Michael Jackson created for the public by the media and prosecution, and it was actually the mystery that Michael Jackson presented that was so terribly overwhelming for the majority of people.

And this means that people hated Michael most because they couldn’t understand him.

And they couldn’t understand him because he was indeed a different kind and it is his difference that they found disturbing and baffling, and this is what they hated and ridiculed most.

And why, oh why doesn’t this reason sound to me as nothing novel at all?

25 Comments leave one →
  1. sanemjfan permalink
    September 20, 2017 4:48 pm

    Hi Helena,
    I have some good news! LunaJo67 has uploaded the ENTIRE press conference from Nov. 19th, 2003! I’ve been wanting to see this for years! Although it is NOT fun or entertaining to watch, this is good for research purposes. You get to see Sneddon, Dimond, and their ilk unfiltered.

    Like

  2. September 17, 2017 5:32 pm

    “I don’t think, Mj is, hard to understand, if you are open minded..Unfortunately, belittling and degrading him, made huge profits and even careers , for some people.” – Nan

    I agree, it would be absolutely not difficult to understand Michael if people wanted it. But very few do. And the problem seems to be a deeper one – in general people rarely analyze and rarely take the trouble to go beyond things that meet the eye. They are perfectly satisfied with standard and plausible answers, and are not willing to go any deeper. It takes time and effort to learn the truth, and the process is too bothersome for some. So essentially it means that people don’t care for the truth well enough or don’t care for it at all.

    Once I had an interesting conversation with a compatriot of mine – we discussed politics and she baffled me with a question: “You talk about the truth. But why do you want to know it? What for?” She shrugged her shoulders, while I racked my brains for an explanation why. I had never thought that it required an explanation, but when facing so direct a question couldn’t give an immediate answer.

    Indeed, what for? After all the minds of a lot of people are full of misconceptions and it doesn’t make them less happier. In fact it is exactly the other way round – the truth often upsets and those who don’t want it are often much happier and much more carefree. As the old saying goes: “In much wisdom there is much sorrow, and he who stores up knowledge stores up grief.”

    The extreme circumstances many of us observe now make me understand that the answer to that “what for” question is simple – lies and fakes are no joke. They are murderous, they bring about destruction and chaos. And truth is the only power to set everything right and heal. But how long will it take for everyone to understand that truth is essential for sustaining life?

    Like

  3. Nan permalink
    September 17, 2017 11:30 am

    I don’t think, Mj is, hard to understand, if you are open minded..Unfortunately, belittling and degrading him, made huge profits and even careers , for some people.
    Robson and some others, make a big deal of lengthy phone calls between Jackson and some kids, and we only get to hear about these phone calls , from people looking to extort or profit., not from people, who aren’t looking for anything.
    yet if you look at Bret Rainer twitter, remembering Mj on his birthday, he talks, about , back when most people used land lines, instead of cell phones, MJ would call looking for him, and his grandmother , would pick up and Mj would talk to her for hours, before he ended up getting on the phone with Brett..Long and short of it, Ratner said he should just tell his grandmother to get him, so Mj time wasn’t wasted, but MJ wouldn’t do it, because he said he could never hang up on his grandmother , and he loved to hear how proud she was of her grandson, and how much she loved him.
    some would like to think, that letting a child or an old lady rattle on , about what they think is impoRtant, is a waste of time, but we see a pattern of respect given to the young and old by MJ…He had just as many, if not more friends who were 20 plus years older, than younger.
    we know tabloids like to talk about “children” in his room, but their parents were there also.He let mothers, movie stars, accountants, Drs, nurses,snakes, rats, chimps all hang around in his bedroom. EVen when he was being accused in 2003,he met with Mark Geragos and his assistant, in a bedroom, in his pajamas, from what I recall, in Mr Geragos book.
    so all these people were allowed free reign, when Mj was in there dressed, and ready, but when he wasn’t , even Elizabeth Taylor, his best friend , and her husband, had to wait outside his room, while he readied himself, from the looks of his home movies.
    THe pattern, is of people taking advantage of him.

    Like

  4. September 17, 2017 9:08 am

    Then enter:” Michael Jackson´s Amazing Artwork”.Yuu will get that and beatuful music too.

    Like

  5. September 16, 2017 9:28 pm

    On Michael Jackson´s difference.I just by chance came upon Anthony Brochetelli´s analysis of Michael Jackson´s handwriting.You can find it on youtube. There are also many of his drawings and lovely MJ -music.Please look it up.

    Like

  6. September 16, 2017 6:05 pm

    “I tried to hear the podcast but I just cannot. To me, the whole entire conversation is focusing on such a non issue just as filler for the airwaves it’s agitating.” – Asma

    Asma, I couldn’t listen to the whole of it either. Like many others they were following the lead of Michael’s detractors and discussed the issues they want to discuss, ignoring the most fundamentally important aspect of it – the fact that Michael did talk and was so open about it.

    Like you said, whether Michael should have talked about beds or not, he did talk about it which itself cancels out all this speculation. Predators don’t open themselves wide open for scrutiny. They do not operate in the daylight, but in the shadows of the dark. What will it take for us to understand this fact? That is what predator means. That is what the natural essence of “predator” is.

    Exactly. Very well said. And since he wasn’t what they claim him to be, the only other option left to us is that Michael simply didn’t understand that “sharing the bed” is regarded by the majority of people as inappropriate behavior. And all the more so he didn’t understand that it was extremely damaging to his reputation to talk about it.

    So the real issue for the discussion here is why he didn’t understand that. Indeed, why?
    And it is no other but our big friend Wade Robson who gave the best answer to that. It was in 2003 when he was still on the side of the truth – he was speaking to the New Zealand Herald then and this is what he said:

    Robson said he didn’t think it was “weird” that a grown man would share the same bed as a child.
    “Because he is, on one level a genius, a creative artist … an intellectual man but on the other hand he is a kid because he has never lived through regular things that men go through, in growing up,” he said.

    “Everything in life is so complex, he just wanted something around that was simple – to hang with kids.”

    Robson said Jackson never understood why people questioned the time he spends with children.

    “The biggest thing you have to understand is that he has no concept of reality,” he said.
    “He has been a superstar since he was five years old. I mean, what concept does he have of what society thinks is right?”

    The full text is here http://archivewr.tumblr.com/:

    The New Zealand Herald – ‘Michael Jackson bed-mate says nothing odd happened’ 11.26.03

    The Brisbane-born Robson, who has a hit TV show in the US and a three-movie directing deal with Disney, has broken his silence about the years he spent visiting Jackson at his Neverland Ranch home in California.

    Now 21, and shadowed by his friendship with the superstar that began at age five, Robson said it was an innocent relationship.

    “I never had that experience and I hope that it never happened to anybody else,” he said in Los Angeles.

    Jackson, arrested and booked on suspicion of child molestation last week, is facing more than eight years in jail if convicted of the offences he has described as a “big lie”.

    Robson yesterday said he visited the sprawling Neverland Ranch, about 180km north of Los Angeles, after his family moved to the US at the encouragement of Jackson.

    Robson met the entertainer in 1987 after winning a Jackson dance-impersonation contest and was then invited to perform on-stage with the entertainer at his Brisbane concert.

    In 1991, Robson, his mother Joy and sister Chantelle moved to LA and he was almost immediately cast in three of Jackson’s videos – including Black or White. He was later signed to Jackson’s private label as half of a short-lived rap duo, Quo.

    Robson said Jackson over the years bought him instruments and encouraged him in a friendship that, according to the rising star, was always “creatively based”.

    “His initial interests in me was because of my dancing. He saw the talent and the spark I had inside me and all he has ever wanted to do is just help my career,” he said.

    Asked if he has ever slept in Jackson’s bed, Robson said: “Yeah, but nothing strange happened.”

    Robson said he didn’t think it was “weird” that a grown man would share the same bed as a child.
    “Because he is, on one level a genius, a creative artist … an intellectual man but on the other hand he is a kid because he has never lived through regular things that men go through, in growing up,” he said.

    “Everything in life is so complex, he just wanted something around that was simple – to hang with kids.”

    Robson said Jackson never understood why people questioned the time he spends with children.

    “The biggest thing you have to understand is that he has no concept of reality,” he said.
    “He has been a superstar since he was five years old. I mean, what concept does he have of what society thinks is right?”

    Robson said he no longer saw Jackson as often: “Maybe I will talk to him every six months.”

    “I will always support him. I hope it works out for him. It is sad to see.”

    Robson, a choreographer and songwriter for Britney Spears and ‘N Sync, has just scored the second highest rating show on MTV with the live dance contest The Wade Robson Project.

    Like

  7. September 15, 2017 4:28 pm

    “Take away Neverland and does anyone believe the Chandlers wouldn’t have tried to contact MJ? It’s particularly hilarious when ex employees like Blanca Francia and Adrian McManus say on the one hand they had a key to Mj’s room and could walk in any time and at the same time say that they walked in just when MJ was in there with boys, in the bed and in the shower.” – Vulcan

    Right. All these arguments are too far-fetched because first they were artificially constructed and only then adjusted to Michael’s situation. Or rather, his situation was very roughly adapted to those arguments though none of them were suitable for it.

    Frankly, I always had a feeling that someone wrote a kind of a scenario for smearing MJ – using the standard behaviour of child predators as a blueprint – and then tried this scenario on Michael’s life.

    This is why you always have the impression that though formally some of the detractors’ arguments may look more or less valid, when taken together or when applied to real Michael Jackson (and not the caricature portrayed of him in the media) they look ridiculous and create a huge dissonance. The resulting effect is that of Michael looking like he is wearing someone else’s clothes that simply don’t fit him.

    I recall that the worst Michael’s haters used to base their accusations of MJ on the opinion of some Hollywood guys – at least I’ve been told by them that “everyone in Hollywood knows that he is a p-le.” But who are the people who claim it? Hollywood abounds in child abusers and it is them who project their own behavior onto Michael Jackson and explain his actions by the motives they themselves have.

    However the gap between them and him is too big and the difference is too noticeable, even in the elementary factual matters – they are extremely secretive and he was extremely open, they pretend to have no interest in children and he said he couldn’t live without them, they chase children and he was chased by them, they go for pretty faces and he surrounded himself with burn victims and bald-headed chemo patients, they flaunt their fake affairs with women and he made his women swear they would keep it a secret (“in the closet”). Everything is different and nothing is the same!

    However ‘they’ are trying hard to fit Michael into their own pattern. In this context it becomes clear why Wade Robson included into his claim Michael’s alleged promise that he would become a great film director. Michael himself was dreaming of becoming a movie director, so no wonder he had the same dream for those dear to him, including his son.

    But Robson stated it in his claim for a different reason. He simply copied it from the promises given by Hollywood guys to aspiring young talents when they groom them to be their toy boys – that one day they would become Hollywood stars and work in the industry. This must be their easiest and surest way to lure children and teenagers into sex with them, and Robson used it for creating the same impression.

    However what’s common for Hollywood looks absolutely misplaced when applied to Michael Jackson – he was no film director and was rejected by Hollywood himself, and when Robson realized that the story sounded too out-of-place in his context he simply dropped it. But his attempt to include it there still shows the way his “case” was built – it was built on the basis of the most common conceptions on how a child abuser supposedly behaves, which was then simply copy pasted for MJ.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. vulcan permalink
    September 14, 2017 3:25 pm

    What’s so “absolute” in stating, for example, that Michael created Neverland for children to enjoy themselves in and that child abusers also turn their houses into some attraction points for their victims, and then claiming that one thing is equal to the other?
    So what? This is a completely formal similarity that brings us nowhere.

    Especially since it’s not a similarity at all. The very fact that MJ built Neverland is evidence he had nothing to hide unless you think he was such an idiot that he wasted tens of millions to build the ultimate place where a pedophile would have been easily caught, reported and prosecuted.

    1. No pedophile ever built a place like Neverland. Which means no pedophile ever needed a place like that to have kids around. Sandusky had an ordinary house with a room with a few games in it and that was enough to keep the boys there. Barry Bennell had an ordinary house with a few games and animals and that was enough. The billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein had enough money to build whatever amusement park he wanted and he didn’t. He didn’t need it to have those girls in his house. Marc Collin Rector multi millionaire pedophile never build anything like Neverland. Saville, multi millionaire pedophile didn’t have a carousel in his backyard, didn’t need it to molest kids.

    The idea that Michael Jackson of all people who was the biggest star in the world with a magnetic personality to a point that kids were competing for his attention and followed him like ducks would need an amusement park, two trains, a train station, an Indian village, a zoo, a petting zoo, a movie theater, every imaginable cartoon and candy is the world to have kids like Chandler Robson Safechuck around, all of whom were his fans and approached him not the other way around and grabbed any and all opportunity to be with him is absurd on its face especially when one considers the fact that MJ spent most of his time with the Chandlers not in Neverland but in June Chandler’s totally ordinary home, in Monaco, in Las Vegas, in Disneyland in New York. Take away Neverland and does anyone believe the Chandlers wouldn’t have tried to contact MJ, wouldn’t have asked him to give a call to Jordan, wouldn’t have traveled with him to Monaco Las Vegas etc. wouldn’t have invited him to their homes?

    When Safechuck wrote that letter to MJ he didn’t even have Neverland and he didn’t have any amusement park before 1990! Before that he already hung out with Emmanuel Lewis, Corey Feldman, Jonathan Spence, Bob Good, Ryan Folsey Sean Lennon Mark Ronson and many other boys and girls. Are we supposed to believe that he thought in 1990 “I would be so much more successful to get victims if I had an amusement park in my backyard”??

    None of his accusers met him through his amusement park. They approached him simply because he was Michael Jackson! But his haters believe he wasted tens of millions to build a place which he absolutely wouldn’t have needed if he had been a p-le.

    2. Not only he wouldn’t have needed it it would have been a very very dumb thing for a pedophile to create such a place. Why? Because, and this is people always forget, the place was full of adults! Zookeepers, gardeners, maids, chefs, security, the ride operators, the house manager the ranch manager, firemen. Employees were roaming around all the time, some had keys to his room! Some of them were mandatory reporters like Brian Barron and active policeman who testified if he had seen anything illegal it would have been his legal duty to report it and he would have done just that. Moreover, Barron testified that it was him who kept a log of all the people who came and went on the ranch, including the kids!
    Now imagine this: Sandusky is hiring a police officer to stand there at his house and ask him to document the name of every boy that spends time in his house. Because obviously a pedophile would want to create such proof!
    It’s just ridiculous.
    Michael’s security chief between 2001 and 2005 was Mike LaPerruque who was a retired sergeant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and remained on reserve after a 22-year active career.

    “I was with him 24/7,” LaPerruque was able to tell me. “I had a key to his room at all times, and I was never told not to use it.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/03/12/jacko-security-guard-singer-is-innocent.html

    Why would a criminal hire someone from the LASD at all?
    Fact is every single employee in Neverland could have easily reported MJ to child services based on nothing but suspicion alone! Why would someone who has a lot to hide want so many people around him in a place where he wants to molest kids when he could have easily avoid that risk by having just an apartment like his condos were in LA and bringing kids there?

    3. Why would someone who could have easily found victims in countries where such things can be kept under the radar only target kids in America then bring them to a place where Tom Sneddon and his redneck sheriffs who hated him could easily investigate and prosecute him? Why would a BLACK criminal even chose to live in white-latino conservative Santa Barbara when he could have easily lived in places where he would have been less likely to be prosecuted or even investigated?

    4. Where was living MJ before Neverland? In Hayvenhurst. What was that place like?
    He already had animals, a candy room, a movie theater, a bunch of arcade games
    it was a smaller version of Neverland. It was also a place where his father mother LaToya Janet at times James Debarge Jermaine Randy and Margaret Maldonado also lived.
    So we are supposed to believe that MJ set up a boy trap under the nose of all those people?
    When he could have easily lived alone and invite boys to his home without risking getting caught by one of his relatives? Or are we supposed to believe that Kathrine Jackson and Janet Jackson tolerated child molestation and covered up for MJ?

    Now, no boy ever ever claimed he was molested in Hayvenhurst so I challenge anyone to explain what that place was all about if Neverland was a boytrap.

    5. It’s particularly hilarious when ex employees like Blanca Francia and Adrian McManus say on the one hand they had a key to Mj’s room and could walk in any time and at the same time say that they walked in just when MJ was in there with boys, in the bed and in the shower.
    Putting aside that both of them would have just overlooked such behavior and wouldn’t have reported it to anyone or even resign but how immensely stupid it would have been for MJ to allow them or anyone just walk in that room while he was in compromising situations with boys! Fact is if he had been a p-le Francia and McManus wouldn’t have had the opportunity to go in MJ’s room when he was in there with boys at all because MJ would have made sure when he was with boys no employee was around let alone one with a key that room!

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Asma permalink
    September 8, 2017 3:50 am

    Hello Helena(and all readers),

    It’s me again. I’m sitting here stirring on the post, the words and observations of Anna Salter and reading all the posts and as I’m reading all of these words and insights the main thing that hits me is the question of will this every go away and will he ever be finally be treated justly and fair in the court of public opinion. I keep operating on this wave of energy that somehow the truth *will* reveal itself and the job of his advocates such as myself is to keep on, continuously feeding. That it’s more important to think about sustaining it over and over and not think too much about will it. But reading Helen-Marie’s (very insightfully written) post, and remembering my conversation with Susanne not too long ago on her wonderful post regarding Michael being an early model for fake news, and how this is a very large feat due to all of the psychological image seeds that have been planted against him for years and years, I feel so helpless and tearfully angry. Ever since I was 15 or 16 and the first allegations hit I remember how intensely angry I was at the callous way these allegations were thrown at him and couldn’t help but marvel at the timing of it. His interview with Oprah Winfrey and the made for T.V. film was just a year and a half before and I remember really feeling for him and also experiencing other kids at school really for the first time identifying with him and putting themselves int heir shoes. This seemingly new understanding of Michael Jackson was emerging. Who was abused early in his youth and bullied in the public. I was really relieved and happy that this new understanding was spreading. Then boom. These stupid, *insert profanity word here* allegations hit. It was an intuitive gut reaction within myself that *knew* something was up, and they will never *let* up. I am experiencing a similar wave at this point while reading and re-reading.

    Also at this very moment, I have Michael. When I typed his name in only three minutes ago, I see it tells me that *this* artist has monthly listeners of 12,977,662. More than Prince and other artists who have recently passed and possibly more than even some artists who are currently popular. So why this dichotomy? Why so much fascination and gravitation towards him, and then this slap on the wrist reaction for *wanting* to listen to him and wanting to *like* him and believe that he actually *was* innocent and a person with a heart of gold who truly cared? How can a remote pop artist create so much visceral reactions in people who have never met or known him to the point of engaging in this figurative blood lust that the public so often does? He didn’t starve or murder people, he didn’t throw 6 million people into gas chambers and ovens, did not start wars. Then *why* this visceral hate for such an innocent man that rivals the hate for Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin? He wasn’t/isn’t even on the same wavelength! I can intellectually hear it and process it, but for the life of me I do not get it.

    I contemplate the term, that “we hate what we don’t understand” which has become such a cliched phrase, misused and displaced. In *his* case, it hits on all four levels. The term is used in pop-psych culture so often to market new acts or hype and manipulate people into accepting the flavor of the day. Yet in MJ’s case it is frighteningly authentic. Everything is marketed and manufacturing, including all this irrational hate for him. It’s necessary to starve the lies and feed the truth until blows up bigger than the goodyear blimp floating in the sky, unable to miss.

    I tried to hear the podcast but I just cannot. To me, the whole entire conversation is focusing on such a non issue just as filler for the airwaves it’s agitating. Like you said, whether Michael should have talked about beds or not, he *did* talk about it which itself cancels out all this speculation. He *wasn’t* he was accused of. Predators don’t open themselves wide open for scrutiny. They do not operate in the daylight, but in the shadows of the dark. What will it take for us to understand this fact? That is what predator means. That is what the natural essence of “predator” *is.* Rather than these journalists going on and on dissecting such non-issues, it is up to us advocates to elevate the conversation. Yes MJ was airy fairy with his head in the clouds in his understanding about what to talk about and what not. The topic of children and giving to the under served was an *emotional* topic for him not a logical one. Therefore, he was cognitively compromised in discussing these topics on a cold, logical, matter of fact level. He simply could not and that makes him someone with a heart of gold *prone* to predation, *not* the other way around. I hope and pray the truth continues to enlarge and engulf.

    Like

  10. Des permalink
    September 3, 2017 9:13 am

    Hi dear Helena,I’m so happy to hear from you again it’s been a while but I visit your blog everyday and I read all the time.With me it’s different now Michael has become a part of my every day life.You are so so right,with every opportunity I get I always leave a comment to everywhere I can about Michael. I still can’t believe how is it possible for anyone to believe that this man can harm a child or anyone else for that matter.Michael was the brightest star on the planet everyone new him almost every time you’ll see him you’ll see him with children and he was a very smart man and he knew how lots of people think why if he wanted to have children in his life for that reason why will he parade with them and draw more attention knowing that his committing a crime?were is the logic on this and bring them to his house too in America knowing that his been watched,it’s just stupid . I have listen every episode of the mjcast,I did leave a comment on the episode 58 I was upset with some of the comments but overall I like the show the boys interviewed some very interesting people,people who knew Michael very well and I feel these people they need to speak up and staid up for Michael more.Charles Thomson on the episode 62 he gave this speech about Michael unbelievable,really really good and on episode 64 Vincent Paterson he worked with Michael very closely my God he said some beautiful things about Michael,really everyone that they had on their shows they all had good things to say with the exception of the dis cation on the episode 58 between Ryan Michael’s and Charles Thomson mostly Ryan.I think as his children growing up they will continue fighting for their father and in my opinion I see his daughter fighting for the same things as her father but in a different way it’s like she’s saying my father was trying to make the world a better place with love and you tore him to pieces now here you want to talk I give you something to talk and if you don’t like me I couldn’t care less,she will never get over her loss,I lost my father when I was twelve and even after fifty years I’m still missing him,I do believe when you loose a parent at a young age you’ll never get over it,it’s hard enough for them loosing him ,having to put up with everything else it’s very hard and sad.Thank you again.

    Like

  11. September 1, 2017 2:32 pm

    “It was a poison that eventually took the life of a man loved the world over“ – Helen-Marie

    Yes, those allegations were a continuous torture and a poison that eventually took his life.

    In this connection I recall the movie “Michael Jackson: Searching for Neverland”. There is an episode there revealing how torturous the allegations were for Michael. It is a scene in the pool when Michael noticed a video camera and smashed it. He started crying and turned to one of the bodyguards choking with tears:

    – Why don’t they leave me alone? You know, I would never do anything to hurt a child. I’d slit my arm wrists, Bill, before I did anything to hurt a child. You know it, right?
    – Yes.
    – You believe me?
    – Of course, sir. Yes.

    I myself haven’t read the book written by those two Michael’s bodyguards, but Raven of Allforlove blog did and says that they were pretty accurate in following its text. So if Michael really talked to his bodyguards about it at that very moment, it is very telling.

    The crisis started with a video camera and his mortal fear that someone was watching him and his kids. And this is perfectly understandable – he had every reason to be afraid that something might happen to his children, that someone would take them away from him, kidnap or whatever, if they saw their faces and knew that they were his kids.

    But why did he say what he said? What does the camera have to do with the fact that he would never hurt a child and whether Bill believed him or not?

    It struck me because it shows that the pain of those allegations never let him go, and at that moment of crisis, when he broke down for a seemingly different reason, the pain that he was keeping to himself suddenly poured out.

    So he always thought about it. And he cared very much what people thought about him. He didn’t take the matter lightly as his haters would portray it – no, he took it very hard and the allegations were a perpetual wound for him. And he raised the subject himself asking the bodyguard whether he believed him or not. It mattered to him whether others considered him an honest person who was totally unable to do anything bad to a child, and it mattered to him very much.

    And this is a totally different reaction from the way all those “others” react. In the several videos I’ve seen the behavior of real predators was strikingly different. There was no emotion at all. Even if they faced irrefutable evidence, they gave a kind of a smile, they shrugged their shoulders with a blank look on their faces and they looked like they don’t even understand where the problem is. And they certainly didn’t shake their interviewers with tears in their eyes whether they believed them or not. No, everything was very cold and very matter-of-fact.

    And we may be absolutely sure that what they did to children never gave them a single moment of worry. This is because they think it to be normal and don’t even understand why others should be so anxious about it.

    Look at the way Sandusky and all those others speak about it and you will see what I mean.

    Like

  12. Asma permalink
    September 1, 2017 12:37 am

    One more thing Helena, I love how you said that these people’s drawing of so called “experts” is pseudo-science and only an “*imitation*” of the truth. Brilliantly stated.

    Like

  13. Asma permalink
    September 1, 2017 12:34 am

    Helena,

    You are absolutely (no pun intended) right. There *is* an *absolute* truth here. And that is, that MJ is innocent. Thank you for understanding my point regarding the detractors, though.

    I also love how you pointed out that the topic of sharing a bed is simply looking at the wrong picture, or looking at it completely upside down. This is actually something I myself have been thwarting for years everytime someone brings it up. “Well he sleeps in the same bed as kids,” and I would answer, “That is not what he said, but do you honestly think a real pedophile would even bring that up so the whole world can suspect?” The very nature of pedophilia thrives on secrecy. That is actually contributes to a big part of psychological damage.

    Like

  14. August 31, 2017 7:54 am

    Excellent post, Helena. The commentators on the podcast are like a lot of people who talk semi-knowledgably about Michael – they have some of the facts, but not all of them, as per the Cascio insight. Michael’s downfall was also his greatness, which was/is his ‘Otherness’. People fear what they cannot understand. If it hadn’t been kids, it would have been something else… only in Michael’s case there were plenty of ‘somethings else’ for people to pick on. Only you can’t be incarcerated for how much plastic surgery you do (or don’t) have, the fact that you have a 3 and a half octaves tenor voice, for the amount of make-up you wear to hide vitiligo, for HAVING vitiligo when few people knew anything about it. But you CAN be incarcertated for loving children in the way Jesus directed in the Bible, which was Michael’s measuring stick for his values, as we know. His ‘otherness’ gave him great renown and material success, and as a consequence, great power to effect change. People are REALLY scared about change, even for a better, happier, healthy world. Michael was just too different for them to accept. That, sadly has been the lot of genius since history has been recorded. Such people have been admired, appreciated, celebrated, then doubted, detracted, dispised and demonised. It goes way beyond the ‘tall poppy syndrome’ i.e. cutting someone down to size (so that we ourselves don’t feel diminished). Fear makes people kill… if not physcially, then, as happened to Michael, by character assassination. It is a measure of the man’s inner strength, his faith in his beliefs and his sense of purpose, that it didn’t destroy him long before 25 June 2009. I celebrate Michael’s life as a triumph, despite his mistakes, and (in my view) naievity in terms of the motivations of others, because he survived to continue creating his art against incredible odds. And when he closed his eyes for the last time, millions of people the world over mourned. That’s something his detractors can never take away from him – his continued popularity, which is now spreading to new, younger generations. Eventually, the truth (or total absence of evidence) will wear the haters down, or they’ll just die with no-one to relace them. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this… it’s a healing thing to do every once in a while. #allforlove #MJforever

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Rabz permalink
    August 30, 2017 5:45 pm

    I still don’t understand why people don’t get, that sometimes when you don’t have something, at a younger, you become obsessed with it later in life. For example, how some rappers are obsessed with money but grew up in poverty. Just as MJ had such a crappy/ non existent childhood, with a father who was impersonal, around the clock rehearsing, getting his arse beat for missing even one step, and signing contracts at 10 years old- it’s understandable that he would want to live a childhood through other children and want to do so much for the world, specifically children, to compensate for the things he did not have as a child.

    As for the bed sharing ‘thing’, my views are kind of based on my culture. I, personally, do not find it so strange that he shared a bed with kids, because in my home country it was very normal for me and my siblings to just wind up in our neighbour’s home watching tv and sleeping at their house and bed (obviously I would sleep with female family friends, not male ones). MJ might have found it normal too, because didn’t he share a bed with Bobby Taylor? And there is that recording with the Rabbi, where Mj kind of alludes to the point that he may have shared at least a room with his Jewish Lawyers as a kid.

    I agree completely on your analysis of MJ being too open about his respect and complete belief in children for him to actually be a paedophile. His job wasn’t one where he would naturally be surrounded by kids (Like Jimmy Saville’s and Jerry Sandusky’s jobs were) so the fact that he was seen with them a lot and spoke so openly about them throughout the ’80s and even before that, shows he was not trying to hide the fact that he liked to be around people who, he thought, to be kind and non-malicious/

    I think Michael’s thoughts and hopes for humanity were really wayyy too wistful, as there will always be people in this world who have no morals and know no right from wrong regardless of their childhoods.

    Like

  16. August 30, 2017 5:07 pm

    “All the *absolute* comparisons of MJ, by those who *absolutely know* and will do all they can drag his name through the mud using vivid details in the attempt to turn others against him too, is the perfect example of ignorance personified.” – Asma

    Right. Though I myself believe that absolute truth does exist, there is nothing “absolute” in pointing to some formal similarities between two totally different things and claiming that they are one.

    What’s so “absolute” in stating, for example, that Michael created Neverland for children to enjoy themselves in and that child abusers also turn their houses into some attraction points for their victims, and then claiming that one thing is equal to the other?

    So what? This is a completely formal similarity that brings us nowhere.

    People can have completely different motives for doing something similar, not to mention the different context for their actions – the goal of sex offenders is to drag children into their home, very often despite their wish, while Michael’s situation was the opposite – he himself had to shield himself from the outside world and readily welcomed in only those who needed his help and support.

    But when you listen to some so-called “experts” their opinions are based solely on such formal comparisons. It is pseudo-science, pseudo-research and an imitation of the truth only.

    Like

  17. August 30, 2017 3:59 pm

    Sanemjfan, thank you for introducing me to that discussion on the ‘MJcast’ show in the first place and for your comment:

    “It’s hilarious when people say “he shouldn’t have let Gavin sleep in his bed!”, as if that would have stopped him from being falsely accused. If he had told Gavin “No, you have to sleep in the guest units!”, and still had a subsequent fallout with the Arvizo family, he would have just lied and said that MJ entered their guest units in the middle of the night and molested him.”

    This observation is indeed hilarious, though it points to Michael’s truly tragic situation – no matter what he did or said, they would have accused him anyway as people always found him the one to blame.

    How and why it happened is a knot we need to untangle.

    It seems that regardless of what the media and critics say Michael’s tragic situation is not his fault, but ours. He was simply different. Very different. So different that very few people could relate to him. For the majority he was a big mystery, beginning with a contrast between his glamorous stage performances and shyness in private life. One thing didn’t go with the other, and the result was baffling to those who couldn’t even imagine that someone so shy could be so phenomenally successful too. These people called it “hypocrisy”, “pretense” and whatnot.

    So everyone tried to fit him into the pattern he or she thought best, partially projecting on him their own demons, values and perceptions of life.

    This is why Michael looks so different in the stories told by different people – by sharing their impression of Michael people unwittingly speak more of themselves than of him.

    So from this point of view Michael was a sort of a social mirror. He just tried to be himself, his different self, in fact the only self he could actually be, while everyone tried to mold him into someone near and dear to them most.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. August 30, 2017 12:44 pm

    Sorry, there was some technical problem with posting.

    Like

  19. August 30, 2017 12:37 pm

    Thank you so much, Helena and the posters too.I especially paid attention to susannerb
    noting that children were a great inspiration to Michael. I know from decades of experience
    that children and young adolescents have a creative imagination that seems to fade in
    adulthood.It makes sense that Michael wanted to be in touch with this and he himself
    wanted to cherish his own creativity this way.It is possible that he himself had not lost touch
    with his own young creative mind.And in this, he was indeed different from most adults.
    It is sad that detractors absolutely refuse to consider anything but their own disbelief and
    hang on to it for years.Why, if they don´t like him just forget about it.Thre are many important matters to be concerned about in the world.

    Like

  20. August 30, 2017 11:59 am

    Thank you, Helena and the posters too. Especially susannerb ie that Michael found
    inspiration from children .It is a fact that children and to some extent young adolescents
    have a special gift of creative imagination.I know that myself from decades of experience.
    At times I read my own old reports and can recall the child him/her self.A good example of this is the sc suicide picture that was nothing of the sort.
    Unfortunately, detractors refuse to consider anything but what they believe.It is strange that they hang on to this belief and are active on it for years.This is something learned psychologists should consider.It makes you sad that they obviously cannot enjoy the great
    music that Michael gave the world.Not to mention his many other gifts to humanity.
    .

    Like

  21. August 30, 2017 9:19 am

    Helena, a great post with very valuable points.
    These days we can see very well that many people just hate what they don’t unterstand – and don’t even try to understand!
    But I’m sure Michael would feel very understood by you.

    It’s true Michael made changes in his relationship with children after the 1993 case. But he couldn’t disconnect himself completely from children as some may have expected, because children were a source of inspiration for him; it would have made him too sad and even less productive.
    And the whole concept of Neverland was based on the nature of childhood, it was created to delight children and be a source of joy for them. It was created to receive masses of children, especially underprivileged children, because Michael always wanted to give.
    So it didn’t make sense for him to cut himself off completely of this inspirational source – and why should he? He had done nothing wrong!
    So under these conditions with accusers like these and persistent haters, it’s like Helen-Marie said: He couldn’t win.

    If anything can be changed for the future perception of him, it’s up to us now to provide our detailed research to the public and hope it will have some effect.

    Like

  22. Helen-Marie permalink
    August 30, 2017 5:38 am

    Some very good points raised here Helena.
    We have to remember that Michael’s life from such a young age was directed by others. He was a rare and beautiful soul, not tainted by the evil influences of the real world and when you come from a place of such innocence sharing your everything with others is a simple act.

    I completely get where he was coming from and when the first allegation hit it must of been an enormous blow to everything he believed in and yes, you would have thought he would have made it impossible for anyone to accuse him a second time. In fact, he did make changes to the way he behaved around children, which from what you are saying is exactly how predators of children behave! He just couldn’t win.

    I don’t know if the truth will ever be enough to convince those who have tarnished minds and who continue to spread the lies. Even when the likes of D.Diamond have left this earth there will be a following of haters she has infected to take up the reins.

    It was a poison that eventually took the life of a man loved the world over and unfortunately the fact that this lie was thrown at him in the first place means that it will never be erased.
    The only way that can be done is for the accusers to man up and tell the world the truth, I believe only then will this madness will stop.

    Like

  23. Asma permalink
    August 30, 2017 5:02 am

    Welcome back Helena, and brilliant post. I returned to school myself in order to study psychology, and your reference to Anne Salter breaks the mold in defining the difference between ignorance and enlightened skepticism. All the *absolute* comparisons of MJ, by those who *absolutely know* and will do all they can drag his name through the mud using vivid details in the attempt to turn others against him too, is the perfect example of ignorance personified. Whereas this qualified person who has done this for over 30 years can only say with absolute certainty that the only thing we know, is that we don’t know. In fact, that is the one thing all experts (true experts, not the arm chair kinds) have in common that the only thing that is certain in life is that we do not know as well as we think we do.

    Alas I would like to say more but it is past 3 am and I have an early class. I will contemplate this longer and once again, good to see you back.

    Like

  24. sanemjfan permalink
    August 29, 2017 11:11 pm

    This was a great post, Helena, and it coincides with what you have said many times over the years: MJ was so open about sharing his bed with others (kids AND adults) because nothing inappropriate every happened.

    It’s hilarious when people say “he shouldn’t have let Gavin sleep in his bed!”, as if that would have stopped him from being falsely accused. If he had told Gavin “No, you have to sleep in the guest units!”, and still had a subsequent fallout with the Arvizo family, he would have just lied and said that MJ entered their guest units in the middle of the night and molested him.

    Another thing to consider is this: people love to say “Well, MJ should have learned his lesson after 1993 and stopped helping kids!” But anyone who is even slightly knowledgeable about MJ would know that this was completely against his nature to not help those less fortunate. Plus, the two kids who falsely accused him in 1993 & 1994 were the sons of a former friend who wanted a film production deal, and a former employee who sold lies to tabloids. Neither Jordan Chandler nor Jason Francia were sick, cancer-ridden children on the verge of death! So why would MJ not help Gavin, especially since Gavin was brought to MJ’s attention by Carol Lemere and Vernee Watson, two people that he knew and trusted??!!!

    Unfortunately, this is still the main topic that MJ’s doubters and detractors use to justify their disdain and suspicion for him. But, to this day, I have never ever heard someone say “I think MJ is guilty because I’ve read the cross-examination of his accusers, and I believe them!”

    And I never will.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Michael Jacksons Unterschied | all4michael

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: