Skip to content

About the blog

 

“Father, Forgive Them; They Don’t Know What They Are Doing…”

The musical piece provided here is by Johann Sebastian Bach and is called “Air”. It is accompanied by a picture of  Moses who is desperate with his people who started praying to a Golden Calf while he was away carrying God’s commandments to them. The picture and music are dedicated to all those who also pray to the Golden Calf and are ready to lie about an innocent human being like Michael Jackson for money, fame, career or other reasons. 

Jean-Honore Fragonard 1752. Jeroboam-offering-sacrifice-for-the-idol

[the original video had to be replaced as  it disappeared from Youtube, but you get the idea]

November 21, 2009

It is a complete shame I hadn’t been among Michael Jackson’s supporters before he died. When all those awful allegations against him reached my part of the world in mid-90s I couldn’t withstand the general wave of mistrust towards Michael and half-believed the horrible rumors about him saying to myself that “there couldn’t be smoke without fire” and “if so many people think that way they can’t be all wrong about it”.

However the thought of a nice guy like that being probably involved in such a terrible crime was so uneasy and disquieting that I preferred to thrust it into the very back of my mind and forget about the whole thing until after he died.

The news of Michael’s death brought a sudden feeling of sadness and a renewed interest in his personality while the strange circumstances of his tragic demise made me read and watch whatever there was to read and watch about him at the time. The result of this little research was quite unexpected – the more Michael’s videos I saw and the more of his speeches and interviews I read, the surer was a terrible guess creeping into my mind – he was completely innocent…. to an extent we can’t even imagine…. how could we be that wrong …. what a shame on all our heads…. it’s almost like some 2000 years ago with that old story repeating itself……nothing changed, nothing learned…. is there a way to make up for it?

The feeling of guilt, remorse and a terrible harm which cannot be undone has gripped me every since and is unbearable to live with. So now you know the reason for this blog – these posts are just a humble attempt to repent and make up for all the injustice I personally did to Michael Jackson by half-believing those nonstop lies about him told by the bloodthirsty, money-craving, small-minded and completely delirious media about the man whom they did not take the trouble to really know and whose little finger they are not worthy of.

Besides the attempt to dissect lies about Michael and clear his name of all the dirt thrown at him in such a ruthless and shameless way this blog is also a kind of Michael’s memorabilia with all sorts of facts, evidences, testimonies, observations and opinions about him collected from various sources and provided by different people many of whom have come to appreciate this pure and innocent guy only after his untimely death.

The man we learned to admire and miss so late in our lives.

Vindicatemj (Helena),  

Russia (though these days I am embarrassed to admit it)

P.S.

Besides my posts you will find here contributions from several other authors who come from various countries and wrote here at different periods of time:                          

  • Deborah Ffrench (UK)
  • Lacienegasmiles   (US)       
  • Lisa (US)
  • Lynande51  (US)                                                                    
  • Markoftheancients, MOA  (Sweden)               
  • Mona  (Romania)    
  • Sanemjfan   (US)    
  • Sara101mj  (US)     
  • Susannerb   (Germany)          
  • Thetis7  (Greece)       

March 14, 2014 update

A short announcement:

Susannerb (Germany) is now my co-administrator of this blog. She is very much welcome to write for it, but my main request to her is to serve as a sort of a custodian of the blog just in case I am unable to write here any more.

I am sure that she is very much capable of running the blog following the principles of justice, search for the truth and selflessness which have been guiding us all along.

 

 

1,080 Comments leave one →
  1. lynande51 permalink
    January 8, 2013 3:10 am

    Yes Helena I just went to Lacieingasmiles and I read through the entire 56 comments and it would seem that there were no comments under the Glenda Tapes 2-5 from June of 2011 until Jan 3 2013. The first new one was from someone that had the screen name of Veronique. That was the one that pretended to ask a question about Bob Jones and the word splaboos. Then shortly after that Angie started asking questions as well about the same thing.
    When Desiree was originally blocked from posting here she used the name Veronique. Is this a coincidence? I don’t think so. I still have to screen shots from when she used to harass us and if you can still go back to the beginning of the comments it doesn’t take long to find her and the mulitple names she used to post here.Then it was obviously her in 2011 that was haraassing rockforeveron about Grace calling Grace a mammy and quoting Bob Jones. That is where it look like rockforeveron says that MJ called Jack Gordon the word splaboos. When Rockforeveron replied she forgot to put that comment in quotes. It originally came from Desiree.
    Gald I could clear that one up for everyone.

    Like

  2. January 8, 2013 2:46 am

    Actually the most sensitive point I’ve touched by now is Kinsey and his criminal investigations done with the help of pedophiles. Once I started telling my readers about this pervert who affected every aspect of today’s society a shower of meaningless but spiteful comments poured onto this blog, sometimes even accusing me of things I am actually fighting tooth and nail. What’s more interesting – the blog started malfunctioning which presupposes that someone has probably hacked it.

    Well, I am not surprised. Dr. Judith Reisman, who is a researcher working for the Department of Justice in the US was hounded in so outrageous a manner when she looked into Kinsey that every possible method of slander and harassment was used against her, short of physical attack. All the rest of it was there. Now they are using the same methods for me as I ventured to mention Dr. Judith Reisman’s studies.

    Now that I know what the main reason for the attacks is I will surely write about Kinsey. I was hesitant, as it is not the main goal of this blog. On the other hand protecting children from the legacy of pathologic personalities like Kinsey is something Michael would very much want and even expect us to do. What would be the good of all this work to vindicate Michael if Kinsey’s followers go on corrupting children whose innocence Michael sacrificed his life for?

    Among other things I am talking about the practices which are being promoted in schools to children of very small ages. Adults experts explain to them what condoms are, how and what for they are used. These shots were taken from the documentary The Kinsey Syndrome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=D81T4fe8qME&NR=1

    Could Michael do anything like that???

    Would Michael ever show anything like that to his children?

    And what would they have done to him if he had taught these things to Gavin Arvizo or other boys he knew?

    By the way the children are utterly unhappy and disturbed by all this talk!

    What do they need it for???

    Like

  3. January 8, 2013 2:31 am

    “‘Truth Prevail’ Hi I hope you understand where I’m coming from when I say I can’t see your reply. This site is unorganized. I see your reply in my email, but when I try to reply back, it just takes me to this site, but not directly to your reply to make like Youtube does.” – Angie

    This site seems to have been hacked or meddled with in some way. At least I cannot enter it in the usual way but have to apply some roundabout ways. My suspicion is that you and the other activist Mia writing crazy stories about me are here not by a mere chance. As usual in all such cases it means that I have struck on something sensitive to these people.

    Like

  4. Truth Prevail permalink
    January 8, 2013 2:26 am

    @Angie

    Continued:

    The N word has become part of music, kids are taught in school that it is a bad word but what are they supposed to think when they listen to a song then hear there favorite rap artist repeatedly saying the N word in a song.

    I am not a rap music hater i have listened to Rap music since i started listening to music and still listen to it to this day.

    Just because if someone calls each other a name relating to their race does not mean they hate their own kind.

    Actions speak louder than words

    Michael’s actions around blacks speaks volumes.

    Like

  5. Truth Prevail permalink
    January 8, 2013 2:17 am

    @Angie

    “‘Truth Prevail’ Hi I hope you understand where I’m coming from when I say I can’t see your reply. This site is unorganized. I see your reply in my email, but when I try to reply back, it just takes me to this site, but not directly to your reply to make like Youtube does. When someone replies to you, you’re suppose to reply back and see the name of the perspn you’re replying to. In order for you to get this comment I’m doing right now, I have to type in your name in my comment so you can know the comment is replied to you. This site is unorganized when it comes to replying back to someone. Why can’t we reply directly to the person who replied to us? I guess this is how this site works.”

    Some WordPress blogs have an instant reply button but this blog does not i’m guessing it’s due to the settings so you can talk to Helena about that.

    “Anyways, about what you said regarding MJ having a black, doc, cook, nanny, etc. I understand that, but that still doesn’t take away the fact that MJ though blacks were “Splaboos” in which he used the word a lot around Mac Culkin. That’s not good at all, And I think it’s very sad.”

    I must ask why are you sad? if you really are you must be sad over the smallest things.
    I don’t care if Michael said the word or not but the only person who said he said it was a proven liar so i don’t believe him and please do tell me who were the other people who said Michael said the word, like i said it is nothing to be sad over now what is sad is the fact the

    Like

  6. lynande51 permalink
    January 8, 2013 1:44 am

    @ Angie Thank you for that fascinating link. The thing is that you have taken a reply out of context and twisted it to mean something else. Do you know who you remind me of? I know who that was that rockforeveron was exchanging words with do you? The remark that you attribute to rockforeveron was in fact in quotations so she was repeating what was written by someone else.

    Like

  7. aldebaranredstar permalink
    January 7, 2013 11:24 pm

    To me, it is completely irrelevant whether Michael called anyone Splabooks or Splaboos. If he did, so what? Michael was not a racist and he did not look down on Black people. Hello?? I hope that’s clear from everything he said and did in his whole life, instead of trying to judge him on the basis of ONE word that he may or may not have used. This is what I call making a mountain out a molehill par excellence. And this is what happened to him way too much. Was there a splotch on his penis? Did he say Splaboos? Did he call wine Jesus Juice? Did he drink wine out of soda cans? and on and on. All these minor details poured over with a microscope. It makes me sick, to be honest, that one person should have to put up with this scrutiny into every single word and then all kinds of ‘analysts’ have to put in their 2 cents. This reminds me of when JonBenet Ramsey’s mother said “I loved that child,” and the talking heads decided she was a MURDERER who killed her own daughter b/c she said ‘that child.” I mean, come on!!

    (Helena, I sent you a couple of new emails last night, just so you know. )

    Like

  8. January 7, 2013 4:18 pm

    My comment below also for Mia,Jan 7:th2013 ,On MJ´s life and death.

    Like

  9. January 7, 2013 3:58 pm

    I feel a bit lost too, but for different reasons. I left for a trip on Dec,19 2012, the day of the Newtown shooting and retuned in January,almost a 3 week hiatus. Much has happened and the conversation has taken different paths since. My comments seem now “old” to present issues.
    Angie, Helena is not what you claim, she did a report on the Pennsylvania Univ. report 2001
    which was in fact shocking.There was much that I have not known before.She even included an interview with one of the Kinsey victims. There must still be more of them around.To me it seems that since the Sullivan book there has been an information overload, probably just because I have not been folloving the blog.

    Like

  10. January 7, 2013 3:44 pm

    I have never said he called Jack Gordon a splaboo, please stop using me as the basis of any of your arguments if you lack fundamental reading skills. No where in my post was the word “splaboo.” You seem intent to just keep pretending he must’ve said it to someone and have invented a myriad bunch of reasons to justify why he did it and who he did it too, all with absolutely no evidence besides Bob Jones, so why bother asking anyone? Just believe he did and go on with it.

    Like

  11. Angie permalink
    January 7, 2013 1:33 pm

    ‘ lynande51’ Did you not get this message?

    Vindicatemj (Helena):

    Our comments section is quickly turning into a forum where a lot of valuable things eventually get lost due to the impossibility to find them. I’ve decided to overturn this tendency and start posting the most interesting comments as separate pieces. These will be mere improvisations as you understand as there is no time to […]

    Maybe you should think twice before you go judging people, thank you very much. Good thing I found this message, ha.

    Like

  12. Angie permalink
    January 7, 2013 1:05 pm

    Everyone look at all the cooments on this website: http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/glenda-transcript-2-5/#comment-7698

    You will clearly see that ‘rockforeveron’ wrote on March 3, 2011 at 6:35 am that MJ called Jack Gordon a “Slpaboo” but yet still denies it, here’s her comment:

    What I think is funny is that he uses that word for Jack Gordon – a white guy.

    And are you serious about Bob Jones not being a liar? Do you not know what he did to Michael in 2005 when this book was being written and published? What he said was so bad that he and his co-author were put on the stand where they admitted to lying:

    Cross-examination of BOB JONES (April 11 2005)

    25 Q. And then you were asked, “Um, did you see
    26 Mr. Jackson engage in any head licking of anybody?”
    27 And your answer was, “Never.” Remember that?
    28 A. I recall.

    …….

    3 Q. And you told the prosecutor you had written
    4 the words at the bottom of the page that refer to
    5 licking, right?
    6 A. Uh-huh.
    7 Q. And is it your testimony that you have not
    8 approved the accuracy of that statement?
    9 A. That is correct.

    ……….

    4 Q. And would you agree when you’re working with
    5 a co-writer and a publisher to prepare a book about
    6 Michael Jackson, there’s pressure to make things
    7 sensational when you can, right?
    8 A. Yes.
    9 Q. And your publisher and others want a book
    10 that can sell, correct?
    11 A. My co-writer [STACEY BROWN]. The publisher wasn’t involved
    12 in that particular end of it.

    …………

    13 Q. Okay. And do you then typically correct or
    14 change what you think is either inaccurate or
    15 inappropriate?
    16 A. Oh, I’ve changed millions of things that
    17 were inaccurate that I didn’t say

    ………..

    5595
    8 RECROSS-EXAMINATION [of STACY BROWN]
    9 BY MR. MESEREAU:
    10 Q. Mr. Brown, what I think the prosecutor just
    11 elicited is the following: When he[BOB JONES] was broke, he
    12 said there was licking. And when he didn’t have
    13 financial problems, he said there wasn’t any, right?
    14 A. Well, if that’s how you –
    15 Q. Right?
    16 A. — break it down, yeah, I guess.
    17 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
    18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: No further questions.

    He also alleged that Michael was gay, that Michael and Lisa were involved in a sham marriage (pfft, show me the receipts), that MJ was obsessed with little boys (pfft), and he and his co-writer were responsible for circulating malicious lies about MJ on the internet during the close of the jury proceedings.

    I’m actually writing up a piece about Stacy Brown now, that guy is a piece of work. Both of them were, actually. Even someone who knew Jordan Chandler and was actually on the Mesereau witness list against Jordie has spoken out against what scuzzbuckets Stacy/Bob were.

    And I’m not too sure about the company of blacks things – you know, considering at the time Bob Jones was working for him for almost 30 years and was black, his PR agent Raymone was black, his security guards were the NOI, his children’s nanny was African, and now we find out his chef was black, his doctor was black, in the last few years he’d spent time hanging out with Chris Tucker, WilIAm, Akon, DJ Whoo Kidd, Lionel Richie… etc. For someone who wants to diassociate with black people and finds them so awful he sure went out of his way to keep them close to him his entire life.

    But hey, if you find Bob Jones credible, then best of luck to you.
    byrockforeveron March 3, 2011 at 6:35 am

    Like

  13. Angie permalink
    January 7, 2013 12:54 pm

    ‘Truth Prevail’ Hi I hope you understand where I’m coming from when I say I can’t see your reply. This site is unorganized. I see your reply in my email, but when I try to reply back, it just takes me to this site, but not directly to your reply to make like Youtube does. When someone replies to you, you’re suppose to reply back and see the name of the perspn you’re replying to. In order for you to get this comment I’m doing right now, I have to type in your name in my comment so you can know the comment is replied to you. This site is unorganized when it comes to replying back to someone. Why can’t we reply directly to the person who replied to us? I guess this is how this site works.

    Anyways, about what you said regarding MJ having a black, doc, cook, nanny, etc. I understand that, but that still doesn’t take away the fact that MJ though blacks were “Splaboos” in which he used the word a lot around Mac Culkin. That’s not good at all, And I think it’s very sad. The only way I’ll beleiev Mj didn’t call blacks “Splaboos is if someone ask Mac Culkin, or one of his family memebers to se if it’s true. Because I just get this feeling that MJ did call blacks “Slpaboos” because he’s know for nicknames like “Rubba”, “Applehead”, etc. MJ even talked about in his ‘Private Home Movies’ that people call him many nicknames, and some was so bad that he couldn’t even say them on camera. Mjsaid this during the footage of the Easter egg hunt in his ‘Private Home Movies’. So I just know MJ used that word “Splaboos” for blacks because he is known for nicknames, whether him using the nickname or someone calling him a nickname. MJ was just surround by nicknames. Nicknames were a part of hiis life. Unless Mac Culkin or a Jackson family member explains whether MJ used the word “Splaboos”, I’m going to believe MJ used the word “Splaboos”. Because how could Bob just come up with a name like that? Also it’s been said by others that MJ called blacks “Spabooks”, so it’s got to be true unless Mac Culkin or a Jackson family member so different.

    Like

  14. Angie permalink
    January 7, 2013 12:32 pm

    lynande51 Wow, everyone seems sort of rude, strange, and denying here, it’s crazy. One member denied she said MJ called Jack Gordon a “Splaboo’ when it’s clearly seen on her comments. Other members said I said MJ called Prince “Duck Butter” when it clearly says in my comments MJ called Prince “Applehead”, not “Duck Butter”. And now your saying: “how can not reply to comments because you can’t see them but you know that they were made? That just doesn’t make sense I’m afraid”.

    Have you not read “Helena;s” comment where she said it’s hard to find the comment’s on this site.

    By the way, I recieve comments through email, that’s how I know the comments are made, duh. But when I try to reply back to the person who responded to me that I received through email, the website comes up and you have to search for the person who responded to you, and sometimes you don’t find it. When I respond back like I’m doing now, I don’t see your name, I’m leaving a comment where it says l’eave a reply’. This is not like Youtube where a person replies and you see their username and you reply back. On this site you have to search for the person who replied, it’s crazy and needs to be more organized. So before you judge me, try asking why first before coming to a conclusion, it just shows what type of person you are. I’m not here to argue, so please try to treat others like you want to be treated. If you don’t want to reply to my questions then don’t, but don’t bring everyone else in on how you feel, especially when you’re the one who’s wrong and only judging.

    Like

  15. Truth Prevail permalink
    January 7, 2013 4:14 am

    @Angie

    Michael being around black’s like most of the people in his inner circle were black, his nanny, cook, doctor, people he worked with in the studio majority of whom were black all give me the impression he liked black’s.

    I for one would not hire someone to work closely with me if i could not stand them.

    Like

  16. lynande51 permalink
    January 7, 2013 4:02 am

    Angie how can not reply to comments because you can’t see them but you know that they were made? That just doesn’t make sense I’m afraid. So maybe the best answer is for the rest of us not to reply to yours since you can’t see what we are saying anyway.

    Like

  17. Angie permalink
    January 7, 2013 3:52 am

    ‘Helena’, you said: “But when a black person criticizes another black person it is immediately labeled as ‘betraying one’s race’.

    That’s not true. Blacks call each other ni*gas all the time, even people who are not black use that word for themselves. But of course I do not, I wasn’t raised that way, thank goodness. But MJ calling blacks ‘splaboo’s, considering he had white skin, white wives, white children, etc., it gives the impression that he disliked blacks. Now do you see my point?

    Like

  18. January 7, 2013 3:44 am

    Michael never used the word “Duck butter.”

    Michael has also never been heard using the word “splaboo.”

    Like

  19. Angie permalink
    January 7, 2013 3:42 am

    Helena, you couldn’t have read my comment correctly. I never said MJ called Prince ‘Duck Butter’, I said MJ called Prince ‘Applehead’. Here’s my previous comment:

    Yes, Helena. But isn’t calling yourself a honkey and MJ calling himself and his friends “Splaboos” is thinking little of yourselves? I don’t believe everything Bob Jones had to say, but it just seems for some reason the “Splaboo” story seems true because MJ is known for nicknames like “Rubba”, “Applehead” in whom he called his son Prince, “Duck Butter”, etc.

    And do you know exactly what “Splaboos” mean? Could it mean “black people” or could it mean only “ni—rs”?

    In fact as corny as it sounds, lol. I didn’t even know what ‘duck butter’ ment until you gave me the definition. Wow, what an awful word.

    By the way, I can never reply to your comments because it’s no where to be found.

    Like

  20. Truth Prevail permalink
    January 7, 2013 3:03 am

    Great news to read about the monument and definitely a middle finger to all those who said MJ and his passing would be irrelevant in the coming years, but that can’t be further from the truth Michael’s legacy is truly growing day by day. 🙂

    Like

  21. January 6, 2013 8:06 pm

    I don’t think it is either but I was speaking on the people that would make it one. We were discussing the small differences and how blacks and whites happen to refer to one another. I was saying that the small differences we do have is because of culture and history. I think in the process of commenting twice something got misplaced but I wanted to say that it was racism in itself for anyone to claim Michael wanted to be white – not all blacks are dark with big noses.

    Like

  22. January 6, 2013 1:28 pm

    “I think the only thing that makes us different is our history and our cultures.There is no such thing as different races or colors there is only the human race” – Tatum

    I think the color is not a decisive factor. For example, I feel perfectly at one with Michael’s mother, but Michael’s father is a complete alien to me, though both of them are one color. The point is not in the color, the point is in personal characteristics – human values, behavior, integrity, the ability to understand another person, intellect, things of that type.

    Like

  23. January 6, 2013 11:00 am

    “Rednecks are just nasty. Hillbilly to the extreme. Belching, farting and picking physical fights is how they live. Their yard is full of junk cars that don’t run and broken washing machines a hundred years old. Redneck jokes are my favorite jokes.” – Linda

    I’ve found some which are funny – “You might be a red-neck if you mow your lawn and find a car; if you’ve ever shot anyone for looking at you; if your favorite T-shirt is offensive in thirteen states; if your grandmother has ever been asked to leave a bingo game because of her language”.

    Well, it looks that that there is a very big difference between red-necks and hillbillies. And the matter is not in the unkept yards of red-necks, it is mostly their vulgar ways and nastiness of character that they get this nickname for. They know little or nothing at all but are perfectly pleased with themselves. Aggressive ignorance and total lack of reflection or self-criticism. Humans who are guided mostly by animal instinct and whose main driving force is hate, brutality, primitivism and nasty mockery.

    I think both hillbillies and red-necks are found in every nation and even in every race. These are not national or racial characteristics – these are personality types and social phenomena. If the color point is taken away Joseph Jackson or Stacey Brown will be someone like black “red-necks” while Colin Powell and Ed Bradley will absolutely not. To me “red-necks” and “nig–s” are one and the same thing, only of a different color.

    These people are very much alike in each race and nation, all they need is hate for a common enemy to join their forces.

    Like

  24. January 6, 2013 9:57 am

    “If you ever watched Andy Griffith or Gomer Pyle, Gomer was a perfect example of a hillbilly.”

    Linda, I looked up Andy Griffith and ended up watching the whole 25 min. episode. It was about him teaching his son how to deal with bullies. And also a little bit of Gomer Pyle in the army – it was hilarious though I didn’t understand a word of what he said. A simpleton, naïve and not spoiled by civilization. Someone from the province who lacks gloss and sophistication but a good and kind person. I definitely like hillbillies.

    They remind me of the main character of the Blast from the Past movie, called Adam (Brendan Frazer) – the movie is one of my favorites. The boy was born in an underground shelter because his father thought there was a nuclear war outside and let him go out only when he was 35 years old. He gets out into the world as a naïve young man who takes everything at face value. His behavior is so ‘wacky’ that when he says things like “Oh my lucky stars! A Negro! “ jaws drop and his street-smart new friend Eve (Alicia Silverstone) has to explain “He is from Alaska, you know” which is when people nod in understanding.

    Wiki says about it: “Much of the humor in the film is derived from his being unaccustomed to the lifestyle of the present such as believing “shit” is a French compliment, “gay” means happy, and finding awe in simple things of the present.”

    A quote from the movie (Eve speaks to her gay friend Troy):

    Eve: Now hold on, hold on just a minute! In the first place I do not fall in love with weirdos who I’ve only known for four or five days!
    Troy: Yes you do.
    Eve: And I don’t fall in love with grown men who collect baseball cards!
    Troy: Yes you do.
    Eve: Or pee in their pants when they see the ocean!
    Troy: Yes you do.
    Eve: Or have perfect table manners!
    Troy: You know, I asked him about that. He said, good manners are just a way of showing other people we have respect for them. See, I didn’t know that, I thought it was just a way of acting all superior. Oh and you know what else he told me?
    Eve: What?
    Troy: He thinks I’m a gentleman and you’re a lady.
    Eve: [disgusted] Well, consider the source! I don’t even know what a lady is.
    Troy: I know, I mean I thought a “gentleman” was somebody that owned horses. But it turns out, his short and simple definition of a lady or a gentleman is, someone who always tries to make sure the people around him or her are as comfortable as possible.
    Eve: Where do you think he got all that information?
    Troy: From the oddest place – his parents. I mean, I don’t think I got that memo from mine.

    Doesn’t it remind you of Michael Jackson?

    And how about this quote?

    Adam: Say, mom?
    Helen: Yes, dear?
    Adam: I was wondering, you know, while I was up there and all, I was thinking, well you know, I was wondering if maybe I could meet a girl? I’ve been thinking about that a little. Just these last fifteen years or so.

    Like

  25. Linda permalink
    January 5, 2013 9:43 am

    @vindicatemj

    So what’s the difference? And are both of them derogative?

    Sorry, I sometimes forget that I’m talking to people of different cultures on here, but I’m really impressed that you actually researched that to understand me, and you pretty much got it. Hillbillies are sort of backward people that don’t seem to smart but not always true. Often use bad grammar, like “I ain’t got no”. If you ever watched Andy Griffith or Gomer Pyle, Gomer was a perfect example of a hillbilly.

    Rednecks are just nasty. Hillbilly to the extreme. Belching, farting and picking physical fights is how they live. Their yard is full of junk cars that don’t run and broken washing machines a hundred years old. Their yard is their dump, and with so much junk around there’s no reason to mow it, lol. Redneck jokes are my favorite jokes. They’re actually quite amusing as long as you don’t offend them.

    Honky is a word that used to be used for white people by Mexican’s and blacks. White people referred to Mexicans as spics and black people were ni–ers. All were derogatory and racist. When I was growing up in Michigan, Northern USA any southerner was called a hillbilly. I lived my first 7 years in the south so we were made fun of in school because southerners have a different accent than northerners. So we stood out and had to fight our way through school, and always felt like outcasts.

    Sad to say, when we first moved here blacks were not welcome in this town, so there were no black families here, and only a few Mexicans who were treated as bad as us southerners. I always had a habit of hanging out with the rejected so the Mexicans were my friends and some fought for me because I wasn’t much of a fighter back then. I was scared and kids can be so cruel to anybody that is different. It’s called bullying and it’s horrifying. It made me so miserable that I dropped out of school when I turned 16. I don’t blame the kids as much as I do their parents. Kids are often taught by their parents to hate or make fun of people that are different whether it is race or a handicap.

    Kids who hear hate and bullying at home are going to do the same. Kids who hear love and acceptance at home are going to love and accept others even though they are different.

    Like

  26. January 4, 2013 10:19 pm

    I am black and have no idea what a slaboo is, never heard of that word, and can only find it in connection with Bob Jones book. My take on it: it never happened or could‘ve been said in an innocent conversation with someone else that was black and is just being used to encourage the idea that Michael was racist. Despite created a case scenario I don’t believe it was true period.

    Blacks insulting each other does come into high scrutiny Helena, you are right.Even within this realm a different caricature was painted for Michael. It’s sad that some black journalist bought into this too but the n word is promoted in music and everday conversation to a large degree. Jay Z can use it constantly along with other rappers or singers but if Michael used it in his music – it would’ve been war.

    I think the only thing that makes us different is our history and our cultures. While traveling for the past months, I’ve seen so many types of people. I’ve seen dark skinned whites and fair skinned blacks with blonde hair, Africans who looked Asian, Asians who looked African, etc. There is no such thing as different races or colors there is only the human race.

    Like

  27. January 4, 2013 7:31 pm

    “isn’t calling yourself a honkey and MJ calling himself and his friends “Splaboos” is thinking little of yourselves?”

    Thinking little of oneselves is not bad – it is good as every person needs healthy self-criticism to improve himself. The way I understand it when a white person calls himself “honkey” and a black person calls him “splaboo” it means that they understand that they behave like the worst kind in his own race and are disappointed with themselves.

    And there are the worst (and the best) in both races.

    From all this talk around Michael possibly using this word for some black people around him (though we have no proof that he ever did) I realize that the most problems arise when blacks criticize other blacks. A white can criticize another white. A white cannot criticize a black person (racism) or a black cannot criticize a white person (racism). But when a black person criticizes another black person it is immediately labeled as ‘betraying one’s race’.

    But this is a very dangerous path! If everything another black does is automatically good it places above criticism even those who fully deserve it. In the long run it goes against the interests of blacks themselves as it does not allow them to self-reflect and ultimately to evolve.

    Every race and every nation has the worst and the best within them. If I glorified our criminals for the sole reason that they are Russians it would be exactly the same as blacks stroking the hair of their worst just because they are black.

    I absolutely do not support the worst of ours and suggest that you don’t do it with yours either. Otherwise we face a deadend.

    Like

  28. January 4, 2013 6:04 pm

    “I’m white and will sometimes refer to honkey’s. I’m also from the south, USA and call myself a hillbilly, just a play on words”

    Linda, I like your sense of humor. And your lack of that terribly “self-important” feeling. Thank you so much for it! Your use of those words sent me to the Urban dictionary, but being a foreigner I can’t feel what’s standing behind those words and need your help.

    “Honkey” seems to be just a swear word used against a white person. It implies a derivation from monkey, right?

    But I am having a problem with differentiating between “hillbilly” and “red-neck”. Both clearly refer to people’s way of thinking and living.

    Hillbilly looks to me like someone living aside from “civilization”. I put it in quotation marks as civilization does not necessarily mean that people populating it are civilized. It only means that they have more technology and comfort in their lives, but morally can still be like apes living in the trees. So hillbilly is someone who is closer to the nature, right? Also not having enough sophistication? Which again, may be only a superficial one? So the word is more positive than negative, right?

    And Red-neck is someone with extremely vulgar values and flat understanding of things, right? No sophistication either, but also lacking the charm of being natural and simple which are characteristic of those who live in harmony with the nature? (hillbillies)

    Am I correct in understanding these words?

    P.S. Further reading about hillbillies makes me think that I’ve idolized them. These definitions made me change the opinion:

    “More recently, the term is used to describe any rural resident,especially in the Southern USA and particularly those living in rather rough-hewn conditions, embracing noticably parochial ideologies and a generally hostile attitude.”

    A person living in harmony with the nature cannot be hostile. Then I don’t understand the difference between them though the Urban dictionary says:

    “It is a gross misconception that Rednecks and Hillbillies are one in the same, in truth they are not.”

    So what’s the difference? And are both of them derogative?

    Like

  29. January 4, 2013 3:21 pm

    Angie, dear, Michael never called “Duck Butter” either Prince or anyone at all .

    “Duck butter” (from the Urban dictionary):

    “A creamy substance brewed in the spot between a females vagina and asshole produced by vaginal secretions and ass sweat mixing together”.

    Stop making your insinuations here or you will have to face the music for it.

    Like

  30. Angie permalink
    January 4, 2013 1:53 pm

    Yes, Helena. But isn’t calling yourself a honkey and MJ calling himself and his friends “Splaboos” is thinking little of yourselves? I don’t believe everything Bob Jones had to say, but it just seems for some reason the “Splaboo” story seems true because MJ is known for nicknames like “Rubba”, “Applehead” in whom he called his son Prince, “Duck Butter”, etc.

    And do you know exactly what “Splaboos” mean? Could it mean “black people” or could it mean only “ni—rs”?

    * * *
    VMJ: Angie, out of respect for my black readers I’ve edited the word and kindly ask you not to use it in the future.

    Like

  31. Linda permalink
    January 4, 2013 10:14 am

    Can someone tell if MJ really called blacks “Splaboos”?

    If he did, he was also referring to himself. Michael was a proud black man, who had a lot of black people that worked for him. Anything that Jones has to say about MJ is garbage. I’m white and will sometimes refer to honkey’s. I’m also from the south, USA and call myself a hillbilly, just a play on words. Jones, like so many others was trying to get his five minutes of fame and sell his book of lies. You can’t believe anything he said.

    Like

  32. January 4, 2013 12:41 am

    Bob Jones was willing to claim that he’d witnessed inappropriate sexual misconduct with a minor, just to sell his book, nothing he claims is credible and it’s shameful Sullivan based so much of his book around Jones’.

    Bob also claimed Michael never gave his black employees or friends any gifts or treated them properly while they worked for him. Rodney Jerkins just posted on twitter about how MJ had given him a car as a present while they were working together. MJ was so close to some of his employees, like Michael Amir, that he was known as “Brother Amir” and even vacationed with the kids the first year after MJ died.

    Putting stock into what Jones says is like putting stock into the Neverland 5. He was a very very bitter ex employee who decided to seize on the scandal to sell a book, which says enough about who he is as a person. When he died 2 years later not a single Motown person spoke publicly about him to say they were sorry he was gone or anything, says a lot about how people felt about him. Just sad he threw his career away in hoping to make a quick buck on MJ. Also, he and Stacy Brown went onto internet forums during jury deliberations to trash talk Michael and help sell their book, they said Macaulay was the father of MJ’s kids. So you can see how silly their stories are.

    Like

  33. January 3, 2013 3:04 pm

    “Can someone tell if MJ really called blacks “Splaboos”?”- Angie

    And what does splaboo mean? I don’t know the word, but generally speaking everything Bob Jones said in that book of his is not credible. It is full of various “embellishments” made out of sheer spite for Michael after his brother Randy fired Bob Jones with no explanation. The former PR man just wanted to sting Michael as much as he could. A word said once in connection with one person could turn in his interpretation into a system, and this in its turn could be presented as Michael’s hate for his race.

    I think that it was enough for Michael to reprimand someone for some misdeed just once for it turning into a malicious legend.

    Like

  34. Angie permalink
    January 3, 2013 1:01 pm

    Can someone tell if MJ really called blacks “Splaboos”? According to Bob Jones who was MJ’s PR Manager for years, and has known MJ sense MJ was a child said MJ would refer blacks as “Splaboos” a lot, especially around Macualay Culkin. “Splaboos” does sem like a word MJ would use because he always seemed to come up with nicknames such as “Rubba”, etc. So can someone tell me if MJ really called blacks “Splaboos”?

    Like

  35. Linda permalink
    January 3, 2013 10:00 am

    Happy New Year to all my friends around the world. Sure hoping for a better year for us all.

    Like

  36. January 3, 2013 1:56 am

    “on the right side you can send a request to join the group.”

    I think I’ve sent one – at least I pressed the button with a request. In their discussion of the monument someone proposed to collect money at the forthcoming Cirque Du Soleil performances (I am also attending). Now that the project is ready in plaster they need money for the bronze material. Dancing in the streets is impossible now – too cold and too much snow. The earliest they can restart in the streets is middle of April.

    Like

  37. Susannerb permalink*
    January 3, 2013 1:32 am

    Regarding the FB site of the group: On the top on the right side you can send a request to join the group.

    Like

  38. Susannerb permalink*
    January 3, 2013 1:19 am

    Oh, what a great video. Thank you, Helena. The guys are good.
    I love the monument very much. Compared to many others I’ve seen this one really looks like Michael. Even the hand! Look at this wonderful detailed hand. And I love the name of it: It’s all for love.
    I hope we soon can see pictures of it at a wonderful location in Moscow.

    Like

  39. January 3, 2013 1:05 am

    Guys, I’ve found that I am even more backward that I initially thought. Now I’ve read more about the monument, but for some reason cannot even find a “like” button on Facebook to show my support for the group. Here is the facebook account of one of the organizers with some pictures:

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/374216829293788/

    I’ve contacted the initiator of the project, and will inform you of the latest events if I get a reply.

    Like

  40. January 2, 2013 10:30 pm

    Helena, did you know about this?
    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/128031-Volgograd-artist-creating-a-monument-to-Michael-Jackson-in-Moscow?p=3757671#post3757671

    Susanne, you cannot imagine how ashamed I am of being so backward and not seeing things right in front of my nose! While I wag my tongue here and reflect on abstract issues some great people are doing a great and real job! I had no idea that they were collecting money for the monument and even arrange flash mobs in various places. I am just looking now for information. One Michael-jam collecting money for the monument was in Moscow in September:

    And there is already one monument to Michael in Russia, in the centre of Ekaterinburg. It is a big city closer to Siberia:

    Still reading about the new monument, will inform you later.

    Like

  41. January 1, 2013 11:57 pm

    Happy New Year, Susanne! I also hope that the year will be blessed and bring new enlightment to everyone – in respect of Michael Jackson’s vindication and better appreciation of the truth in general.

    Like

  42. Susannerb permalink*
    January 1, 2013 2:05 pm

    Happy New Year! Hope it will be a blessed year for everybody.

    Like

  43. nannorris permalink
    January 1, 2013 6:48 am

    Happy New Year everyone..:))

    Like

  44. lynande51 permalink
    January 1, 2013 5:32 am

    Hapyp New Year everyone and the best to all of you in 2013!.

    Like

  45. January 1, 2013 4:23 am

    Happy New Year to all of you!

    Like

  46. shellywebstere permalink
    January 1, 2013 1:33 am

    Happy New Year.

    Like

  47. December 27, 2012 5:51 pm

    It seems that not only Michael Jackson was killed, but Whitney Houston too. A private investigator hired to investigate her death claims that she was murdered by drug dealers and he has a video to prove it. He also says that she had classic defense wounds occurring while she was battling for her life. The private investigator passed the evidence to the FBI:

    ‘Whitney Houston was murdered’: Private investigator claims he has video proving singer was killed by drug dealers
    By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
    PUBLISHED: 00:34 GMT, 27 December 2012 | UPDATED: 03:01 GMT, 27 December 2012

    Whitney Houston was murdered by drug dealers and a new surveillance video proves it, a Hollywood private investigator is claiming
    Paul Huebl says he has turned over evidence to the FBI that shows the 48-year-old singer was killed over a drug debt in February.
    The medical examiner ruled that she drowned in her bathtub at the Beverley Hilton hotel after taking a cocktail of cocaine, marijuana and several legal drugs.

    She owed $1.5million to dealers, according to some reports.
    However, Huebl told MailOnline that he doesn’t know for certain that Houston was killed – only that evidence he collected could point in that direction.

    Tragic: The troubled star had a potent cocktail of cocaine, marijuana and prescription drugs in her system when she died at the Beverly Hilton hotel
    Huebl says he obtained surveillance video that shows two unknown men who repeatedly went to the Beverly Hilton and integrated themselves into Houston’s entourage.

    The private investigator claims these are the men who slipped into Houston’s hotel room and killed her.
    He also disagrees with the Los Angeles County Coroner’s ruling that the star’s death was ‘accidental.’

    ‘Whitney’s body shows classic defense wounds that would have occurred while she was battling for her life,’ he told the Enquirer.
    However, Huebl conceded that the marks on her hands and fingernails could have been obtained in some other ways and that they were only ‘suspected’ defensive wounds.

    The private investigator said he also has evidence that Houston’s hotel room was ransacked, showing further hints of a violent struggle.
    Huebl says he gave his evidence to the Chicago field office of the FBI in the hopes that the agency will open a criminal investigation.

    ‘I think that if you put all these things together, they do kind of spell homicide, with a big red capital “H,”‘ he told MailOnline.
    The FBI did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A message left with Beverley Hills police was not immediately returned.

    Heubl, a former Chicago police officer who became an actor after he retired, says he conducted the investigation after being hired by a client who did not believe the official reports on Houston’s death.

    Huebl believes Beverley Hills police did not fully investigate Houston’s death because they did not want to bring the negative attention to Beverly Hills or to the Beverly Hilton. Huebl would not say who hired him.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253551/Whitney-Houston-murdered-Private-investigator-claims-video-proving-singer-killed-drug-dealers.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

    Like

  48. December 26, 2012 4:26 pm

    “this is probably a fake ID because Michael was in Bahrain when it was supposedly applied for and issued on July 21st,2005.”

    Lynande, yes, it might be fake, and not even because of the issue date (how long does it take to issue an ID in the US?), but because of the photo – Michael here seems to have a tape on his nose and I doubt that he would have given this picture for a driving licence. Also I don’t understand why he needed a driving licence if he was leaving for Bahrein. But if it is the main identification document in the US then he probably needed one on occasions – for all those depositions.

    But whether the document is fake or not is not my point. The picture itself looks authentic to me and I was just stressing the contrast in the expression of his face in 1985 and twenty years later. And it isn’t the matter of him growing older or anything like that. It is the matter of him turning from a open-hearted, smiling big kid trusting the world, into someone with a haunted and wary look, a sort of a hunted animal that set a barrier between himself and the nastiness of the world. The look even has a little bit of “Don’t you ever touch me” attitude about it.

    This is what I meant by “See what they did to him!” The picture shows it very well, though the document itself may be a fake (or may be not). Compare it, for example, with two more and you will see what I am talking about.

    Like

  49. lynande51 permalink
    December 26, 2012 2:33 am

    Helena this is probably a fake ID because Michael was in Bahrain when it was supposedly applied for and issued on July 21st,2005. Also all DMV now tell you that you can’t smile for your drivers license photo due to the face recognition software that they use to take the picture.Then if you look at photos of Michael from June 13th and think that he would have had to gain about 30 lbs. at that point in 5 weeks so I think we are looking at a fake.

    Like

  50. aldebaranredstar permalink
    December 26, 2012 12:49 am

    Merry Christmas, everyone!!! It’s been a wonderful year reading this blog and everyone’s great comments!! Thank you and keep it going–Vindicate Michael Jackson!! Yes! Absolutely! 1000%!

    Here is a Christmas video for the MJ fan-mily.

    Like

  51. December 26, 2012 12:21 am

    Here is an article about two Michael Jackson’s driving licences which I found on Facebook. One is dated the year 1985 and the other is July 21, 2005 or a month after the trial ended.

    Look at what they did to him! The expression on his face then and now speaks volumes:

    Michael Jackson’s Last Driver’s License Photo
    Dec 24, 2012 8 By NewsOne Staff


    Photo Via TMZ
    Entertainment news site TMZ has just obtained a copy of Michael Jackson’s last drivers license photo he took back in 2005, which is a much different portrait of the happy-looking one he took back in the 1980s.
    An image of Jackson’s 1980s drivers photo (below) was released by the FBI shortly after he died. The agency compiled a massive file during its investigation into child sex allegations involving the singer back in the 90s.
    (It is unclear how TMZ obtained the later photo)
    Jackson could have afforded any car he wanted while he was alive. Though, it is doubtful that he ever used either of his licenses, as he was chauffeured around for most of his life.

    Like

  52. December 26, 2012 12:02 am

    “Merry Christmas to everyone.” – lynande51

    Yes, Merry Christmas to everyone!

    Merry Christmas to everybody around the world. It’s all about love. I am so glad about this blog, I really feel at home here!” – Susanne

    Susanne, I am very happy to hear it! Merry Christmas!

    Like

  53. lynande51 permalink
    December 25, 2012 8:33 am

    Merry Christmas to everyone.

    Like

  54. Susannerb permalink*
    December 25, 2012 1:35 am

    Yes, Merry Christmas to everybody around the world. It’s all about love.
    I am so glad about this blog, I really feel at home here!

    Like

  55. December 25, 2012 12:17 am

    “Thank you so much to everyone. God bless you now and always! Love from Canada, Susan.”

    Susan, my big thanks to you and everyone too! And much love from Russia to all Michael’s friends!

    If all of us came to appreciate Michael it means that we have something very important in common and this is what brings us together. I am wary of calling it love, because this word is very often misused, but you know, in this particular case it does seem to be Love, which (remember the Bible?) doesn’t ask for anything but is always ready to give.

    Real magic – never knew it could be possible. I wish all of you Merry Christmas and even more magic to come!

    Like

  56. December 25, 2012 12:07 am

    “Michael truly did and still does bring most people together”

    Nannoris, I think that Michael is also capable of miracles. Merry Christmas!

    Like

  57. Susan M-S permalink
    December 24, 2012 10:39 pm

    Merry Christmas to everyone!! I don’t know any of you personally, but I feel if I met you, I would love you. You have great spirit and compassion and you work so hard to show the truth of the persecution of an innocent, gentle genius, our Michael. Thank you so much to everyone. God bless you now and always! Love from Canada, Susan.

    Like

  58. nannorris permalink
    December 24, 2012 10:34 pm

    Merry Christmas Everyone..I am so happy to be able to come to this blog and find such wonderful info and intelligent conversation .Thank you all !
    Michael truly did and still does bring most people together ..:)

    Like

  59. December 24, 2012 10:30 pm

    Shelly, Merry Christmas!

    Merry Christmas to everybody!

    Like

  60. shellywebstere permalink
    December 24, 2012 9:36 pm

    Merry Christmas

    Like

  61. December 18, 2012 4:32 pm

    There ia also something in the bible about the eye of a needle and a camel.Michael had some money at some time and gave chunks of it to the needy and sic,and it was nothing compared to the multibillionaires of today, some who cleverly make their fortunes on the backs of the poor.

    Like

  62. December 18, 2012 4:20 pm

    This maybe a bit off topic,but I didn´t find the pic to go with it.There was Tatum with Michael. I think ages were 16 and 12.Now Michael sopposedly starts sweating and his hands shook,
    said to confirm him homosexual. This ia a totlally wrong conclusion, on the contrary it confirmed his attraction and some anxiety.Boys and men may not like to talk about it,but it is
    common to be anxious in sitations like that, and anyway 12 yo or maybe 13yo, it was unusual at the time to even have encounters like this.So stop the nonsence.
    MJJ.77.com , it is quite sometime ago, had a pic of Michael with his friend Joanelle Romano and her 5yo daughter.Generally they are good at photos. It´s not there anymore,but if you ask they may put it up again.Joanelle ,whom he asked “to go steady” with at the steps of their school, was in LA 1 week before Michael died,run into Jermaine and asked to see Michael.Nothing came of that.He was pretty much a prisoner in his house.

    Like

  63. Josette Inzunza permalink
    December 18, 2012 10:53 am

    Great blog you have here.. It’s difficult to find good quality writing like yours nowadays. I honestly appreciate individuals like you! Take care!!

    Like

  64. November 26, 2012 2:26 pm

    Did Michael face & deal with the negative ? Yes.
    Did Michael harp on the negative ? No. He always moved on.
    What has most of his focus been on ? Love of course; not rumors, opinions & tabloid-like junk.
    When addressing “issues” (for lack of a better word) in ref. to Michael, who is our best reference? Michael himself, of course. ♥

    Very well said, Elizabeth! And there is one more point to what you’ve already said. If there were calm and peace all around us we could discuss some minor differences between us to reach for the ultimate truth – just for reasons of perfection – but in times of trouble like today’s we cannot afford it.

    When Michael’s haters relaunch their attacks against Michael in full seriousness WE NEED TO BE AS ONE.

    Like

  65. November 26, 2012 5:42 am

    I hear ya Helena. “Elizabeth, forget about Deborah and whatever she allegedly (or really) did.” What actually bothers me is so much attention over it. Yep, time to let it go.

    T Mes’ review; last line ” His book does more to exonerate this humane artist than any other. ” Really ? Over “Michael Jackson Conspiracy ? Thomas Mesereau stated that ?
    I think not. There are quite a few reasons why I believe this is/was not actually him, not to mention that I think he has more important things to do.
    And like I said, as I’m pleased you agree, we do too.

    Did Michael face & deal with the negative ? Yes. Did Michael harp on the negative ? No. He always moved on. What has most of his focus been on ? Love of course; not rumors, opinions & tabloid-like junk. When addressing “issues” (for lack of a better word) in ref. to Michael, who is our best reference ? Michael himself, of course. ♥

    Like

  66. November 26, 2012 12:04 am

    “Deborah added fuel to a fire […] It’s more valuable for admirers of MJ to try & maintain common ground which begins with admiration for Michael. Focus on uplifting his legacy with less combat & more unconditional love.”

    Elizabeth, forget about Deborah and whatever she allegedly (or really) did. It is simply of no importance. You yourself are suggesting a perfectly correct path – “focus on uplifting Michael’s legacy with less combat and more unconditional love”.

    I support it with both of my hands.

    Like

  67. November 25, 2012 11:45 pm

    Helena, I wouldn’t know about what MJ haters specifically plan as they hate & don’t pay attention to that. It’s more valuable for admirers of MJ to try & maintain common ground which begins with admiration for Michael. Focus on uplifting his legacy with less combat & more unconditional love.
    Dr. King stood up to hate with love & words of wisdom,

    There are good books, not so good books and trashy books about Michael. Deborah added fuel to a fire over a trashy book. The trashy books deserve such attention ?
    Just what Sullivan wanted don’t ya know.

    As for Mr. Mesereau, I dare say he has better things to do than rate Sullivan’s book. And over his friend Aphrodite’s book ? I think not. And that’s only one reason to see that it’s not him.
    He disagreed with an e-mail from a fan according to Deborah ? Hmmm… what did that e-mail say ? Just like one thing not respected of media reporting; only telling part of a story; taking things out of context. if it’s even true.
    We can agree it’s not a good book and agree to disagree on the rest.

    Like

  68. November 25, 2012 5:49 pm

    “As for Thomas Mesereau’s review at Amazon. I really don’t believe that’s him for quite a few reasons. And sorry to say this but Deborah Kunesh has given readers reasons in the past to question her.”

    Elizabeth, let us not make another of those mistakes. Thomas Mesereau is not a kind of a man who will first give some 50 interviews to the author, and then withdraw his support from the project, so it may be him after all.

    Michael’s haters are waiting for us to now attack Deborah Kunesh, Thomas Mesereau and others (for example those who will say a word of support for Thomas Mesereau in this situation). They are sitting and waiting for us to fight again over the situation THEY intentionally created for us. Let us not provide the haters with the pleasure of seeing us fighting.

    Let us simply draw our conclusions, brace ourselves for more battles and move on.

    Like

  69. November 24, 2012 5:39 pm

    It is perplexing that if a fan says something it can´t be taken as truth for granted.Like it is some kind of mental disorder. Why is Victor Guitirrez,Rodney Allen, Diane Dimond and their words not being questioned?Their slant is not even being mentioned in media (mostly).
    I always liked MJ,but was not a fan, it is not in my nature, but I did become one after his death when I found out all the wrongs and falsehoods perpetrated against him.

    Like

  70. November 24, 2012 7:09 am

    oops… OK. didn’t mean to post twice. When I checked before my comment hadn’t gone up.
    I personally think the focus should be on refuting this book by not only sighting proving falsehoods; also by sighting good books about Michael.
    Except for here, I have refrained from responding to ignored SUPPOSED comments by T Mes & don’t find DK’s article to help standing up to this book.
    Keep in mind that Ms Couric has not been a very respectful reporter of MJ. Her having Sullivan on her show simply fed into her false judgements of Michael. So much for her too.

    Like

  71. November 24, 2012 7:01 am

    As for Thomas Mesereau’s review at Amazon. I really don’t believe that’s him for quite a few reasons.
    And sorry to say this but Deborah Kunesh has given readers reasons in the past to question her. That’s all I have to say about that.

    Like

  72. November 24, 2012 6:46 am

    Sorry to say this but Deborah Kunesh has given readers reasons in the past to question her. That’s all I have to say about that.
    As for Thomas Mesereau’s review at Amazon. I really don’t believe that’s him for quite a few reasons.

    Like

  73. November 24, 2012 6:15 am

    The Grace stuff is from Roger Friedman’s articles, he copies a lot from them.

    And the Roger Friedman/Grace stuff seems to be from people like Randy, etc who were planting stories in the press about her to get her fired.

    Like

  74. lynande51 permalink
    November 24, 2012 6:12 am

    That’s just it the whole book is about his conclusions but yet they aren’t even conclusions so it is confusing. The thing is that it is a book that basically regurgitates every lie ever told and the new ones from people like Schaffel, Mann, Tohme and Weisner. I don’t know about anyone else but it would not have answered any questions I had about Michael. In the end if it is just mostly his opinion then why is his opinion, which is never conclusive, more important than mine or anyone else’s for that matter.
    Tom Mesereau’s endorsement did nothing to me because I had already bought and was almost finished reading the book. Tom would have been better off endorsing Lisa Campbell’s new book which is on the way to my house as we speak. I haven’t written a review of the book yet but when I do I intend to give it only 2 stars because I already had most of the information. He could have had a better book if he had written from the time Michael was arrested until his death because that is what has never been covered.
    There are some redeeming points like I said in the book where he talks about Michael’s time in Ireland. I imagine they were some of his happiest in the last years because everyone treated him normally. At least until Billy Bush outed him and then the paparazzi moved in on him and his kids.
    But as a whole it was way too long and he could have left out more than half of his book and had a very good one if he had actually spent the time to make it a quality piece. He doesn’t have the Cascio kids’ names right. He has Tom Mesereau questioning the loyalty of Connie and Dominic because they didn’t want their kids to testify or at least that is what he says. He has Grace Rwaramba as some kind of iron fisted woman that ran Michael’s life but Michael wouldn’t listen to her? I think he listened to Daphne Barack on that one. It almost sounds as if he is on Prince Abdullah’s side for the most part. He is very sympathetic to Schaffel and Tohme and the list goes on and on.
    Like I said it is just too confusing and it is not a book for Michael Jackson fans because of the inaccuracies that are in it. Most of us are very well versed in all things Michael. We don’t need to be reminded of the tabloid lies because we have been righting them much, much longer than he has.

    Like

  75. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 24, 2012 5:56 am

    another clip with Sullivan, this time speaking about LMP, the kids, Debbie.

    Like

  76. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 24, 2012 5:42 am

    The ‘creeped out’ comment is here on the Nightline segment, about 3:57.

    In listening to it again, I can’t see why he says that Michael literally saw himself as Peter Pan, which is oft repeated by detractors. Also Sullivan says, ‘he was a child’ in a man’s body.

    Like

  77. kaarin22 permalink
    November 24, 2012 5:41 am

    Lyn, go ahead and make the HIPPA report.A very strange book. Sullivan says one thing,positive, then later he contradicts himself.Anyway Mr.Mesereau has not made it his project to research all of Michael´s life.He has probably hanled many difficult cases since 2005.And maybe Susannerb is right that he was mislead by Sullivan.There was Sullivan and this Dr.Mark Hill,that is 2 against 1 had he disagreed.The interview was not the right forum for an agrument.

    Like

  78. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 24, 2012 5:32 am

    About the ‘creeped out’ comment, it was on one of the interviews. There’s one with Katie Couric, one on Nightline, both on youtube, and the HuffPostLive interview. I think the comment in question was on the Nightline segment.

    I will probably read the whole book eventually, but it disturbs me what he is saying on the interviews–re the pedo– issue, and so on. I think he is planting doubts and negatives all over the place in subtle ways. For example, in the passge quoted about Tatum, “he had attempted to normalize his image.” The subtext to this is: his image was not normal; his ‘attempt’ was just that–he tried and failed; b/c his image could not be normalized.

    I do not think Mez has to agree with anyone–he has his own opinion and obviously has spent a lot of time with Sullivan (who says they had 50 conversations). Yet we can express our views too and we do not have to agree with T. Mez. I heard Sullivan on interviews say he cannot say 100% that Michael was not a child molester; that there’s a shadow of doubt. I really question this. If Michael did have some sexual relationship with Jordan, which I don’t think he did, but if I go along with Sullivan and say maybe he did, for the sake of argument, and yet Michael never had another sexual relationship with a child–this seems to be what Sullivan is suggesting–does that even make sense??? What kind of pedo– has one sexual relationship with a child and never again? Is this credible as a hypothesis? No, it doesn’t make sense to me.

    Sullivan’s conclusions as a result of his research that he presents in the interviews trouble me, and I don’t think I’m manipulating anyone else by saying so.

    Like

  79. November 24, 2012 4:09 am

    shellywebstere permalink
    November 24, 2012 3:20 am

    The floacist is a tracking blog.

    Haha, and my “entirely slanted” blog is authored by Josephine Zohny, apparently.

    The stuff about Tatum is interesting as it’s only after he started dating her that stories about him being transgender etc came out.

    She didn’t just hold his hand at the Rox, if he did his research he’d know she had her hand on his knee (according to Michael) and sat on his lap (Susan Blond, who was there.) But it’s funny because nobody has ever tried to accuse MJ of “normalizing” his image with Tatum, who was younger than him and white, which was controversial.

    The baby bottles with Emmanuel – there’s a photo of a baby bottle next to a bad at a hotel with MJ sleeping. It’s funny how these photos that everyone sees exist in a different manner for Randall.

    Like

  80. November 24, 2012 3:59 am

    I have read the book. My thoughts about the book and reviews like that are based on having read it.

    Like

  81. shellywebstere permalink
    November 24, 2012 3:20 am

    The floacist is a tracking blog.

    Like

  82. Rodrigo permalink
    November 24, 2012 3:19 am

    Well actually, this may be a blessing disguise. Because when readers finish the book and start digging around about the facts, they will find out just how many lies and crap they’ve been fed.

    So, yeah. Let’s encourage the bloody thing. They’ll get the real truth HERE.

    Like

  83. lynande51 permalink
    November 24, 2012 2:57 am

    I particularly like the story he wrote about Michael and Emmanuel Lewis. According to him there were photos of Michael and Emmanuel Lewis laying on a bed drinking out of baby bottles that surfaced in In Touch magazine in early 2005. It was confirmed by Bob Jones.LOL

    I just looked at all the covers of In Touch for 2005 and no such photos are on them and I would imagine it would have made to cover don’t you.

    Oh and the reason that Mesereau quit was because he could not deal with Raymone Bain and Grace Rwaramba anymore. Michael supposedly allowed his kids ot call Grace “mom” which pissed Debbie off.
    It goes along quite nicely about Michael believing in Lepruchans (sic) which is pretty charming and a good accounting of his life in Ireland.
    @Lacienegasmiles and VMJ you do know don’t you that we are listed in the bibliography but are listed as being “slanted”.
    Then of course in the bibliography the DH blog on Jimmy Safechuck he says is convincing. Says the rest of what she writes isn’t but that one is .Oh and he says she does a good job on Randy’s ex wife Alejandra and LaToya.

    Like

  84. Rodrigo permalink
    November 24, 2012 2:02 am

    Tatum was supposed to normalize Michael’s image?

    HE WAS ONLY 17

    What was weird or strange about him back then for that?
    I know Michael had real feelings for Tatum, because it matches his thoughts and feelings about his love life with Shmuley. He was telling the truth.

    Most people out there know Sullivan is full of ****.

    He claims Michael had a dight with Mark Wahlberg over a planes during 9/11

    EVERYBODY KNOWS PLANES WEREN’T ALLOWED TO LEAVE THE VICINITY.

    This man, his book, his tales, his opinions are full of ****

    Like

  85. November 24, 2012 1:45 am

    Dial, you know, I am currently reading the book and have gone as far as page 78 only as I copy some things on the way, but the general impression at the moment is not good at all. Though Sullivan has not said anything negative about Michael yet, his interpretation of Michael and his relatives is very flat. Katherine is depicted like a religious hypocrite, though in fact she is a very genuine person (she was simply intimidated by Joe, confused by him and could not really stand up to him and his brutality). The brothers don’t look their best here either (though over here Sullivan may be right – we’ll see).

    But passages like the one below totally amaze me – Sullivan describes Michael at the age of 16 in 1974 when he appeared with Danny Osmond on stage and a 6 year old boy who was their co-host at the Music Awards Ceremony. He says the boy was “taken aback” when Michael took his number and called him. The strange word used by Sullivan is a small matter of course (in comparison with what is yet to come) but it means “surprised and confused” and though surprised they were but confused – never, the children always were eager to speak to Michael without ever having a single doubt about it, so the whole idea of it is totally wrong!

    p.77 The boy had been taken aback when Michael asked for his phone number, and was stunned when the pop star began to call him every Saturday morning, at exactly ten o’clock. They were buddies, nothing more, as Rippy would take pains to make clear later: “ Michael would give me advice about how to handle myself in show business, about smiling at people and shaking their hands. It was just stuff like that we talked about. Very ordinary. It absolutely amazed me that Michael Jackson was interested in what was going on in my little world.”

    But the next passage is even worse. It turns out that at about that time questions about his sexuality were “proliferating”. At the age of 16? Were boys in the 70s in your part of the world supposed to be in sexual relations with someone? And if they were not, questions about it would be even “proliferating”? By the way why did those questions arise at all, if I remember a picture of Michael looking through a magazine with girls’ photos when he was still a small boy, age 7 or 8?

    Sullivan goes on explaining. He says that when Michael befriended Tatum O’Neal it was simply an attempt “to normalize his image”. Well, I have heard that Michael was very much in love, he said so himself. So such explanations from Sullivan sound extremely arbitrary and misleading:

    “Even among those who did not know that Michael’s best friend was a boy who had just started elementary school, questions about his sexuality were proliferating, and he took these more and more personally. He was especially stung by the false rumor that his father was having him injected with female hormones to keep his voice high. In the months before moving to New York to work on The Wiz, he had attempted to normalize his image by dating Tatum O’Neal, then a thirteen-year-old Oscar winner for Paper Moon with a woman’s body and a wild thing reputation. They’d “ taken up,” as Michael would put it, after an encounter at On the Rox, a small satellite club attached to the Roxy on Sunset Strip, where they happened to be seated at adjacent tables one evening in the spring of 1977. Without warning or introduction, Tatum had reached out to hold Michael’s hand as she sat with her father, actor Ryan O’Neal, while Michael chatted with a pair of publicists from Epic Records. For him, this was “serious stuff,” Michael would explain: “ She touched me.”

    I am sorry but for me it was also “serious stuff” if a boy took my hand in his when I was 16, especially if I liked him. Has the world gone that far since those times that no one remembers things like that any more? Is it too old-fashioned for Sullivan? But then it is his problem, not Michael’s, and what we are reading here is actually about Sullivan and not Michael.

    Like

  86. TatumMarie permalink
    November 24, 2012 1:17 am

    @Dialdiancer
    Why are we more concerned about a damn story on Michael’s nose than the rest of what is in this book?
    I’m sorry but lies mixed with a little truth are as harmful as poison mixed with a little water. This writing process doesn’t make the book authentic or a form of vindication. If this is the case then why not recommend Halperins book which claims Michael is not a ……. either? Unlike Sullivan, in his interviews he maintained that Michael wasn’t (unnaturally) attracted to children and had not done anything wrong. I can’t minimize the issues in neither publications, there are way more inconsistencies in Sullivan’s book than the nose issue.

    @Helena
    I didn’t mean to post this comment on the Diane Dimond page. Please erase it there if you can.
    Thanks

    Like

  87. November 24, 2012 12:44 am

    ““They seem to want to try and defend SULLIVAN from the fans only. Sorry, I don’t feel any of those 5 star reviews are credible at all.” – lacienegasmiles”

    No, that is not the case. I have read the book and until you do you do not know what is in it and can only repeat what is being told to you. This is a tactic which worked well with the Media; it is the reason we are here vindicating Michael. I intend to give it 3 to 4 stars when I finish checking out some of the information. No 5 Stars because of the unknown identities.

    People who never met Michael, did not watch him waste away up close & personal from a soulless killing, did not get to see Sneddon & Co in action when the cameras were not on think Mr. Messereau should agree with their FAN thinking about what is important. Why?

    Why are we more concerned about a damn story on Michael’s nose than the rest of what is in this book? There is a great dealing LYING and destructive manipulation going on in the Fanbase. We run the risk of having people we approach about Michael’s innocence not believing us, because we are becoming the very thing we rail against.

    There is a lot more at stake for the MJ Community than whether to read or not read this book.

    Read the book or not, but stop promoting others not to because we are more concerned about Michael’s nose or his assumed virgin status than his innocence.

    Here is something to think about. Every person who has a public voice, who has attempt to defend Michael as an objective party has been turned into a Fan by Michael’s Fans, this opened doors to question their credibility. Lately almost every person who has defended Michael and have been misquoted or said something the Fans did not like have been turned on, publicly belittled or defamed by the people they tried to help.

    T. Mes is human can make mistakes, but commenting his judgment is faulty, because he see the information in the book differently than you, means WE FANS & ADVOCATES HAVE JUST TOLD THE WORLD his judgment is questionable about Michael.

    We’ve read VG’s filth, RC’s ugly, DD’s stupidity and fluff pieces using discussion and group analysis so each comes to a decision of worthiness. I recommend we do the same using the same honesty which was a hallmark of Vindication Advocates.

    Like

  88. November 23, 2012 11:35 pm

    Sullivan also claims that Michael BLEACHED his skin, whether he mentioned the vitiligo or not – the term is still misleading. The topical solutions found in the vitiligo treatments are the same agents I use to tone my skin color because of eczema. This process is not commonly known to us as bleaching because I’m naturally discolored, blending the dark parts to what is already my skin complexion – according to some Michael was doing the same. However, in certain photos you can see patches on his face, chest, arms, legs and hands. It doesn’t appear that he completely evened himself out using these agents. It looks to me like he suffered from the universal version of viitiligo where you’re completely stripped of most pigmentation.

    Like

  89. November 23, 2012 11:01 pm

    Sullivan says that Lady Diana was ‘creeped out’ by Michael, and so was Jacqueline Onassis. Where did he get this? Both women are dead so can’t respond (how convenient)
    What a liar, these two respectable women especially Princess Diana were intrigued with Michael. Jacqueline Onassis helped Michael with his book “Moonwalker” and Lady Diana – has anyone seen that footage – to me she looks like she wants to jump on him, in a good way.

    Like

  90. November 23, 2012 10:53 pm

    Helena there is one portion of the book that you do need to read. It is the portion from Tohme where he sings his own praises and those of AEG.

    Lynette, thank for your offer of the book but a friend has just sent it to me, so I will try to read it. Now I am simply curious to know what’s what. But 827 pages, OMG!

    Like

  91. November 23, 2012 10:40 pm

    “If we could prove him definitely false on at least one claim, for ex., the no nose one, then we could debunk the various negative claims he makes. Can the person from the coroner’s office make a public statement? That would be so great.” – aldebaran

    It would be great if he did. However the email posted earlier was from the coroner and he already said there that the nose was intact and that Sullivan was doing it just to sell his book. So the fact that Sullivan LIED ABOUT MJ’S NOSE IS PROVEN.

    “Sullivan says that Lady Diana was ‘creeped out’ by Michael, and so was Jacqueline Onassis. Where did he get this? “

    Where did you read it? I also read the prologue free on Amazon and it says that those two ladies “chose to keep Michael at arm’s length” and it didn’t sound that bad. In fact, it explained why Michael agreed to do Bashir’s documentary:

    To support the career comeback he hoped to launch with Invincible, Jackson had agreed to cooperate with a documentary by Martin Bashir, a British journalist to whom he had been introduced by their mutual friend, psychic spoon bender Uri Geller. Bashir seduced Michael, according to Tom Mesereau, among others, by boasting that he had been a confidant of the late Princess Diana. “Michael wanted to hear all of Bashir’s Diana stories,” Geller recalled. Jackson had tried for years, unsuccessfully, to form a relationship with Diana. She and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, in fact, were just about the only two famous people he ever met who chose to keep him at arm’s length, which had only deepened his fascination with each of them. Bashir’s Diana anecdotes had persuaded Jackson to consent to what was about to become the biggest public relations catastrophe of his life.

    “Bashir told so many stories about her, and Michael was completely charmed,” Dieter Wiesner recalled. “But then I heard from people in the UK that Bashir wasn’t Diana’s friend at all, that she felt he had tricked her into talking about her affair, and that she felt used by him—as Michael did later. So I was worried.”

    The rest of it is based on Schaffel’s story (Schaffel is portrayed by Sullivan as a glorious guy, at least in the Prologue):

    Footage of Bashir’s documentary Living with Michael Jackson had gotten loose in London, and friends were phoning from England, Schaffel said, to warn him that Michael was about to be painted as a freakish pervert. After reading transcripts of the documentary’s rough cut, “Marc knew what a disaster this was going to be,” Wiesner remembered, “and Michael could see it in his eyes. After that I said, ‘Michael, this is going to be terrible.’ And he didn’t believe me. He said, ‘Dieter, Dieter, please. I don’t think so. Don’t think bad.’”
    Almost a month passed before they flew back to Florida, where Bashir was supposed to personally screen the documentary for Jackson. “Michael was still waiting for him, because he should have the last approval,” Wiesner remembered. “More people were calling from UK, telling me this is going to be a bad thing. Then Bashir shows up with the whole camera team. He wanted to show Michael everything, but he wanted to have his reaction on tape, and I knew that would be used against Michael also.”
    Bashir had arrived for what was to be their final interview shortly after the first of the year. Within seconds of sitting down with the star, the formerly unctuous director began to confront Michael with a series of acid-laced questions about his physical transformation. It was a particularly sensitive subject for Jackson at that moment in his life. Less than a year earlier, Michael had been preparing to shoot a video for the Invincible album when his then-manager, Trudy Green, sent someone to the star’s trailer to make a mold of his face. “She told Michael it was something for the makeup artist to use,” Schaffel remembered. “But Michael wanted me to ask her what it was really about. And Trudy told me, ‘Well, you know, he’s not looking too good right now, and we think we should make this mask for him to wear in this video.’ When Michael found out Trudy had said this, he just broke down and sobbed. It was one of only two times I ever saw him do that. I mean he was just heartbroken.” Michael stopped production of the video immediately, then fired Green, replacing her a few days later with “the Germans,” Wiesner and Konitzer. He was still distraught about the incident, though, which perhaps explained why he blatantly lied to Bashir about the extent of his plastic surgery, insisting there had been only a couple of operations on his nose, nothing more.
    Bashir ramped up Jackson’s discomfort with an observation that his two oldest children, Prince and Paris, claimed they had no mother, then got Michael to contradict his earlier statement that the mother of his third child was someone with whom he had a relationship by admitting that Blanket was born to a surrogate. When Bashir discussed the subject of children who regularly spent the night at Neverland, often in Jackson’s own bedroom, the end was at hand. After admitting on camera that the ill or disadvantaged children he invited to stay on the ranch often slept in his bed (while he slept on the floor) Jackson grew agitated as Bashir pressed the subject. At first he said it was natural that family friends like Macaulay and Kieran Culkin would sleep in his bed; then he blurted out that “many children” had slept in the same bed with him. In his denial that there was any sexual motivation for this, Jackson uttered a line that would be replayed in countless news broadcasts: He told Bashir, “The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone.”
    Bashir returned to the UK “without letting Michael see a thing,” Wiesner recalled. Jackson was still in Florida when Living with Michael Jackson—introduced by Barbara Walters—was broadcast by ABC on February 6, 2003. “I was sitting with Michael on his bed watching it,” Dieter Wiesner recalled. “And he just broke down like I never saw before. He couldn’t believe that something like this was coming up again. He looked like he was gonna die. He couldn’t talk. He couldn’t make a word come out.”
    The Bashir documentary “rocked his world,” said Santa Barbara County district attorney Tom Sneddon, who by the end of the year would ask a grand jury to indict Jackson on ten felony charges of child sexual abuse. After the documentary aired, Michael was so distraught that he took to his bed—alone—for days. Publicity-seeking Los Angeles attorney Gloria Allred and her associate, Beverly Hills psychiatrist Carole Lieberman, promptly filed nearly identical complaints with the Department of Social Services to challenge Jackson’s custody of his children.
    With Jackson incapacitated, Schaffel took charge of damage control.

    As I have said Sullivan’s book is a terrible mix of truth, half-truth, half-lies, lies, gossip and horrendous fantasies of some very nasty people. Each will find there what appeals to him most. It caters to all needs and this is the worst part of it.

    Like

  92. November 23, 2012 10:17 pm

    “They seem to want to try and defend SULLIVAN from the fans only. Sorry, I don’t feel any of those 5 star reviews are credible at all.” – lacienegasmiles

    I haven’t thought of the possibility of these people being Sullivan’s fans (and not ordinary readers representing the public). It’s quite possible that those pro-Sullivan reviews were “ordered” by him.

    Like

  93. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 23, 2012 9:47 pm

    “Sullivan is just a perfect example of modern-day journalism where reality is mixed with lies and fantasy and nothing is ever checked up or analyzed. A true tabloid baby of the tabloid era.” VMJ

    I agree, and he is adding to the pile of ‘suspicions’ and ‘undercurrents’ that we already had to deal with, not dispelling doubts. I disagree with the Amazon poster you quote as far as the benign nature of this book. I also disagree that you can’t have an opinion about a book without reading the whole thing. For example, T. Mez has not read the whole thing, apparently, and yet he made a recommendation. I have read the long free sample on Amazon and listened to three interviews and have formed my impressions on that basis. This is how lots of people make decisions about what books to read or movies to see and so on. I am not saying the book is without redeeming qualities, but it has that deadly mix of ‘lies and fantasy,” full of innuendos and suspicions, and the sources used, except for T. Mez, are not reliable. The author’s background is in the tabloid realm as well.

    Sullivan says that Lady Diana was ‘creeped out’ by Michael, and so was Jacqueline Onassis. Where did he get this? Both women are dead so can’t respond (how convenient). He says Michael has no real nose, that he had serious mental problems, and sexual issues to the point of being unable to function normally, he says there is ‘a shadow of doubt’ about whether the 1993 allegations are false, he says “I wish I could say with 100% certainty” the allegations were false, but he cannot. This is not revealing Michael’s “soul.”

    If we could prove him definitely false on at least one claim, for ex., the no nose one, then we could debunk the various negative claims he makes. Can the person from the coroner’s office make a public statement? That would be so great. Mark Wahlberg has already disputed the story about fighting over a plane.

    I think there should be more positive comments from the general public about this book if the one person quoted is representative of a larger group and not just one person’s opinion.

    Like

  94. November 23, 2012 9:34 pm

    Unfortunately those 5 star reviews seem to have been sent in by fans of Randall’s.

    They seem to want to try and defend SULLIVAN from the fans only. Yes, Sullivan mentions MJ had vitiligo, he says MJ treated it with bleaching creams, quotes Blanca Francia saying Michael used those creams because he just didn’t like black people and didn’t want to be black. He quotes Bob Jones/Stacy Brown about “splaboos” saying “it is true Jackson would use this word with the mainly white boys in his bedroom.” I believe that review is from someone who wants fans to think he presents a really convincing case in defense of Michael, it seems to be many reviews which specifically seem to be targeted at fans or in trying to disway potential buyers who want a credible well researched book and find so many reviews pointing out all the mistakes, and not a review of the actual book from someone interested in Michael either objectively or keenly.

    Sorry, I don’t feel any of those 5 star reviews are credible at all.

    Like

  95. Rodrigo permalink
    November 23, 2012 9:24 pm

    Mesereau may be right on the money with his opinions, or he might not.

    But I say it’s a damn shame that we have to put our reliance in the public’s understanding of Michael in THIS book.

    Only because it ‘seems’ to be kind towards Michael? Only because it’s not a bashing book, per se. Only because it’s not a pro book either.

    In my opinion, this book, it’s not going to help and it’s not going to change anything.

    Sullivan’s idea is basically ¨pity the poor, but potentially guilty, freak¨.

    Like

  96. November 23, 2012 8:59 pm

    Susanne, it is either of the two – Thomas Mesereau it either a better strategist than Michael’s supporters or this Sullivan was a sort of a Bashir for him (a person who abused his trust by involving him in this project) and Thomas Mesereau doesn’t want to accept it.

    However it may turn out that Thomas Mesereau is indeed a better strategist and assesses the situation more realistically. There are several comments on Amazon supporting his point of view. Here is one of them:

    I came on this page to post a review about how much I loved this book, and was shocked by the attacks on it. I read through many of them and it was obvious to me that this was a planned, coordinated attack by a bunch of people who think they’re protecting MJ. But protecting him from what? This book is very kind to MJ, very generous in how it tells the story of his life. What was weird to me was the way all these people kept repeating the same phrases over and over again, like they’d been trained or something. And a lot of the things they are saying simply aren’t true. Sullivan DOES say that MJ had vitiligo and not only describes how he was treated for it, but makes you feel the pain this condition must have caused for Michael. He also makes the most convincing case I’ve ever seen that MJ was NOT a pedophile. I found the review by Tom Mesereau and I agree with everything Mr. Mesereau wrote. This IS the most humane portrait of Michael Jackson anyone has ever created. What really made me angry when I read the negative reviews was that it as obvious these people haven’t even read the book. Who told them the things they’re writing? Really, I found this all so upsetting that I had to write my review this way. You self-appointed protectors of MJ are some scary people. And you’re not honest. To post negative reviews of a book you haven’t read is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourselves. This is my favorite Michael Jackson book ever. It made me feel Michael’s soul and I can’t think of another book that has done that. It deserves to be praised by his fans, not attacked by them. The people who are attacking it are doing more to hurt MJ’s memory than they are to protect it. A lot more.

    This comment shows the problem between the general public and MJ fans. For the public the step they made towards the truth about Michael after reading the book is substantial, but for Michael’s supporters it is tiny or none at all. The gap between the two parties is too big.

    The public was of so bad an opinion of MJ that even this little step is progress for them, while MJ’s supporters know that the public still has a long way to go to learn the real truth and are impatient. They want everything and now, while the public is slow like a turtle. They have made one step forward and are surprised that Michael’s supporters are not applauding them.

    But what is indeed important is the general good impression of Michael this reader is writing about. This is what Thomas Mesereau is counting on. And he may be right.

    Like

  97. November 23, 2012 8:27 pm

    Yes, it’s a mess with this book. Apparently Tom Mesereau had several conversations with Debbie Kunesh about this issue and still vehemently defends his position regarding the book – according to Debbie on her FB page. I have a feeling that Mesereau was mislead in a way by Sullivan. I’m really still looking for a reasonable explanation for his position, but I don’t get it. Perhaps somebody who read the book should inform Mr. Mesereau in detail why the book – and also Sullivan’s interviews – is so counterproductive to his own efforts of clearing Michael’s name.

    Like

  98. November 23, 2012 8:16 pm

    Lynette, I understood that you got simply carried away. Please try to avoid it in further comments. We don’t want search engines to pick up Michael’s name in connection with pedophiles. Instead I always try to create a new association link between Michael and the word Innocent.

    Like

  99. November 23, 2012 7:54 pm

    “I disagree with T-Mez on so many levels regarding Sullivan’s book. It’s my understanding while reading the reviews that Tom Mesereau was his main source of the information for the 2005 section, which is why it makes sense.” – Tatum

    This is what all this mess with Sullivan’s book is all about. Sullivan collected various “sources” throwing into one common pile highly respectable people like Thomas Mesereau and complete crooks like Adrian McManus, giving them equal credibility in his book. He didn’t do any research of his own and didn’t even try to differentiate the truth from lies. The result is disastrous – the nastiest lies completely compromise the truth told in the chapters for which credible people like Thomas Mesereau were a source.

    Mesereau has probably read only “his” part of the book and since the author put down their conversations correctly he thinks that the rest of it is as good as his part, only he doesn’t know that the rest of it is based on “facts” from the worst Michael’s haters like Ray Chandler and Adrian McManus. These people were Michael Jackson’s opponents in life and Thomas Mesereau’s during the trial, so how could he expect them to tell anything different from what they said before (and what he fought during the trial) in this book?

    So what was good for Mesereau (the fact that Sullivan didn’t distort his words and related them correctly) completely rebuffed in the case of Sullivan relating the stories of Michael’s haters – he repeated their lies “correctly” too, and this is why the result is so horrible. The truth told by people like Mesereau gives credibility to the lies from Michael’s haters as the reader develops a certain level of trust for the author – if the author told so much truth about the 2005 trial why shouldn’t they trust him in the other chapters?

    But the specific feature of Sullivan is that he did not even try to tell lies from the truth, and simply retold everything the way it was told to him. If some “source” had told him that Michael was an alien from Mars he would have retold it as well without any criticism (if people were trustful enough to believe it).

    Sullivan is just a perfect example of modern-day journalism where reality is mixed with lies and fantasy and nothing is ever checked up or analyzed. A true tabloid baby of the tabloid era.

    Whether Sullivan doesn’t know how to do research, or he did it on purpose it does not matter – both ways the result is horrendous – it is a nice-looking broth with a lot of truth in it, only with a good spoonful of rat poison in it. There is a slight chance that some readers will be able to differentiate the truth from lies themselves (if they do their own analysis) but the chance is too slim of course.

    And I understand why Thomas Mesereau took part in it. If he had not told the truth about the 2005 trial someone else would have told terrible lies about it (and Sullivan would have reported them as the “truth”), so Mesereau reasoned that at least his part should be correct. For Thomas Mesereau it could be a sort of a trap.

    Like

  100. lynande51 permalink
    November 23, 2012 5:48 pm

    I apologize for the use of the full word. I did mean to shorten it but then forgot when I copied it from word to the post.

    Like

  101. November 23, 2012 5:42 pm

    “Here and there throughout this blog there has been some statements and hints that society needed a scapegoat not to face it´s social ills.This subject needs to be researched, though I am at a loss of where and how to begin.” – Kaarin

    Society needed a scapegoat not to face its social ills. That was very well said, Kaarin. Yes, this subject does need good research and the beginning of ours will be that Pennsylvania University 2001 report which I promised to turn into a post. The report changed my whole perception of the situation and presents an exceptional background for Michael Jackson’s story. When you compare where the media and public channeled all their attention (onto Michael) with what they should have done to take care of the real ills of the society, your head begins spinning.

    It was like burning some poor soul as a “witch” and thinking that it will help to get rid of the plague ravaging the town.

    Like

  102. November 23, 2012 5:24 pm

    Lynette, I implore you not to use the word ped-le in its full spelling with the name of Michael! I had to shorten this word in your comments and will continue to do so, only it is very time consuming and not always possible.

    Like

  103. November 23, 2012 5:19 pm

    “Thank you for official refutation of that stupid shit. I’ve added it to my review on Amazon.”

    Morinen, I’ve read your review and found it absolutely great and decisive for me. In fact it is the best as the majority of people liked it and put it on the top. I am posting a link to it here: http://www.amazon.com/review/RRSUGI7TI75WM/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=080211962X&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=#wasThisHelpful

    I would like to use it in a separate post, if I may. Or would you like to extend it into a post yourself in this blog? (I will give you the necessary rights for it if you do).

    Though I am currently busy with something else I think we need to group together everything we’ve heard about this book. I’ve read a prologue to it on Amazon and have some ideas about it.

    Like

  104. November 23, 2012 5:10 pm

    “Helena I don’t know if you have the book if you don’t I will send it to you but it is 868 pages including the bibliography which is another issue altogether.”– lynande51

    Lynette, no I haven’t go the book, and will be very grateful if you send it to me. Don’t know where I can find the time to read it though. But since the book is so big an issue now, it seems that sooner or later we will have to read it.

    Like

  105. nannorris permalink
    November 23, 2012 10:39 am

    Lyn…the word search thing…..I think you should forward that to Mesereau , and ask him questions, regarding his thoughts ..
    I know that Debbie from reflections is friendly with him……………..but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t answer other people …………. particularly who have been great advocates for mj
    Maybe you should introduce yourself , and go straight to the source..I just wouldn’t hesitate to contact him with your credentials.cut to the chase.

    Like

  106. lynande51 permalink
    November 23, 2012 10:15 am

    Nan I’m not finding fault in Tom Mesereau because I think he was played by Sullivan to a certain extent but just doesn’t know it.
    I just did a word search on the book because I have it in PDF now and I come up with 408 times the word Schaffel comes up and 37 times the word Mesereau comes up. Looks kind of slanted to me.
    By the way there is a link I have if someone wants to borrow my copy from the MJV2 library;). Remember now you can only check it out one at a time though okay.

    Like

  107. lynande51 permalink
    November 23, 2012 9:57 am

    Helena there is one portion of the book that you do need to read. It is the portion from Tohme where he sings his own praises and those of AEG.
    There’s something that I have asked myself and everyone I can think of and have never gotten a good answer. Why was Tohme even in Los Angeles on the day of Michael’s death and more importantly why was he at the hospital?
    I say that because I know and I think you do too that he had no place there because he had been fired more than a month before that.
    And I just can’t get it out of my mind that Michael died believing this man was a Doctor. The fact that he wasn’t didn’t come out until after Michael died.
    Something else you said too about AEG could not tell him when to come to rehearsals. But we don’t know what they told Michael about that contract do we?I think we will all find out in those emails sent between Phillips and the others.

    Like

  108. nannorris permalink
    November 23, 2012 9:53 am

    Lyn..
    this part
    ————-..The thing that is important is this and about this I know I am one hundred percent correct. To the mainstream public the stories of Michaels being weird went hand in hand with their perception of a ped-le because to them ped-le=weird.
    —————-
    I completely agree with that ..but how do you fix it?
    How do we get people to look at weird , without it meaning criminal??
    I love MJ , but maybe addressing “some people perception of weird”, without tacking on the awful . baloney that went along with it……….., might be what Mesereau was thinking..
    I am just speculating, of course.
    I am not advocating this guys book ..I am just trying to understand where Tom Mesereau is coming from on this…that is all I am saying ..I am just joining a dialogue on this thing ….
    .
    If we even forget THIS book….
    On a daily basis , when discussing MJ …..to me at least …it is alot like politics ……. everybody gets a vote regardless of education , intelligence , experience in life .anger over nothing having to do with the subject.
    and the extremists get the air time on tv..
    .. when they were renaming french fries , freedom fries ,,,,and buying everything the govt / press said .People bought it because of the press …same thing to me …..They had the press on their side too because it made ratings
    That is free press.,,,Pretty hard t change that ..

    I have always looked at MJ like a political campaign, and I think Mr Mesereau does too..You just want to get the majority because you cant convince everyone on anything to agree..he is looking for a majority rule…that is what i always try to remember too…..;;;

    that is my guess at what Mesereau is going for..it is only my guess.to prioritize the positive stuff..
    I am not saying I like it ..but that is my guess..and I am trying to calm down ,,,,..

    Like

  109. Tatum permalink
    November 23, 2012 8:06 am

    That Sullivan played Mesereau because groups two and three link all the “weirdness” that he confirms in his book to being a pedophile because to them everyone knows that to be one you have to be weird .At least that was before Jerry Sandusky.

    One thing we can be sure to agree on when we’re not fighting is the good and innocent life that Michael lived as a person. I disagree with T-Mez on so many levels regarding Sullivan’s book. It’s my understanding while reading the reviews that Tom Mesereau was his main source of the information for the 2005 section, which is why it makes sense. However, Michael’s haters and disbelievers were the sources for the Jordie Chandler 93 portion and the rest of the idiotic tabloid crap.

    I don’t understand how Sullivan can call this a vindicating book but on several interviews claim he has doubts about Michael’s innocence. In case it’s been forgotten, the media is not harping on Gavin Arviso any more, the main alleged victim they speak about is the “kid who got the settlement” – Sullivans book is no better than any other gossip tabloid book out there and does us no justice.

    Does anyone actually think that the Group 2 and 3 readers of this book are going to take his words seriously if he says things like that? I haven’t read his book and most likely will not, but if that’s his position on the matter then most likely it’s reflected in his writings. I don’t believe that there are 3 groups in the categories T-mez listed because we know that fans can still be haters and people who think Michael is innocent can be non-fans. In my opinion this is the real distinction;

    Group 1: The Educated ( know the truth about Michael)
    Group 2: The Ignorant ( not sure waiting to be convinced)
    Group 3: The Stupid ( unreasonable believers of the worst)

    Whether you are a fan or not Michael’s truth and honestly is available online and in many PROFOUND sources. If you choose to listen to this stuff but a light bulb doesn’t go off in your head there’s something wrong. It’s personally my goal to reach Group 2 of my defined list and Group 3 can go to hell, they want to just believe the worst about Michael no matter what because he rose above everything they thought they knew about entertainment.

    Like

  110. lynande51 permalink
    November 23, 2012 7:34 am

    @nan
    I don’t know what Mesereau was thinking. All I know is that like I said haters have been offsetting Michael’s good with stories of his weirdness for the last 40 years.
    The thing that is important is this and about this I know I am one hundred percent correct. To the mainstream public the stories of Michaels being weird went hand in hand with their perception of a ped-le because to them ped-le=weird.

    Like

  111. nannorris permalink
    November 23, 2012 6:37 am

    First off regarding Sullivans book.It was displayed prominently at my local Barnes and Noble when it first came out..I didnt look at it very closely.
    After I read Mesereau comments on Amazon , I went back looking for the book because I was going to read through it, in the store, because the online one kept freezing on me, but they couldn’t locate any.. couldn’t even find me a copy..I doubt it was flying off the shelves …so I dont know where they put it ..
    Anyway , I was just looking at the Katie Couric video of Mr Sullivan..My impression is that he was a hater , who had become, to his surprise, somewhat sympathetic to MJ…..
    Perhaps Mr Mesereau looks at it like that …I dont know ..but I am going to read the book..For some reason, with what this guy says, Katie Couric has a lightbulb go off over her head and says “maybe he felt he couldnt trust anyone but children and that is why he wanted to be around them…..” ah no kidding Katie,, Maybe Mesereau thinks that when presented by someone who really wasnt looking for any good news or sympathy regarding MJ , , people like him , who were more like minded , will become more open minded .
    I could have corrected Mr Sullivan on a number of issues regarding those allegations and a whole lot of other things ,just in that video……….. but , people who are closed minded , tend to shut you off if you go into detail .They think you are crazy fan, emotionally involved , unrealistic….We have all been fed a steady diet of MJ untruths for years and many people have made their minds up a long time ago , so perhaps this is where Mesereau figures would be a beginning.
    If you can get someone who would never believe him innocent to have doubts , then the may be they will become , more open minded, to the truth of things …in piecemeal…I have to say ….to tell someone that they are wrong about MJ , all these stories were BS, those prosecutors were unethical, the press was trying to make money off all this stuff and those families were completely full of it …is hard to get across to people all in one swoop…..I know this first hand as I nearly threw my own brother out of my house today, on Thanksgiving over this stuff..People just get stubborn and dig in..If people can start to think he was unusual but not criminal, maybe Mesereau thinks that is a beginning and the rest can be taken care of in stages..
    That is my only guess..
    As far as the Chandler garbage, ….He said on the tape the evidence was very thin….but these family believe it happened..
    Did he talk to JC,? I am guessing not ,Just Ray Chandler probably..
    These people made a career or trashing MJ so I wouldnt think they were going to say they made it up..

    Like

  112. November 23, 2012 6:30 am

    Thank you for official refutation of that stupid shit. I’ve added it to my review on Amazon.

    Like

  113. lynande51 permalink
    November 23, 2012 5:37 am

    @kaarin22
    I know when I first read Sullivan’s Pre-Sexual I thought “what the H*** there is no such thing as pre-sexual, he’s making this up as he goes along”.
    But what I found interesting is the whole of what he says and how he says it. He says all at the same time that Michael was not homosexual, heterosexual, or ped-le, he was pre sexual.
    First he is asked about Michael’s sexuality and then that is his response. Now a person can be heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. Pedophilia is not a form of sexuality it is a paraphilia, a form of mental illness. So when he lumps pedophilia into a group of actual sexualities it says that is another form of sexuality when in fact it is not. I wonder if he is ignorant to that.
    Then there are all of his other sources about the nose. He says that Adrian McManus is where he got his information about the “noses in jars”. In fact using her completely debunks what he says in the next sentence when he says that in 2002 a Dr. Mark Sinnreich from Miami Florida saw Michael’s nose and was consulted about rebuilding it. Now if it was so far gone in July of 1994 (when Adrian McManus last worked for Michael) that Michael already had a “jar full of noses” then what was a Dr. doing working on it in 2002? It doesn’t make sense.
    Not to mention that I am now going to have to report to the Florida Medical Licensing Board that a world renowned Dr. just violated the HIPPA law. That’s right I am a mandatory reporter Mr. Sullivan and the HIPPA law is still enforceable for the deceased, unlike many other laws. Does he want me to do that? I think Dr. Mark Sinnreich should be contacted as well to allow him a defense of his “statement” to Sullivan in direct violation of the HIPPA Law.
    Then he also says that he read an affidavit by a police officer in2003 when employees were interviewed at Neverland. He says that an employee told the police officer that Michael Jackson hates blacks and calls them splaboos. First that might have been in a statement to the police but it was not in an affidavit. I have read the affidavit for the search warrant multiple times, it is not in there. He is deliberately misleading people into thinking he had a reliable source for his information when he didn’t.
    That statement about skin bleaching goes back to Blanca Francia and Orietta Murdoch courtesy of Victor Gutierrez. It has been recycled so many times I can tell you who added what and when. His is just the latest version of a tabloid with all the articles lumped into one.
    Helena I don’t know if you have the book if you don’t I will send it to you but it is 868 pages including the bibliography which is another issue altogether. Everyone here should know that he extensively quotes Ray Chandler, Schaffel, Mann, Howard King, Tohme, Stacy Brown, Dieter Weisner, and the Neverland Five’s BS. He even helps Ray Chandler rewrite history when he gives a whole new timeline to when the allegations were disclosed.
    The rest get to rewrite history too when he is ever so sympathetic to Schaffel and ‘forgets” to add that he was the primary cause of the conspiracy charge against Michael. Not to mention in the middle of the trial he approached Harvey Levin and Diane Dimond with “tapes” of Michael for over a million dollars. He told them they were filled with Michael’s revelations about “boys”. They were not, and those “tapes” he had were played on ABC just before his civil trial against MJ. He was no different than Janet Arvizo when she told everyone there were love letters.
    You know when I first read the endorsement of this book from Tom Mesereau I was devastated. Then I thought it wasn’t him. Then he confirmed it. That was when I thought he didn’t read the finished book. I don’t know if that is true but how could he consider endorsing something by saying he did not call Michael a ped-le when in fact he does when he adds about Michael’s “virginity” that “only Lisa Marie and Jordan Chandler can answer that”. Is that saying Michael isn’t a ped-le? I don’t think so as a matter of fact I think it is saying he is one.
    To Tom Mesereau we are in a proverbial Group One (sort of reminded me of Romney’s 47%) that don’t matter because we are Michael Jackson fans and what we say no one believes.
    He is far more concerned with groups two and three. Group two are the people that like Michael’s music but think he was a ped-le. Group three are the ones that don’t like Michael’s music and think he is a ped-le. He thinks those people can be reached by a man like Sullivan because he isn’t a Michael Jackson fan. Unfortunately Mr. Mesereau doesn’t know what I know. That Sullivan played Mesereau because groups two and three link all the “weirdness” that he confirms in his book to being a ped-le because to them everyone knows that to be one you have to be weird .At least that was before Jerry Sandusky.
    To me it is sad that Tom Mesereau endorsed this book because it would appear that Randall Sullivan is the equivalent of Katherine Jackson’s (“please tell them my son was not a pedophile”) and Tom Mesereau’s Martin Bashir.

    Like

  114. November 23, 2012 3:15 am

    Sullivan called Michael presexual.Never heard or read that word before.It is a neologism,ie a novel,newly created word.Schizophrenics do create neologisms. Now I do not think Sullivan is schizoprenic. Just a lazy way of “explaining” or avoiding the subject.It is a paradox
    that the Chandler family was one of his sources,then claiming Michael was not a p-file,then again expressing some doubts re the 93 case.
    Yes it is most unfortunate that the mass mind still obstinately holds on to a negative view about Michael.Here and there throughout this blog there has been some statements and hints that society needed a scapegoat not to face it´s social ills.This subject needs to be researched, though I am at a loss of where and how to begin.

    Like

  115. November 23, 2012 12:56 am

    A great job has been done by MJJ20Girl and Kittycat10100 – they contacted the coroner’s office who did MJ’s autopsy and their reply fully exposes Sullivan’s LIES ABOUT MICHAEL’S NOSE!

    This is what Sullivan said in reply to a viewer’s question following Katieshow:

    Suzanne Palau

    @KatieShow why didn’t he refer to MJ’s autops rpt which says his nose was intact instead of spreading the lie that he only had nostrils.
    15 Nov 12

    Randall’s Response:

    I have MJ’s autopsy report (which is cited in my Chapter Notes) and have read it closely. I’ve also seen the photos of MJ’s autopsy, which show the condition of his body at death in graphic detail, and I am basing my description to a substantial degree on those. The autopsy report in no sense states that MJ’s nose was intact, merely that he had a nose. That nose was, as I described, so cut away that it was little more than a nub of bone with two nostrils surrounded by ridges of shriveled cartilage. I didn’t say he had no nose, just not much of one. And that is the same description that has been publicly made by several doctors who examined or treated him in the last five years of his life. Anyone who doubts this can find a photograph of himself without a prosthetic that MJ allowed to be taken, widely available online. Compare that photo to photos of him in public appearances and there can be no question that he was wearing a prosthetic.

    And this is the OFFICIAL RESPONSE FROM THE CORONER’S OFFICE:

    As far as Mr. Sullivan’s book information he might have a copy of the report since it is a matter of public record, however I can assure you that he does not have the autopsy photos or other photos involving Mr. Jackson. The photos have been secured, and the location is only known to two of us that have them. I can tell you that Mr. Jackson did in fact have a nose and that it was nothing like described by Mr. Sullivan. I guess he just wants to sell books…

    Full video from MJJ20Girl and Kittycat10100:

    Like

  116. November 20, 2012 10:44 pm

    “Sullivan pigeonholes MJ as being an asexual, skin bleaching, fake nose wearing, drug addicted man-child weirdo who “possibly” could have been guilty in 1993. How on EARTH does that help MJ’s legacy? How does that change anyone’s mind about MJ!The reason most people are still “skeptical” about MJ’s innocence is because they are OBVIOUSLY too lazy to do any substantive research!”

    David, I agree, this absolutely does not help MJ’s legacy and this is why I call the book garbage.

    But I am equally amazed that despite everything that has been said about Michael by now there are still people (like the host of that program and many others) who believe that garbage. And repeat like parrots some totally unsubstantiated gossip. How can anyone believe, for example, those skin bleaching stories if we know for sure that Michael had vitiligo? Even if Michael lightened his skin it was a necessity!

    Or why don’t they listen to the account of Lisa Marie Presley about the sex life she had with Michael (which is probably why she followed him for four years afer that). Do they want to be in the same room to make sure?

    What other arguments do these people need to look into the face of the truth? What’s the matter with them if they don’t recognize the truth even when it is brought into their home ready made? What research are you talking of? They don’t need to do any research – everything is clear here like the clear blue sky!

    This I really don’t understand. And that is why I assume that Thomas Mesereau is just being realistic and knows that the case of public ignorance, delusion and denial of the truth is so severe that it needs simple methods of treatment like Sullivan’s.

    I am also at a loss what to think, especially since I haven’t read the book, and can only suppose that all the things you have enumerated above are a sort of “magical” words which convince the public that Sullivan is not a fan and therefore will tell them the “truth”. Evidently the public will not listen to people like us – they need some idiot who should explain it to them in their idiotic terms.

    If this Sullivan is indeed proving that MJ was not a ped-le and if the general public listens at least to him, we can probably say (and very cautiously so) that the method has worked.

    As for me everything you have enumerated above is reason enough to never take this book into my hands.

    Like

  117. sanemjfan permalink
    November 20, 2012 8:54 pm

    Helena,

    Judging by the interview Sullivan’s book is biased, primitive and full of gossip but if he proves that Michael wasn’t a p-le then it is okay. He is simply addressing a different audience – the primitive and unthinking kind who like gossiping, simple explanations and information easy for consumption, and if this garbage makes them change their opinion of Michael it will be great.

    I have to disagree with you. Sullivan’s book does NOT fully vindicate MJ because he deliberately leaves room for doubt about the 1993 case. He write about it almost entirely from the perspective of the Chandler family (he included some of them as his “sources”, including Ray Chandler), and is very sympathetic towards them. In many interviews, he has stated that he’s “not sure” if MJ was innocent in 1993, including this one with Katie Couric last week: http://www.katiecouric.com/on-the-show/2012/11/15/psychic-medium-john-edward/ (Open the link and scroll down to see his 2 video clips)

    Mesereau stated in his email that we must find a way to reach out to non-fans who are skeptical about MJ’s innocence, and I agree with that. However, he makes it sound as if Sullivan’s book is the panacea that will magically change the minds of skeptics and haters, but that simply isn’t true! Sullivan pigeonholes MJ as being an asexual, skin bleaching, fake nose wearing, drug addicted man-child weirdo who “possibly” could have been guilty in 1993. How on EARTH does that help MJ’s legacy? How does that change anyone’s mind about MJ!

    The reason most people are still “skeptical” about MJ’s innocence is because they are OBVIOUSLY too lazy to do any substantive research! A simple Google search will bring up lots of exculpatory info that proves MJ wasn’t guilty. If skeptics won’t do that, then what makes Mesereau think they will read a 700 page book?

    Like

  118. November 20, 2012 8:34 pm

    David, thank you for the video http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/michael-jackson/50a160f12b8c2a65f000084d and hello to you as I’ve finally seen you in person. Judging by the interview Sullivan’s book is biased, primitive and full of gossip but if he proves that Michael wasn’t a p-le then it is okay. He is simply addressing a different audience – the primitive and unthinking kind who like gossiping, simple explanations and information easy for consumption, and if this garbage makes them change their opinion of Michael it will be great.

    Guys, we shouldn’t compare Sullivan’s effort with what we are doing here. Please excuse my condescending attitude but the work done by many Michael’s vindicators is like vast experimental studies carried out at universities, while Sullivan’s book is like an alphabet book for the first-graders. Each of us caters to our own audience. It is possible that if we talk to Sullivan’s audience they won’t understand a word of what we are saying, while our readers will be disgusted by the primitivism of his statements.

    For us his book is useless and is no source, but for others it may be just the right kind, so if it helps to bring part of the audience to Michael’s side despite all its shortcomings it might not that bad. For us, I agree, it would be a total waste of time and a huge cause for annoyance, so it’s better to move on and close our eyes on this primitive but unavoidable stage in people’s education.

    Like

  119. November 20, 2012 6:49 pm

    Guys, I’ve just been sent an answer Thomas Mesereau made to someone’s email about Sullivan’s “Untouchable”. Here it is:

    “Thank you for your email. I respectfully disagree with your approach to Mr. Sullivan’s book.

    First of all, I am less concerned with issues like Vitiligo, plastic surgery and sexuality than the hideous, false charges of pedophilia. The main question, for me, is how to restore Michael Jackson’s damaged reputation.

    In my opinion, labeling one as a child molester is worse than being called a murderer. However, please remember, the authorities called Michael Jackson a particularly horrific form of child molester. They said that he took a cancer-stricken child and filled him with alcohol to “soften him up” for sexual abuse. They also claimed that Michael tried to tear children away from their families. They charged him with abducting children and falsely imprisoning them. Michael was also charged with conspiracy to extort the family of the child he allegedly abused.

    There are three general groups of people that are relevant to this issue. They are:

    Group One: The Michael Jackson fan community;

    Group Two: People who enjoy Michael Jackson’s music and art but suspect him of being a pedophile;

    Group Three: Individuals who either don’t like Michael Jackson’s music or are indifferent to him, yet believe he was a child molester.

    The main question for me is “How to convince Groups Two and Three that Michael Jackson was not a pedophile?”

    With all due respect to you and the Michael Jackson community, Group One has virtually no influence on Groups Two and Three. When supporters of Michael Jackson claim that he was not a child molester, people in Groups Two and Three give little credence to their position. The reaction is simply “Who cares what they have to say. They are Michael Jackson fans. What do you expect?”

    Obviously, there is a similar reaction to my position. I know that Michael Jackson was not a pedophile. But, unfortunately, the general reaction from people in Groups Two and Three is “What do you expect? Mesereau was his lawyer.”

    Randall Sullivan’s book will do more to dispel these horrific, false charges than anything that you or I have to say.

    When Michael Jackson supporters state their beliefs in Michael Jackson’s innocence, they are usually “preaching to the choir.”

    Mr. Sullivan’s book, with his conclusions that Michael Jackson was not a pedophile, has an enormous capacity to reach a large audience that continues to attack Michael’s reputation. This is because Mr. Sullivan did not approach his work as a Michael Jackson fan or supporter. His work clearly demonstrates that he is willing to address troubling, controversial issues in Michael Jackson’s life, as well as present relevant information that certain individuals don’t like. For this reason, his conclusions that Michael was not a child molester can have more persuasive weight.

    On a personal note, I don’t like censorship or group boycotts. I believe that certain individuals who are criticized in this book are orchestrating a negative campaign. Some of the negative comments suggest that the critics did not even read the book. This is disturbing to me.

    You say that questioning the sexuality of a “famous, talented, powerful black man is racism”. Do you think this is worse than calling a famous, talented black man a pedophile? If you do, we are in very strong disagreement.

    I don’t judge people by their sexuality. Nor do I judge them by their race, religion or spiritual beliefs. Michael told me he was heterosexual and I believe him. But if he were not, it would make no difference to me.

    Again, I believe we both share the same goals. We both want to restore Michael Jackson’s reputation because we know what a wonderful, kind and talented person he was. We simply have a different view of priorities.

    Thank you for sharing your views with me.

    Sincerely,

    Tom Mesereau

    Like

  120. November 20, 2012 3:20 pm

    Oh my goodness, Randall Sullivan really makes me want to throw up. I don’t think I can read his book based on this interview alone. Marc Lamount Hill was horrible as well, it’s like he read the book and gobbled up everything. I can’t think of one statement that came out of Sullivan’s mouth that was accurate other than Michael’s athletic strength. Sanemj, you were the only one making Sullivan eat his words, everybody else went along with everything he was claiming, how dare they call themselves fans?

    Like

  121. November 20, 2012 1:13 pm

    Nevermind, I see where you’ve posted it here. Thanks.

    Like

  122. November 20, 2012 1:05 pm

    @sanemjfan
    Where can we find the interview?

    Like

  123. sanemjfan permalink
    November 20, 2012 6:00 am

    Helena, the person who made a cameo appearance in Sullivan’s interview was ME!!! LOL! I was able to skype in and ask 2 questions; the first one is at the 15:51, and the second question is at 40:53. I held Sullivan’s feet to the fire and forced him to defend his trash, and I only wish I could have been given the opportunity to ask more questions!

    Like

  124. sanemjfan permalink
    November 20, 2012 5:56 am

    Guys, my WordPress account was HACKED, and that is why someone was able to post in my name! Fortunately, the WordPress team was on top of it and took swift action. My password has been reset, and hopefully this will never happen again! Here is the message that they sent me about the incident:

    Hello,
    We recently detected suspicious activity on your WordPress.com account. To protect your identity and keep your site safe, we’ve reset your password.

    Please reply to this email if you see any more suspicious activity on your account or your blog. You can also get in touch directly at passwordhelp@wordpress.com.

    To reset your password and get access to your account and blog, please visit WordPress.com. Click on “Forgot password?” in the Login toolbar to get started. It is very important that your password be unique because using the same password across different web applications increases the risk of your account being hacked.

    If you have any further questions or trouble resetting your password, please reply to this message to get help from our support team. We will never ask you to supply your account password or financial information via email.

    The WordPress.com Team

    Like

  125. November 20, 2012 2:58 am

    Sanemjfan, please change your password to this blog IMMEDIATELY.

    Someone has made a post in your name about earning money and I noticed it only now! It looked like an ad, and now it has been deleted but since they managed to enter the blog in your name, I don’t like it at all!

    I hope the blog is still there when I come tomorrow…

    Like

  126. November 19, 2012 11:37 pm

    Here’s the link to view Sullivan’s infomercial, oopps I mean interview, with Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, a political and pop culture commentator. If you watch the entire 50 minute interview, you’ll see a familiar face make a cameo appearance to respectfully challenge Sullivan…… http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/michael-jackson/50a160f12b8c2a65f000084d

    David, I’ve made an honest effort to try and listen to their conversation but the first five minutes were enough for me, especially with all those negative reviews on the right of the page. Can you say who made a cameo appearance there and why is it important?

    Like

  127. sanemjfan permalink
    November 19, 2012 6:11 pm

    Raven Woods wrote an excellent post on Sullivan’s so-called interview! http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=7362

    Like

  128. sanemjfan permalink
    November 19, 2012 5:50 am

    Here’s the link to view Sullivan’s infomercial, oopps I mean interview, with Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, a political and pop culture commentator. If you watch the entire 50 minute interview, you’ll see a familiar face make a cameo appearance to respectfully challenge Sullivan……

    http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/michael-jackson/50a160f12b8c2a65f000084d

    Like

  129. aldebaranredstar permalink
    November 19, 2012 2:02 am

    Lynande, please say more about Marc Schaffel and what he did to Michael. Yes, there is no doubt that Sullivan uses Schaffel a lot, and also apparently Ray Chandler.

    Thanks for the great clip by LunaJo, Sanemjfan.

    Like

  130. sanemjfan permalink
    November 18, 2012 11:32 pm

    Here is a new video of Congressman Chaka Fattah’s interview with ABC News on March 31, 2004. He spoke about MJ’s visit to Washington, D.C. to discuss AIDS in Africa with the Congressional Black Caucus. Charlie Gibson asked Fattah if the reason that certain members of the CBC didn’t visit with MJ was because they thought his visit was a publicity stunt (since it was taking place during the grand jury proceedings in Santa Barbara, CA), and Fattah denied it completely!

    He said that most of the members who missed the meeting just couldn’t make it due to their busy schedules, and that it’s very common to have members miss meetings with people. MJ had a close relationship with several members of the CBC, and this is why they led the moment of silence of him in the House of Representatives on 6-26-09, and why Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee spoke at his memorial.

    Like

  131. November 12, 2012 11:52 am

    I think that he got alot of information from Schaffel. I’ve read some of the stuff he said about MJ when he was trying to sue him and it sounds just like this stuff. Then he was a partner with Howard Mann and their case was just dropped by them after they lost in Federal Court. You guys have no idea just exactly what it was the Schaffel did to MJ.

    Like

  132. Rodrigo permalink
    November 12, 2012 10:51 am

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2231541/Mark-Wahlberg-denies-confronting-King-Of-Pop-Michael-Jackson-use-9-11-getaway-jet.html

    I love this person’s comment, which over 50 people agree with –
    “This book on Michael Jackson seems like a work of fiction… Anyone with half a brain knows that ALL flights were grounded for 7 days when 9/11 happened! Poor Jackson, people just feel they can write whatever they want about him cus he seemed weird”

    Like

  133. September 17, 2012 11:55 pm

    “I don’t think that you had anything to do with Floacist’s decision to make readers log in to read her copies of the court transcripts.”

    David, but the problem is that even when I (or other readers) log in, nothing happens and no transcripts are seen. I don’t understand whether the Floacist source is functioning at all and will be grateful if someone explains whether it is. And how we can have access to the original transcripts.

    Here is the link to that source once again: https://www.box.com/login#/s/09zmi31anq/1/9455516 I wonder if anyone can have access to it now? Probably after logging in?

    “I don’t want you to feel bad and think that it was your fault, because it wasn’t.”

    My only fault was that I posted that link openly. Evidently this should not have been done, but I didn’t know that those transcripts were for individual use only. Actually I thought that they were free for all according to your American laws.

    P.S. I am sorry for being away again. These days I am torn between the blog, developments around the opposition rally and some family issues. You cannot imagine how depressive the situation in the country is now. At least for someone who really values freedom and independence of thinking.

    Like

  134. sanemjfan permalink
    September 16, 2012 5:55 am

    @Helena
    I don’t think that you had anything to do with Floacist’s decision to make readers log in to read her copies of the court transcripts. Those transcripts have been available for many years on many fan sites, and a simple Google search will find them for anyone who wants to read them.

    Yes, they are available only for “individual” use only, but those individuals (like myself) can post excerpts of those transcripts (which I have been doing exhaustively for the last few months).

    I don’t want you to feel bad and think that it was your fault, because it wasn’t.

    Like

  135. sanemjfan permalink
    September 16, 2012 5:52 am

    Here is a review of Bad from the tv show “Good Morning Britain” on Sept. 1st, 1987!

    Like

  136. September 13, 2012 5:59 pm

    Guys, we have a big problem with transcripts of the 2005 trial. Some readers informed me that the transcripts were not available from the source I provided. This amazed me because the source was there for more than three years, and all of a sudden it disappeared.

    Now I think I know why. I am very much afraid the fact that I put it officially on the blog was exactly the reason why it disappeared. I checked things up and found that the transcripts are the property of court reporters and the Floacist who maintained that great source evidently paid her own money for them. She made the transcripts available to everyone and all those who researched those materials were quite comfortable using her source (for three years). None of us knew – me for sure – that the purchased copies were for individual use only (each of us is to buy them if we want to read them ?).

    So what happened? My supposition is that as soon as I placed a link to that source someone who didn’t want them open to the general public complained about the fact and access to it was blocked. Now the page says that the owner of this item needs you to log in to see it, however even if you log in nothing happens.

    I cannot say how sorry I am that it is probably due to my placing the link on the blog the source is no longer available to all. The one who blocked access to it must be very interested in us having no direct access to them. This is also probably the reason why deargavinarvizo site also stopped functioning.

    Some random court transcripts are still available online, but the list is far from complete. And though I have found some transcripts on the Internet, now I won’t repeat the same mistake and won’t place the link here for everyone to see. I simply cannot do it as this will be a direct way to lose them altogether.

    Like

  137. Linda permalink
    August 31, 2012 9:21 am

    Well, wow… I guess I’m a little impressed tonight. The last few years I read every article I see on Mj and I always read the comments section. Usually there was more negative than positive. Tonight after reading several articles, every one seemed to have more positive than negative comments.

    Is that my imagination? Are the tides turning to that degree? All the articles I read were glowing about how great Michael was while at the same time they were demeaning him. Can they be so stupid to think that we don’t know what they are doing? Dredging up all the crap while they’re singing his praises. It’s pretty obvious that they are haters, but reading through the comments, seems like most saw through what they were doing, well most of them did. We still have a few to reach, lol. But I think I’m seeing a light at the end of the tunnel.

    Like

  138. Rodrigo permalink
    August 31, 2012 4:56 am

    I like to think now, perhaps they’re running scared? Because they could never wise up.

    Michael’s death sparked a tremendous amount of interest in his life. 1993-2005 all we got was THEIR account of his life. they expected us to buy it. They painted him as the enemy.

    1993 was all about the excitement of scandal. Everything said about him in 2005 was done to see him get sent down once and for all. But all of it was for profit and personal gain. Michael’s life was made into a show, where the drama would be created, and the reviewers were laughing about it. Everything was set up for the public, the audience.

    But now. The dust has settled, the show has come to an end. We were left with reminders of what that show was all about.

    And that’s where the big mistake lay. Cause we have blogs like this, and they know it. DD probably never expected her lies to be questioned or exposed, none of them did. TS never imagined that people would look into his actions, did he?

    It’s all because of people like us. Defiant as some might be, they’re still **** scared of us.

    I’d like to think they’re backtracking because of us, people who aren’t blind to the show they set up for Michael. More and more people are fast becoming fans, and advocates. They are losing, not us, and not Michael.

    Like

  139. August 31, 2012 1:27 am

    “They just can’t help themselves, really. It’s probably mandatory of them to keep reminding us of Michael’s past, as told by them.”

    It looks like it is indeed mandatory of them. A sort of a ritual which they keep to with less abandon and more strain than before. They do not seem to enjoy it any longer and the general feeling is that they realize the absurdity of what they are saying.

    Indeed how much longer can anyone write about that oxygen chamber? So what of it? Why do they call it “abnormal behavior”? If they go on in the same manner we will soon have the right to speak of their abnormal behavior and obsession with Jackson.

    Like

  140. Rodrigo permalink
    August 31, 2012 1:19 am

    Helena, that’s a great find.

    I’ve seen fans analyse Jordan’s interview. The conclusion was, that kid did not sound like a victim of child abuse in any way.

    I’ve seen Desiree attempt to gloss over things by saying
    ¨So Jordan and Evan were lying to psychologists and the police, and they weren’t discoverd? Nobody is that good of actor¨

    Well, it wasn’t like they weren’t going to be taking seriously, were they? And we know that people gained a lot more with helping the kid with the accusations, than helping Michael with the truth.

    I wonder if Gardner was in on it as well?

    Like

  141. aldebaranredstar permalink
    August 31, 2012 1:13 am

    Here’s a link to the huffpost POS, Helena.

    10 Things We Want To Forget About Michael Jackson On His 54th Birthday

    Like

  142. August 31, 2012 12:37 am

    “If, anything, comparing Michael’s case with that sick freak’s, you could see just how innocent Michael was.”

    Rodrigo, absolutely! And before we even analyze Sandusky’s case it is enough to compare his victims (now grown-up people) who cried like babies and who remembered every little detail of abuse as if it was yesterday, with absolutely dispassionate Jordan Chandler during his interview with Richard Gardner. The only thing he remembered well was that he read a book “To kill a mocking bird” at the time. And look at the language this 14 year old was using! He sounded like quoting from a psychiatric manual!

    I recently came across an interesting piece of information – the Santa Barbara authorities could not confirm the authenticity of the transcript which all of us know as Jordan’s interview to Gardner.

    The article also says that the interview was edited:

    September 14, 2004
    FYI: Ray Chandler Hawks His Book
    Raymond Chandler is a Santa Barbara lawyer and the uncle of Jordy Chandler, the first boy who accused Michael Jackson of molestation in 1993. Ray Chandler is currently making the rounds of talk and tabloid shows, attempting to sell his book regarding the 1993 case, “All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover Up,” to anyone and everyone who will give him airtime. (It makes you wonder what took him so long to cash in.) He tells us that it’s not about the money. The Bashir interview made him do it.

    Chandler claims to have transcripts of interviews between Jordy and his psychiatrist as well as recordings of interviews with his father dating from that time. The Santa Barbara News-Press stated that they had no way of confirming the authenticity of the transcript documents – posted on the internet. The October 1993 interview with the psychiatrist has also been edited and names changed.

    Details from the past investigation have surfaced in other ways during the current case. The Chandler’s lawyer and a psychiatrist testified before the grand jury last spring. Recently, Michael’s defense team asked for access to photographs taken during the search a decade ago.
    Prosecutors never charged Michael in the 1993 case. Jordy refused to cooperate after receiving a settlement. Part of that settlement included a confidentiality agreement that prohibits the family from discussing the case. Ray Chandler is not bound by this agreement.

    Raymond Chandler has also said that he has not spoken to either his brother or nephew for several years. He also claims not to know anything about the current case. As to the question “why wait so long?” Chandler claims that his brother urged him not to write the book earlier.
    The alleged transcripts between Dr. Gardner, a psychiatrist, and Jordy reflect a relationship that grew increasingly more intimate.

    Garder allegedly asks “Do you see the wrong in it now?” “Of course,” the 13-year-old boy is quoted as saying. “He’s a grown-up, and he’s using his experience of his age in manipulating and coercing younger people who don’t have as much experience as him, and don’t have the ability to say no to someone powerful like that. He’s using his power, his experience, his age – his overwhelmingness – to get what he wants.”

    Source: Santa Barbara News Press / MJFC

    Like

  143. Rodrigo permalink
    August 31, 2012 12:26 am

    That’s one of the articles, Helena. Others were published yesterday, but less severe compared to that.

    They just can’t help themselves, really. It’s probably mandatory of them to keep reminding us of Michael’s past, as told by them. But I am glad to see that there’s more and more people beginning to see past the lies, or simply saying “We don’t care”.

    I think by people’s increasing attitude at the refusal of being fed **** by the media and awareness to things that happened, namely the truth, Michael’s legacy is slowly rebuilding to it’s former glory. I’m sure of it.

    Like

  144. August 30, 2012 11:55 pm

    Rodrigo, is it what you are talking of? http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/countygrind/2012/08/michael_jackson_birthday_amazing_moments.php

    If this is all they are capable of it is simply a helpless squeak of Michael’s haters. Of course they will go on with it, but it looks so dusty and mouldy these days. So outdated and so much thing of the past. Like an old hat eaten by moth.

    This is clearly a reminder that people should forever remember the dirt told about Michael. This is why the author mentions “even the hyperbaric oxygen chamber” – as if this “even” is supposed to be something meaningful.

    The author tries hard but it does not impress. With princes partying naked life has gone too far ahead.

    Like

  145. Rodrigo permalink
    August 30, 2012 6:13 pm

    I’ve just seen it. That’s truly disgusting, right on his birthday. But it doesn’t surprise me. We know the game they like to play. ANYTHING postive about Michael is deliberately met by a negative from them. I bet the same will happen when Bad 25 is released.

    Like

  146. aldebaranredstar permalink
    August 30, 2012 10:21 am

    Huffpost published a horrible piece about the 10 things we’d like to forget about Michael Jackson. Truly heinous and published on his birthday. Must have been written by someone like DD or VG–or a friend of theirs. It is anonymous and so we don’t know who wrote it–goes through the usual litany or mistakes–some are truly bizarre, like claiming the lean in Smooth Criminal was something to forget–wow.

    Like

  147. Rodrigo permalink
    August 30, 2012 8:27 am

    Very true, Linda.

    Also, as I was going through the comments, I actually saw several people actually compare Michael with Jerry Sandusky…and believing he was guilty JUST by looking at the Sandusky’s case…If, anything, comparing Michael’s case with that sick freak’s, you could see just how innocent Michael was.

    If that continues, I think we should do something about it ourselves, as a few others out there have. But of course, it falls on hater’s ignorance. Still….

    Perhaps, Helena would be up to that task? 😀

    Like

  148. August 29, 2012 10:44 am

    Michael’s birthday… Sleep well, sweet prince…

    Like

  149. Linda permalink
    August 29, 2012 8:27 am

    @Rodrigo

    I just want to drill into their thick skulls.

    I know just how you feel there. With all the proof that has come out publicly and these people keep touting the same old sh*t they’ve been spreading for years, and many of them know better now and won’t back down because of their pride, or hate.

    Other’s don’t know any better, simply because they’re too lazy to research on their own, which is ok, but in that case they have no right to voice an opinion and should just shut the hell up. It is frustrating hearing these people say the same things over and over with nothing to go on except tabloid gossip.

    Honestly, sometimes I just slap people in my mind, lol. A lot of people look at Michael as a big liar always hiding. He was more up front and honest than many people realize. Actually his personal life was no ones business and he didn’t like to talk about his problems in public, but every so often he would try to explain things, but I think he let the media slam him for too long before he would finally start talking. By that time the public already had their opinion, planted by the press, and didn’t listen to, or believe what he said.

    Between what he said in the few interviews that he granted, his poetry and his music, he told the story of his life. It’s all right there if people would just listen. So sad that many people seem to want to believe the worst in any case, or news article that I read ( I always go to the comments section). I really don’t understand that but I see it every day. I guess it’s their own mind set or personality. Those people, I don’t even try to talk to. It’s a waste of my time because all they want to do is argue. I love talking to people that admit they don’t know about the trial he went through and will listen to the facts.

    I guess that’s our mission. To educate people that are willing to listen to the facts and come to a true understanding of what went on in his life, and why, and how it happened to him. If people would just understand how he was framed by Snedden, and smeared by the press, and realize that this could happen to anyone, maybe they would see why it is so important to bring out the whole truth and seek justice. It’s no longer just about Michael. It’s justice, period. If we can’t believe in our justice system for Michael, how can we believe in our justice system for any of us?

    Like

  150. Rodrigo permalink
    August 29, 2012 4:31 am

    I’ve just been going through people’s comments, and I wish they poen their minds a little more to understanding Michael.

    “He did this, he did that, because he was a p-le”

    WRONG!!!

    Michael was a man who thrived on his childhood. You dont need to be a genius to see he never got over what he never had. He kept himself clinging to his youth. Everything had a reason. He said as much himself.

    Why was the merry-go-around his favourite ride?
    Because that was the only time in Michael’s memory shere Joseph held him that didn’t involve beating him.

    Why sleep overs?
    Because Michael shared his room his room with his brothers as a child, and that meant a lot to him.

    I wish more people would look deeper into his childhood and teenage years. Because that’s the only way you can get the first clue. They never know about strict religious background or anything, which was also huge influence into what he became, and it’s also a solid piece of proof as to why Michael could never be gay. I just want to drill into their thick skulls.

    Like

  151. sanemjfan permalink
    August 28, 2012 5:08 am

    Great news! Duke University, one of the most elite schools in the country, is now offering a course on MJ! Here’s the syallabus! http://newblackman.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-syllabus-michael-jackson-black.html

    Like

  152. sanemjfan permalink
    August 22, 2012 8:02 am

    Here is an interview with the Jacksons in 1977, as well as footage of them actually recording the song “Jump For Joy”! You guys will be jumping for joy as you watch this! LOL!

    Like

  153. August 18, 2012 7:23 pm

    Guys, I’ve made some changes to the blog to make it more informative and easier to handle.

    The Blogroll section (containing links to various Internet sources) was divided into three parts:

    1) THE COMMUNITY (all MJ blogs which were added by me and my co-authors). A new link to the fantastic MJ Fan Club news archive has been added while non-operative links were suspended. The link to MJJ-777 remains here though for some reason access to me is constantly denied there. However since the basis for the denial is the country where I come from I hope all other readers are able to see it.

    2) THE HELPFUL SOURCES TO STUDY section is new. It provides links to sites which I myself often use for research. Many of them were here before and were simply shifted into this section. The links include the Santa Barbara Electronic Database which carries the official documents of the 2005 trial (I hear that some are now missing so get hold of the rest while they are still there), a detailed summary of each day of the 2005 trial made by the heroic MJ-Upbeat site and a link to ALL 2005 trial transcripts which were recently asked for by Dialdancer.

    The full transcripts were provided by the incredible Floacist blog https://www.box.com/shared/09zmi31anq/2/9455516/94502092/1#/s/09zmi31anq/1/9455516. The DearArvizo site previously having this material had to be deleted as it is no longer operative alas.

    You will also find here links to Larry King’s archive of interviews, an account of Conrad Murray’s trial by Trials & Tribulations blog, legal information from Leslie’s blog and other helpful things.

    3) THE CHOICES WE MAKE is a totally new section. I think it is a must add-on considering the latest news about William Wagener’s affidavit. The name of this section reflects my whole-hearted support for the idea to hold Sneddon accountable for his crimes.

    Here you will find a link to the Petition to support WW’s affidavit (please sign it!), the FB page supporting William Wagener, a link to Cadeflaw Blogtalkradio parts 1 and 2, and some others. I think that if all of us have these links close at hand it will easier for us to keep track of this historic initiative.

    Like

  154. August 17, 2012 10:13 am

    There seems to be a kind of a calm in the MJ Community…. long may it last. Any cease fire is a good thing. No innocents caught in the crossfire. Or maybe I am just in a good place at this time. There have been some apologies made. It does not mean the differences have been resolved, but with the apologies was a laying down of some of the more destructive weapons. What we do with this small calm and how long it last will depend upon us. Calm does not have to be boring, after all there is always ….MICHAEL!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like

  155. sanemjfan permalink
    August 16, 2012 9:27 am

    Here’s a 10 minute video report on MJ’s 1994 testimony during his music copyright civil trial. It includes snippets of the audio of his testimony, including when he sings “Dangerous”, “Billie Jean”, and beat boxing the beat to “Streetwalker”:

    Like

  156. ISAURA permalink
    August 11, 2012 12:54 am

    Love this article thank you so much – there are so many reason why we all still so sad and angry (at least I am) is knowing how much he suffered and how hard everything was for him, still he went on with his life and his art – I know that the desire of helping human kind and the world kept him going and of course his beautiful and loving children – I still ask myself WHY? WHY so much hate and lies towards one person – Is the pain HE went through what make still so sad – L.O.V.E for ever –

    Like

  157. ISAURA permalink
    August 10, 2012 8:20 am

    Thank you so much – it hurts so much that all the bad things that were said about Michael came from the USA Media – very sad very cruel very unfair. L.O.V.E

    Like

  158. August 9, 2012 12:43 am

    “I STARTED TO THINK THAT I DID NOT MADE MYSELF CLEAR – I WAS NOT CONDEMNING TOM CRUISE. THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE — MICHAEL WAS HOLDING THE BABY VERY TIGHT”

    Isaura, none of us are “condemning” Tom Cruise – we are not hypocrites and see that he was just “flying” his daughter in the air which all children like very much.

    And if a person is not a hypocrite he will not condemn Michael for that little clumsy scene at a hotel either – he was showing off his baby to his fans and took him out of the window to let them see him clearer. The railing was in the way and he took him slightly over the railing. It lasted a couple of seconds only and he wasn’t “dangling” the baby. Michel held Blanket in his arms very tight and no one needs to prove this point to us – we can see it ourselves in the photos of the episode.

    The media just blew it out of all proportion. They needed a “news event” and they got it. And after that there was no stopping them. By the way the German police did not pay any attention to the incident it and were right in doing so. It was the US media and public who worked themselves into such a state that whatever Michael did it was no good for them and turned into a scandal of a planetary magnitude.

    Like

  159. Rodrigo permalink
    August 8, 2012 8:36 am

    I want to see how something like this gets spun out when you’re not a celebrity like Michael Jackson

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4476306/Couple-risk-toddlers-life-as-she-teeters-on-slippery-barrier-on-Tower-Bridge-30ft-above-the-Thames.html

    Like

  160. ISAURA permalink
    August 8, 2012 7:22 am

    HELENA – NO IT IS NOT THE SAME PICTURE BUT I AFTER I POSTED MY COMMENT I STARTED TO THINK THAT I DID NOT MADE MYSELF CLEAR – I WAS NOT CONDEMNING TOM CRUISE I WAS TRYING HE WOULD NEVER LET GO OF HIS DAUGHTERS HANDS AND THAT IS THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE — MICHAEL WAS HOLDING THE BABY VERY TIGHT AND NEVER WOULD LET GO OF HIS PRECIOUS CARGO – BUT THE MEDIA LOOK FOR THE NEGATIVE IN MICHAEL’S ACTIONS — I APOLOGIZED FOR THE WAY I CAME ACROSS — THANK YOU FOR YOUR MESSAGE

    Like

  161. sanemjfan permalink
    August 8, 2012 3:04 am

    @Helena
    In my opinion it is best not to press anything on anyone. Pressing inevitably looks like selling a commodity while the customer picks and chooses and after wasting a lot of your time can still reject it. Asking them questions would be more economical and stimulating for their brains.

    That reminds me of a post I did a few months ago that compiles a list of thought provoking questions that fans should ask to anyone who claims they “know” that MJ was guilty:

    http://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/its-not-up-to-michael-jacksons-fans-to-prove-that-he-was-innocent-its-up-to-michael-jacksons-haters-to-prove-that-he-was-guilty/

    Like

  162. August 8, 2012 1:21 am

    The baby dangling is being brough up ovev and over.If you look carefully the baby did not dangle at all,His legs were movibg the the way babies do.And Michaels strong arm completely embraced the babys body.

    Like

  163. August 8, 2012 12:48 am

    TOM CRUISE WAS HOLDING HIS BABY DAUGHTER BY HER HANDS AND HER FEET WERE TOUCHING THE ROUGH WATER IN WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE ENTRANCE OF A BOAT– NO ONE EVER MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT” – Isaura

    This must not be the same picture but if we wanted to find fault with it we would. It all depends on how we look at it – it might be a reckless father twisting his daughter’s joints or a charming scene of a daughter flying with her father’s help:

    Speaking about other MJ’s “crimes” – for instance, plastic surgery – here is Priscilla Presley’s example:

    or Catherine Zeta Jones:

    Wouldn’t they have taken Michael Jackson’s daughter from him if she were dressed like that?

    Like

  164. August 7, 2012 5:12 pm

    “I see so many ignorant people out there who think he’s guilty simply because of the sleepovers or even by the baby dangling incident. From there, they’ll only see and think the worst about him. So it is a fight to convince them otherwise. It may be pointless to try and convince, but why should they get away with shouting this and that about Michael when they don’t even have the first clue and refuse to take it when you offer it?” – Rodrigo

    Guys, I’ve been thinking about what Rodrigo and others are saying. Indeed there should be a fight and the ignorant should not get away with their lies. But “how to fight” is no less important than the goal itself.

    And when people are not willing to know the truth it is becoming more difficult than ever. We know of Michael’s innocence because we’ve studied the subject – while they don’t know a thing because they are quite happy with what tabloids fed them with. We are ready to tell them, but they are not willing to know because they decided everything for themselves long ago, and don’t see the point why they should look any further. They say they “know all there is to know there”.

    Therefore our situation is not easy and each of us has his own recipe for solving it. I have two of my own. Please don’t get offended by how I see it and the comparison I’ll make.

    And I always keep in mind the way the first Christians behaved. They were quiet and lived their life according to the principles they believed in, but their behavior was in so much contrast with what was going around them that this alone intrigued, compelled curiosity and attention, and sparked desire to be with them. They themselves lived modestly but helped everyone in need, so in the areas where they lived there were no hungry, homeless or abandoned people. The relations between them were based on love, respect and a feeling of brotherhood, and this made a huge difference for the others who were used to humans being killed for entertainement on their arenas.

    If Michael’s supporters adhered to a strict ethical code themselves they could create a force which by this side of their behavior could inspire awe in others. At the time when there is so much craziness all around – squabbling over every little thing, incessant suing each other, and hate reaching the point of shooting – if Michael’s supporters could present a different model of behavior this alone could change people’s attitude to Michael.

    But this requires us to be the best. Quiet, professional, educated, knowledgeable, supportive of others, non-vulgar in words and behavior, humane, charitable, very confident and never shy to say that “yes, I am a supporter of Michael Jackson, why?” raising our heads for a minute from the work Michael Jackson would want us to do.

    In my opinion it is best not to press anything on anyone. Pressing inevitably looks like selling a commodity while the customer picks and chooses and after wasting a lot of your time can still reject it. Asking them questions would be more economical and stimulating for their brains.

    – Why did he pay in the 1993 case?
    – And why did the JC Penny pay to the Arvizos $150,000 though it was an Arvizo who stole from them?

    – Why did he buy the Chandler’s silence in 1993?
    – What silence? The case had been thundering for half a year by then!

    – The police had the boy’s description.
    – If the description matched, why didn’t they arrest him then and there?

    – He got away with it because the boy refused to testify!
    – Are the victims of murderers also required to testify? Isn’t physical evidence enough? Oh, they didn’t have any? Because there was no match?

    However the problem with this method is that not everyone is asking. Many are absolutely happy with their ignorance and are too lazy and arrogant even to ask questions.

    For these people we need a method which they themselves like most. I mean TV programs shown in prime-time when the public is drinking their beer and is chewing their hamburgers. Thundering documentaries like the ones to be made by William Wagener and Geraldine Hughes.

    I believe that this is the only way facts can really reach the “masses”. They are too lazy and too disinterested to look for the facts themselves, but if the facts are brought into their homes and presented in a sensational matter they are so much used to, their dusty minds will probably clear up a bit. Add to it the follow-up discussions within the family, at the hairdressers’, on the phone with friends and this will be a substantial step forward in enlightening the masses with truth about Michael Jackson.

    Is the price of $4mln. William Wagener is collecting for his documentary too much for such an attempt? Absolutely not. All of us should understand that the hard work of studying the documents is for the educated and motivated fanbase of Michael Jackson, while the rest of the public – alas – will have to be entertained with cartoons, thrillers and musicals to make them learn the truth.

    Like

  165. ISAURA permalink
    August 7, 2012 5:58 am

    TO HELENA: I LOVE YOUR COMMENTS- IT IS TRUE PEOPLE LEAVE CHILDREN IN CARS EVERYDAY, BEAT THEM TO DEATH, STILL, KILL, BEAT HOMELESS PEOPLE, GO TO SCHOOLS AND KILL CHILDREN, – HAS ANYONE SEEN THE PICTURE OF TOM CRUISE – HE WAS HOLDING HIS BABY DAUGHTER BY HER HANDS AND HER FEET WERE TOUCHING THE ROUGH WATER IN WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE ENTRANCE OF A BOAT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT – NO ONE EVER MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT – MICHAEL WAS SPEAK OFF LIKE HE WAS A CRAZY FATHER ETC. ETC. —- WHY SO MUCH HATE TOWARDS MICHAEL ??? EVERY ARTIST HAVE THEIR OWN PERSONALITY AND THEY IN SOME WAYS ARE DIFFERENT THAT THE REGULAR PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO BE AND BECAUSE THEY LIKE TO BE – SO WHAT – WHAT ITS IMPORTANT IS HIS SOUL, HIS LOVE FOR CHILDREN, THE POOR, THE LESS FORTUNATE, THE WORLD, ANIMALS AND HIS MUSIC AND FANS – L.O.V.E

    Like

  166. August 7, 2012 1:42 am

    I am returning to the syndrome that does not exist, described by Rodrigo.He listed all the symptoms that a psycholigst had..Syndromes are pushed now and then by people who may indeed have seen people exibiting all of the hallmarks they list.Why is there not a sibling rivalry syndrome,or a parental discord syndrome? Most of you had a negative reaction to this, and ofcourse all is only conjecure.We know of the harsh physical abuse and maybe even worse the psychological.re his nose esp, by his father.
    His childhood was work and work.All this he has told himself.He also stated many times that he was misunderstood, and I fully believe it.He was a curious child and I think a strongwilled one.In contrast to his brothers he studied all the great performers closely.And this bore fruit-he became the most talented and successful ,not only in comparison with his brothers,but anybody..not to mention his many other good qualities.Still some particular traces were left from his childhood traumas.For example it took him years to move out on his own when he had all the means and money to do that.He asked his mother to come with him.
    I have read on this blog about a trip to Hawaii with Dr Klein and staff and Michael insisting they all sleep in the same room.He has also talked about his deep sense of loneliness in adolescence,And he practically panicked,fleing to the bathroom,when visiting president Reagan and no children were there as he had requested.Also he was ashamed about his looks avoiding mirrors.And he surrounded himself by children,having long friendshkips with them and lots of fun.Through his sheer strong will and talent he became a megastar who still preferred the company of children. He also had reationships with adult men and women.
    Many have sworn he was attrcted to women and I fully believe this.Still a longtime,cl.ose relationship and a good marriage eluded him. My belief is that traces of this nonexistent syndrome lingered on,the love ,joy and comfort he felt with children was so to speak his achilles heal,undoubtedly also a source for his imagination and creativity.This is why
    Guitirrez hovered around and all the dirt about him started.-I have interviewed people of all ages(very confidential ones) and my favorite interviewees were between 3y-11 or 12.y.
    Their imagination and creativity in expresing themselves always awed me.And often when they met me the first time.Michael was persecuted by the press. He was misunderstood and in the end that resulted in his untimely death..

    Like

  167. Rodrigo permalink
    August 6, 2012 5:36 pm

    Again, Helena, I agree with you.

    Michael summed up those people perfectly and they laughed at him when he called them ignorant. But it’s true, and theres no denying it. Ignorance and hypocrisy is only just two of the words you associate with Michael’s “critics”.

    I see so many ignorant people out there who think he’s guilty simply because of the sleepovers or even by the baby dangling incident. From there, they’ll only see and think the worst about him. So it is a fight to convince them otherwise. It may be pointless to try and convince, but why should they get away with shouting this and that about Michael when they don’t even have the first clue and refuse to take it when you offer it? I can’t stand people like that.

    But people like that really aren’t worth the time. They’re childish, and that’s a common trait of almost every MJ hater. I think they lack the mental capabilities of comprehension and understanding. It’s just replaced with ignorance and hypocrisy. Cause they’re pretty much ignorant about their own crazy selves, and are hypocrites when they point out Michael’s ‘flaws’ and think theirs nothing wrong with themselves. You’ve got somebody on Topix who thinks up the most psychotic and disgusting things and there are people praising and defending him for doing it. You get called “f’loon” by those childish people for pointing it out.

    And those people call Michael strange, this and that?

    Ignorance and hypocrisy.

    Like

  168. August 6, 2012 1:39 pm

    “It’s just when you try defending Michael’s life to people out there, they need more of a convincing reason for his behaviour”.

    Rodrigo, I am totally amazed that people need a ‘convincing reason for Michael’s behavior”. What behavior? There was nothing unusual in his behavior except those sleepovers (which are a separate matter to discuss). Otherwise his behavior was well within the limits. He didn’t kill anyone, he didn’t harass anyone, he didn’t bully, cheat, steal or betray. He didn’t arrange wild parties and didn’t take drugs for recreation – even in the worst of times the Demerol he took was given to him by prescription, and he tried very hard to get rid of the habit (which was imposed on him by doctors) and by the way he succeeded in beating it!

    Another episode which everyone recalls when speaking about Michael’s “behavior” is the so-called baby-dangling episode, but over here I am amazed by the public’s hypocrisy – they will speak about Michael’s not too wise move forever, but will pay no attention to their neighbours who beat their children, sometimes even to death, forget them in cars in hot weather so that they suffocate there, make them go hungry for days, punish them too harshly and abuse them in many other ways. Instead of speaking about these atrocities the public prefers to discuss Michael Jackson whose only misstep was showing the baby some 10 centimetres too far from the balcony railining! What is the name for going after one person for a minor misdeed while ignoring thousands of cases of much graver behavior by others? HYPOCRISY, guys.

    Instead of discussing Michael’s “behavior” why don’t these people look at the Presleys, for a change? Each member of that family is a ready-made example of how not to behave, however all I see is everyone nodding in approval for their ways. For some reason the Presleys are an icon which should never be touched. What’s the name for these double standards? HYPOCRISY again.

    Does the public find it wrong that Michael changed his color from black to white? But it wasn’t him – it was his disease! Since when has a person’s misfortune, illness or handicap become reason for ridicule by the public? This isn’t only hypocrisy but RUTHLESSNES and cold-blooded CRUELTY, that’s what it is.

    Let the people who want “convincing reasons for Michael’s behavior” look at themselves first. I doubt that they are able to cast an objective look at themselves in the mirror but if they manage to they should be ashamed of what they see there.

    Like

  169. Rodrigo permalink
    August 6, 2012 7:41 am

    Thanks for that, Helena. Very insightful 🙂

    Like

  170. August 6, 2012 4:40 am

    “There’s an interesting piece from a psychologist who concluded Michael’s love for mannequins as a form of loneliness and narcissism, stemming from Peter Pan Syndrome.”- Rodrigo

    I may disappoint professional psychologists but my own view of psychology is a very sceptical one, though having psychology professors in the family I’ve been circulating in the psychological environment since early childhood. Psychology is a fantastically interesting science, but the bad point about it is that it is a very difficult science. Human brain and human behavior are probably the most difficult spheres of study in comparison with everything else that exists in the world.

    From the intimate conversations I had with many professional psychologists and after observing how helpless they are in solving some of their own problems I tend to take with a big grain of salt some of their theories. By the problems in these people’s families I mean really serious problems like their inability to prevent their children from committing suicide for example. For specialists on developmental disorders such an occurrence in their own family is inexcusable and I know at least two families with such instances (one was a mental case and the other was evidently a drug-addict).

    What I mean to say is that “theory” is not everything, especially since every school of psychological thought adheres to a theory of its own. Even two major universities in one country cannot agree on some of the issues, not to mention the schools of thought in various countries. What is a developmental disorder in one country is okay in another country and vice versa.

    This Peter Pan syndrome looks to me a wholly artificial idea. All adult problems spring from childhood and none of us can boast that we are the “ideal products of childhood”. No, each of us has his own problems. Some were not loved and grew to be insecure or insensitive, others were loved too much and grew to be spoiled, lacking in initiative, or self-indulging. Some were single babies in the family and grew selfish and thick-skinned, others were part of big families and are more cooperative towards each other but more nervous too. I for example know it for a scientific fact (was told about these studies by a Polish psychologist) that if more than 7 people come up to a small baby this big number of contacts can bring about a further neurosis in a child.

    Children growing up in one family and in seemingly similar conditions for some reason turn out to be different in their character and behavior. Add to it various compensatory mechanisms each individual develops on his own to compensate for what he feels is his deficiency (or complexes) and you will have another huge multitude of variants.

    No person is like another person. Everyone is unique. And the one who started in awful conditions does not necessarily end up in the gutter. While the one who made his life-start in a perfect family does not necessary turn out to be someone emotionally stable, good-natured and respectable.

    Add to it the fact that each person has two sides to his nature – a personality and character – and while the personality may be good the character may be awful (= an honest person with an impossible temper) or the personality may be awful but the character good (a good-natured crook who will steal from you and you won’t be able to even get angry with him because he is “such a nice guy”). After adding these factors to the picture you will again get a multitude of new variants.

    Add to it the point that some people don’t work on themselves while others do, improving their character (learning to understand others and getting rid of anger, for example) and even improving their personality (acquiring some moral values – usually after certain emotional disasters in their lives), and you will get one more multitude of variants. Some people will stagnate until old age the way they are, while others will raise to great heights.

    Michael Jackson as a boy grew up in extremely unfavourable conditions and this explains many of his complexes and nervousness over which he had no control. But his personality was brilliant. Whether this was the way nature created him or whether this was his mother’s influence I don’t know but the end result is that his crystal-clear personality dominated over everything else in Michael.

    Of course he could not beat some of the physical reactions of his body which have to do with the nerves, like fear when facing danger, panicking when being alone, sweat when agitated, inability to swallow food when depressed, etc. – very few people can control these reactions and these things depend exactly on your childhood experience and the level of nervousness which you acquire as a result of that, but I repeat that his personality or the moral side of his nature was unique in its brilliance.

    It was his personality (you may call it Spirit) which helped him persevere in the most impossible circumstances in which even a person with a stronger nervous system would not survive. The only thing it could not cope with was a physical reaction of his body to stress which manifested itself in his total disability to sleep. Over here he was unable to help himself as this is a factor beyond any person’s control. And this was what killed Michael Jackson. For some reason there was no medical professional by his side who could help him with this huge problem.

    Like

  171. kaarin22 permalink
    August 5, 2012 2:32 am

    Certainly he had many friends and was not a loner. What is meant here are close,intimate realionships with someone you can tell your secrets or things you don´t tell all friends. He may have told Botech some, but then Botech goes and tells about his druguse, later he (Botech) has tried some damage control in this regard.Diana Ross may have been a confidante,but she has not given interviews or written books either.You are probably right re the magazines,it was just a thought.

    Like

  172. August 4, 2012 10:13 pm

    .I evn suspect that the pornographic magzines of women he had a collection of may have been an attempt to figure out females.

    He had them for the same reason other men had them. You don’t need a collection of porn magazines spanning 13 years to figure out women. He’d had them before 1991 too.

    He had many adult friendships, with both men and women. Miko Brando, Liza Minnelli, Jane Fonda, Elizabeth Taylor, Diana Ross, Chris Tucker, Eddie Murphy, Teddy Riley, Sophia Loren, Debbie Rowe, Stephanie Mills, Brooke Shields, Donald Trump, David Gest, Stevie Wonder, all of the BeeGees, Whitney Houston, Bryan Loren, Steve Manning, Eddie Griffin, Akon, Uri Geller, Princess Diana, Marlon Brando, Gregory Peck, Prudence Solomon, Jerry Inzerillo, Denise Rich, Glenda Stein (from the tapes), etc etc etc

    Like

  173. August 4, 2012 9:32 pm

    We need to honour and admire Michael for achieving so much despite his difficult childhood.

    Like

  174. kaarin22 permalink
    August 4, 2012 9:21 pm

    In no way do I see do I see Michael in a one dimensional way.He had extraordinary talent and intelligence.He once said he had 2 kind of friends,business friends and real friends.
    He felt more comfortable with older women who were more tolerant and maybe somewhat maternal towards him. I never thought he was gay; Fist he had a crush on his first grade teacher,bringing his mothers jewellery to her as gifts,then at 12 yo he asked Joanelle Romano to “go steady” with him.And most of all Diana Ross.I think it was Diana who held back because of the age difference. Murray claimed he told him he has no friend.I suspect that his need for approval made it easy for Thome-Thome ,Murray and the likes to initially kind of seduce him. Both of them are psychopaths who often have a sc psychopathic charm they use for their own gain.
    In his thirties he very much wanted a conventional marriage.He and Lisa made an attempt,they even quarreled, which I see as a positive thing ,trying to settle their differences.Also he kind of adopted families.And his commitment to the wellfare of the children in our world is momentous. He never succeeded to have a longterm intimate realationship with a woman or a marriage with children that was his desire.I even suspect that the pornographic magzines of women he had a collection of may have been an attempt to figure out females. As a father he was more successful and he certainly had matured.
    PPS like parental alienation syndrome are not diagnoses. More attempts to explain a certain psychodynamic.

    Like

  175. Rodrigo permalink
    August 4, 2012 7:09 am

    I wish others would think like you 🙂

    Like

  176. August 4, 2012 7:03 am

    But I will firmly believe the psychologists theories, the ones who have spoken to him and the ones that haven’t, when they say he suffered with PPS, not pe-lia.

    But nobody has diagnosed him with this, just people in the media have. Like that French doctor who wrote an entire book just a year back on how Mike was castrated. He’s a professional too. These people read a few things about him and then launch into theories.

    People who believe he had this disorder tend to believe only one dimension of him that they saw/heard about in the media. Even people who met him or worked with him for over some years could only ever be exposed to one side of him. I remember Lisa Marie commenting after seeing Mike talk at length about art with an artist, and after Mike had walked away she’d said “Wow, he acted normal!” because Mike would keep that side of himself away from a lot of people and it frustrated her because she felt people would understand him better if just acted like he was with her with everyone else. It’s like Marilyn Monroe’s childlike persona vs who she was. If she’d been a man maybe people would diagnose her with the same things: castration, peter pan syndrome, transgendered, who knows what else.

    Like

  177. Rodrigo permalink
    August 4, 2012 6:31 am

    I would never disrespect Michael by coming up with crazy theories and think I know him best, like a certain hater does…yes, you Desiree!

    But you’re right. The main problem is that too many people love, for whatever reason, to think up theories about Michael. They assume and make assumptions, based on what the media portrays him to be. We have to live with that. I’m guilty of it myself, even though I think of MJ in the postive, cause that’s where the truth obviously lies.

    But I will firmly believe the psychologists theories, the ones who have spoken to him and the ones that haven’t, when they say he suffered with PPS, not pe-lia. They are professionals, we and the haters aren’t.

    And its no wonder why Michael wanted to separate himself from the Jackson’s and form new family units…he knew best they were nothing but greedy and selfish bloodsuckers.

    Like

  178. August 4, 2012 5:29 am

    I know, but I just feel in attempting to give him more “explanations” it only does a disservice to who he really was. It’s why theories about him being castrated and other nonsensical things persist, because people refuse to see him as just a guy, they have to try and justify and explain him to the point of only seeing him as being incredibly damaged and then working back from that. If you see him as a person, he becomes much easier to understand. Most people are insecure, have anxiety, experience loneliness. Michael didn’t revert back to being a child with kids, but he was able to relate to them because of what had happened to him and they made him feel normal. It isn’t an abnormality. As we can see from the last few weeks, he had many genuine reasons to feel lonely and like he needed other families.

    Like

  179. Rodrigo permalink
    August 4, 2012 4:56 am

    lacienegasmiles

    I totally agree with you.

    A lot of Michael’s adult friends were child stars themselves, which could show why he needed people he could relate with, because they understood the life he had. But there were many other adults he was perfectly fine with, who weren’t child stars, you’re right.

    It seems like the people in his life who gain things talk about him being this and that, yet the people who knew him and gain nothing say he was an altogether there sensible person, which I believe he was…

    Forgive me if I’ve spoken out of term. It’s just when you try defending Michael’s life to people out there, they need more of a convincing reason for his behaviour. PPS does seem to fit with him, as psychologists have said.

    Like

  180. August 4, 2012 4:20 am

    it also explains his inability to relate with adults and why he needed the company of children.

    This isn’t true, Michael had many adult friends, he could relate to them just fine.

    I think you’re basing this on a very one dimensional idea of Michael.

    Michael always explained why he was the way he was: an absence of a real childhood and Joe’s abuse. That was the only explanation he needed, but people seem to believe there must be more, including anyone who needs to diagnose him with things like that.

    I remember his bodyguards from the last 3 years of his life saying how Michael’s kids were like little 20 year olds in terms of maturity, they got that from Michael.

    Just because he was comfortable portraying one aspect of himself publicly does not mean there wasn’t another side of him, Lisa Marie has very publicly repeatedly stated this same thing.

    Like

  181. Rodrigo permalink
    August 4, 2012 4:10 am

    That’s very true, Kaarin.

    Michael said in an interview back in the 80’s that he walked the streets just to find somebody to talk to, and he would cry himself to sleep because of the loneliness. He also said he would pretend that the mannuquins were real people and he would talk to them. He kept diaries, another way of him expressing his loneliness in some form.

    Adult life never interested him, not just relationships. He didn’t even want to learn to drive a car, it was only because of Katherine pushing him to do it.

    PPS explains his desire to look his best. It explains his interest in the life as a youth, which he had no control over. I think it also explains his inability to relate with adults and why he needed the company of children. It was to fit those holes in his life. It had nothing to do with him being weird or a pe-le…

    Because PPS isn’t that well known or regarded, I think it was difficult for Michael to explain the way he was to others, probably even difficult to explain it to himself. It’s why some people think the worst of him unfortunately.

    Many psychologists have determined he did not fit the profile of a pe-le, and did have PPS. I’ll take the word of professionals over haters any day.

    Like

  182. kaarin22 permalink
    August 4, 2012 2:04 am

    Rodrigo,you are right re the PPS,narcissism and fear of loneliness.
    Thre is a normal ,sc.,primary narcissism in childhood. It is part of normal development. A child needs absolutely to feel loved and accepted, and needs this especially from his/her parents. This helps selfconfidence and an ability to tolerate a degree of being alone without massive anxiety. What we know of Michaels childhood he was bereft of above affection and attention. Even Latoya once stated that them,the children ,being so many probably stressed their parents.
    When the needs during this primary,normal narcissism are not met it can indeed lead to secondary narcissism in adulthood.I have previously pointed out that Michael´s need to have children around is a result of separation anxiety,ie a fear of loneliness.Michael has told much about his father, I often wondered why his mother did not stop the physical abuse.-I think Michael was aware of this,therefrom his great need to help children.And to crave their company to alliviate his sense of loneliness rather than any sexual needs.

    Like

  183. Rodrigo permalink
    August 3, 2012 9:21 pm

    That’s good to see, Helena 🙂

    I was reading Taraborrelli’s TMATM again (about the hundredth time now)
    There’s an interesting piece from a psychologist who concluded Michael’s love for mannequins as a form of loneliness and narcissism, stemming from Peter Pan Syndrome.

    And PPS does fit Michael’s personality almost perfectly –

    The ‘Peter Pan Syndrome’ affects people who do not want or feel unable to grow up, people with the body of an adult but the mind of a child. They don’t know how to or don’t want to stop being children and start being mothers or fathers.

    The syndrome is not currently considered a psychopathology, given the World Health Organization has not recognized it as a psychological disorder. However, an increasingly larger number of adults are presenting emotionally immature behaviors in Western society. They are unable to grow up and take on adult responsibilities, and even dress up and enjoy themselves as teenagers when they are over 30 years old.

    Peter Pan Syndrome can affect both sexes, but it appears more often among men. Some characteristics of the disorder are the inability of individuals to take on responsibilities, to commit themselves or to keep promises, excessive care about the way they look and personal well-being and their lack of self-confidence, even though they don’t seem to show it and actually come across as exactly the opposite.

    The UGR professor declares that these people are usually scared of loneliness, which is why they try to surround themselves with people who can meet their needs. “They become anxious when they are evaluated by their work colleagues or their superiors, given they are completely intolerant towards any criticism. Sometimes they can have serious adaptation problems at work or in personal relationships.

    Sorry for bringing that all up. But I honestly believe that people out there think PPS is just a myth or something, so it doesn’t apply to Michael.

    Like

  184. August 3, 2012 11:04 am

    I would like to note that all contributors to this blog have been restored to their “author” status. Now they can make their contributions and write posts here (if they want to) without first submitting their text to me as the administrator.

    I may be an impossible idealist but I do believe in the best in people and hope that this change will be only for the better.

    This way this blog will remain what it was – a collective effort of various Michael Jackson’s advocates, a sort of a journal where all authors can place their posts in addition to their own individual blogs.

    The requirements are the same – 1) standing up for Michael Jackson and doing research to prove his innocence to those few who are still in the dark, and 2) giving up one’s own ego in the process.

    This blog should be a place where Michael Jackson could reside and be himself if only he had a chance to be with us.

    Like

  185. July 27, 2012 1:24 pm

    Yes, Dial, Sneddon should be held accountable! I’ve just signed the petition and added:

    “There are numerous facts pointing to Sneddon having a personal vendetta against Jackson at the expense of American tax payers. If this instance of criminal conduct is left unattended it may open the road to others following this vicious example. It is extremely dangerous as the whole effectiveness of the legal system is at stake. Sneddon’s conduct should be investigated to protect the people of the country from the possibility of arbitrary prosecution of anyone at someone else’s whim.”

    I really believe that Sneddon’s conduct was ruinous not only for Michael Jackson but for the legal system as a whole. Imagine everyone seeking the post of a prosecutor in order to square with his enemies or put an innocent person into prison because he wants to get hold of his property, for example? This is how far it can go if Sneddon’s behavior is not given a proper legal answer!

    Therefore I urge everyone to sign the petition. No matter whether they are Michael’s fans or not. And I am happy that William Wagener is determined to make an affidavit about Sneddon’s criminal conduct! Here is the text of the petition:

    Support of Affidavit Concerning Criminal Conduct of Tom Sneddon – 2005 Michael Jackson Trial

    Target: Santa Barbara County of California Supervisors
    Sponsored by: MichaelJackson SimForum

    This petition serves to express our concern and belief that former District Attorney Thomas Sneddon committed at least three felonies against Mr. Michael Jackson during the 2005 trial of charges for child molestation.

    On August 14, 2012, Mr. William Wagener will present to the County Supervisors of Santa Barbara an affidavit of criminal conduct committed by Mr. Thomas Sneddon during the 2005 trial of Mr. Michael Jackson. We support the effort to have a full investigation into the matter carried out by an independent special prosecutor; someone outside of Santa Barbara County.

    We are outraged at the egregious misuse of power during the 2005 trial of Mr. Jackson. It is frightening to think that, in someone’s zeal to get a conviction, felonies can be committed by those sworn to uphold the law and seek truth.

    We are concerned about the message this sends to future prosecutors who may be tempted to go beyond the boundaries of the law in order to fulfill personal agendas. Our court system is not a weapon to be used to satisfy personal vendettas or to gain personal notoriety, social status, or political power.

    We ask that there be a full independent investigation into the claims made in Mr. Wagener’s affidavit of criminal conduct. Please hold those in power responsible for their crimes, and let full justice be extended to Michael Jackson, as well as others who have been or may in the future be victims of over zealous prosecutors.

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/662/053/218/support-of-affidavit-concerning-criminal-conduct-of-tom-sneddon-2005-michael-jackson-trial/

    Dial, and I also repeat the other links you’ve provided:

    The instructions for emailing and mailing your statement of support are on FB.
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/408561919190327/doc/412572922122560/

    Select one of the letters to send your message to the five Board Members.
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/408561919190327/doc/412235482156304/
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/408561919190327/doc/412172675495918/

    Like

  186. July 27, 2012 12:49 pm

    The petition is up.

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/662/053/218/support-of-affidavit-concerning-criminal-conduct-of-tom-sneddon-2005-michael-jackson-trial/

    The instructions for emailing and mailing your statement of support are on FB.
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/408561919190327/doc/412572922122560/

    Select one of the letters to send your message to the five Board Members.
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/408561919190327/doc/412235482156304/
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/408561919190327/doc/412172675495918/

    Now it is up to anyone who wishes to support, who wishes to see if we can get Tom Sneddon investigated for at least 3 crimes, to have him stand before a jury of 12.

    It is well documented on this site that Michael is not the only one this was done to by these men nor was this the only Prosecutor’s Office to have done such a thing. Maybe this will send a message to all.

    Things can change the influential can be held accountable. Look at Rupurt Murdoch. Who would have believed 2 yrs ago this would or could happen to such a powerful Media Giant?

    Like

  187. July 23, 2012 1:16 pm

    “Here is something I thought I had posted early this morning.” – Dialdancer

    A message from William Wagener:
    On August 14th, at 9:00 am on the Betteravia Government center, in Santa Maria, Ca. Addressing the monthly meeting of the County S.B. Supervisors, I shall give the supervisors official notice by affidavid that Sneddon committed 3 felonies in the trial, of MJ in 2005

    Dial, this is exceptionally important news too and I wish William Wagener (and all of us) that Tom Sneddon is indeed investigated for committing crimes against Jackson, the law and human conscience:

    http://www.facebook.com/william.j.wagener

    William J. Wagener

    On August 14th, at 9:00 am on the Betteravia Government center, in Santa Maria, Ca. Addressing the monthly meeting of the County S.B. Supervisors, I shall give the supervisors official notice by affidavid that Sneddon committed 3 felonies in the trial, of MJ in 2005

    William Wagener will present to the County Supervisors of Santa Barbara, for the 1st time, ever, A Affidavit of Criminal conduct by Tom Sneddon, former Dictrict Atty. and demand a independent investigation and INDICTMENT of Tom SNEDDON for committing

    THREE felonies during the Michael Jackson TRIAL in 2005. Specifically to get Michael Jackson convicted false evidence was present at court and caught by the Defense Atty.s Thomas Mesereau and Susan YU. William Wagener invites all those who love justice or Michael Jackson to come and ad 1 minute speechs after William Wagener’s presentment. And demand, like Mr. Wagener, that a special Prosecution of Thomas Sneddon be started by hiring a Special Prosecutor from outside Santa Barbara or even outside California, to investigate and Prosecute Thomas Sneddon.

    Once this is done, the FRAUD is exposed and the statue of Limitations starts to run out. FRAUD by the Santa Barbara Dist. Atty. OFFICE “on the court”
    un-identified, and Uncorrected for the past 7 Years has prevented the Statute of Limitations from running out.

    If you are coming to California anyway in August and can be there. Please be there. Show up for Michaels sake. 9 am 1st Floor in the Betteravia Government Center in Santa Maria, August 14th.

    I fully support it!

    P.S. We just need to make sure that Katherine Jackson is okay and put out the fire among her messed-up children.

    Like

  188. Dialdancer permalink
    July 21, 2012 9:49 am

    Here is something I thought I had posted early this morning. Something which many claimed they waited to see. Although not a done deal by any means I find those who say they work to tell the world the truth of the allegations should be shouting this from the roof tops. Working every bit as hard to see this is a success being as involved as they are into feeding from the Media.
    ,

    http://www.facebook.com/william.j.wagener

    William J. Wagener

    On August 14th, at 9:00 am on the Betteravia Government center, in Santa Maria, Ca. Addressing the monthly meeting of the County S.B. Supervisors, I shall give the supervisors official notice by affidavid that Sneddon committed 3 felonies in the trial, of MJ in 2005

    William Wagener will present to the County Supervisors of Santa Barbara, for the 1st time, ever, A Affidavit of Criminal conduct by Tom Sneddon, former Dictrict Atty. and

    demand a independent investigation and INDICTMENT of Tom SNEDDON for committing

    THREE felonies during the Michael Jackson TRIAL in 2005. Specifically to get Michael Jackson convicted false evidence was present at court and caught by the Defense Atty.s Thomas Mesereau and Susan YU. William Wagener invites all those who love justice or Michael Jackson to come and ad 1 minute speechs after William Wagener’s presentment. And demand, like Mr. Wagener, that a special Prosecution of Thomas Sneddon be started by hiring a Special Prosecutor from outside Santa Barbara or even outside California, to investigate and Prosecute Thomas Sneddon.

    Once this is done, the FRAUD is exposed and the statue of Limitations starts to run out. FRAUD by the Santa Barbara Dist. Atty. OFFICE “on the court”
    un-identified, and Uncorrected for the past 7 Years has prevented the Statute of Limitations from running out.

    If you are coming to California anyway in August and can be there. Please be there. Show up for Michaels sake. 9 am 1st Floor in the Betteravia Government Center in Santa Maria, August 14th.

    Like

  189. Linda permalink
    July 20, 2012 8:56 am

    @ISAURA

    Isn’t it true that it’s usually those closest to you, family and friends that can hurt you the most? America was his family in a sense, and did him the most harm, and yes he did feel the need to turn to other countries for comfort. He loved his country, but felt betrayed, and rightly so. I’m glad he had friends all over the world to turn to. He still has friends all over the world that believe in him no matter what ugly people say about him.

    When you love someone, you stand behind them and stick up for them, and Michael has millions of people that love him all over the planet, from great cities to lowly huts and slums. He is loved everywhere, and we that know and love him will keep his legacy alive. We will remember and teach the teachable the truth. If I can reach even one person with the truth, then I have not failed, however, I expect to reach more than one person. I think we all will, and slowly the truth will spread and he will be vindicated in time.

    L.O.V.E.

    Like

  190. Linda permalink
    July 20, 2012 8:29 am

    @Rodrigo

    Seems like when people hear something this horrible about someone, and face it, people are usually willing to believe nasty stories, and they go with it, repeating it, adding to it, then when the truth comes out, they usually won’t retract. It doesn’t matter to them that an innocent person is being persecuted. They’re going to stick to the story and save face. It takes a bigger person to admit they were wrong or misled, most won’t no matter what the proof. Pride is more important to them than truth and dignity.

    That’s why all the tabloid writers that trashed Michael refuse to change sides even after everything they said has been proved wrong. So much proof of his innocence and not one iota points to his guilt. His autopsy alone disproved so much that the press was claiming. NO drug addict is that healthy, and so few drugs in his system at death, yet the tabloids and so many people still call him an addict. They are not going to backtrack, swallow their pride and say they were wrong.

    All we can do is teach the bench sitters about the Michael’s and Johnny’s of the world, and that you can’t believe the press or gossip, which is what the press has become. It take’s 3 positives to negate 1 negative. That’s why we all have to be very careful when speaking negatively about anyone. Once you put something out there, you can’t take it back. We all have to think and know the facts before we speak.

    That’s why I’ve spent 3 years researching Michael. People were asking for my opinion. I had one, but I needed to have a reason to give them for my opinion, so I went on a search to figure out why I believed what I did, and be able to give them proof. For the most part, I deal with normal, honest people that will listen to truth. We’re face to face, but when you talk to people on the web that hide behind their computers, it’s a whole different world.

    I’ll talk to anybody searching for the truth, but I refuse to argue with people that are just trying to pick a fight. That’s a waste of my time and energy. It’s great to come home from work and hit this site with nice people that share my views about Michael and guys like Johnny. There’s much injustice in the world, but a lot of good and many good people.

    Like

  191. ISAURA permalink
    July 20, 2012 5:29 am

    TO LINDA== I agreed that Michael was treated terribly by his own countryman – worst than anyone else to the point that he has to go to other countries where they really care about him and his children, that is really sad — can you imagined how he most it felt – his own country did not support him – we have to keep his legacy and his love going for ever

    Like

  192. Rodrigo permalink
    July 19, 2012 9:03 pm

    Thank you, Linda.

    He was a very well loved man. But after the accusations, and after she admitted he did nothing to her, Johnny was never the same. People still treat him like he was a criminal, the entire family was shunned and bullied. It was all too much for him. Whereas Michael learned to cope with things since the 70’s, he barely coped after 93, but Michael had the strength, Johnny didn’t. It’s a nightmare to be put through something like that when you’re innocent, and it’s a nightmare for it to continue even after you’ve been rightfully vindicated.

    Johnny’s family still get things said to them and so does Michael’s family. It’s sick and wrong. I can’t stand ignorant people like that.

    I just hope one day, when these people are old and reflecting on their lives, they’ll see what they did and feel guilty as hell for contributing to the deaths of 2 innocent people. Cause right now, they don’t care. But it’ll never stop me defending Michael and Johnny when I get the chance and hopefully it’ll drill a bit of sense into them. Cause things like this should not and cannot continue happening.

    Like

  193. Linda permalink
    July 19, 2012 8:15 am

    @Rodrigo

    So sorry to hear about your friend. That is a really sad story. People really need to think before they make up vindictive lies about someone. It’s called bullying, and I think we’ve all read too many deaths lately, (suicides) that were caused by bullying, and this, to me, comes under the same heading.

    Michael was bullied to death, and so was your friend, both gone too soon, and for no reason. So sad, and the death of one person affects so many others. Sounds like Johnny had kids that miss him and Michael’s kids were also left without their father that they loved so much. These wonderful people are gone and can no longer speak for themselves, so I feel we have to do what we can to clear their names.

    Either one of these guys could be my son. I would fight with every breath in me to clear his name. I think we have to take this on a personal level, as if they were our son, because someday it might be. It just blows my mind that in Michael’s case and also your friends, the truth is right out there, but people want to believe the worst, especially if it came from the media.

    I can make so many good points to people in Michael’s defense, and the best comments back are, “I hope you’re right.” They actually want to believe he was good, but still aren’t totally convinced. The others on the opposite end of the scale wouldn’t care what you tell them, I really think they want to believe the worst. They don’t want the truth. People LOVE dirt. I can’t explain it and will never understand it, but somehow we have to keep fighting it and the nasty media, and we have to do it with love and patience.

    Hate the sin, but love the sinner.

    Like

  194. Rodrigo permalink
    July 19, 2012 6:13 am

    I go over all this and I always think, why do I care so much about vindicating Michael as I do. It’s not just cause I’m a fan or I believe in his innocence 100%. It’s mainly because I can’t stand seeing people say all kinds of crap about him, cause none of what it was true, and people need to get that.

    9 years ago, a family friend was accused, like Michael, of sexual assault. Johnny was his name. A real lovely man, always there to lend you a hand and make you laugh.

    Johnny went through months of hell. Had his name dragged through the mud by the papers, had death threats. He endured the courts, only for the evil little bitch to admit he never touched her.

    However, he later committed suicide, leaving a note to his family, saying that mud sticks.
    Idiots STILL think he did it, even though she admitted everything. She was 17 and knew full well what she did, just because he didn’t like her hanging around with his daughter.

    I think of all the hell and injustice that Johnny went through, that Michael still goes through. It’s more personal to me because I cannot stand those who still think the worst of people like Johnny and Michael, even when the truth is right there in front of them.

    What happened to Johnny, reinforced my determination to vindicate Michael.

    http://johnny-king.gonetoosoon.org/

    Like

  195. Linda permalink
    July 18, 2012 7:54 am

    @Vindicatemj (Helena) PERMALINK*
    July 17, 2012 2:55 pm
    Guys, a little patience, please. The old rusty machine needs some time to start.

    I have some oil I can share with you Helena, or maybe some balm to rub into your wounds? We will patiently wait for you to heal and get your strength back. I’m sure your articles will be worth the wait.

    And by the way, I am American, so please don’t judge us all too harshly. I do think that Michaels countrymen were the meanest to him. You would think they would have held up their own proudly and tried to be more helpful to him, but the tabloids are ruthless to get a nasty story even if it means destroying their own gems. They treat all our celebs horribly.

    I wish I was a great writer, I would love to write all good stuff about all the people that the tabloids are trashing daily. Sad, but the trash seems to be what the public wants or they wouldn’t buy it, then the tabs would die out. As long as the people keep eating that crap up, the trashy tabloids will survive and prosper. I refuse to buy any of them.

    It literally makes me sick to my stomach just seeing the headlines at the supermarket. Everyone of them has ugly pictures with grotesque headlines. They’re so stupid and obviously so false. There should be a law against that. It’s defamation of character and slander. I wish more of our celebs would slap lawsuits on them. Maybe that would help. I don’t know, but it seems to me that all the media has gotten into the same game. There’s no longer a main stream news that you can actually believe anymore. The power of the press is pretty scary to me what they can make the public believe. You can be the most wonderful person in the whole world, and the press can somehow convince the majority that you’re a monster. Very few people actually search past the so called facts that they read in the papers. They’re like lambs being led to the slaughter. They have no clue what’s going on.

    Wow, rough day at work in this heat, lol, didn’t mean to get so negative. I gotta lighten up, right? I’ll go back to my crossword puzzle and have another drink.

    Love you Helena.

    Like

  196. July 17, 2012 2:55 pm

    Guys, a little patience, please. The old rusty machine needs some time to start.

    Like

  197. July 15, 2012 8:52 pm

    You wrote:”I am slowly drifting in this direction but also understand that if I write here it will be a new blog. And you will see a different vmj – probably harsher or more outspoken.”

    This is a good news! I’m sure your future plans and articles will be well-received.

    “You see that I am an old fool of an idealist who is absolutely not ready to part with her dreams.”

    What will we be without dreams? I’m sure, this time, you will manage better the “common ground”!

    Like

  198. ISAURA permalink
    July 14, 2012 5:34 pm

    Michael had a deep and strong faith, he was extremely intelligent and that was what helped him during that horrible trial, he was set on his believes and no one was going to changed him – We will never have someone like Michael Jackson again, not only because of his music but “the man” he was – RIP with the angels dear MJ L.O.V.E and Peace

    Like

  199. July 14, 2012 2:26 am

    “Eventually, he understood why he had enemies.”

    MOA, as to why he had enemies I think Michael understood it very well. He simply felt that he and everyone else (with rare exceptions) had totally different values in life. How he managed to be so different I don’t know – some people are evidently born that way.

    I think that Michael’s biggest enemy was human corruption and lies. It is a huge enemy which takes many forms and was actually found in everyone around Michael. Every person is infected with this evil – each to his own degree. Michael always relied on the best in people trying to make them feel aware of all the good they are capable of and some did indeed show themselves at their best. And no personal differences between them for longer or shorter periods of time and of different intensity too, can change this fundamental fact – these people stood by Michael no matter what and proved their superior human quality. I think that the Cascios and Macaulay Culkin belong to this rare breed.

    However the overwhelming majority failed Michael as human beings. Each wanted to use him for his own ends – for making money or fame on his name, for getting his assets (his catalog and Neverland), for promoting their cause and hiding their own crimes (pedophiles), for spreading their racist prejudices or fake morality. But despite numerous individual manisfestations the basis for all these things is still simple human corruption and lies.

    Like

  200. July 14, 2012 1:01 am

    “I hope the reading of Dr. Moriarty’s book will give you enough reason to write again here in your blog.”

    Might be. I am slowly drifting in this direction but also understand that if I write here it will be a new blog. And you will see a different vmj – probably harsher or more outspoken. Now I simply have no time to beat about the bush and will be much more direct. And will talk about things I would have never raised before – at least here. Philosophical, psychological, religious, whatever – in short my personal views.

    On the other hand this blog is in fact a joint effort of many people, including readers and commenters. And I would still like other contributors to place their best research about Michael here too. Yes, this is the same old dream of mine – to provide common ground to everyone who wants to do selfless vindication work for Michael. You see that I am an old fool of an idealist who is absolutely not ready to part with her dreams.

    Like

  201. July 13, 2012 2:36 am

    Dear VMJ,

    I hope the reading of Dr. Moriarty’s book will give you enough reason to write again here in your blog. All advocates are needed; and I’m sure you’re very much missed.

    You wrote: “How Michael managed not to get contaminated by all this dirt is simply beyond my comprehension.”
    I think that Michael knew from a young age what he wanted to do in his life. Eventually, he understood why he had enemies. He suffered a lot but fought hard as you wrote it too and died for having the courage to stay true to his belief. Actually, I think he even turned all the hate and the anger to some sort of causality to fight more.

    Like

  202. Alison permalink
    July 12, 2012 3:01 am

    Thats OK Helena, thanks for explaining, no worries.

    “I myself cannot even explain what happened to me and why I feel so crushed.”

    I haven’t read absolutely everything and I am not an expert so I may get some of this wrong, let me know what you think and I will put further thought to it. and if you prefer not to post this and use my email instead that is fine, and may be more appropriate as everyone does not need to know your business, or mine either come to that.

    I’m 48 this month and I have had some major crushings in life but one stands out over and above them all as being the one that I would equate most with what you have so far shared, and that has had a major effect on my being, life, soul, confidence ++ and which really came out of the blue. It was 8 years ago and turned me from a confident and developing professional into a quivering wreck with no confidence, no belief in myself as the professional of 20 years and no belief in myself as a person. I felt almost (almost) suicidal, I got in from work and went to bed and cried every evening for months, i felt totally betrayed by my manager and others at work.

    Basically I was being bullied at work by a very vindictive person who was also extraordinarily good at playing the victim and the good person to my manager and everyone else in the office. It went on for about 8 months before I finally realised that was what was happening but by that time it was too late for me to do anything about it because she had got me to the point I was just an emotional wreck and had no strength. So it continued another 4 months before i finally had to go off sick and then they moved me.
    She made me feel I must be the evil person she said and that I was, as she accused me of, trying to ruin her career! (and if you knew me you would know that is just ridiculous, it would never even enter my head to do such a thing and if it did i wouldn’t have a clue how to go about it. from reflecting on everything she did to me, I now know some strategies for how to do that but i would never try to do it. anyway I am far too self absorbed and stressed in trying to sort out my own issues and work!) She made my manager, who I had known for 15 years, about 10 years longer than she had, decide I was a bad person. She was just very nasty, poisonous, accusatory, undermining and aggressive.

    Before this happened I had always believed, naively, because of my upbringing in the Christian Church, that everyone was trying to be a good person and to improve themselves. Because of that it took me such a long time to realise that actually this person was actively bullying me rather than that I was just a failure of a person and a bad person. I blamed myself for months, because i thought nobody could really be that bad or doing that so it must be me.

    I have reflected a lot on it over the years ( and the topic comes up regularly because she has bullied so many people since me) even though I have finally left there, along with many others, and I think what affected me so much was that she attacked my identity. she very cleverly and insidiously attacked who I fundamentally believed myself to be, what I believed others thought of me, and my role in the department. she made me confused so that I no longer felt sure of who I was or sure of any decision I needed to make. I was not previously a weak person but I was quite quiet, thoughtful, did not thrust myself to the fore and hated confrontation, which I could not deal with. But fairness, justice, doing a good job for our service users and being thorough were all very important aspects of work to me. I have also always been a very emotional person and make a lot of (right) decisions based on emotion and my sense of fairness. She is the opposite of that and she also knew that attacking my sense of identity would cripple me. it did. I am slowly recovering still. i think i have been suffering from a degree of post traumatic stress, as it was all such major trauma for me.

    I don’t know if any of this will resonate with you, but if it does, you are not alone!. you could look up about identity and bullying, and post traumatic stress. The website bullyonline.org is very informative.

    And this may all be nothing to do with your situation, but the feelings you expressed resonated with me because of the above. maybe they are simply the feelings of trauma.

    and if you want to move this to email that is fine. and if you don’t want to reply that is fine. i am only posting it here because i know you will read it first. i don’t think you should reveal all your personal ‘stuff” on the public blog. because unfortunately some will twist it and mock it and take advantage of your honesty. and because i have mentioned bullying, this could become a problem if you say there;s a link and it could get discussed on the other blog, so i actually now think you definitely should not post this here. see this as just a message to yourself.just post the first line where i say its ok, re the other comment. but email me your thoughts if you want.

    however i will say that a good psychotherapeutic counsellor has helped me enormously because as i’ve talked she has also been able to explain concepts as well as just enable me to talk.

    i hope you are ok with what i’ve said.

    Like

  203. July 11, 2012 1:24 pm

    “However the intention of my comment was to offer you support, empathy and encouragement in what sounds to be a very difficult time for you. That is all.”

    Alison, I got it and am very grateful to you and all those who are sending me their encouragement. And sorry for not living up to your expectations at the moment. I myself cannot even explain what happened to me and why I feel so crushed.

    That long comment was made not an argument in a dispute – no, it was just a chance for me to speak on the matter which wholly occupies my mind now. I mean the fact that Michael’s supporters should be like Michael by definition.

    Like

  204. Linda permalink
    July 11, 2012 8:21 am

    Michael just loved people in spite of their selves. He was able to love the unlovely. When you’re able to love like that, you don’t seek revenge, because you don’t want to see bad things happen to people even though most others would think they deserve it. It’s like some of Michael’s fans saying they hope certain of Michael’s haters go to hell and burn.

    Who would wish something that horrible on anyone? Certainly Michael wouldn’t. How can anybody claim to be a great Jackson fan with talk like that? I never read Jesus talking like that, and he is our number one role model and the one that Michael followed. Love your enemies and pray for those that despitefully use you.

    I agree with you about the ‘fan adulation’. I see it all over the internet, but that isn’t us. I think we all here know that Michael made some mistakes. He was human after all, and not perfect, though he may have come closer than most. We didn’t live with him. I think he could be pouty and sulk when someone close to him pissed him off. That’s not a crime, but doesn’t help solve a problem in a relationship. I’m sure if any of us had lived with him we might have found other problems with him. It’s called being human.

    So, no “fan adulation”, but a great respect and admiration.

    Like

  205. Alison permalink
    July 11, 2012 1:25 am

    Helena, I agree with all you have written in your response to me. I have no problem with your viewpoint.

    However the intention of my comment was to offer you support, empathy and encouragement in what sounds to be a very difficult time for you. That is all.

    Like

  206. Rodrigo permalink
    July 10, 2012 9:00 pm

    I look forward to that, Helena 🙂

    Like

  207. July 10, 2012 5:39 pm

    Guys, I am happy to inform you that David has sent me Dr. Moriarty’s book. I hope to read it and share my views about it.

    Like

  208. July 10, 2012 3:27 pm

    Linda, you’ve worded it so well that I have nothing to add. Michael is indeed the best role model for us, but if someone calls it ‘fan adulation’ it will be a totally wrong perception of it. Frankly I don’t know what ‘fan adulation’ means because I am not a MJ’s fan (but an advocate) and don’t know what adulation is like (as I never experienced it).

    All I know is that some people inspire you by their honesty, integrity and simply by the example of their life, while others absolutely do not, though the words they say are technically very much correct. Is it because in one case you see a person with all his troubles, emotions and mistakes but still embodying the Truth, while in other cases all you see is hypocrisy, pretense and lies masquerading as goodness?

    When you look at Michael you see a real person who was having an extremely hard time fighting for his dignity and was doing it in the most decent and honest way. Yes, he lost his life in the battle but never gave in to evil in the form of lies, malice, revenge and ill intentions. He stayed the same gentle and forgiving person he was from the very start of it and this trait of his can inspire nothing less but awe – because all of us know how easy it is to succumb to evil ways, especially when you feel that justice is on your side.

    How Michael managed not to get contaminated by all this dirt is simply beyond my comprehension. He must have been a very pure person if evil had no power over him.

    Like

  209. July 10, 2012 12:01 pm

    Alison, let us put the personal issues aside and not talk of personalities. My biggest concern now is that the style we are talking of should not take over the whole of the community. I am totally against anyone telling others “how to love Michael in the right way”. The sole purpose of this blog has always been to provide facts of Michael’s innocence, and not to teach people to fight other Michael’s supporters.

    Every single bit done by others in support of Michael makes me happy even if people make mistakes or are awkward in some of their moves. Take the example of the heavily criticized Dr. Moriarty who omitted some things in her book or Jermaine or Michael’s bodyguards who were not very vocal when speaking on TV. Of course it would be great if all of us were powerful Michael’s advocates but we are still learning ‘how to’ and are not miracle-workers.

    The fact that people do care and want to do something for Michael is already a huge step forward. I haven’t read Moriarty’s book but those who have say that she did a great analysis of the media role in bringing Michael down. For this alone her book should be praised, and I would very much like to read it to learn more.

    There is also a difference between supporting a non-brilliant attempt made in the best intentions from the brilliant attempt made in the worst intentions. I feel this difference very acutely but have a difficulty in explaining what it is. The best explanation I can provide is that we should always look at what fruit the tree (meaning the work for Michael) bears as a result. The tree may look great but still bear poisonous fruit, and the tree may look humble but bear good fruit able to save from hunger and thirst.

    If the work done for Michael gives you inspiration, encouragement and a feeling of unity replacing the former discord, it is always a sign of something good brought into our lives. And if all it adds is confusion and further division it is always a sign of evil infecting the community. And if done brilliantly this work becomes all the more dangerous for Michael and his legacy.

    Michael was a great example for all of us to follow. His love and gentle attitude towards people transpires in everything he ever did and this is probably one of the biggest reasons why we love him so much. Of course we admire him for his genius, his great dance and great music. But even villains are capable of that. Michael was a great human being in the first place and one should be completely blind and deaf not to see it.

    Not following Michael’s example in treating others is equivalent to fighting and even annulling the message he was carrying to people throughout his life. This would be his worst betrayal.

    Like

  210. Linda permalink
    July 10, 2012 8:19 am

    @Rodrigo July 10, 2012 12:48 am
    Michael was an extremely incredible person. Even as a kid he showed tremendous empathy for others. I remember reading once when he was watching tv and crying over starving children in Africa. He turned to his mom and said, ” someday, I’m going to help those kids.” That was so sweet, but not the ramblings of a small child. He actually meant it and when he grew up he never forgot. Yes, he was an incredible human being, that I greatly admire. Can you imagine what this world would be like if only half of us cared as much as he did, and would reach out to help others, instead of just saying how sad that situation is?

    @Vindicatemj (Helena) July 9, 2012 7:04 pm
    Michael never went after anyone and was never revengeful. He did not envy and gave everyone his chance to shine. True that he was very demanding towards others in the common work they were doing, but this is only because he demanded as much of himself too. I think that Michael adhered to the Gospel’s principle of treating others the way you want to be treated yourself.

    Yes Helena, I agree with everything you said. He’s the best role model I’ve ever heard of, and of all the things I admire about him I think that is the thing about him that stands out to me the most. He was stabbed in the back so often and many times by people that he showered with love, but never retaliated.

    God said, “vengeance is mine. I will repay, saith the Lord.” We don’t have to worry about people that stab us in the back. They will always be there, but God will take care of his own. I watched this happen in my own life and so did Michael. It’s amazing to watch God work when we just keep silent and let him do it, it is so much sweeter.

    That old saying “revenge is sweet”, I don’t think is true. I think revenge leaves an unfulfilled bitterness in the heart. But when God brings out all the dirt into the light, wow, he does it so much better than we ever could. When I was going though mine there was so many times I wanted to say, “wait, you don’t have the facts, let me tell you my side.” Every time, a verse would from the Bible would come into my head. Funny, it wasn’t a verse real familiar to me and I still can’t quote it. It wasn’t about vengeance, but being justified which is much better than vengeance.

    I think Michael realized that, and that is why he did not retaliate. He never sought revenge, and to me that was his trait that impressed me the most, and what made him a great role model. Human nature wants to jump in there and justify their self, but he never did that. In the end God did justify him. A lot of people looked foolish in the media and also people in the trial. I don’t think God is done with this yet, and neither are we. Michael will be vindicated and justified. We just have to keep doing our work and let no distractions get in our way. Keep the faith.

    Love you Helena.

    Like

  211. Alison permalink
    July 10, 2012 4:20 am

    Dear Helena,

    I am stunned, I had no idea all this was happening. I have been away from the blog for quite a while, mainly due to work committments,and caring for 2 elderly parents. but also i started to feel uncomfortable, and there was an arrogance in some of the comments. i can understand what you have said.

    I am so sorry that you have been having such a hard time. i haven’t quite got my head round it yet, things i have just been reading sound like some very different people than they used to sound.so I am feeling quite shocked at the moment. I have read stuff from both sides and I know where I can see the hate and venom and pride and where i see integrity. Michael would have hated his fans to be speaking to each other like this. and it so did not used to be the case here. I think it shows the Estate was right to create an official site as well.

    I really hope you keep this open because there is a lot I haven’t had chance to read yet in the archives. I understand when you say you feel very wounded by it all and that you need time to heal – that is all very normal. and closing the blog is not a childish response, its something you need to do in order to take care of yourself. I would expect a doctor to understand that.

    I agree with you, that everything should stay on the blog and history should not be re-written.

    Helena, i hope you soon start to feel better, and i hope you stay around. you have done a tremendous job here. and i thank you for all your hard work.

    God Bless you.
    Alison.

    Like

  212. Rodrigo permalink
    July 10, 2012 12:48 am

    Michael was an extremely incredible person. Even as a kid he showed tremendous empathy for others. Katherine said he would cry for one of his siblings if they were sick. He cried when watching starving kids in Africa…most children wouldn’t bother about that sort of thing, but Michael did, and in a way that most wouldn’t understand…a child being so emotional over things he shouldn’t.

    I have a lot of empathy myself. I remember being 5 years old walking in town with my mother and seeing a homeless man on the street. I begged and begged my mother to give him some money and I handed it to him. Even today I go out my to help and be there for people. Like Michael, people don’t understand why I care so much about things I shouldn’t. Laugh at me, I do myself, I even get upset about bloody Penguins and the melting ice caps 😀 Michael’s message and music has always been a big influence on my life, to heal the world and make it a better place.

    Michael wasn’t perfect…but who is? He was an incredible human being and tried his best to improve himself and inspire others to do the same. You recognise that in his constant pain and determination to triumph.

    He was human and that’s why I look up to him and do my best to go above and beyond the messages he taught us. The messages in his life, his music and soul.

    Like

  213. July 9, 2012 7:04 pm

    “Michael was all about LOVE and forgiveness. Shouldn’t we be the same?”

    Exactly, Linda. We should be the same. It is impossible to be a Michael supporter and be different from him. War hawks cannot represent a pacifist, liars should not speak for the honest, and the mean and petty cannot preach how to be generous and forgiving.

    But then for a start we should be able to admit that Michael was different from others and did possess some of the best human qualities. In other words, if we want to be like Michael he should first become a moral compass for us.

    See the first problem here? Not all Michael’s supporters think highly of him as a human being. If they do not want to regard him as their moral compass how can you make them follow his example? I for one was even ridiculed for thinking of Michael as a man of high human qualities.

    The first thing we need to agree about is that Michael was different and was better than most of us. And that he possessed the qualities worthy of looking up to – an ever-present goodwill, gentleness, compassion for others, readiness to understand them, total lack of envy, infinite generosity, and much more than that.

    He easily brushed away all pettiness, looked into the core of a human being and valued whatever good he managed to find there. He appealed to the best in a human being and tried to ignore the worst. He hoped that a soft voice, gentle manner, some guidance from the Gospel and appeal to a human conscience would reform anyone, just anyone, and therefore gave the benefit of the doubt even to those who weren’t in the least worthy of it.

    Michael never went after anyone and was never revengeful. He did not envy and gave everyone his chance to shine. True that he was very demanding towards others in the common work they were doing, but this is only because he demanded as much of himself too.

    I think that Michael adhered to the Gospel’s principle of treating others the way you want to be treated yourself.

    Do we follow his example?

    Like

  214. Linda permalink
    July 9, 2012 9:06 am

    Wow, so many comments in my e-mail tonight. I hit reply on so many and it didn’t work. Now that it finally did, I don’t remember what I wanted to say, lol. But I agree that the fighting needs to stop. It’s nothing but a big distraction. What’s the goal here and how do we reach it? Not by petty quarrels, right? We need to stand together and support each other. Do you guys realize how much damage this has already done to the cause? We’ve taken ten giant steps backward in the last couple of months. That wouldn’t have happened if this blog wasn’t so popular.

    But you’re too well known, a big voice in the community and I’m sure the haters are loving this, and those sitting on the fence are more confused than ever. Sorry, but we’ve all lost a lot of ground here. I agree with burying the hatchet. Talk to each other, come to a truce, come back to the basics. Please, get over it. All of you. Too much damage is being done. Michael was all about LOVE and forgiveness. Shouldn’t we be the same?

    Like

  215. July 8, 2012 10:44 am

    Another thing I want to say is that what is seen by some people as our ‘personal issues’ are not personal in any way. They have to do with the atmosphere in the MJ fan community as a whole and the spiteful things people say to each other on a routine basis.

    I haven’t been around much but am told that this is happening all throughout the fan community. This is a complete disaster and unless people directly involved in it or promoting this style realize the damage done this way to Michael the whole cause of his vindication will be compromised.

    In short vindication of Michael Jackson can be done only by clean hands, pure thoughts and truthful words. This is all I am asking people to adhere to (myself included).

    Like

  216. July 8, 2012 10:23 am

    Sanemjfan, I opened the blog for some positive comments about Michael to come in and replace all the mud. Deleting won’t help. History is history and no one should change it no matter how much we want to whitewash it. Yes, sometimes it is ugly, but even despite that it should stay as it is.

    I absolutely don’t believe in rewriting history. One day someone should come, read, analyze and draw conclusions from our unhappy experience. This is how people learn. And people do not learn if what they have to deal with is a distorted reality.

    If as a result of their analysis these people are disappointed with me, let it be their way. I will still leave the blog open for everyone to see things for themselves and try to avoid similar mistakes any of us have made here.

    Now the blog depends on the people themselves. No more negativity will be added to it in case there is no more negativity around this situation. If people write something positive, especially about Michael, I will gladly approve their comments. As to me writing for the blog – no, most probably not. And one of the main reasons is that all the hate I had to face (even if it was behind the scenes) simply paralyzed me.

    Frankly, I don’t know what the future of the blog will be. All I am trying to do now is leaving comments to various articles in the press and sharing my knowledge with people there.

    P.S. For everyone to know that you have opened a blog of your own I will change the front page to the “New beginning” post again.

    Like

  217. sanemjfan permalink
    July 8, 2012 9:05 am

    Helena,
    I noticed that you have opened up the entire blog to commenting again (someone just commented on your Porn series). I assume that you will resume writing for the blog again?

    I would request that you disable comments on all of my posts, and I’m sure Lynette would feel the same about her posts. We don’t have time to monitor the comments on 2 different blogs. I would like to temproarily be given access to go into each of my posts and add a link to the corresponding post on the new blog, so if anyone wants to leave a comment can be linked straight to the new blog. There are still some readers who, unfortunately, don’t know that all of me and Lynette’s posts are copied to the new blog. Once I’m done, you can take away my access and demote me again.

    I also think that you should delete all of the updates to the “About The Blog” page from May 17th forward, because all of our squabbles have nothing to do with the purpose of the blog, and readers don’t care about what’s going on behind the scenes. It’s hurtful for the purpose of the blog, and is unnecessary. I also think that you should restore the most recent posts to the home page, as it was before, instead of the “About the Blog” page.

    As for my earlier comment about calling for a truce, I want it to be clear that I was only making a suggestion, and I was only speaking for myself. Both me and Lynette have personal issues with you, and I don’t want it to seem like I’m throwing her under the bus or speaking for her. I agree with her criticisms of you, Helena, 100% and I have supported her from the beginning. I don’t want my suggestion of a truce to be misconstrued as an admission of wrongdoing on me and Lynette’s part, because it’s not, but I just don’t want any more readers to complain to us to stop, because it is truly distracting for all of us.

    We don’t have to like each other or work with each other in order to vindicate MJ. Me and Lynette can do our thing on our blog, and you can do your thing on your blog. We can still assist each other when needed, and make constructive comments about the particular post we’re commenting on, while not commenting any further on the issues that we have argued about in the past.

    Like

  218. Jan permalink
    July 7, 2012 8:08 pm

    Please vote for MJ at ITV in the UK:

    http://www.itv.com/nationsfavouritenumberonevote/default.html

    Like

  219. lynande51 permalink
    July 7, 2012 7:05 pm

    Like I said the emails are mine Helena they are directed to me. Twitter also is not “public” because the only people that get your Tweets are the people that are following you. You making it sound like posting emails on a Facebook page should look no farther than some of your own posts.But just for future reference you have cemented my resolve not to write on a blog. If anyone wants information about Michael they can get it from you and David. I have a life I need to get back to and your 2 month long distraction has been long enough. I urge the readers of your blog to go and read those emails so they can see for themselves what occured and see for themselves what the ramifications of your persistence in painting us in a bad light have accomplished.

    ———
    VMJ: How typical again.

    Like

  220. Rodrigo permalink
    July 7, 2012 6:46 pm

    @ David

    I’m glad to hear that. You, Helena and Lynette worked brilliantly as a team. I know and understand things won’t be the same again. But this feud must end. Whatever it is, it can be dropped, wipe the slate clean.

    @ Helena

    Things haven’t been easy for you. I know you feel disillusioned. But you can’t let this stop you from continuing your work. David and Lynette have their blog now, and it’s an amazing thing for Michael and his supporters. And you have this amazing blog for Michael and his supporters, which is going to waste. You can’t let this happen. If a truce can be made, you can continue with this, and if needed, you can aid David and Lynette with their blog, and they can aid you with yours?

    Bottom line, you both fight for Michael…you shouldn’t be fighting each other. You can both move on from this. You’re both adults and entitled to your opinions, and this is the case for this disagreement? But it shouldn’t stop you both rallying together for Michael and his fight, you’re both on the same side.You can’t let your opinions and disagreements cause this battle to continue. Bury the hatchet, make compromises.

    You are no longer a team, but you are still part of Team Michael, no matter what…

    Like

  221. July 7, 2012 10:30 am

    David, these are the first words of wisdom I’ve heard for the past few weeks.
    I do hope that you really think so. And that it is not…well…the usual thing. Sorry for the supposition.

    Like

  222. sanemjfan permalink
    July 7, 2012 10:21 am

    @Rodrigo

    Thank you for your comment, and I agree with you 100%. This has gone on for far too long, and there are too many people who depend on us for our research. Your story of your cousin’s conversion into believing MJ is innocent is a prime example of what we have accomplished, and even though we’ll never work with each other again, for the common good of the fan community, I want to just call a truce and just stop fighting and bickering with Helena.

    We’ve both said all that we need to say to each other, and it’s a shame that she decided to close the blog, but that’s water under the bridge now. All we can do is move forward, and hopefully one day Helena will have the strength and desire to write more articles, because she has a lot of knowledge that has yet to be disseminated to readers.

    Helena, Lynette, let’s all just heed Rodrigo’s advice and just stop this back and forth bickering between us. Helena, you’ll do your thing on your blog, and Lynette and I will do our thing on our blog.

    Like

  223. July 7, 2012 9:49 am

    Lynette, the private emails you posted on my Facebook account are still there. If anyone wants to read them they can go there and see them.

    And I have never been prejudiced against Americans. I was always critical of my country and especially its leadership and adored the freedom of speech I enjoyed here. And when I was starting the blog I was 100% sure that accusing Michael of all those allegations was a sort of a misunderstanding on the part of his compatriots.

    “Some things are better seen from a distance. I just explain to them what they missed in perceiving Michael and things will immediately change” – was my line of reasoning. The way I saw it at the beginning the work of Michael’s vindication was not to take long as after disclosing the first facts of his innocence I was sure that people would feel remorse for what they did to Michael and would change their ways.

    And what do we have as a result? Finding out that many people in the US are poisoned by the media style? Even Michael’s supporters? And that the media taught them to be rutheless to someone whom they do not like? And what I thought to be a terrible exception to the rule in the behavior of Evan Chandler is actually something which happens on a regular basis?

    Frankly I never regarded Americans as role models for myself, firstly, because I didn’t know them well enough and secondly, because there are both great and poor examples within each nation. But the American way of life, order and prosperity of the country did give reasons for respecting your country, especially when you compare it with the disorder and low standards of life in mine.

    However what I didn’t know was the personal characteristics of people. Now my only hope is that not all Americans are like that. My correspondence with some other people from your country gives me hope that this is not so. And the great example of Thomas Mesereau and his utmost honesty and decency is also there to shine for everyone to admire. I wish all people were like him.

    Not only Americans. But ALL of us.

    Like

  224. Rodrigo permalink
    July 7, 2012 6:05 am

    I know it’s none of my business. But I’ve seen many family feuds in my life, too many for 21. You know what I do about it? I roll my eyes and tell my mother who’s been having a brawl with my aunt, “life is too short”. Sometimes it hits a note, other times it doesn’t, I only hope for the best. I just know it hurts when you’re involved in a feud, on both sides, things get said, fists fly…but at the end of the day, life is too short for this. I’m not be patronising to you Helena and Lynette, cause I respect you both.

    The other day, my brother in law, who was always adamant that MJ was guilty, told me he now believes he was innocent after I recommended Vindicatemj to him. He saw the truth. That wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for you, Helena, Lynette and David.

    I’m listening to For All Time while writing this, so maybe I’m being a bit too sentimental lol. Whatever’s happened, fighting isn’t going to solve anything, it just causes unnecessary pain, right? The three of you MUST find a way to bury the hatchet. You all need to start over…for Michael’s sake and your own, cause this is no good to anyone. If not, then that’s understandable.

    But life is too short.

    Like

  225. lynande51 permalink
    July 7, 2012 5:30 am

    Yes now Helena you should look at the site stats for your blog and explain to the majority of them that it is not a prejudice that you have against Americans. Thats right and you know it is . I think if you add the emails that you wrote with the screen shots that I have it would be more beneficial to your readers. Once again you are giving your skewd perspective of what I did and what you have been doing. Show the truth.

    Like

  226. July 7, 2012 2:43 am

    The About the blog page was updated with “Are all Americans like that?”

    Like

  227. lynande51 permalink
    July 4, 2012 2:39 am

    @ Linda
    The disagreement that David had with Debbie Kunesh started first with a half baked attempt on her part to eliminate her role in a charity project for a Michael Jackson Childrens Hospital. It was never sanctioned by the Estate and Debbie would make vague and obscure remarks about it which made people question the project. One of them was David. She blocked him for it but then accused him of sending emails to her friends that he did not send. Someone had to have contacted David with this information for him to even know about it otherwise it was going unnoticed by him because he had been blocked by her for months.
    Then at the same time there were things going on between David, Helena and I that started when a particular hater kept trying to post the photos of the two books. Helena knows what I am talking about because it was in a series of emails that she accused me of hurting Michael with an article that I posted to show her that the photos were talked about extensively at the time and it was not some new information that was being put out there in the public. She berated me both on and off the blog about the article to the point where I said that if I was not doing a good enough job I should leave the blog. Helena turned that into me “playing the victim”. I have the emails and will post them on the new blog so that people can see the origins of her anger toward David and I and then we can be finished with this unfortunate business. It was not something that I wanted to do to this blog or especially the new one but it seems that the only way to end it is to completely show both sides of the argument then it can be over with once and for all.

    Like

  228. Linda permalink
    July 3, 2012 8:39 am

    Well, I’m sure I don’t understand exactly what happened here, but it looks like the basic fight was between sane and Debbie, then it spread. Still sounds like an attack from the devil and someone has played into his hands, and he won a battle. Hopefully we won’t let him win the war.

    I know I’m still about vindicating Michael above all else. I guess this is how church splits come about and most people think they have to take sides. I love both of you and can’t do that at this time because I see too much good from both of you. I’ve learned so much from your site and I’m sorry for all the pain that I feel is going on with you both right now. I think Sane is feeling every bit as much pain as you are. Maybe you both feel kind of jilted by each other.

    Well, it’s all for L.O.V.E.

    I Love you Helena

    Like

  229. June 29, 2012 12:23 pm

    Linda, I am trying hard to forget all the nightmare I had to go through, but my former colleague simply does not allow it. He insists that all the dirt he says about me stays on my facebook account only and that I should not involve the blog in it. However this way people do not understand who they are actually dealing with – a person with very manipulative habits and a very strange understanding of ethics, to say the very least.

    Today I received the following from him to my Facebook account:

    “Elena OO First of all, the only reason I even published that tweet is because I felt that Debbie Kunesh tried to diminish the help I gave her and the influence that I had on her posts by PUBLICLY telling the whole world how she was going to double check her posts to give you the proper credit you deserve. She didn’t have to tell anyone; she could have just went into her post, made the changes, and left it at that. One thing that I can assure you is that 99.99% of fans DO NOT CARE who wrote what, and who researched what! All they want is accurate, objective research! Most people in the fan community don’t even know who we are!

    This seemed pretty petty on your part to try to retroactively get credit on Debbie’s posts, which were published last August, and which hardly get any hits anyway. This is indicative of your egotistical personality, which you first exhibited to me when you whined and complain about the use of “we” on those posts that I referenced in my summary of the opening statements. As well written and researched as that summary was, for you to try to nitpick it for something as petty as the use of “we” and “us” – terms that I had used often since the very beginning – , and then accuse me of wanting to take credit for your work, and having sinister and nefarious motives, just shows that you were looking to start trouble.

    And why are you posting about our problems on the blog? NOBODY CARES! They don’t come to the blog to learn about the fights that the admins are having with each other! The fact that you’re so willing to make me look bad that you’ll denigrate your own blog is just typical of you. And if you’re so anal about getting credit, than why don’t you use your full name? It’s seems almost hypocritical and ass-backwards to demand credit for your posts, but then ask to be credited as “VindicateMJ”.

    I’m leaving Debbie “out” of anything because she is the one who instigated this mess by lying about me and saying that I slandered her in emails, which I posted to prove that she was lying! Also, I wrote a fair and objective review of her friend’s book “Defending A King”, and she accused me of having an ego, simply because I refuse to accept mediocre, half-hearted, and sloppy research from someone who has a Ph.D.! For Dr. Karen Moriarty to think that she could get away with such poorly researched trash goes to show how gullible she thinks the MJ fan community is! (And, unfortunately, she’s right! Based on all of the 5 star “reviews” that she got on Amazon, most of which are just love letters about MJ!) http://www.amazon.com/review/R34Z71YT55Q6VN/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0741470314&linkCode&nodeID&tag#wasThisHelpful

    I won’t comment on his public statements like “we” revealed the facts he never revealed himself (this problem was dealt with in our private conversation only and at the end of our cooperation too), but the word anal struck me so hard that the only thing I could say in reply is this:

    David, at first I wanted to answer you, but after seeing the language you are using will refrain from doing it.
    The only comment I will make is that Vindicatemj is my username and there is nothing bad in my preferring it to my long and hardly pronouncible Russian name. Incidentally, I was named Vindicatemj by one American who opened the blog for me and asked me to post my articles there. This is how the blog started.

    The full of our conversation is here on my facebook account: https://www.facebook.com/helena1247/posts/385210461543518

    Definition of ANAL http://www.merriam-webster.com/
    1 : of, relating to, or situated near the anus
    2 a : of, relating to, or characterized by the stage of psychosexual development in psychoanalytic theory during which the child is concerned especially with its feces
    b : of, relating to, or characterized by personality traits (as parsimony, meticulousness, and ill humor) considered typical of fixation at the anal stage of development
    —compare genital 3, oral 3, phallic 2

    And as if “anal” and “ass-backwards” from him were not enough my former friend added this to the earlier insult:

    “By the way, I’ll gladly shake hands with you……as long as I’m wearing sterilized gloves and a hazmat suit! LOL!”

    At the moment I cannot see any way to come together with a person who continues trashing me, twists each of my words and actions, and uses this kind of language towards me ‘in private’. Anger is not the best advisor of course and one day I hope to overcome it. Please forgive me if I did not live up to your high expectations – I am definitely not a saint Michael Jackson was. Sorry for that.

    Like

  230. Linda permalink
    June 29, 2012 9:13 am

    @Vindicatemj
    June 25, 2012 11:50 pm Comments still come in though the blog is closed and if I think it necessary to clarify a few things I reserve the right for myself to do it.

    Well, I for one am happy to hear you clarifying a few things. I’m getting it in bits and pieces. My very best friend in the world that broke my heart in the church slowly started talking a few years later. I thought I would never trust her again, but we eventually got closer than we ever were before. Now I would trust her with my life. We live 1200 miles apart but keep in touch thru e-mail. Right now I consider her my very best friend and I know she feels the same way.

    I’m still not sure what happened years ago, maybe she isn’t either, but I’m convinced it was an attack from the spirit world. We can’t both stand together for God and be divided. God brings people together, so did MJ. Common cause. Some might disagree on how to get there, but the common goal is the same. End justifies the means? Hopefully you and sane will eventually come back together like her and I have. I still love both your web sites and trying to keep up with both of you. It was a lot easier before, lol.

    Like

  231. June 28, 2012 1:27 pm

    I am sorry but I had to update the About the blog page and add a new piece to it dated June 27, 2012.

    Like

  232. June 26, 2012 2:22 am

    Thank you, Rogrigo. God bless you too.

    Like

  233. Rodrigo permalink
    June 26, 2012 1:38 am

    Don’t listen to that crap from the losers, Helena.
    And I appreciate the candle for Michael 🙂

    You know, David and Lynette are doing a fantastic job on the new blog, but we sure do miss your words of wisdom. If I don’t hear back from you, take care of yourself and thanks for all the things you did for Michael on this blog, sorting through all the rubbish to find the truth. God bless 🙂

    Like

  234. June 26, 2012 12:08 am

    And if I want to express my love for Michael Jackson by lighting a candle here on the anniversary of his death NO ONE can stop me from doing it.

    Like

  235. June 25, 2012 11:50 pm

    The virtuous one,

    Comments still come in though the blog is closed and if I think it necessary to clarify a few things I reserve the right for myself to do it. The Lord has nothing to do with it (and with you, by the way). I wanted to send you the reply by email, but the email address you provided is fake and does not exist.

    Sick and tired of your hypocrisy. In comparision with the virtuous like you I prefer to be

    the sinner

    Like

  236. Pray for Helena permalink
    June 25, 2012 1:32 pm

    You said this blog was closed and there will be no more entries or comments, but you are still making entries and comments Helena. Why do you lie? do you want to anger the Lord because he does not take too kindly to lies.

    Like

  237. Sana permalink
    June 24, 2012 7:16 pm

    hi… i don’t know what to say…. i was like not so gr8 fan of Michael Jackson.. i was recently listening to this song we are the children and man in the mirror…. i thought…woooww what a lyrics..you know it was kind of curiosity to just know if Michael has written this songs… it can only be done if the person has pure heart…which he did had absolutely… ii came across many sites which were like claiming and the haters comment… that he ws child molester etc etc… but i must say this site has just opened my eyes… ur doing a gr8 job plzzz do keep it up… i know if Michael would have been alive he would have been soo happy that at least there are some who believes in him his work and who could see his luv for them… luv u Michael rip… muuaaahhhaa.. .:)

    Like

  238. Linda permalink
    June 24, 2012 10:12 am

    Jane Dougherty PERMALINK
    June 20, 2012 2:08 am
    I thought this blog was closed to comments

    Vindicatemj PERMALINK*
    June 22, 2012 1:25 am
    It is.

    I thought it was closed too. Is it or isn’t it? I’m a little confused right now with all the new comments. I think sanemjfans comments were just a little harsh, but not really all that bad. I do believe that we are all about vindicating Michael, not about religion. We all have our beliefs in that area. We’re probably all right in some areas and wrong in others.

    We’re all from different parts of the world, and have different backgrounds, so interpret things differently. I remember, years ago I was a waitress and a vietnamese family bought this cafe. One of them accused me of stealing. It took me a while to realize that what he was saying actually, was that people make mistakes. I thought he was calling me a thief and was very offended, but he was only saying that he thought I made a mistake on the register.

    Like

  239. June 22, 2012 1:25 am

    It is.

    Like

  240. Jane Dougherty permalink
    June 20, 2012 2:08 am

    I thought this blog was closed to comments

    Like

  241. June 19, 2012 6:18 pm

    Helena,VMJ- maybe you need a bit of a break, but don´t stop this blog. There can well be 2 paralell blogs with somewhat different flavor. On the VMJ blog the discourse flowed very well 99% of the time.It has been said that there are only 3 subjects of intrest to discus: Religion,poltics and sex. You are probably deeply touched by the political situation in your country.Here the financial crisis is raising its ugly head.There is enough interest for 2 blogs so please do not leave!

    Like

  242. Truth Prevail permalink
    May 20, 2012 4:18 am

    Helena with all due respect i did not think anything SaneMJfan said was Ugly or extreme in any way (it was much kinder response i would have given lets just say) i have followed some of the things David has been talking about like they there sources he wanted to point them out because he wanted to help them but they felt offended if you ask me what they did was childish and ugly NOT what David said i mean the guy got bashed for just helping someone out and correcting their mistakes instead of taking his advice and fixing there errors they started attacking David making him out to be the bully. What would you wish he should have done just ignored a fellow fans mistakes and not correct them?

    Like

  243. cawobeth3 permalink
    May 19, 2012 9:32 pm

    “an ugly reaction from Sanemjfan” ??
    I think not; not “ugly”. I know because I was working along with him in an attempt to mediate and promote peace in the MJ community due to this issue.
    What he dd, as I did, was call Ms. Kunesh on her contradictions and refusal to own her part in what became a fan war.
    We tried and tried to reason with her, but Debbie (who had previously been more than an acquaintance to me on FCBK) refused to embark on a purposeful rapport.
    I want you to know that I had send a few e-mails/PM’s to Debbie when the shit first hit the fan (to put it nicely). My notes to her were empathetic & open-minded. She refused to reply to me which was unlike her. Whenever I had reached out to her prior, she would respond directly to me within 2 days. ??

    Helena, I do not understand why you judge sanemjfan; who is quite sane, understanding & respectful and much more than a fan.
    You would need to know more about what went down that prompted our attempts to simmer the discord in order to make a judgement. To say “I don’t know what caused…” says to me that how could you follow that with what you said ? This makes no sense.

    David & me spent many hours trying to communicate with DK. I don’t blame him for putting it to her and telling it like it is. I support him whole-heartedly.

    I hope that you shall be apologizing to DE; NOT DK !
    Meanwhile, the entire thread of the conversation that this references was taken down by Debbie Kunesh. So, I ask you, what is the point of bringing this up anyway ?

    Like

  244. kaarin22 permalink
    May 19, 2012 7:18 am

    Sorry for the typos.This is very late for me and I am half asleep..But I read a bit om “vibdicate and that inspired me to this comment.

    Like

  245. kaarin22 permalink
    May 19, 2012 7:09 am

    It had perplexed me why at Michaels death pressconference a hospital official firs speks a few words,then stares he will invite agood friend of Michael´s to speak.Ko and behold this
    xery good friend is no other tham Thome Thome.When he keaves(and this is just behind or the border of video clip.they embrace. Them Jermaine spesks and ends wuth,”May Allah be with you aleways”. Aftre this T.T. entrers the podioum and microphones the swecond time announcing:Jermaine will be the only spokeperson for the family.As if he owns them.Onli 5-6 weks earlier hr he curses then and makes threathens then vith violence and total destruction.-Murray now felt safe with the AEG..

    Like

  246. kaarin22 permalink
    May 19, 2012 6:41 am

    Katherne Jackson i suing aeg for hiring Murray.I think tat is too narrow for the suit.Michael
    hired Murray to traet his in somnia,He awas aqainted with this anestetic from some occasional use during a tour,the Dr was an anestestesioiloligis.He was not dependent on Demerol before his death,he had overcome his once addiction.The real cruel thing happened during the Riot act,Idoubt that that was the idea by murray,but of AEG.
    They were threatening ,condescending and rude toWARDS MIchael.Randy Phillips was there and a few others, I don´t know aboút Thome-Thome, Murray lost all respect for Michael aftrer that, He felt secure embedded into the finances of AEG,
    It is the crzy contract,is it the estate that will bring in a suit over that?
    And then Frank Dileo dies to the relief for AEG,.

    Like

  247. Hilary permalink
    May 19, 2012 3:00 am

    @Truth Prevail

    She gets involved in everything, its hilarious. She also represented the transgendered Miss Universe contestant. She’ll do anything to be in front of the camera. Even during Michael’s life, whether or not she had a stake in teh matter, she’d make public statements. I don’t really hate her since she’s such a joke, like Nancy Grace. Both of these people don’t really hate Michael, they just go after anyone and everyone. It’s nothing specifically about Michael that brings out their stupidity so they’re not really worth our time.

    Like

  248. Truth Prevail permalink
    May 18, 2012 9:49 pm

    @Hilary

    I Think she has a tendency to represent accusers of famous people.

    Like

  249. Julie permalink
    May 18, 2012 7:50 pm

    Has anyone else noticed that there does not seem to be any celebrity support for Travolta either? Where’s Oprah (one of his supposed really good friends), Lisa Marie Presley and others to defend his honor? Friends seem to scatter like roaches when there is controversy. Disgusting stories being sold to National Enquirer – allegations by people who don’t seek criminal action by a payday? Sounds extremeley familiar.

    Like

  250. Julie permalink
    May 18, 2012 7:19 pm

    Dear VindicateMJ Site – I have to honestly say that after Michael died and I desperately began searching anything and everything about him, I was absolutely thrilled beyond belief to find this site. It is something that I have faithfully checked multiple times per day always looking for a new post. There is so much garbage out there and you can look on just about any blog and you will still find comments from people who continue to quote tabloid nonsense and have extremely ugly things to say (even on some “fan” sites). So please know that the work you are doing is phenomenal and dissecting the trial transcripts is extremely helpful due to the media’s overtly biased reporting – no one was given the truth! I love the fact that you are doing that!

    Having said that, there does seem to be tension amongst some people whose goals should all be the same – to do whatever can be done to vindicate Michael. I, for one, hate to see arguments played out on twitter or Facebook and I tend to brush over that when I see it because I feel it is between the parties involved. I also read Dr. Moriarty’s book and was disappointed in it for much the same reasons David mentioned in his review and agreed with everything he said. I so wanted it to be more than it was and it does appear that it was produced too quickly without the much needed fact checking. Her intentions were good, but her research was lacking and I also have to wonder what ended her relationship with at least 2 of the body guards she was working with on the book such that she went ahead and published it without their full support. As such, I tend to want to watch or read anything that might be positive about Michael because so much is not and walk away disappointed a lot of the time. When I see or read something by Randy Taraborreli, knowing that he says conflicting things depending on which side he’s on that particular day – it disgusts me. That brings me to the David Gest documentary, which was meant to be positive and for the most part it absolutely was – but again I was disappointed in the fact that he had Reynaud Jones on there talking about the Jackson 5’s early days in Gary. Jones is one of the ones that sued Michael claiming he stole songs, some of which weren’t even written by Michael (the Mexico depositions). Why on earth would you have someone who sued Michael for something so ridiculous and lost the lawsuit on a documentary about Michael? Why was Taraborelli allowed to be on there saying that during the trial while the media was waiting in line to get in – one “very famous journalist” (as he put it) stood out of the line and yelled, “Who besides Randy Taraborelli thinks Michael is innocent?” Ok, in anything that any of you watched or read prior to Michael’s death that included anything out of Taraborelli’s mouth felt like he had Michael’s back? I sure didn’t! So you do absolutely have to wonder if some of the people with good intentions truly do the necessary research. It’s like asking KISS to be at the Michael Jackson memorial concert. Good Lord, why would anyone want Gene Simmons anywhere near anything to do with Michael after the twisted lies he spouted?

    One thing that I have truly liked about this site as opposed to other sites is that it is kept strictly about Michael and not bashing his family. This is venting on my part, but I will not view sites such as muzikfactory2 because the scope of her mission seems to involve that very thing. I feel that this detracts from what the mission should be. When you have someone who devotes a blog to asking Debbie Rowe to take the children from Katherine; who tweets some of the ugliest things to Michael’s siblings and the most dangerous – attempting to parent Michael’s children via twitter which evolved into her calling Paris a spoiled brat – I can’t support that nor do I want to hear anything else someone with that agenda has to say.

    Which brings me back to your site. Again, your work is phenomenal! Please do not allow disagreements to separate any of you from your invaluable efforts. I know that each of you has been trashed by ugly haters at one time or another (which only proves you are getting to them) and I can only imagine how disconcerting that must be. David – your posts are awesome and your time, effort and research is very much appreciated; Lynette – your medical knowledge and research is also awesome and very much appreciated; and Helena – your compassion and desire to set the record straight is what started this project and so each one of you is such an asset to all of us.

    Like

  251. Hilary permalink
    May 18, 2012 4:57 pm

    Since someone brought up John Travolta…Gloria Allred is representing his accuser. Surprise surprise.

    Like

  252. May 11, 2012 11:35 am

    “I know Roger Friedman runs hot and cold on Michael, but found the second last paragraph on his John Travolta piece regarding Michael interesting. Hopefully more journalists will start to put the obvious truth out there. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerfriedman/2012/05/10/john-travolta-more-proof-he-was-in-new-york-not-l-a-on-day-of-alleged-assault/

    Susan, the second last paragraph in Roger Friedman’s article does clearly state how Fridman finally sees the situation with Michael Jackson. It is worth repeating here for the sake of Michael Jackson and also as a sign that Michael Jackson’s example has made the media more wary of accusing other people without having sufficient proof.

    It seems that Michael Jackson had to sacrifice his life for the media to finally sober up after their wild drinking party during which they killed an innocent man and thoroughly enjoyed themselves in this process.

    5/10/2012 @ 11:51AM |62,068 views
    John Travolta: More Proof He Was In New York, Not L.A., on Day of Alleged Assault

    John Travolta’s fortune and his movie career are in potential jeopardy because of two sexual harassment lawsuits from masseurs. The financial damage to his long career—dating back to the 1970s and “Welcome Back Kotter”–could be severe if unproved allegations stick to him. So it’s important to try and quickly figure out what’s going on here.

    One of the suits alleges the “attack” took place in Beverly Hills on January 16, 2012. TMZ has already pulled out a restaurant receipt from the downtown Mr. Chow’s in New York on January 16. They’ve also supplied flight records and photos of Travolta at a costume fitting in New York on January 16th. (Rogers & Cowan is probably working overtime supplying them with evidence.)

    The fittings were for a movie called “The Killing Season.” Two costumers worked on that film. One of them who I was able to reach this morning, K. Drew Fuller, was not at the fitting. But he knows it took place, and has it marked on his calendar. “I can’t imagine Travolta doing that,” he said. “He’s always quite a gentleman.” I can’t imagine it either. I don’t know Travolta’s personal life. We’ve disagreed about Scientology. His wife has been rude to me in public. But Travolta has always been pleasant when we’ve talked. At the 2004 dinner for the Museum of the Moving Image, Travolta was in good form–making jokes about becoming a spokesperson for Breitling.

    What’s going on here? A shakedown? A public humiliation? This wouldn’t be the first time. It’s instructive to recall the Michael Jackson child molestation case. Jackson was smeared by it for two years, until the case fell apart in court. The family involved had set up and invented their entire story. Jackson was acquitted, but it ruined his life.

    It’s been a while since Travolta has made any sparks fly at the box office. His films have grossed $3.7 billion worldwide, but he hasn’t appeared in a film that cracked the $100 million mark in the U.S. since 2007’s “Hairspray,” in which he appeared as Edna Turnblad. His last outing, 2010′s “From Paris With Love,” grossed a paltry $24 million; 2009′s “The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3″ grossed $65 million. Upcoming films will suffer if Travolta can’t turn the bad press around quickly.

    More to come on this, undoubtedly …

    Like

  253. Susan permalink
    May 10, 2012 11:41 pm

    Hi guys:

    Don’t know where to post this so I’ll just put it here. I know Roger Friedman runs hot and cold on Michael, but found the second last paragraph on his John Travolta piece regarding Michael interesting. Hopefully more journalists will start to put the obvious truth out there.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerfriedman/2012/05/10/john-travolta-more-proof-he-was-in-new-york-not-l-a-on-day-of-alleged-assault/

    Like

  254. Mona permalink
    May 4, 2012 11:43 pm

    ”Every single time you really examine Michael’s true character, he comes up smelling like a rose…”

    Nannorris, that’s so true… And isn’t it so great to stand behind such a man like Michael was and discover fact after fact that indeed he stands up to everything we hoped for? It’s amazing that someone could live up to such a high standard. A pity others trashed him like that during his lifetime. Indeed, one of the greatest humanitarians the world has ever known!

    LOVE

    Like

  255. nannorris permalink
    May 4, 2012 10:11 pm

    lynande51

    I agree this is good news because people realize they can make money in a positive way off MJ rather then the opposite.
    Since we know , no matter what MJ will be used for lining someones pockets , atleast this is a positive manner …
    As far and them pulling their endorsement ..
    I blame the Chandlers alot more the I blame Pepsi..
    They were selling a positive image and this was just bad news all around..
    So the fact that they are banking on a billion pepsi cans with his image on it , is great news…
    Just another step toward the truth…
    The influx if trash stories is interesting in timing also..
    How outraged would the general public be if they realize they were duped into believing the worst about one if the worlds greatest humanitarians for profit and ambition..
    I do think some in the media would really like to forget about that trial. DD included…
    I also think that is why Zonen gets so defensive..
    There was over a decade of mud being thrown at MJ and three years after his death , people love him even more then ever… ..
    As hard as it was to listen to that tape Murray did, it shows Michael to have such a pure and beautiful soul..
    Constantly putting others first
    (although I wonder if that tape was for blackmail or if he was planning on playing it back for someone from aeg or whoever he seems to be reporting back to)…that remark kenny ortega mad about bringing the doctor into the fold or whatever…
    Every single time you really examine Michaels true character, he comes up smelling like a rose..

    Like

  256. lynande51 permalink
    May 4, 2012 8:48 pm

    More news this morning about Michael Jackson. It seems that Pepsi has partnered with the Michael Jackson Estate to use Michael’s image in upcoming promotions. This is one step closer to eradicating the hate against Michael. He lost the Pepsi endorsement in 1993 after the allegation were made by the Chandler gang and the fallout from that and now he has them back. It seems that the business world no longer sees his image as a liability but an opportunity. No wonder there has been a recent tabloid onslaught against him, there must have been talk in world of business that this was happening. Fans should be able to recognize this as a victory for Michael’s reputation and image.This is a nice article without any reference to the allegations but does mention the accident

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pepsi-brings-back-michael-jackson-110352864.html

    Like

  257. April 30, 2012 8:59 pm

    David, I fully support you and the co-editors of the new book about Michael’s charity and have made a post about it in your name.

    Hopefully this will give more publicity to this worthy project and more people will come in and share their stories about things Michael was too modest to ever disclose to anyone. Please feel free to change the title if it is grammatically wrong and you want it to be different.

    Like

  258. sanemjfan permalink
    April 30, 2012 8:04 pm

    Here is an email that we have received from a group of fans who last year published a book called “It’s All About L.O.V.E. – Michael Jackson Stories You Were Never Meant To Read”, which is a collection of stories from fans who met MJ throughout the years.

    They are trying to gather stories from fans who have been helped by MJ’s charity in order to publish a second book about his humanitarianism, and they asked us to help spread the word about their project to our readers. Here is their message:

    We are the editors and co-writers of the book “It’s all about L.O.V.E. – Michael Jackson stories you were never meant to read” (http://www.amazon.com/Its-all-about-L-V/dp/383914941X), a collection of stories by fans from around the world about their experiences with Michael. The book quickly became a bestseller among the worldwide fan community.

    Currently we are working on a new book project which focuses on Michael’s humanitarian work, and again we intend to collect stories, this time of people whom Michael helped personally or through donations, and of people who have witnessed or arranged those meetings.
    Just as our previous book, all proceeds from the new project will be donated to charity in Michael’s name.

    Our inspiration for this project is the strong feeling that it is high time to make this very important aspect of Michael’s life finally more publicly known. He dedicated a big part of his life, time and money to helping others without wanting to attract attention with it, but now that he is no longer here, we believe it is up to us to set the record straight for him and to tell the world what he really was about through personal stories about experiences with him. Besides that we hope that we will be able to collect money for charity, like we did with our last book, and inspire people reading the stories to do something themselves, to continue Michael’s message of giving.

    The structure of the book will be similar to the last book: a collection of many different stories. We have already started contacting several people and have gotten some wonderful stories. But we want more and know that there are much more out there! Michael helped all around the world and there are so many precious hidden stories that we cannot collect them alone. We need help from the whole fan community, which is hopefully as eager as we are to let the world know about Michael, the humanitarian.

    It would be wonderful to get your support for this project! We have already re-launched our website mjjbook.com with a lot of information regarding this new project as well as a questionnaire for people who have some story to tell. So if you could inform your members about this project or let us do it, that would be a huge help. And as with our last book, we will not let it get by unnoticed but all our busy helpers will get special thank you’s in the book itself.

    So please help us making this dream a reality for Michael. Please also feel free to forward this e-mail or our e-mail address (team@mjjbook.com) to anyone who you might think could be of help for us!
    If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us!

    It’s all about LOVE,
    Brigitte Bloemen, Marina Dobler, Miriam Lohr & Sonja Winterholler

    Like

  259. Mona permalink
    April 19, 2012 1:22 pm

    kaarin22, thank you very much, that draws a very clear picture now.
    I don’t know what my friend saw in her, she seemed to him ‘just like an angel’. That comment was annoying, as she seemed to me more like an angel of death and I’m happy to be proven right. Such a pity that people like this have their say about Michael and also seem credible.

    Like

  260. kaarin22 permalink
    April 19, 2012 3:30 am

    Mona, this Etok woman,a PhD, is giving an interview with Diane Dimond. From that you can pretty much know where she stands.

    Like

  261. Mona permalink
    April 19, 2012 1:12 am

    Not sure where exactly I could post this but I had to reach out to you.
    I saw this awful documentary today called ‘Who Killed the King of Pop’. I’m not sure when it was produced, but I guess it must have been still in 2009, so all of you have probably seen it… The documentary does not answer the question in the title directly, but they definitely insinuate that drugs did it. It really left a bitter taste in my mouth, especially seeing someone who pretended to be his friend for such a long time, like Dr. Susan Etok, show up and say such things about him with such ease and grace. What’s more, the documentary was presented to me by a friend who thought I should know the truth and I was sure to like it as there was nothing bad said about Michael. Really saddened by the video.
    What do you guys think?

    Like

  262. April 14, 2012 11:04 am

    Guys, here is the essence of the changes which I intend to make to this blog. A post about it will still have to be written – these are just some ideas to which I’ve come after several days of thinking:

    1. This blog started as mine and existed in this capacity since November 2009 till today. It was later joined by other authors. Some of them continued writing, some of them not, some made only one or two posts, some made a lot of them. Whatever it is, the blog has become a joint effort of many people.

    2. As a result of this joint effort this blog has ceased to be my or anyone’s personal blog. Now it is public for various advocates of Michael Jackson to write here if they have to say a word in his support.

    3. All these people have their own perception of Michael as a human being – some think he was an angel while others do not put him on the moral pedestal. I myself have my preferences which I will naturally express in this blog as an author and administrator of it, but it does not mean that others are obliged to share my views – they have their own and have the right to express them too. My only hope is that eventually we will be able to reach for the truth if we do not sweep things under the rug and discuss everything openly.

    4. For all these reasons I would like to make this blog FULLY PUBLIC and open its doors to every Michael’s advocate to have his/her say as long as their goal is to clear Michael of all the dirt thrown at him by others. The procedure of how to accept different authors’ contributions is not yet clear to me, but the main idea is this – there will be no official “vmj team” here. There are individual authors in this blog, and each is standing up for Michael from his own point of view.

    5. Therefore all our authors will become individual authors (and not editors). They will have the same right to write here as before, but in their individual capacity only and not as “official” representatives of the vmj blog.

    6. There will have to be two exceptions though. One of them is that we need a moderator for our “forum” (if we can call it that way). I mean the comments to various articles against which Michael’s haters often start their campaigns, so we need to stay vigilant and keep an eye over what’s going on there.

    7. For the moderator I suggest Lynette as she has been doing amazing work in the comments sections anyway. This work takes very much time and somewhat distracts from making posts, and by her huge contribution in this field Lynette has deserved this special status, I think. I hope she does not refuse this suggestion.

    8. The second exception is that I will still remain the admin of the blog for the primary reason that there must be an admin here. The administrator is the one who shapes the blog and determines the road where it is going. Since I have been doing it for two and a half years I will try to go on with the job – even if eventually it becomes a pure formality.

    My dream is to make this public blog a SELF-REGULATORY body. Every author should be on his own and enjoy full freedom in expressing himself, but on the other hand the author should also feel fully responsible for every word he/she is saying and therefore exercise a lot of self-discipline and self-censorship. I see the content of what the author is writing as the author’s responsibility and not he responsibility of the admin.

    In my opinion, the admin should interfere only in case there is no other way out. I will continue the policy of full transparency and discussing everything in the open, so that everyone knows that there is nothing going on “behind the scenes” and all decisions are taken here together and openly.

    9. All of the above means that this blog is turning from my personal blog into a public one – a sort of a journal if I may say so. All those who wish to participate in the common job of vindicating Michael are very much welcome here. Those who will write here just once or occasionally will be Contributors (they post after a certain okay from the admtnistrator – I didn’t get the procedure yet, but will look for it and report to you), and all those who have become Authors will write on their own and whenever they like, without any interference from the admin (as it was before).

    10. As to me, quite by accident I have made a new blog and can now use it as my personal one. However I don’t know when (and if at all) I will start writing there – now I have my hands full here and not much strength left for the other thing.

    A more official announcement wil be made a little later as now I must be on my way.

    P.S.

    By the way I had to change the video with Bach’s music on this page as someone attached an ad to the previous one and it spoiled the whole thing. The new music piece I’ve found – funnily – has a picture of Moses who returns from the mount where he received God’s commandments and finds that people in his absence started praying to a golden calf.

    Considering the religious subjects we’ve been discussing lately and the symbolic prayers to the “golden calf” that ruined the Chandlers and others who wanted dirty money at the expense of destroying Michael, this picture acquires a meaning of its own for us. I am amazed to have found this picture – now it is a symbol of the new stage the blog is entering.

    This blog definitely lives a life of its own.

    Here is the video:

    Like

  263. shellywebstere permalink
    April 13, 2012 11:20 pm

    I was too harsch with Karen, I know that she meant well but the result is disappointing. Frank Cascio did a better job defending MJ.

    Like

  264. sanemjfan permalink
    April 13, 2012 9:05 pm

    @Shelly
    The difference between Dimond and Dr. Moriarty is that Dimond is obviously a tabloid hack who did everything in her power to make MJ look guilty. Dr. Moriarty is a fan who tried to write a positive book, and she did, but it is a major disappointment in some areas, and it has a few egregious errors that I refused to simply sweep under the rug, as many other fans did (if they even bothered to read the book!). It’s not a fair comparison to put Dr. Moriarty in the same category as Dimond, Orth, etc., but Dr. Moriarty really reinforced the negative stereotype that fans of celebrities cannot write accurate books.

    That same stereotype also applies to celebrity blogs and websites, and Vindicate MJ is no exception. There are a lot of students in high school and college who use this site for research, but they may not be able to cite this blog as a source, due to the assumption that our research is biased in favor of MJ, and that we would deliberately omit anything that would make MJ look bad. That’s why I made that post a few weeks ago that compiles all of the articles and summaries of the trial from lawyers and journalists, who students can and should cite in their research. I always suggest to students that when they use our blog as a source, instead of citing the blog itself, instead they should cite the articles and source documents that our posts are based on. That’s what Dr. Moriarty should have done when citing the MJJ2005 forum! http://www.mjj2005.com/kopboard/index.php?act=idx

    And she had no business whatsoever citing questionable MJ sites such as this one: http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/

    Like

  265. nannorris permalink
    April 13, 2012 6:58 pm

    As I have said before , I will be writing a positive review about Dr Moriarty book..While I realize that some things have been left out or not correct …I can acknowledge that, within my review, and still write from a positive position….
    This book is written with good intentions…The fact some research may not measure up to the standards that we all hope for ,after all , we all want the gold standard , when it comes to MJ,, doesnt mean I am going to throw the baby out with the bathwater..
    DD is like a paid assassin..She wrote a character assassination for profit..So did Stacey Brown and Bob Jones..
    Ian Halperin? wrote a book denying MJ was a criminal , but said some awful and sensational stuff as well..
    VG motives are even worse in my opinion..
    Rest assured , these people dont give a hoot what is in their books as long as they profit off them..In fact , I dont tweet or whatever ,but I think I saw on here , that Stacey Brown was somewhat throwing it in fans faces , how much he profited off that trash..
    I have spoken to Dr Moriarty and told her some of my impressions and she has responded..
    If there are things to be included or changed , then she can always correct them in a later edition or when speaking on the radio..
    I already know alot of the things that are included in the book as I have done extensive reading on Michael Jackson.., but, not everbody has the time to do that, so I think this is a good introduction to MJ..
    I also could never be able to organize my thoughts well enough to compose an essay, much less , a book..
    So I cant do much with my knowledge other then when I am in conversation with people unfamiliar with the truth..
    How many people can I reach??
    I wish the trial stuff was more indepth or what ever but keep in mind that Tom Mesereau reviewed that stuff for her twice and he was okay with it ..
    So if Mr Mesereau endorses this book ..I am all for it..
    The positive factors outweigh whatever shortcomings , imo..
    I think the people who run this site should consider writing books also because they put all this effort in , and it is their research…
    It would be great for more people to have this available in book form….
    These are my own opinions of course , and everybody is entitled to their own.

    .

    Like

  266. shellywebstere permalink
    April 13, 2012 5:53 pm

    I totally agree with your review of that book. How can fans criticize Dimond and praise her at the same time? It’s hypocrit at best.

    Like

  267. sanemjfan permalink
    April 13, 2012 2:16 pm

    I recently bought the the book “Defending A King” by Dr. Karen Moriarty after seeing it praised nonstop by numerous fans and MJ bloggers, and after hearing that it was endorsed by Mesereau.

    Here are some of the reviews that the author posted on her website: http://defendingaking.com/reviews.htm

    I had high hopes or the book, but after reading it I was so appalled by the numerous errors and inaccuracies that I wrote a very honest and objective review of it on Amazon, which stands out in stark contrast to the “love letters” that other fans have written about the book. It’s highly unlikely that my review will be posted on Dr. Moriarty’s website!

    Here’s my review on Amazon:

    So far, I have gotten nothing but positive feedback from fellow MJ fans who have thanked me for actually scrutinizing the book, and not giving it a free pass just because it’s positive and the author’s heart was in the right place. Be sure to read the comments under my review because 2 prominent MJ bloggers who praised the book when it was released took exception to my “harsh” review, but attacked me personally instead of addressing the salient points that I mentioned in my review. I responded to them as well!

    http://www.amazon.com/Defending-King-His-Life-Legacy/product-reviews/0741470314/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addTwoStar

    I had a lot more to say about this book on Twitter, so please check out my timeline @sanemjfan, and scroll down to April 10 and read up from there!

    We as fans should not accept mediocrity just because it is positive about MJ! Although the book, in general, is good, and you will learn a lot from it, there were a lot of UNPROFESSIONAL AND UNACCEPTABLE errors and innaccuracies, and most importanly, OMISSIONS!

    Like

  268. April 11, 2012 2:16 am

    “Helena I said that I won’t comment on anyones faith. As for asking you to delete your posts that was between you and David also something that I did not want to become embroiled in.”

    But I’m not asking you to comment on anyone’s faith. I wondered what comment insulted you personally and whether you thought it insulting to ask the admin to delete her posts in the blog she actually started. Frankly, I am asking these questions to find out where I am.

    Like

  269. lynande51 permalink
    April 11, 2012 1:59 am

    Helena I said that I won’t comment on anyones faith. As for asking you to delete your posts that was between you and David also something that I did not want to become embroiled in. I think if you remember back not so long ago when another discussion was taking place you will know exactly why. I for one know that it is a very inflammatory discussion and believe that it is best handled by you if you like but I will not comment on it or my feelings about what is happening.

    Like

  270. April 11, 2012 1:36 am

    “Please don’t think the excerpt had anything to do with your current discussion about religion. I don’t want to discuss it at all for several reasons, one is that some of the comments that have been made have left me feeling, for lack of a better word, insulted, so I won’t comment either on the blog or in private about anyone’s faith.”

    Lynette, I didn’t understand a thing about the book, but understood that your addition did not have anything to do with our discussion. Okay.

    I wonder which of the comments made you feel insulted and I also wonder why a request to delete my two posts didn’t strike you as insulting too?

    Like

  271. lynande51 permalink
    April 11, 2012 12:45 am

    Helena, that part that you wrote was part of the book that was written. My intention in adding it to the About the Blog is because it is a book that needs attention. It is small and may seem insignificant but it is a good book of rememberance from a friend. That just happend to be the part that I could lift from my Kindle because of the way it scrolled, that is the only reason that I used the part that I did. I also wanted to show that this family consisted of 4 children, 3 girls and a boy, and the Mom and Dad spent as much time in Michael’s room as their kids if not more. As a matter of fact this man watched a movie in the theater in one of the bedrooms that were designed for sick kids on the bed with Michael in the middle and Elizabeth Taylor on the other side. Please don’t think the excerpt had anything to do with your current discussion about religion. I don’t want to discuss it at all for several reasons, one is that some of the comments that have been made have left me feeling, for lack of a better word, insulted, so I won’t comment either on the blog or in private about anyone’s faith.

    Like

  272. April 10, 2012 3:12 pm

    “Though Michael had been raised as a Jehovah’s Witness he told me once that he never liked the part about no Christmas and no birthdays so he just decided one day to throw those two rules away along with a few others.”

    Lynette, I understand Michael very well, but it does not mean that he gave up God and basic understanding of Him which he learned through the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The idea of God Michael came up with as a result of his individual search and reflections is a huge attraction to me – it is simple and natural, funny and extremely powerful.

    Like

  273. lynande51 permalink
    April 10, 2012 9:39 am

    I have an excerpt from a book that was written by Dr. William “Barney” VanValin that was a friend of Michael’s until he left the country after the trial. His name appears on prescriptions that were made out to Frank that the police claimed were actually Michael’s. In his book the only thing that he says that could be construed as negative is that Michael told him one time that Bill Gates gave him a Lincoln Navigator and he later said it wasn’t true. Michael liked to prank people and that might have been his prank for the day ” let’s see what I can get Barney to believe” kind of thing. It is a wonderful book written about conversations that they had that reflect wonderfully on Michael and it is written like a friend would. It is only 74 pages but it is well worth the $9.95 for the Kindle version of it just for the pictures he paints withhis description of Neverland and his childrens and wifes friendship with Michael. Here is where he is telling about his kids birthdays at Neverland.

    BIRTHDAYS
    Though Michael had been raised as a Jehovah’s Witness he told me once that he never liked the part about no Christmas and no birthdays so he just decided one day to throw those two rules away along with a few others. I always meant to ask him about those others but I never remembered. He had someone get all of my family’s birthdays on a calendar and let him know when they were coming so he could plan a party, his favorite thing. He’d set up a white tent by the theater with lunch and a cake and all kinds of presents. He would send Kato,(this is what Michael nicknamed his chauffer Gary) all dressed up in a chauffer’s black suit and white gloves, to the house in a beautiful deep blue, well-polished, old Bentley to pick up one of the kids and their friends. Then it was off to Neverland for a birthday party. Bianca had a birthday all set up and on their daily walk down to the house, the elephants trashed the whole thing. The tents were knocked down and they ate the cake. She remembers it all being great fun. I remember Mason getting two birthdays in one year. Michael just called one afternoon and said they were ready for Mason. “What for, Michael?” He replied, “For his birthday of course!” I said, “But it isn’t his birthday. You gave him a birthday party back in April.” He responded in typical fashion without a pause, “Who cares, we’re gonna have another one. I believe in un-birthdays you know!”
    Valin II MD, Dr. William B. van; Dr. William B. van Valin II MD (2011-11-01). Conversations In Neverland with Michael Jackson (Kindle Locations 893-899). Richard Payton. Kindle Edition.

    Like

  274. lynande51 permalink
    April 8, 2012 1:40 am

    @Helena
    The tape was not sent to Michael. It was sent to a person in Miami Florida that was being investigated for being a child pornographer. It had absolutely nothing to do with Michael other than the tape carried his name. Michael never saw or knew of this tapes existence because it was not him in the investigation just someone in Miami Florida.

    Like

  275. April 7, 2012 10:25 pm

    “Here is an article that I found about one of the largest stings that took place in from Australia where they first used the software.It is also a very good article that puts in proper perspective exactly what a real p******** does. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1501622/Thirty-one-Aussies-arrested-in-biggest-paedophile-ring

    Lynette, I am both happy and unhappy with the news of this successful operation. Happy because it is a major breakthrough in fighting this huge evil, but unhappy because the problem is still there and they have done much damage to a lot of children who now will never be what they were before. But at least this is an encouraging sign.

    In my opinion ped-lia is the worst world problem because it is too widespread and too powerful forces are engaged in this business. There can be no special “profile of a ped-le” for a very simple reason – it is an ordinary person whose morals have become extremely corrupt. Part of them were corrupted themselves in their boyhood after which their life took a totally different course. Many of them were persuaded by their abusers that what had been done to them is “normal” and existed in the world since time immemorial.

    The most awful thing is that there are very many open sources which advocate this point of view (the closest example are those professors who recommended Tom O’Carroll’s book and who still teach at their universities and spread their views there!). All of them say that “it” existed in the world for thousands of years – except the relatively short period of “Judo-Christianity” as they call it – so it is “normal” to return to it. The general “coldness in faith” and ongoing corruption of morals are to their great advantage. Allowing people with a true faith in God like Jehovah’s Witnesses’ or Seven Day Adventists’ to take over will be the worst of their nightmares – and that is why they are persecuted.

    These forces are much more happy with “formal religion” where everyone clatters about their belief in God, but no one gives a damn (I am sorry for the word). I was so much taken by the religious trend in our discussion because I have come to realize that what we are essentially facing here is a huge spiritual fight.

    It is a fight between total moral corruption accompanied by the no less total worldwide hypocrisy and people like Michael Jackson who either have deep belief in God and his commandments, or simply have human conscience and ethics which they mistake for atheism but which are in fact another form of listening to the Holy Spirit.

    There is no more need to beat about the bush – incredible as it might seem but Michael Jackson involved us in a spiritual fight with the worst world evil in which we have no right to lose.

    What you have said about that tape sent to Michael by mail shows once again that ped-les were keeping him as their constant target – one way or the other they wanted him to be “theirs” and in reaching that goal they employed every means possible – provocations (like this parcel sent by the mail), slander, pulling the necessary strings in the media, compromising him in the eyes of the most conservative forces in the society (like Tom Sneddon), using the racial card, whatever.

    They most probably never expected Michael to resist them so much – knowing his gentle ways they hoped to break his spirit by the very first wave of all that nastiness, but to their great surprise he stood up to their attacks again and again. He was bleeding but still fought back until the end of his life. And now – by standing up for Michael Jackson – we have sort of inherited the fight he waged and cannot avoid it.

    * * *
    Lynette, I think you should make a very short post about the question asked by a reader about the tape and your answer to it. You seem to know much more about it than I do. It is time we stopped making “fundamental” posts but answered concrete questions which may be summed up later into a collection of questions and answers. Please….

    Like

  276. lynande51 permalink
    April 7, 2012 8:03 pm

    @VMJ
    The tape was found by customs agents going through the suspects mail. He was a suspected trafficker of child pornograhy and so they had Federal search warrants for his mail. It had nothing to do with Michael other than they used his name on the title and used the title of his song (written by R. Kelly) as one of the segments of the film. It was made in the Czech Republic and was homemade made over several other videos which is what 3rd or 4th generation means.
    It was different back in 1995 for the child pornography business. These guys would keep in touch with each other via mail and share their child pornography. Now it is different because they can share on the internet or at least they could until last year. Interpol and the police in many countries have caught many of them with new computer programs designed to search them out. I actually know a programmer that worked on forensic software for tracking them and finding what is on their computers. They can track certain suspects now and from there whoever is in touch with them can be found and investigated as well.
    Here is an article that I found about one of the largest stings that took place in from Australia where they first used the software.It is also a very good article that puts in proper perspective exactly what a real p******** does.
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1501622/Thirty-one-Aussies-arrested-in-biggest-paedophile-ring

    Like

  277. April 7, 2012 7:25 pm

    Lynette, it is great that you have found all those follow-up materials on that tape. I remember the FBI files speaking about a tape which was found somewhere at the customs but didn’t know that it had such a luring name. If it was Michael Jackson who put that name on the tape he evidently wanted very much indeed to draw the customs officers’s attention to it, or otherwise I cannot explain why it had such an attractive title.

    As far as I remember, besides it being a third-generation copy of we don’t know what, no one could prove that it ever belonged to Michael. Anyone could write his name there (same as yours or mine) and later claim things about it – but it would be laughable even to think that if any of us wanted to hide it the first thing we would do is put our name on it!

    What this tape actually testifies to is that someone wanted to set up Michael by putting it somewhere into his luggage. In fact we do not even know where it was found, but what we can be sure of is that it was put there on purpose.

    This is another great fact for our collection of facts about Michael having been framed up by someone.

    Like

  278. lynande51 permalink
    April 5, 2012 9:06 am

    The tape that was found in 1995 was not found in Michael Jackson’s home. It was found in Miami by a customs agent found to be a 3rd or 4th generation tape and was found in connection to another case that was being investigated.It was mailed to the person that they were investigating from South America.You can go to the FBI and just search Michael Jackson and it will tell you what that tape was about. What they mean by third or fourth generation tape is that someone made a home made tape. It was done on top of a previous tape and the audio did not match the video. Neverland was searched in 1993 and again in 2003 not in 1995. Here is a link to the FBI document that explains it.The best I can make out is that the tape was made in the Czech Republic and someone used Michael’s music in it.

    http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%2095%20File%20Part%201%20of%201/view
    http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/1996-10-11-ICE-Michael-Jackson.pdf
    http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2010_02_01_archive.html

    I moved this to a more appropriate location in the blog.

    Like

  279. Orfa permalink
    March 31, 2012 6:17 am

    Ojala todas estas cosas se pudieran replicar , en espanol , ya que somos muchos los seguidores de Michael tanto en Espana ,como latino America, y deseariamos poner nuestro granito de arena , dando nuestra vision de las cosas y manifestar el inmenso Amor que le tenemos Michael Jackson

    Like

  280. March 29, 2012 3:59 pm

    Kaarin, are you able to comment now? Recently the wordpress sent me another piece of advice – please inform me if this does (or doesn’t) help:

    If some of your visitors aren’t able to comment, please have them log into their Gravatar or WordPress.com account at the top of http://wordpress.com/ (in a new browser tab) before trying to submit their comment. For complete details, please see: http://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic/recent-update-to-commenting?replies=4

    Like

  281. kaarin22 permalink
    March 29, 2012 3:12 pm

    This is kaarin22 again.I have posted for over 2 years without problems. If not mistaken I had a permalink and my name etc was there under the space for writing.

    Like

  282. kaarin22 permalink
    March 29, 2012 3:06 pm

    I have not been able to send messages. Just got in with Worldpress, but then they told me to sign in with email address etc. There was no place to do that. Please help me to get back in, I have posted 21/2 years without any problems.

    Like

  283. Susanne permalink*
    March 29, 2012 10:59 am

    Yes, wow, this is fantastic, David. I saw the video with WW back in 2010. We need people like her. I am very interested in this.

    Like

  284. March 29, 2012 9:03 am

    “I will work with her to give her additional material that she can assign to her class to read, such as books and articles. Via word of mouth, enrollment in her classes has skyrocketed due to MJ! We will meet again in a few weeks and I’ll keep you guys updated!”

    Wow, just wow! David, please refer Martha Gullien to our site as well. My biggest hugs to Martha Gullien!

    Like

  285. sanemjfan permalink
    March 29, 2012 2:19 am

    Today I met with a professor who is teaching her college students about MJ! Her name is Martha Gallien, and she teaches criminology and sociology here in Texas. We met for around 2 hours and talked about MJ, what she thought about him before and after his death, what her students think about her, and other topics.

    She is making her students read “MJ Conspiracy” & they must write a book report on it! In another class, her students are given extra credit assignments that they can do on MJ if they choose. She always liked his music, but was too busy with working and raising her family to follow his life closely while he was alive. After he died, she became very curious about him, and was disgusted at what she discovered!

    In Sept. 2010, she flew to Cali to attend the Frozen In Time seminar, where Mesereau, Zonen, Feldman, & others spoke about the MJ cases.

    She met with William Wagener afterwards and taped an interview for YT where she describes what she heard there. I will work with her to give her additional material that she can assign to her class to read, such as books and articles. Her students are very excited about learning about MJ, and many have decided to study MJ even after taking her course! Many minds have been changed!

    They love watching the “What Did Happen To Michael Jackson?” series on YT! Via word of mouth, enrollment in her classes has skyrocketed due to MJ! We will meet again in a few weeks and I’ll keep you guys updated!

    Like

  286. shellywebstere permalink
    March 27, 2012 12:55 am

    I don’t know if that story is true, but if it is, then it’s very interesting

    Abuse witch-hunt traps innocent in a net of lies

    Public alarm over paedophiles has led to a relentless ‘trawl’ for sex perverts. David Rose and Gary Horne report on one man whose life was ruined when he fell victim to the wave of panic.

    Share
    reddit this

    The Observer, Sunday 26 November 2000
    Article history

    In a spartan special-visits room at Wakefield prison, Roy Shuttleworth leans across the bolted-down table and displays his most treasured possessions: letters and cards from his wife, Irene. ‘My darling, innocent Roy,’ one begins, ‘I am as much in love with you as the day we met nearly 40 years ago. My only wish is to spend what life we have left together. I only hope nothing happens to either one of us, because I know the other will die of a broken heart.’

    As he speaks of his shattered family, he makes no attempt to hide his grief. His children, Roy junior and Suzanne, cross the Pennines from Cheshire to visit him twice a month. Now 67, the pale, broken man they find is a ghost of the jolly paterfamilias they see in family photos. This former champion swimmer, mining foreman and long-distance truck driver is serving a 10-year sentence for crimes deemed by some to be worse than murder – 11 counts of sexual assault and buggery against boys once in his care.

    From his arrest in 1995, he has protested his innocence. Although it could shorten his sentence by two years, he refuses to take the prison sex offender treatment programme: ‘How can I sit there in a so-called therapy group talking about my crimes if I haven’t committed them? And listening to them who has done it – it’s disgusting.’

    Tonight, after five months of investigation, the BBC Panorama programme will reveal dramatic new evidence supporting Shuttleworth’s claim of innocence, including evidence from former residents at the home where he worked – Greystone Heath in Warrington – who refute key elements of the prosecution case, contradicting key elements in the stories told by Shuttleworth’s alleged victims. One man, confronted by huge discrepancies in his story, has now changed it beyond recognition from the version he gave in court.

    All of the eight men who made allegations against Shuttleworth have criminal records for dishonesty; three were serving seven-year sentences when they testified. Three have since allegedly disclosed they fabricated their claims for money, hoping to be awarded compensation from the government criminal injuries scheme and from civil actions against Liverpool City Council, which owned and ran Greystone Heath. The rewards from this process may run to more than £100,000 for each claimant.

    It would be deeply disturbing if Shuttleworth’s story was an isolated case. But it is not. Since the time allegations of sexual abuse in care homes first surfaced in North Wales in 1991, more than 100 former care workers have been convicted and jailed for terms of up to 18 years. Some of them, perpetrators of foul and degrading crimes whose victims were long disbelieved, confessed to the police and pleaded guilty. Others, like Shuttleworth, continue to protest their innocence.

    Police investigations into care-home abuse have become an unregulated phenomenon with 90 separate inquiries under way at present, and thousands of former and serving care workers and teachers under suspicion. Officers from a single inquiry in South Wales recently announced they had more than 500 suspects.

    All are using ‘the trawl’ – the highly unusual method piloted in North Wales and by the Cheshire force that investigated Greystone Heath. It relies, not on victims coming forward, but on the police visiting hundreds or thousands of men once at a particular care home to discover if they were abused. Shuttleworth’s solicitor, Chris Saltrese, calls it a ‘begging bowl operation, a hunt for allegations’. Some of those identified this way are genuine abusers. But as Shuttleworth’s case shows, it is a blunt weapon, likely to produce false allegations.

    The trawl that led to Shuttleworth’s conviction began with a single allegation from a resident of Greystone Heath, a prolific offender sent there by the courts. Early in 1994 ‘Paul’ (the law says alleged victims of sexual offences must have their identities protected) found himself in the custody of the police. He told them that nine months earlier he had been driving his car in Widnes when he saw a former Greystone worker, Alan Langshaw, leaving the magistrates’ court with a boy. This, he said, brought back the horror of the sexual abuse Langshaw inflicted on him at the home during the 1970s.

    ‘Paul’ made a statement, and in the days that followed, accused a further 17 former care workers, including Roy Shuttleworth. Without independent evidence his claims posed a serious problem for the police. However, two years earlier the media had fiercely criticised the failure of police in North Wales to bring the perpetrators of sexual abuse in local homes to justice. The Cheshire officers talking to ‘Paul’ did not want to expose themselves to similar attacks. The force decided to set up a major investigation – Operation Granite.

    Using health, prison and benefit records, the police traced hundreds of former Greystone residents. At least 1,000 made statements, though only a small minority claimed they were victims. When the police arrested Langshaw, he confessed almost immediately and was finally jailed for eight years. Langshaw’s Greystone Heath contemporary, Roy Shuttleworth, was a different matter.

    There were striking differences. Langshaw, a gay single man, had a private flat at Greystone Heath where he could lock the door and do as he pleased with his victims, immune from scrutiny. Shuttleworth lived on the campus with his wife and children. He had come into care work in his forties, when his wife Irene, sick of his absences driving HGVs, persuaded him to apply for a joint post as houseparents. The couple did everything together. Why such a man would want to abuse young boys is a matter for psychologists. How he could have done so is a crucial question on which his proof of innocence turns.

    The vital principle which trawl inquiries must follow is to avoid ‘leading’ potential witnesses by planting ideas in their minds. Professor Mike McConville of Warwick University, an authority on miscarriages of justice, tells tonight’s Panorama how easy it is to generate a false allegation in this way. The police, he points out, do not simply record what interviewees say: they write up their statements from lengthy question and answer sessions, and it is impossible to tell the spontaneous account from one which has been suggested.

    By telling interviewees they were investigating sexual abuse and reminding them of the names of care staff, detectives could sow the seeds of a wrongful conviction. McConville believes that introducing mandatory taping of all detective-witness encounters in trawl investigations is urgently needed.

    When talks with police generate untrue statements, says McConville, the witness will almost invariably ‘adopt’ the misleading account as his own. In the present climate, a wrongly accused care worker is the deadly foe.

    Panorama’s investigation revealed that this process was at work in Operation Granite. A former Greystone inmate who left the home seven years before Shuttleworth began to work there in 1974 made a graphic statement, describing how Shuttleworth had forced him to masturbate him in the shower. The man sticks to his account now, insisting that Shuttleworth abused him. But the man got Shuttleworth’s name from the police who descended ‘out of the blue’ one day in 1995. The detectives, he says, showed him photographs of Shuttleworth and told him they were investigating claims he was a paedophile.

    The case reveals a second, deadly way in which wrongful convictions can be generated by trawls – the lure of compensation. After the man had made his statement, the police suggested he see a solicitor. He went to Abney Garsden McDonald in Cheadle, which by early 1995 was co-ordinating actions for damages on behalf of alleged abuse victims throughout the North-West. (Today there are more than 700 claimants in these actions, all funded by legal aid, 350 of whom the Cheadle firm represents.)

    The lawyers told him he had two ways of making a claim: the Government criminal injuries compensation scheme, and a civil action against Greystone’s operators, Liverpool City Council. He began to pursue both courses. Only then did the police realise the discrepancy over dates, forcing him to withdraw from both the criminal and civil legal process.

    The police have taken an unusually close interest in the compensation aspect of the case. Senior officers visited the government scheme’s Glasgow headquarters and persuaded them to waive the normal three-year time limit for claimants. They also had meetings with Peter Garsden, Abney Garsden McDonald’s lead partner in the abuse cases, and with other lawyers involved in the civil actions.

    ‘It very quickly became apparent that it was important for us and the police to have a symbiotic relationship,’ Garsden says. ‘For example, the police would want us to refer any new complaints of abuse that they didn’t know about to them, because it would help them in their process. We depended on them, because we wanted as much information about the pending criminal trials as possible.’

    Garsden also appointed a ‘press relations officer’ who succeeded in getting articles placed in the local media which made it clear that victims might be able to claim thousands of pounds in damages. A former Greystone resident, Eric Oldham, went to the firm and lodged a claim after seeing this publicity. Only after he had made his statement for the lawyers did he agree to talk to the police.

    In McConville’s eyes, this relationship between criminal and civil justice was risky. ‘You cannot have a cheque book investigation in a criminal case. Victims can be legitimately assisted in pursuing compensation, that’s one thing, but you must not have the issue of compensation colouring their accounts.’

    In some cases, the relation between lawyers and police has been closer still. ‘The police have been very helpful,’ says solicitor Keith Robinson, handling over 100 abuse claims. ‘I have had several clients who have been referred to me by officers. They will often supply important documents, such as unused material from a trial and supporting evidence.’

    A third and final factor made the position in which Shuttleworth found himself more perilous still.

    In 1991, a House of Lords judgment in the case known as Director of Public Prosecutions versus P changed the law. Normally, an allegation of a criminal offence has to stand or fall on its own merits: if a witness accusing someone of sexual abuse was sufficiently credible, or could adduce supporting evidence, then an abuser would be convicted. Until 1991, multiple allegations against the same person could only be held to be mutually corroborating if there were ‘striking similarities’ between the alleged crimes, indicating a criminal’s ‘signature,’ a distinct modus operandi. But the judgment removed this protection. In effect, the courts have accepted the idea of ‘corroboration by volume’.

    Peter Garsden insists that every allegation in the 700 cases he is co-ordinating is true, because nobody would be prepared to put up with the unpleasant business of giving evidence unless they were telling the truth. He further believes he is, literally, fighting the forces of Satan: ‘I believe that we’re messing with the Devil, because you know, child abuse is evil, and the people that get involved in it are powerful, manipulative people. And they will do their level best to stop us succeeding and stop us getting justice for the victims.’

    Garsden, who is also executive officer of the national Association of Child Abuse Lawyers, says that even when discrepancies occur between allegations and known facts, this doesn’t cast doubt on their story: their memory may have deceived them over some of the details, but the one thing they will always remember is how they were abused, and by whom.

    Lesley Cohen from Nottingham, who has prepared reports for more than 100 victims disagreed. ‘You cannot tell from using a psychometric assessment whether a person has experienced [the abuse] they’re talking about.’

    The seven men who gave evidence accusing Shuttleworth all made criminal injuries claims, most before his trial; all have also lodged civil actions. One already had been convicted and jailed in 1991 for conspiracy to defraud the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

    A psychiatric assessment dating from 1983 described this claimant as ‘unable to separate fact from fantasy’. Nevertheless, as the trial opened at Chester Crown Court in May 1996, the police were convinced that he and the other men were telling the truth.

    Shuttleworth’s defence scored important points. For example, faced with the difficulty that Shuttleworth had no private space to take his supposed victims, the complainants claimed they’d been abused in public parts of the home. One, ‘Dave’, said he had a key to the swimming pool where he worked alone as a cleaner and Shuttleworth used to abuse him there.

    Peter McCudden, the former head of PE, said this was untrue: there were only two keys to the swimming pool, guarded religiously by himself and the duty head, and anyone found alone there would be banned from the pool for life. The discrepancies were ignored by the jury. The judge described the men as ‘coming forward’, and asked the jury to consider how they could have made their claims independently unless they were true. But they had not ‘come forward’.

    Panorama tested ‘Dave’s’ story further. He also claimed that Shuttleworth used to wake him in the dormitory and take him away to abuse him at night. We traced two of his former room-mates, both of whom insisted such a thing was impossible: they would have known. They denied Dave’s claim that one of them had also been abused. One, abused by Langshaw, is now a successful entrepreneur who asked to remain anonymous. He said: ‘No, no, not in this world, no, no, never – Shuttleworth never did anything to me.’

    This was nothing to the unravelling of the claims of another witness – ‘Jim’. He claimed he was assaulted one afternoon in the shower in a brutal attack which ended in buggery and lasted for 10 to 15 minutes. Finally, he said, he pushed Shuttleworth off him, banging his head against the shower door, and ran wrapped in a towel to the headmaster’s office.

    But ‘Jim’ would have had to run 400 yards in full view of the road and passers-by who used Greystone Heath as a short cut – on his account, crying, screaming and bleeding from his anus. Unfortunately, the trial never heard crucial details of the evening shower routine which cast further doubt: the shower was open, with no door against which Shuttleworth could bang his head. The boys showered together in a tightly supervised regimen, with two staff patrolling. ‘There was never any stragglers,’ says Lee Fielding, once ‘Jim’s’ best friend.

    Confronted by Panorama with these discrepancies, Jim changed his story: the attack, he said, lasted only ‘a matter of seconds’; and he was no longer sure whether he had been penetrated. His one-time friend Lee then asked how he could have left the building, because the doors were always locked. ‘Jim’ claimed he jumped from a first-floor window – a detail he never mentioned before. Last week we went back to Greystone Heath and found – as Lee had told us – that the windows were restrained by metal brackets, and could not open more than three inches. ‘Oh, aye,’ ‘Jim’ said. ‘I was skinny in them days.’ Our inquiries found problems with the evidence of all the witnesses. The more we checked it, the more it fell apart.

    Some of this fresh evidence was available when Shuttleworth applied for leave to appeal in 1999. The most dramatic example was the story of ‘Tony,’ who claimed Shuttleworth bent him over his bed and started to bugger him, and that he screamed and bit Shuttleworth’s finger so hard he fell to the floor in agony. He claimed that another care worker, Phil Fiddler, was drawn by the commotion and was told by Shuttleworth (with trousers, presumably, at half-mast) that ‘Tony’ had attacked him.

    In 1997, ‘Tony’ gave evidence in Fiddler’s own trial. This time he claimed that Fiddler bent him over his bed and started to bugger him, and that he screamed and bit Fiddler’s finger so hard he fell to the floor in agony. Drawn by the commotion, he said another care worker, Ted Tipton, entered the room and Fiddler told him (with trousers, presumably, at half-mast) that ‘Tony’ had attacked him. Fiddler’s jury acquitted him of all charges. It was a carbon copy of the evidence against Shuttleworth. As Fiddler’s barrister told the court, he had to be lying. In tonight’s Panorama, another former Greystone resident who met ‘Tony’ in prison describes how he boasted that he was making false allegations for money, adding: ‘You should try it yourself.’

    At about the same time as Fiddler’s trial, Shuttleworth’s solicitor, Chris Saltrese, traced ‘Paul’, the man whose claims had first triggered Operation Granite. He admitted he had fabricated his allegations against Shuttleworth, and agreed to consider making a statement saying so. However, after consulting his lawyer, he declined. He is still claiming compensation – although by the time of Shuttleworth’s trial, the police had decided not to call him as a witness. The reason, an internal police memo records, was that ‘doubts must be cast on his competence as a credible prosecution witness’.

    Shuttleworth was refused leave to appeal. Last year Irene suffered a heart attack and died. Shuttleworth was allowed to throw a handful of earth on her coffin handcuffed to a prison officer.

    ‘My life is in fragments,’ he says. ‘I am in darkness. What those men’s lies have taken away can never be put back. All there is left is to clear my name.’

    • Panorama’s investigation, In the Name of the Children, is on BBC1 tonight at 10.15.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2000/nov/26/socialcare.childrensservices

    Like

  287. Silvana Maciel Costa de Nazaré permalink
    March 24, 2012 7:19 am

    I love Michael! Not only because he is the King of Pop but I believe he was a special person. He loved everybody. He understood our sadness, our injust lives. Our pain was his pain. Our dreams were his dreams. Our happiness were his happiness. He is really an angel now.

    Like

  288. ISAURA permalink
    March 23, 2012 7:50 pm

    I also did not know much about Michael’s life, my parents used to watched him when he was a little boy singing away. Somehow when the terrible news came out I did not trust what everyone was saying, somehow deep down even without really knowing him I new that could not be true. This was the time I started to read about Michael Joseph Jackson, and really learn about the Man in the Mirror, the more I read the more this incredible feeling of sadness and admiration and desire of teach people about HIM came into me. I appreciate very much the blogs about Michael. My heart aches when I think of HIM, I can not help that feeling, but his music lift me when I am down, make me smile when I am sad, and also make me cry when I here his voice. Why is this happening to so many of us? Why is Michael so deeply implanted in our hearts and souls? I think Michael was like the clean air from the Ocean, like the smell of fresh flowers, like the sun that shines on us every day, His feeling and soul were so pure, his love for the children of the World and concerned for Nature and Animals and for humanity in general. Michael took every bad situation that came to him and handled it in such a manner that I can not even find a word for it, ” I know” He had FAITH and he new he was innocent, and he had a family to care for, HE WAS ALL ABOUT L.O.V.E

    Like

  289. March 17, 2012 1:41 am

    Dear readers, I apologize for spamming the blog with some links – it is the result of my work on the 2nd (additional) blog. It was somewhat of a mess after the wordpress people helped me to transfer the posts there and since they imported everything now I am trying to categorize things. And in the process of it a torrent of links is being sent here!

    Terribly sorry again. I don’t even know whether we will use the second blog but since the job was started I cannot give it up now.

    Like

  290. February 24, 2012 6:14 pm

    Guys, I am terribly sorry for having to be away. In a moment of crisis I began working on a new blog which is to be an addition to the present one. The crisis is over but the blog is already in the process of making, so I decided to go on with it – it will give our team more space to express our views on various subjects concerning MJ.

    I hope to be duplicating my posts here and there, but in the new blog will try to categorize things better (for easier search). Systematizing material turned out to be quite a problem, so please have some patience with me.

    Another thing is that it is almost impossible to manually copy all the 175 posts I’ve written here, and I am still waiting for the wordpress hosts to help with that. Unfortunately one thing depends on the other as categorizing posts depends on how soon they will help me with the copying process. While the posts are not there it is impossible to systematize them.

    I apologize to readers for starting a blog of my own – it is a sort of a hideout for me which I’ll occasionally use to touch upon subjects I wouldn’t think of raising here. All the rest of my studies will be fully posted here together with David’s and Lynette’s posts. This site was always meant to be a blog for different people standing up for Michael and I hope it will last even when its founders are gone.

    Vindicating Michael is a long process and undoing the harm done to him will probably take as long as it took the other side to smear him. Our goal is the opposite – we are working to clean his good name of all the dirt and restore it in its beauty and shine. However restoration is no easy process and is by far more difficult than demolishing something (or someone), as everyone knows.

    Please go on with the research. I will join you as soon as I can and hope it will be in the very near future. There is too much work for us to linger over it, isn’t there?

    P.S. I’ve just noticed that I first addressed my readers here exactly two years ago – on February 25, 2010. What an incredible coincidence! Similar to the one we had several months ago, on November 20, 2011 when David made a post about us hitting a 500,000 mark and a reader thought the post was about the blog’s foundation date and sent us birthday congratulations. David said no, it wasn’t our birthday, but when I checked up the date of the first post it turned out that it was! The first post was made on November 20, 2009, or exactly two years before that!

    Miracles seem to be happening in this blog and a two year period evidently has some cosmic meaning for us, so let us dream of the best miracle ever to take place for Michael in no longer than two years, okay?

    Like

  291. February 23, 2012 4:41 pm

    Isn´t tomorrow, 24,th of February 2012 the day Murray is going to Appealleate Court? Or am I mistaken re the date.

    Like

  292. sanemjfan permalink
    February 22, 2012 5:34 am

    I added a new blog to the blogroll! It’s called Valliee Girl 67 “ALL THINGS MICHAEL!” I was very impressed with the different categories of information and sites that she put into her blog roll! It’s great for research purposes!

    http://vallieegirl67.wordpress.com/

    Like

  293. February 19, 2012 2:33 pm

    Thank you!

    Like

  294. February 19, 2012 11:10 am

    Does anyone have a working link to the documents involving Jordan vs his father and the restraining order?

    http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/appellate/a0422-05.opn.html

    The original link has been moved because the website was updated but I don’t know how to find the new link, anyone else have it?

    Like

  295. February 18, 2012 1:52 am

    “There is no effect to attack people who are trying to help you.”

    You are not helping me and I am not attacking you. I simply think that you are not a friend to Michael Jackson. This is my opinion and I think I have the right to have one.

    In any case the job of monitoring comments is not mine now – I’ve passed it over to my co-admins. Since I have absolutely no time for handling each and every comment and this is definitely not a forum but a BLOG, I would like to focus on posts instead.

    After long debates about whether to allow or forbid dubious things in the comments section I surrendered to the opinion of the majority. I myself am of a slightly different opinion and the reason for that is that I am curious about my opponents. I want to know who they are and why they are doing it. I also think that sometimes it is necessary to give them all the rope to hang themselves with.

    I really do want to know why Michael’s haters deny a good deal of truthful facts uncovered by us. There must be a reason for it. Of course I would prefer haters to tell us directly – without arranging all this theater, but for some reason they are not doing it (if you know any haters please ask them why they are denying the most obvious things and are harassing MJ even more viciously than ever).

    I expected an honest dialogue and hoped that one day it would take place, but instead I see only lies and dirt. Now I am told that Topix people are spreading lies that this blog is “recommending the NAMBLA book” and we just “erased” something incriminating, and they ask each other whether they made screen shots of it (?)

    All this is inconceivable. To tell you frankly I see similar things done against people only by the authorities of my country when they want to harass someone. This was also the method used against any kind of dissident opinion during the Soviet times.

    It is a total shock to me to find that similar things are taking place in your part of the world and on a mass scale too. What I see reminds me so much of our propaganda that I simply cannot believe my eyes. All media is speaking against Jackson as if in one voice! And the dirty tricks they use against innocent people!

    I don’t care whether they are doing it for Money only. Money is also ideology. Printing only those things which are “selling” – even if they are flat lies – is Money Ideology. Money decides what is truth and what is a lie and in Michael’s case it decided in favor of horrendous lies.

    And now that I’ve seen what it is like, I know for sure that this is what I don’t want for my country either.

    Like

  296. Amore permalink
    February 18, 2012 12:26 am

    I feel this is directed at me. This you make me sound not genuine. Why are you treating me this way? It is a very strange manner. If I displease you you should say to me directly. I know Michael was innocent, I know some people want to change this view in society which makes the work here even more imoportant. There is no effect to attack people who are trying to help you.

    Like

  297. February 17, 2012 10:20 pm

    “there are some internal disagreements that are currently going on between some of us in private, and it is due to these recent comments on those books. So I would please ask everyone else to refrain from any future comments on those books. Thank you.”

    David, the matter was not in the books. None of us was deceived by our opponents’ manoeuvres around the picture (allegedly coming from that book) which they wanted to be displayed here by all means. And all their “look how innocent it is” sarcasm was not lost on us either. The photo is not innocent if taken by itself, but means nothing if it comes among hundreds of other photos in one book, found in a library containing thousands of books.

    So our disagreement wasn’t over that – it was over the matter of giving open or masked haters a free hand here.

    We have a lot to say to these people, but I agree that it takes very much time and distracts us from our work. Their primary purpose is to get us stuck over some matter and keep us busy over what they want us to do instead of our own plans. Sometimes it helps to clear up things to which we should have paid attention ourselves, but most of these dances with the wolves are counter-productive.

    That is why I need to make a public statement.

    To make things easier for everyone and not to have further debates with my co-admins I have given free hand to them (instead of our opponents). Now my co-admins can delete whatever comments they think fit and I will not be standing in the way. I hope it will restrain those who wanted to have a field day with all their masquerade here.

    Like

  298. sanemjfan permalink
    February 17, 2012 3:23 am

    Guys, I’m going to ask everyone a simple request: can we all PLEASE stop commenting about those two books that were found in 1993? We have discussed and analyzed those books ad nauseum, and Helena has written multiple posts about what was really found in MJ’s art collection. Some of our enemies are monitoring this blog and taking screenshots and accusing us of being “pro-pedo” and other crap. Not only that, but there are some internal disagreements that are currently going on between some of us in private, and it is due to these recent comments on those books.

    So I would please ask everyone else to refrain from any future comments on those books. Thank you.

    Like

  299. sanemjfan permalink
    February 16, 2012 6:16 pm

    @Helena and Lynette
    I think you guys should use all of the info that you recently posted about those 2 books and make a new post out of it, or at least add it as an update to the previous posts you did on MJ’s art!

    Like

  300. Suzy permalink
    February 16, 2012 11:51 am

    And don’t forget that besides the 2005 jury, two Grand Juries in 1994 saw these books as well!

    The fact that the prosecution dangled around these two books (and haters emulating them) as the crown jewel of their case is very telling again about how non-existent their cases were. The irony is that the prosecution had to go back to 1993 and bring in two books from that house search to try to make a point, because they haven’t found anything in 2003-04. If someone has a sexual interest in that kind of material then he certainly won’t be satisfied with just two innocent books that he had some 10 years ago. Everything about these books (the inscriptions, the fact that they were a part of a large collection of art books on many, many subjects, and not part of a large collection of child porn) is a strong indication that Michael’s interest in these books wasn’t sexual. And if a hater thinks these are “erotic” pictures, those are just his thoughts, not Michael’s. One cannot project his own thoughts onto someone else and assume that other people think the same, and then judge that person based on what he projected onto him. If one does it then he basically condemns his own thoughts regarding the pictures, not Michael.

    Like

  301. February 16, 2012 11:18 am

    “Jurors were shown the covers of the two books during questioning of Los Angeles police Detective Rosibel Smith”

    Lynette, now haters will say that the jury did not see the photos inside the book and could not judge. However fortunately in the year 2005 the same books were shown again and every page was scrutinized, and the jurors were still unimpressed – so that answers the questions which might still arise.

    We can even judge those books for ourselves without seeing them – if the photo sent to us by this Italian (?) reader “Amore” is the worst photo in the book, then it is indeed nothing. And again much depends on the eyes of the beholder, as Suzy put it.

    I see that you or David constantly erase the pictures of those nude African boys which I cited as an example of pictures similar to those in my Africa book of 1952. I don’t mind if you do – you know your people better and are evidently protecting this blog from the possibility of crazy allegations – but to me it shows that Americans are somewhat over-exaggerating the importance/danger of such ethnic images. This speaks to a certain slant in public perception as people are afraid of most usual and normal things, while horrendous crimes against children are taking place on a mass scale and no one (or at least the media) seems to care enough about it.

    They prefer to trash MJ forever instead of speaking about the real problem.

    P.S. Let me add that in my country we feel very strongly about real ped-les. Recently a law was adopted to have them chemically castrated if they want to be set free from prison (hopefully it will be applied only to those who deserve it – over here you never know). But the fact that it was adopted shows how strong the general disgust is. On the other hand the pictures like the one of African boys I’ve posted are very much allowed and no one (I think) is regarding it as a problem. I had never paid attention myself until this ped-lia subject was pressed on me.

    Unfortunately now my perception of these pictures has changed and is closer to that of Americans, as I also began to shudder when I see a picture of a naked boy. It makes me totally unhappy that now when I see it the fist thing that springs to my mind are problems of ped-lia – my previous, totally free-from-any dirt look was much, much better. I always tried to shield my mind from anything impure and cultivated clean thinking, so being taken in that direction is a nightmare and torture for me.

    I really don’t know how a pure person like Michael could have survived in the impossibly dirty atmosphere he had to live in. His body-guard said about MJ: “Mike was special, he was the chosen one. He was the one that God looked at and pointed His finger on. That’s how Mike survived everything he did. He was spiritually blessed.” ~ Marvin Butts

    Like

  302. Suzy permalink
    February 16, 2012 9:29 am

    What a picture means is in the eyes of the beholder. While haters may think of a picture of a naked boy sitting on a chair as “erotica” (they keep calling it that), we only need to read Michael’s inscription in the book the see through what kind of eyes he was looking at this pics.

    Like

  303. lynande51 permalink
    February 16, 2012 6:38 am

    Here is an article that summarizes the two books that were taken in 1993. According to the testimony of Rosibel Smith they were found in the second closet of the master bedroom that is the one below the loft and without the jacuzzi in a locked filed cabinet in the 3rd drawer down from the top. The books were shown to the jury, they were used as evidence and the jurors still found him not guilty. I would guess that is all that needs to be said about the books from 1993.

    HighBeam Research
    Title: Jackson jury sees books featuring nude boys
    Date: April 30, 2005 Publication: The Record (Bergen County, NJ) Author: LINDA DEUTSCH, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    LINDA DEUTSCH, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
    04-30-2005
    Jackson jury sees books featuring nude boys — Items seized in ’93 molestation probe
    By LINDA DEUTSCH, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Date: 04-30-2005, Saturday
    Section: NEWS
    Edtion: All Editions
    Biographical: MICHAEL JACKSON
    SANTA MARIA, Calif. – Prosecutors in Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial on Friday showed jurors two books seized from his bedroom in 1993 that include pictures of nude boys.
    The jury saw only the covers and front pages on which dedications were written, and heard a detective describe the content as boys in various states of undress, running, jumping and swimming.
    The books were seized by Los Angeles police during a molestation investigation involving a boy who received a multimillion-dollar settlement from Jackson in 1994.
    That probe never led to criminal charges against Jackson.
    Jurors have heard testimony relating to long-ago allegations against Jackson under a California law that permits evidence that may tend to show a defendant’s propensity toward child molestation.
    Jackson is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy in 2003, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the accuser’s family captive to get them to rebut a documentary in which Jackson appeared with the boy and said he allowed children to sleep in his bed but that it was non-sexual.
    Jurors were shown the covers of the two books during questioning of Los Angeles police Detective Rosibel Smith, who found the items in a locked filing cabinet in Jackson’s master bedroom.
    One book, called “Boys Will Be Boys,” featured an image of fair-haired boys in swimsuits jumping into water.
    The book contained an inscription written by Jackson: “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces, this is the spirit of boyhood, a life I’ve never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.”
    The jury also was shown the cover of a book called “The Boy: A Photographic Essay.” It also contained an inscription that said: “To Michael from your [heart symbol] fan, XXXOOO, ‘Rhonda.’-” The note was dated 1983.
    Smith said both books featured boys “playing, swimming, jumping.”
    Prosecutor Ron Zonen said earlier that one book was about 90 percent pictures of nude boys and the other about 10 percent.
    Prosecutors have previously introduced dozens of adult magazines featuring adult women as well as a few art books that featured nudes.
    Keywords: CALIFORNIA, COURT, YOUTH, SEX, ABUSE

    Copyright 2005 Bergen Record Corp. All rights reserved.

    This material is published under license from the publisher through ProQuest Information and Learning Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

    This document provided by HighBeam Research at http://www.highbeam.com

    Like

  304. lynande51 permalink
    February 16, 2012 3:42 am

    Amore I was happy to read that you traveled all the way from Rome, Italy to see our Library of Congress. It must have been such a wonderful trip for you. Did you also go to see the White House and Capital Building while you were here. I know that it is hard to see everything.Did you also get a chance to see our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and The Emanicpation Proclamation at the National Archives? Those are really worth seeing when you visit our country. Which building was this book located in that you saw while in Washington D.C.? There are four buildings that make up the Library Of Congress and it is just curiosity that has me ask? I might be wrong about the origins of your country though because you have used a proven proxy server to log on and comment about the books that you viewed while at the Library of Congress.
    I have a suggestion, and it is of course just my opinion, but if you would like to go on discussing that book in particular you could start your own blog and discuss it on your own blog where you can be the administrator.This is of course only because we are discussing different aspects of The Michael Jackson Case at this time and it distracts from the most recent posts on the blog. These are our area of focus right now if you would like to join those discussions we would be happy to hear what you think of the latest post on Aphrodite Jones. We have already discussed these books in previous posts if you would like to add your comments under those posts feel free.

    Like

  305. February 16, 2012 3:06 am

    Amore, and here is an interesting article about those who really had child pornography but were not even investigated (in contrast to Michael Jackson who never had it but was prosecuted for at least 10 years of his life):

    Pentagon declined to investigate hundreds of purchases of child pornography
    By John Cook | The Upshot – Fri, Sep 3, 2010
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/pentagon-declined-investigate-hundreds-purchases-child-pornography.html

    A 2006 Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigation into the purchase of child pornography online turned up more than 250 civilian and military employees of the Defense Department — including some with the highest available security clearance — who used credit cards or PayPal to purchase images of children in sexual situations. But the Pentagon investigated only a handful of the cases, Defense Department records show.

    The cases turned up during a 2006 ICE inquiry, called Project Flicker, which targeted overseas processing of child-porn payments. As part of the probe, ICE investigators gained access to the names and credit card information of more than 5,000 Americans who had subscribed to websites offering images of child pornography. Many of those individuals provided military email addresses or physical addresses with Army or fleet ZIP codes when they purchased the subscriptions.

    In a related inquiry, the Pentagon’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) cross-checked the ICE list against military databases to come up with a list of Defense employees and contractors who appeared to be guilty of purchasing child pornography. The names included staffers for the secretary of defense, contractors for the ultra-secretive National Security Agency, and a program manager at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. But the DCIS opened investigations into only 20 percent of the individuals identified, and succeeded in prosecuting just a handful.

    The Boston Globe first reported the Pentagon’s role in Project Flicker in July, citing DCIS investigative reports (PDF) showing that at least 30 Defense Department employees were investigated.

    But new Project Flicker investigative reports obtained by The Upshot through the Freedom of Information Act, which you can read here, show that DCIS investigators identified 264 Defense employees or contractors who had purchased child pornography online. Astonishingly, nine of those had “Top Secret Sensitive Compartmentalized Information” security clearances, meaning they had access to the nation’s most sensitive secrets. All told, 76 of the individuals had Secret or higher clearances.

    But DCIS investigated only 52 of the suspects, and just 10 were ever charged with viewing or purchasing child pornography. Without greater public disclosure of how these cases wound down, it’s impossible to know how or whether any of the names listed in the Project Flicker papers came in for additional scrutiny. It’s conceivable that some of them were picked up by local law enforcement, but it seems likely that most of the people flagged by the investigation did not have their military careers disrupted in the context of the DCIS inquiry.

    Among those charged were Gary Douglass Grant, a captain in the Army Reserves and a judge advocate general, or military prosecutor. After investigators executing a search warrant found child pornography on his computer, he pleaded guilty last year to state charges of possession of obscene matter of a minor in a sexual act in California. Others included contractors for the NSA with Top Secret clearances; one of them — a former contractor — fled the country after being indicted and is believed to be in Libya.

    But the vast majority of those investigated, including an active-duty lieutenant colonel in the Army and an official in the office of the secretary of defense, were never charged. On top of that, 212 people on ICE’s list were never investigated at all.

    According to the records, DCIS prioritized the investigations by focusing on people who had security clearances — since those who have a taste for child pornography can be vulnerable to blackmail and espionage. The documents show that the probe then concentrated on people who had been previously suspected of or convicted of sex crimes, or had access to children as part of their Defense Department duties. But at least some of the people on the Project Flicker list with security clearances were never pursued and could possibly remain on the job: DCIS only investigated 52 people, and 76 of those on the Project Flicker list had clearances.

    A DCIS spokesman didn’t return phone calls. But the agency’s own documents obtained via The Upshot’s FOIA request indicate that the decision to press investigations forward hinged largely on questions of the resources available to the investigators. “Due to DCIS headquarters’ direction and other DCIS investigative priorities, this investigation is cancelled” is a common summation in the files.

    A source familiar with the Project Flicker investigations — who requested anonymity because public disclosure could jeopardize this person’s job — confirmed that departmental resources, and priorities, were decisive factors in letting inquiries lapse.

    DCIS is primarily tasked with rooting out contractor fraud and investigating security breaches; its 400 staffers were already plenty busy before Project Flicker dropped 264 more names onto their caseloads. And child pornography investigations are difficult to prosecute. Many judges wouldn’t issue search warrants based on years-old evidence saying the targets subscribed to a kiddie porn website once.

    “We were stuck in a situation where we had some great information, but didn’t have the resources to run with it,” the source told The Upshot. Many of the investigative reports obtained by The Upshot end with a similar citation of scarce resources:

    Of course, other federal agencies, including ICE and the FBI, may have prosecuted some of the Project Flicker names the DCIS ignored. But that’s unlikely, given that some of the DCIS investigations were closed due to lack of cooperation from ICE.

    In one case, involving an Army Reserve corporal in the Pittsburgh area, a DCIS agent expressed exasperation after repeatedly trying to get ICE to collaborate with him on the investigation: “Based upon the complete non-responsiveness of ICE … it is recommended that [the] matter be closed.”

    As for the 212 Project Flicker names that DCIS didn’t investigate, the source familiar with the investigation said there was no systematic effort to inform their superiors or commanding officers of their suspected purchases of child pornography.

    Child pornography is not just “pictures” – these are real children being abused. So these people watched what was happening in real life. By purchasing child porn they are encouraging this horrendous “industry” to develop. Not to mention their own perverse inclinations and preferences. And see what happened in their cases several of which were confirmed.

    Nothing happened.

    Like

  306. February 16, 2012 2:04 am

    It’s the book that he inscribed himself, the Rhonda book is another one it’s The boy a photographic Essay.

    Like

  307. February 16, 2012 1:48 am

    “vindicatemj, I agree with you completely, that image was totally disrespectful towards MJ and you were right to delete that link. I can understand why the original poster wanted it to be seen though, it is a direct refutation of Thomas Sneddon’s lie that it proofed a “prurient interest in boys” on the part of MJ, a laughable statement for anybody who clicked on the link. Fortunately I have found an unsullied image http://goo.gl/ziJfk and yes, I was fortunate enough to visit the Library of Congress last week and sit down in the Jefferson Building Reading Room to scan through this book Boys Will Be Boys (fancy that, the Library of Congress has a copy of this book, does that mean all politicians are p..philes??) and I can indeed confirm that this image is contained therein! If anybody is disturbed by this image, they need to get help. It is a photo of a boy sitting in a chair for goodness sake!! Just more proofs that people project their own thoughts on to totally innocent things about MJ’s life. I hope this helps.”

    Amore, I appreciate your irony but have to say the following.

    1) The last time that sullied image was sent to us I clicked on it and afterwards had some trouble with my computer. So this time I didn’t open it until you forced me to. Hopefully you have not sent any viruses with it, have you?

    2) I didn’t like that photo, but not because the boy is naked, but because of the way he looks into the camera. However if it is one in a hundred other pictures and is a small size in the actual book, it doesn’t carry the weight it is carrying in this enlarged version, and can even go unnoticed.

    3) Even if that photo is from the book which was in MJ’s library it still does not mean anything. If I remember it right it was the book that was sent to Michael by Rhonda, correct? And Rhonda was in inverted commas, like ‘Rhonda’, right? I remember the prosecutors asking some witnesses about those inverted commas but no one could explain.

    My guess about this “Rhonda” is that it is not a woman, but a man (which explains the inverted commas) and he probably sent the book to Michael attaching some dirty meaning to it or implying that he was “one of them”.

    However Michael (like everyone else) did not understand those inverted commas and took it for what he thought it was – just a book with photos in it. Otherwise he would have probably thrown it away as he was a known puritan. Kit Culkin even called him a classical prim “Victorian old maid”.

    Michael had a huge library. And received thousands of presents, including books. And we do not even know whether he read them all. Or even opened.

    One photo of a naked boy sitting on a chair is not a porn photo and does not mean anything when it is found in a huge library of thousands of books. But it would have meant something if MJ had had, for example, a dozen books only and all of them were like that.

    But it wasn’t his case.

    To tell you frankly I also have a book containing the photos of naked children. It is called “Africa: the dream and the reality” and was published sometime in the 50s or 60s. The authors are famous Czech travellers Miroslav Zikmund and Jiří Hanzelka. This is the cover:
    Africa

    And many of the photos are like this: Africa1
    Or like this: Africa 2
    Or even this: Africa 3

    This type of books may be in anyone’s home and it would be ridiculous to blame people of something dirty on their basis. Ped-les are not interested in this type of photos. What they are looking for is totally different. For example, the social worker who was recently arrested for having child porn pictures had “twelve images at Level Five, which can include scenes of torture and sadism”.

    “Police found 4,112 images on the laptop, including 120 at level four and 12 at level five, and 277 on the memory stick, including 28 at level four.” (http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Church-youth-protector-vilest-child-porn/story-13696928-detail/story.html)

    Like

  308. Amore permalink
    February 15, 2012 11:07 pm

    I see you haven’t approved my comment yet.

    While this is your right, It saddens me, because it is making it look as if you think there is something wrong with Michael’s books when they are totally innocent!

    As I wrote, anybody can visit the Library of Congress in Washington and see these books for themselves, and see that they are full of happy smiling faces of boys (you aren’t suggesting there is anything wrong with that?).

    I am amazed that as a fan you are excluding me from this conversation. All we all wanting is to see Michael proven the innocent person he was.

    Like

  309. Amore permalink
    February 13, 2012 4:15 pm

    vindicatemj, I agree with you completely, that image was totally disrespectful towards MJ and you were right to delete that link. I can understand why the original poster wanted it to be seen though, it is a direct refutation of Thomas Sneddon’s lie that it proofed a “prurient interest in boys” on the part of MJ, a laughable statement for anybody who clicked on the link. Fortunately I have found an unsullied image http://goo.gl/ziJfk and yes, I was fortunate enough to visit the Library of Congress last week and sit down in the Jefferson Building Reading Room to scan through this book Boys Will Be Boys (fancy that, the Library of Congress has a copy of this book, does that mean all politicians are p..philes??) and I can indeed confirm that this image is contained therein! If anybody is disturbed by this image, they need to get help. It is a photo of a boy sitting in a chair for goodness sake!! Just more proofs that people project their own thoughts on to totally innocent things about MJ’s life.

    I hope this helps.

    Like

  310. February 9, 2012 2:39 pm

    We should leave this link right here and if any haters want to give us any of there lies about MJ and cp we can just direct them to it. (a collage of a naked boy with Michael’s picture attached to his genitalia). Anybody who thinks there is anything wrong with this photo is just projecting their own sick thoughts. Sadly there are some out there who would like to see this information hidden, we say to you we will stand firm! We will not censor information that proves Michael’s innocence! Admins, keep up the good work, we are right behind you!

    No, dear, we WILL censor this picture as this collage is a total insult to Michael Jackson.

    And please do not try to flatter us. I shudder at the thought about who you may be referring to by saying “we are right behind you”.

    Who are “we”?

    Like

  311. Neville permalink
    February 9, 2012 1:37 pm

    Thank you everyone for your input into the subject of Michael’s books. We all know they were totally innocent and if anything show how much he was interested in the human form for his own study into art. rather than any despicable reasons haters want to come up with. We should leave this link right here and if any haters want to give us any of there lies about MJ and cp we can just direct them to it.

    ……..

    Anybody who thinks there is anything wrong with this photo is just projecting their own sick thoughts. Sadly there are some out there who would like to see this information hidden, we say to you we will stand firm! We will not censor information that proves Michael’s innocence!

    PS Thanks for the poster who clarified the Creative Commons license requirements. She who will not be named can’t bully us any more!

    PPS Admins, keep up the good work, we are right behind you!

    Like

  312. sanemjfan permalink
    February 2, 2012 8:45 am

    Here is an interview of Taj from 3T with an MJ fan forum: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/121238-MJJC-Exclusive-Q-amp-A-with-Taj-Jackson-Read-Taj-s-answers?s=1f8e5209d17ccd7d2e13098ecf64ec56&p=3592418#post3592418

    Unfortunately, there is a bit of bad news that he shared in the interview:

    MJJC: Did MJ ever record his own solo version of Why? If he did, what can you tell us about Michael’s original demo for WHY? Do you think it could see a release?

    Taj Jackson: No, unfortunately it doesn’t exist. There was only my uncle’s backgrounds on the demo. There is a Babyface version of Why with MJ backgrounds though.

    I always thought that an MJ solo version of “Why?” was recorded, but Taj just proved me wrong! 😦

    Like

  313. January 30, 2012 4:11 am

    Nancy Grace is awful in that video

    Like

  314. January 30, 2012 12:25 am

    “My good friend LunaJo67 has uploaded over 30 videos for me to her account, and she created a new “Vindicate MJ” playlist! Many of the videos I have already added to certain posts, and here they are for your viewing pleasure! Stay tuned, because there are more coming soon! http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD5992F8C28529341

    David, what a great present from LunaJo67 to the vindication cause! And all this is in addition to the great work she is doing on Youtube on a continuous basis! My HUGE THANKS TO HER!

    Like

  315. sanemjfan permalink
    January 29, 2012 11:59 pm

    My good friend LunaJo67 has uploaded over 30 videos for me to her account, and she created a new “Vindicate MJ” playlist! Many of the videos I have already added to certain posts, and here they are for your viewing pleasure! Stay tuned, because there are more coming soon! http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD5992F8C28529341

    Like

  316. January 27, 2012 6:18 am

    Here is the video of the entire ceremony today at the Chinese theatere in Hollywood, where MJ’s kids immortalized him by making impressions in wet cement using his glove and shoes!

    http://www.chinesetheatres.com/red-carpet-live.html

    Like

  317. January 24, 2012 2:35 am

    “it’s about Vaccaro http://mjandjustice4some.blogspot.com/search?q=pellicano” – Shelly

    Guys, sorry for catching up so late with some of the comments. Well, Vaccaro wasn’t exactly Michael Jackson’s friend, was he? And see what he said to mjandjustice4some! We should remember his words if some haters say that Henry Vaccaro’s collection had something “incriminating” in it!

    By the way Tom Sneddon wanted to make use of some of its pieces and put some items (including female sex toys) in his proposed evidence list.

    Mjandjustice4some says:

    “Remember back in August when Anthony Pellicano, one-time private investigator for Michael Jackson was interviewed by Newsweek? In that article, Pellicano claimed that he “quit because (he) found out some truths…(Jackson) did something far worse to young boys than molest them.”

    This, coming from Anthony Pellicano, who is currently serving a 15 year prison stint for wiretapping, isn’t exactly what most people could call a credible witness. However, one of the rumors that I repeatedly keep hearing is that there was an item or two in the memorabilia storage that Henry Vaccaro bought, that were considered incriminating to Michael Jackson. I wondered if Pellicano used that rumor to spread more innuendo.

    I never believed that Jackson was guilty of child molestation, and when I read Pellicano’s story, I didn’t believe his story either. Yet, I decided to ask Henry Vaccaro. This is what Vaccaro had to say about it:

    “Absolutely not. This bum Pelicano (sic) is just trying to smear Micheal’s (sic) name. Michael had him fired he was involved in wiretapping threats and went to jail. He never worked directly for Michael but for the law firm Lavley and Singer. I will state for the record that there was nothing incriminatin on Michael in the storage facility. If this snake Pellicano had anthing on MJ I’m sure Tom Sneddon would have known.”

    I then thanked Mr. Vaccaro, and here was his response, “I thank you, I also want you to know that there was nothing in any warehouse linking Michael to any little boys.”

    Let me also remind you what Diane Dimond said about that collection. In addition to the disgraceful half an hour episode of her dangling someone’s trunks her comment will be another instance of the way she makes innuendoes out of literally nothing. If you previously doubted she is using some speech patterns deliberately, in order to create the impression of molestation where there was none, here is another example of the same:

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s his trunk. See this? It`s somebody`s white briefs that were soiled right here.

    DIMOND: Calvin Klein underwear.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know whose they are, and I`m not about to find out, but they`re soiled.

    DIMOND: How big are they?

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know. I don`t want to…

    DIMOND: Mind if I check?

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go ahead.

    DIMOND: They`re a size 28.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, they`re not mine.

    DIMOND: Henry, you know…

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re not mine.

    DIMOND: That might have some DNA on it.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It probably does.

    This is a chemical compound, and it says skin bleaching agent.

    DIMOND: Skin bleaching agent.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s what it says.

    DIMOND: But Michael Jackson…

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Prescription compound, and I`m not saying it`s Michael Jackson`s. I`m just saying it was found in his wardrobe trunk, which is this wardrobe trunk.

    DIMOND: Two tubes of it?

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Two tubes.

    DIMOND: And it clearly says skin bleaching agent.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.

    DIMOND: And it`s used.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s used.

    DIMOND: Somebody used it.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Somebody used it.

    DIMOND: This is his trunk.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s his trunk.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    GRACE: Just hold that thought for a moment. Michael Jackson`s skin bleaching cream could be yours, all yours, if you attend this auction. Joining us right now, Diane Dimond, investigative reporter and author. Diane, a lot of controversial and personal items were allegedly in this auction. What were they? And did they make it to the auction block?

    DIMOND: Well, I presume that most of them did. Now, listen, this whole cache was a bunch of stuff from a lot of the Jacksons. I saw things from Tito and Jermaine and Janet and LaToya and the parents, so I don`t know what belonged to who.

    But we did see some sex toys. We saw some risque photographs. I know there was alleged to have been some drawings of nude boys in Michael Jackson`s hand, but I`ll tell you what, I never saw them. That would be a good story. I`d like to be able to tell you that, but that just didn`t happen.

    There was artwork of Michael`s of young boys, but beautiful profiles. He`s quite an artist, but I didn`t see anything where I looked at it and I said, “Oh, that`s illegal.”

    Do you remember Dimond recently repeating “I am NOT saying he was a p.”? And over here the same thing! NOTHING was found but she still makes it sound like something was, as her vocabulary tells the opposite story of what she is saying – ‘risque photographs, drawings of nude boys in “his” hand, young boys, something illegal’.

    NONE of it was there, so what’s the point of using all those unnecessary words? And some will say she is not doing it on purpose?

    And more of it:

    CALLER: My question is, has there been or could there be any DNA testing on the soiled clothing or any of the costumes?

    GRACE: You smart, smart girl. I`ve got just the person to answer that question. She asked it first, Diane Dimond.

    DIMOND: … in the wardrobe closet, I have to admit, it wasn`t my most shining moment as an investigative reporter, but I did note the underwear. And the Santa Barbara D.A.`s office did come and get it during the criminal trial, and I believe they did test it. They were Michael`s.”

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/30/ng.01.html

    Did you notice another of her tricks?

    “I believe they did test it. They were his”.

    She is not quite sure whether they made those tests, but she nevertheless knows the result!

    Like

  318. January 23, 2012 11:51 pm

    “A continuation of the Vaccaro interview and at 1:03 Vaccaro shows a file cabinet with Janet and Michael’s contracts in it, some sketches Michael made and stunning photographs of Katherine at 2:24. Vaccaro estimates that there are 3 boxes that contain only Michael’s belongings at 3:18. Bob Giraldi on the Pepsi accident at 4:41 and that MJ made $5 million for a year of endorsement deals with Pepsi at 5:27. Great footage of the Sultan of Brunei’s birthday bash at 9:24, in which he made $1 million for the night.” http://mjandjustice4some.blogspot.com/2011/02/more-on-vaccaro-and-michaels.html

    From the way it looks Vaccaro’s collection is probably worth a billion, not an estimated million as they say in the film.

    This documentary would be great if the author didn’t say Jacko every 5 minutes. One day it will be a marvellous document showing how lillyputs were trying to pull down a giant. Even now the author’s vivid attempt at belittling Michael already looks ridiculous. He wants to be ironic and condescending, but instead sounds like a nobody he is.

    Like

  319. January 23, 2012 5:14 pm

    “A continuation of the Vaccaro interview and at 1:03 Vaccaro shows a file cabinet with Janet and Michael’s contracts in it, some sketches Michael made and stunning photographs of Katherine at 2:24. Vaccaro estimates that there are 3 boxes that contain only Michael’s belongings at 3:18. Bob Giraldi on the Pepsi accident at 4:41 and that MJ made $5 million for a year of endorsement deals with Pepsi at 5:27. Great footage of the Sultan of Brunei’s birthday bash at 9:24, in which he made $1 million for the night.”

    http://mjandjustice4some.blogspot.com/2011/02/more-on-vaccaro-and-michaels.html

    Like

  320. January 23, 2012 12:37 am

    I don’t know where to post it, it’s about Vaccaro

    http://mjandjustice4some.blogspot.com/search?q=pellicano

    Like

  321. sanemjfan permalink
    January 15, 2012 10:21 pm

    @Shelly Here it is:

    Statement of Declination: Statements from LA County and SB County (Sept 21 1994)
    STATEMENT OF DECLINATION ISSUED JOINTLY BY

    THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICES

    OF LOS ANGELES AND SANTA BARBARA COUNTIES

    September 21, 1994

    It became clear at the inception of the investigation into child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson that those allegations involved conduct that occurred in both Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties. Therefore, the Los Angeles Police Department, the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, the Santa Barbara District Attorneys Office and the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office participated in a joint investigation of those allegations.

    After approximately one year, the investigation is now concluded. During the course of the investigation, approximately four hundred witnesses were contacted (some more than once) and additional thirty witnesses were called before grand juries in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. Hundreds of “clues” from the public were probed. Much time was spent pursing potentially exonerating evidence as well as inculpatory evidence. Several leads were explored which later turned out to be false.

    The first alleged victim who came forward and who was the catalyst for this criminal investigation is the same individual who filed and settled a civil lawsuit against Mr. Jackson. The factual allegations underlying the civil lawsuit are identical to those which would support a criminal prosecution.

    However, at the present time this alleged victim has chosen to assert his rights under Code of Civil Procedure section 1219 and has declined to testify. This decision was not communicated to either prosecutorial agency until July 6, 1994. Until that time, the alleged victim had indicated his possible willingness to testify and we continued with our investigation.

    During the last several months, investigatory efforts uncovered additional allegations of sexual molestation occurring between Mr. Jackson and a second boy. The particular events described occurred solely in Santa Barbara County. Therefore, any filing decision on those allegations would involve Santa Barbara.

    As to those particular allegations, Santa Barbara County declines to file at this time, because of the inability of law enforcement to interview the alleged victim, because that child is beyond the reach of the court process, and because of the child’s prior general denial of any wrongdoing.

    The investigation also revealed the existence of a third alleged victim who has been in psychological therapy since his disclosure to police in early November of 1993. He has alleged that Michael Jackson molested him on three occasions. Two of those occasions allegedly occurred in Los Angeles County beyond the statute of limitations, and the third occasion, within the statute, allegedly occurred in Santa Barbara County. In light of the primary alleged victim’s decision not to testify, and because of the third alleged victim’s reluctance to testify and in consideration of his psychological well-being, no charges relating to the third alleged victim will be pursued at this time.

    Another aspect of the investigation involved accounts from several witnesses who allegedly viewed Mr. Jackson inappropriately touching children other than the alleged victims mentioned above. At no time did any of the children named confirm that such conduct occurred, and the credibility of those third party accounts is compromised by the fact that some of the sources of these accounts profited monetarily by selling their stories to the media.

    In conclusion, we decline to file charges relating to any of the alleged victims at this time because of the legal unavailability of the primary alleged victim. We emphasize that our decision is not based on any issue of credibility of victims. Should circumstances change or should new evidence develop within the statute of limitations, this decision will be re-evaluated in light of the evidence available at such time.

    Like

  322. shelly permalink
    January 15, 2012 9:18 pm

    Do you have the statement from Sneddon and Garcetti made in September 1994?

    Like

  323. sanemjfan permalink
    January 9, 2012 7:57 pm

    Hey guys! Great news! Joe Vogel is now following me on Twitter! I feel honored! He only follows 94 people, and of those only a small handful are MJ fans & advocates. He obviously doesn’t follow people just for the sake of following them! He wants substance, and not someone who will only tweet loveletters to MJ all day, so I feel this is further validation of our blog, knowing that he’s following me! Here is what he said about a lot of fan sites in a recent article: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3979

    “I’ve always been fascinated with Michael Jackson’s music and given his cultural impact it is remarkable how little information about his body of work is available,” said Vogel, who categorizes most current literature about Jackson as fan adulation or tabloid “tell-alls.”

    I don’t think he’s trying to say that there is anything wrong with fan “adulation”, but there’s a time and place for everything, and too many fan engage in too much “adulation” and not enough RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION! There should be 100 blogs like Vindicate MJ, but from my experience there are too many fans who are just TOO LAZY AND UNINTERESTED in doing the meticulous, diligent research that is required to truly vindicate MJ. By no means does this apply to all fans, but there are too many fans that have the mentality of “I already know he’s innocent, so I don’t need to know all of the details and do all of that boring research“. What a shame!

    Maybe he’ll start referring his students and fellow professors to Vindicate MJ? Who knows! I’m just glad to know that he’s reading this blog and respects our work!

    Here is the list of people he’s following: https://twitter.com/#!/JoeVogel1/following

    I added the screenshot of Vogel following me on Twitter to this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/thank-you-to-all-of-the-readers-of-vindicate-mj/

    Like

  324. January 5, 2012 8:05 pm

    I am reading Frank Cascio’s book now. It is a complete marvel. Join me.

    http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-01/11mfm/11mfm01.html

    Just some random quotes:

    HOW THEY SPENT TIME

    Anyway, back at the chalet, we sat rapt, listening for hours as Michael played DJ, saying, “You have to listen to this song. Now you have to hear this group.” We listened to Stevie Wonder and all of the Motown stars. He had us listen to the James Brown song “Papa Don’t Take No Mess” -all fourteen minutes of it. We listened to the Bee Gees song “How Deep Is Your Love?” (I still believe that it’s one of the greatest songs of all time.) Michael went on about Aaron Copland, whom he considered the greatest composer of the twentieth century. He introduced me to all types of music-country, folk, classical, funk, rock. He even turned me on to Barbra Streisand. I fell in love with her song “People.” Michael liked to go to sleep to classical music, especially the works of Claude Debussy.

    I remember him putting on a group called Bread. I didn’t pay much attention to the music-I was too busy making fun of the name. “Bread? What kind of name is that? Want some butter with your bread?” and that kind of nonsense. But when I settled down for a minute and really listened instead of making sarcastic remarks, they became one of my favorite groups. I wanted to know everything there was to know about Bread. Yes, Bread was my jam (bad pun intended).

    EDUCATION

    In addition to the assignments our school gave us, Michael insisted that we keep journals of our trip.

    “Document this trip,” he’d keep telling us, “because one day you’re going to love to look back on it.” In every country he had us take pictures of what we saw, do some research about the customs, and put what we’d seen and experienced in our books. We explored the different cultures. We visited orphanages and schools. Eddie and I started to have a greater awareness of our place in the big, wide world. Only later was I wise enough to be thankful to my parents for permitting us to have this experience. They recognized that education wasn’t just about reading, writing, and arithmetic. They understood that we would learn by living.

    ACCUSATIONS

    THE YEAR 1993. THINK ABOUT ALL THE HORRIBLE things you heard about Michael Jackson around this time. Think about all the jokes on late-night talk shows, all the ugly rumors, all the accusations and all the names. Now think about being the person- the innocent person-toward whom all this hatred and ridicule and negative energy is being directed. Imagine the damage that it would cause even the strongest of men. Michael was a professional. And while his performances never suffered during this time of trial, he himself did. He’d said, “I have rhinoceros skin. I’m stronger than all of them,” but Eddie and I could see the truth behind the bravado. The accusations that Jordy’s father had leveled against Michael were a source of unrelenting anxiety to him.

    At night he would sometimes vent: “I don’t think you realize” -and we certainly didn’t- “I have the whole world thinking I’m a child molester. You don’t know what it feels like to be falsely accused, to be called ‘Wacko Jacko.’ Day in and day out, I have to get up on that stage and perform, pretending everything is perfect. I give everything I have, I give the performance that everyone wants to see. Meanwhile, my character and reputation are under constant attack. When I step off that stage, people look at me as if I were a criminal.”

    I think that without our knowing it, the support my brother Eddie and I gave Michael helped him continue that tour as long as he possibly could. Especially Eddie, who was only eleven. Michael was responsible for us. He couldn’t fall apart in front of children. He had to be strong for us, and in some small way, this helped keep him going.

    THE PART ABOUT GOING TO A REHAB IS VERY INTERESTING.

    …….

    SLEEPING ARRANGEMENTS AND NIGHT CONCERTS

    At night, as usual, Michael, Eddie, and I made beds of blankets and pillows on the floor of Michael’s bedroom. As a result of the accusations and the lawsuit, Michael’s innocent childlike qualities had been warped into something pathological and creepy in the public’s perception, but none of the talk had influenced our sleeping arrangements, and none of us had a moment’s pause about it.

    Everyone knew not to think about taking the space next to the fireplace. That was mine. We called those floor beds our “cages,” and if anyone came near mine, I’d say, “Hey. That’s my cage. Don’t think about stealing my cage.” I put on classical music and fell asleep to beautiful melodies and the cozy warmth of the fire. However, because I frequently had trouble sleeping, when the house was dark and quiet I often went into Michael’s bathroom to listen to music. That might sound odd, but the bathroom had an amazing, studio-quality sound system, with Tannoy speakers and everything. Michael had had the speakers installed because he liked to blast music while he was getting dressed and ready for the day, and he got plenty of use out of them: it took Michael a long, long time to get ready. Michael found it amusing that I rarely slept. He liked to suggest that I just move my bed right into the bathroom. But sometimes in the middle of the night he’d shuffle in and listen with me.

    In that bathroom, Michael kept a lot of his own music: demos of stuff he wanted to record or songs he was working on but had yet to finish. So at night, alone, that’s mostly what I played-music that Michael had never released or was still developing. I sometimes sat in that room for hours, listening to certain songs over and over again. It was like my very own private unplugged concert.

    CHRISTMAS

    The next morning was Christmas Day. It was the usual rush to open presents. Michael led the proceedings like an old pro, picking out gifts from under the tree and handing them out. Michael shared my offbeat sense of humor: as I’ve said, we were always playing jokes on each other. So for Christmas that year, he bought me ten presents. Ten! What could be in them? From a guy who gets you your own custom golf cart for no reason at all, what could ten Christmas gifts possibly be? I opened the first one. It was … a pocketknife. Okay, that one was a pretty good joke, since after all, in his company I had already bought all of the pocketknives in the town of Gstaad. We all had a good chuckle about it, and then Michael, who at this point was failing miserably at hiding a mischievous smile, told me to keep going. So I opened my second present: another pocketknife. And another. By the time I was done, I had ten identical pocketknives. We laughed from start to finish.

    Not to be outdone, I had a very special present ready for Michael. What do you get for a guy who can buy the world? I had taken a pile of garbage-toilet paper rolls, plastic bags, and empty candy wrappers-and wrapped each item carefully and put it in a box. Yep, I gave Michael a box of garbage for Christmas. When he opened it, he said with picture-perfect mock sincerity, “Oh, thank you so much. You shouldn’t have. You really shouldn’t have.” From then on, Michael always spent Christmas with my family, at Neverland or in New Jersey.

    THE PART ABOUT LISA-MARIE IS INTERESTING AND NEW

    ……..

    THESE KIDS COULD BE NASTY

    Sometimes our pranks weren’t so elaborate. There was that time in the south of France, for example, when we went to see Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal and played Ping-Pong on a gold table. We were staying in a fancy hotel. Down there, the nightlife never stops. One night Michael and I were standing on the balcony of his hotel room, watching people eating dinner at three in the morning, when Michael said, “We should do a prank.” We filled a bucket with water and … splash! … dumped it off the balcony onto the unsuspecting diners below. We ducked our heads and scrambled back into the room before anyone could see us. Nobody ever figured out that we were the culprits.

    PARENTING

    Aside from the extreme measures he felt he had to take, Michael was a thoughtful, attentive, loving parent, and his children grew to be the most intelligent and well-behaved children I have ever met. In Peter Pan, it is thinking happy thoughts that allows the children to fly. His children were the happiest part of Michael’s being.

    Seeing Michael’s sincere joy with his children made me realize that he hadn’t been happy in a long time. I don’t know when exactly -to my mind it started with the accusations in 1993-but it was dawning on me that Michael lived in a constant state of depression. If he was alone, he often forgot to eat. Sometimes he slept through the afternoon. He kept his room dimly lit at all times. Of course, he and I still had plenty of fun, but in the quieter moments it was clear to me that something was wrong.

    Michael had been born with a rare talent that drove an intense showbiz childhood. That kind of life takes a harsh toll on most children, and the world watches-as much in judgment as with fascination-as, one after another, they crash and burn. Michael fought his darkness in his own way. He didn’t party recklessly. He didn’t turn to recreational drugs. He didn’t act out his pain in the public arena. But that didn’t mean that he wasn’t suffering. All of this, however, seemed to change when he became a father. There was a renewed vibrancy to him, an energy that had been missing for years. An enthusiasm appeared, one that my whole family could see. For all his attempts at meditation, turning Neverland into a sanctuary of happiness, and freeing himself from his own demons, the best remedy turned out to be his children. They made him the happiest person in the world, and knowing Michael was building his family gave me the reassurance that he would keep fighting the darkness that hid below the surface of his day-to-day existence.

    ACCIDENT IN MUNICH

    During the Munich performance, he stepped onto a big bridge that spanned the front of the stage. It was raised up, lifting him fifty feet in the air, just as it had in Korea. It was supposed to descend gradually during the song. But this time, instead of coming down slowly, the bridge fell. It plummeted to the stage with a loud crash. This had not happened in Korea. What the fuck?

    Ever the showman, Michael never stopped singing, even as he fell. When the bridge landed, he was still standing. He later told us that he had jumped at the moment of impact, which may have saved him from more serious injury, but even so, he wasn’t in great shape. Instantly, without thinking, I ran onto the stage along with the security team. At the end of the song, the lights went out, and Michael collapsed into our arms. With security, I helped him off the bridge. The audience, who at first must have assumed the falling bridge was part of the show, saw us rush in and realized what they had witnessed. A worried murmur went through the crowd. A full-size tank rolled onstage, and a soldier emerged from it holding a gun. Offered a flower by a child, the soldier sank to his knees and wept. Michael finished the performance, at times bending over in pain. Afterward, backstage, he was clearly in a lot of pain, but continued the show.

    “My father told me no matter what, the show must go on,” he said.

    So he went back out, sat down on the edge of the stage, and sang his last song, “You Are Not Alone.” Security helped him off the stage.

    WORKING FOR MICHAEL

    …my new position of power was readily apparent to those who wanted Michael as a partner. After another meeting at the Four Seasons, a businessman who was eager to make a deal with Michael handed me a briefcase full of money. He said, “This is for you. We really need Michael to be part of this company.”

    “Listen,” I said, “I don’t want your money. If a deal happens, it happens, but I can’t be a part of this.”

    Later I told Michael what had happened.

    “We can’t do business with these people,” I said without hesitation. “They just offered me cash. I turned it down, of course.” “Thank you,” Michael said. “If it was anyone else, they would have taken the money. You see what I deal with? This has been happening forever. Everyone takes kickbacks. I appreciate your honesty.”

    He said that it happened all the time, and named a few of his closest employees who had been taking kickbacks for years. I was shocked that this actually went on. It was criminal.

    … When I was a kid, the people I’d met in Michael’s organization were mostly the ones who helped him on a daily basis: security, drivers, makeup and wardrobe people, and so on. How the business of Michael Jackson was run was pretty much invisible to me. Now I started to see how complex the management was. Though I didn’t have formal business training, I came face-to-face with the infrastructure of Michael’s organization.

    There were lawyers, managers, accountants, and publicists. And it wasn’t just one lawyer or one manager. It was a team of lawyers and a team of managers. They were all involved in every deal, and at times they had different agendas. For example, if Michael wanted to invest in a company, the managers wanted to make sure the deal wouldn’t take away from his music commitments, the PR people wanted it to serve his public image, and the lawyers wanted to make sure the deal didn’t conflict with his other legal obligations.

    … During my childhood and adolescence, Michael had bred in me the notion that I could not trust anyone. At first I dismissed this as paranoia, but by the end of 1999, I came to see his lack of trust as an essential survival mechanism. The more time I spent with him, the more I saw that in his world, skepticism was a necessary defense. The problems went far beyond the negligence I’d seen in his Neverland staff. He lived in a world where everyone wanted something from him. They reacted to his fame and success with envy and greed. This was true even among his closest associates. It was a viper’s nest.

    WOMEN

    Sometimes Michael invited members of his fan clubs to Neverland, and he occasionally formed a special relationship with one of the women. One time I was driving Michael into town. Someone was next to me in the passenger seat of the Bentley, and Michael was in the backseat, kissing one of his fans.

    “Easy back there,” I said. “Relax, calm down.”

    “Just keep driving,” Michael said, in a joking way. “Don’t worry about it, just keep driving.”

    Michael’s dalliances with fans were infrequent, and discreet, but they were hardly unheard of. He tended to like tall, slender women whom I’d describe as nerdy in a sexy way. Once, in London, I was in his suite when he brought a friend he’d known for years into his bedroom. They were in there for about an hour, and when he emerged, his pants were unbuttoned. I smirked at him.

    “Shut up, Frank,” he said, smiling sheepishly. The woman, equally sheepish, said good-bye and left.

    GUESTS AT NEVERLAND

    Creating a place of joy for children was a major reason why he built the ranch. Whenever he was on the road or on tour, he made a point of visiting children’s hospitals and orphanages, bringing gifts and talking to the children, listening to their stories. You don’t see many superstars doing this without any PR motive. Michael did it out of love. His connection with the kids he helped was often, though not always, personal. He took them into his heart. Many individual kids who suffered in one way or another came to Michael’s attention. He tried to help them as best he could, often spending time with ill children who asked to meet him. The story of his philanthropic efforts would fill a book of its own.

    But ever since the molestation allegations in 1993, he had tempered his genuine love for children with caution. His young visitors were always accompanied by an adult, and Michael was careful never to be alone with the kids: he always made sure another adult was around. It was easy for him to make this adjustment: spending time alone with children had never been particularly important to him. There is a widespread misconception that Michael rounded up small children to participate in sleepovers in his bedroom at Neverland. This was simply not the case. Families came to visit Neverland. Sometimes, depending on how far they had traveled, those families spent the night. These were close, intimate friends and families who’d known Michael for years. They stayed in the guest units.

    Michael’s suite, along with the kitchen at Neverland, was a natural gathering place for groups. The whole house was warm, but any house has places where people tend to congregate and there were two of those places at Neverland. On the first floor of Michael’s suite was a living room with a big fireplace, a piano, two bathrooms, and walk-in closets. Upstairs there was a small bedroom. Everyone hung out downstairs, treating the space like a family room. People-kids-often didn’t want the fun to end. So sometimes they slept over, as I did as a child, putting out blankets on the carpet around the fireplace of that family room. Michael himself slept there nine out of ten times. He always offered his bed to his guests.

    PROPOFOL. DEMEROL. DIFFICULT READING

    When we moved back to the Four Seasons in November 2000, the visits from the anesthesiologist stopped. But I came home one night to find that Michael had called the hotel doctor. He was going about his business-talking to Karen and making other business calls-but I could see that he was slightly disoriented. The next morning, I put my foot down.

    “You don’t want to end up like Elvis. Think about your children. Look at Lisa Marie and what she went through.” He didn’t brush off my concern. That would have convinced me that I was right. Instead, he looked straight into my eyes. “Frank,” he said with great sincerity, “I don’t have a problem. You don’t believe me? You don’t know what you’re talking about.” “It’s not that I don’t believe you-” I began, but then, before my very eyes, he dialed his dermatologist, Dr. Klein. He put the doctor on speaker and asked him to verify that the quantity of Demerol he was taking was safe and appropriate. Who was I to argue with the doctor who had been treating him for over fifteen years? Michael was right: I didn’t really know what I was talking about. Everyone’s body was different. Maybe he was so mentally strong that not even a drug could knock him out. And it was true that days went by without any visits from doctors. If he were a true addict, I asked myself, wouldn’t he need to take drugs every day? I was worried, but because I truly didn’t know how to judge the situation, there was no way for me to choose the right course of action.

    THE SEPTEMBER 7,2001 SHOW

    This had never happened before. Michael had never taken medicine right before a show. He never let it get in the way of his work. This was a sign that his dependency had not only returned, it had grown. It was now causing him to screw up his priorities. Somehow I had to bring his energy back, so I ordered gallons of Gatorade and some vitamin C pills from the concierge. Gradually, he seemed to return to normal, at which point I brought Karen in and she began to do his hair and makeup. I stood behind him as he was getting ready, finally able to relax and joke around with Karen. Because of the delay, the show would start over an hour late, but nobody questioned it. That’s entertainment.

    …At some point during the first part of the show, we all went backstage so Michael could get ready to appear with his brothers in the second half. Michael wasn’t remotely nervous, and there were no traces of the medicine’s effects. As usual, we stood in a circle and said a little prayer before he went out onstage. The prayer was pretty much the same every time: “God bless everyone up on that stage, and give us the energy to put on the best show.” Michael and his five brothers reunited for the first time in seventeen years to sing a medley of their hit songs. Then there was a brief intermission before Chris Tucker introduced Michael singing “Billie Jean.”

    That night, more than ever, I was impressed with Michael’s virtuosity. He was a natural, and the energy he was able to create was absolutely incredible. This guy made every single move look special, even just walking. Over the years, and in spite of all the mental and physical anguish he suffered, his talents hadn’t faded in the least. This was the heart of what we were here for, what we were celebrating: Michael’s massive talent and his years of complete dedication to his art. I watched him, as rapt as I had been during the Dangerous tour. So much had changed, but at this moment, this stunning moment, everything was suddenly remarkably familiar.

    FRANK TAKES A BREAK

    I told Michael we had to talk. We sat in his room, and with a heavy heart, I told him that I needed a break.

    “You raised me,” I said emotionally, even a little teary-eyed. “You know everything about me. And I don’t want these people to come between us. I have no agenda here. My agenda is to make sure you’re not being fucked by these people. But I feel attacked and accused, and it’s affecting our friendship and our family. I think I need a break.”

    “Are you sure you want to do this?” Michael said. In truth, I didn’t know what I wanted to do. All I knew was that I needed time to think and be away from this ugly situation. For so long I had lived for Michael and his work. I put myself second. It wasn’t worth it anymore. I just wanted to walk away.

    “People around you can’t stand me, and you’re believing some of the things they’re saying.”

    “I always stand up for you,” Michael said. “I have your back. I don’t believe those people.”

    “But you did,” I said. It killed me to have my integrity challenged, and I knew it could and would happen again. “Well, you’re still here,” Michael said. “Nothing’s changed.” “I know,” I said, “but I need to do this right now.”

    “Listen, you have to do what’s best for you, what makes you happy.” Although Michael spoke calmly, I could see that he was distraught. We both were. But he understood and respected my decision, difficult as it was. Afterward we hung out, had dinner, and watched movies. A couple of days later I went back to New York. It was March 2002. I had been working for Michael for only three years, but it felt like a century. For the first time in my adult life, I took a break.

    ABOUT THE FINANCIAL MESS

    Down in the cellar, we opened a bottle of white wine. I love my red wine, but Michael preferred white. That afternoon Michael and I spoke about the future, and what our goals for this next year were going to be. From the start, his words were bold and ambitious, but I could tell that he meant them.

    “I’m going to get myself out of this financial mess that everyone has made of my life,” he stated.

    This was the first time Michael had openly admitted to me or, as far as I knew, anyone, that he was in financial trouble. The fact that he was finally willing to face the music was astounding. “Yes, it’s their fault,” I replied. “But it’s your fault, too, for allowing it to happen.”

    “I needed to focus on being creative,” he said, with a hint of defensiveness in his voice. “You know, when I made Off the Wall and Thriller, I was the one who signed every single check that went out to anyone. Everything ran smoothly back then.”

    “What changed?” I asked, honestly wanting to know. “Why did you start letting other people handle your money?”

    “It got too big. It was too much for me to handle,” he said. While it may seem obvious, this admission was one of the only times I’d heard Michael accept responsibility for the situation he was in and for the dysfunction of his organization.

    BASHIR’S FILM

    For months, Michael had been saying that he had final approval over the content of the documentary. The plan, therefore, was that Martin Bashir would come to Miami to prescreen Living with Michael Jackson. But Bashir didn’t show up at the designated time, and then kept delaying his trip. By the time it was clear that he was giving us the runaround, it was too late. We tried to halt the interview from airing in the United States, but it was past the point of no return.

    Aldo and Marie Nicole, who were still in Miami, watched Living with Michael Jackson in his suite, but Michael refused to join them: he never liked seeing himself on TV. As my siblings watched, Michael popped in and out of the room asking them, “Are you sure you want to watch this? Why do you want to watch this?” Meanwhile, I watched the interview in my hotel room with Dr. Farshchian, feeling a mixture of dismay and resignation. The interview didn’t capture the Michael I knew, to say the least. That Michael was humble. He was a humanitarian. He was a talented musician. He put money and energy behind children’s causes. Bashir didn’t care about any of that. He was a sensationalist, interested only in the shallower elements of Michael’s life: shopping excesses and plastic surgery.

    All that was bad enough, but by far the most damaging part of the interview was the moment when Bashir spoke with Michael about his relationships with children. Michael had brought Gavin Arvizo into the documentary because he wanted to be understood, and sharing his efforts to help children in need would help bring about this understanding. Gavin was a prime example of this. In Bashir’s interview, Michael was shown holding Gavin’s hand and telling the world that kids slept in his bed. Anyone who knew Michael would recognize the honesty and innocent candor of what he was trying to communicate. But Bashir was determined to cast it in a different light.

    What Michael didn’t bother to explain, and what Bashir didn’t care to ask about, was that Michael’s suite at Neverland, as I’ve said before, was a gathering place, with a family room downstairs and a bedroom upstairs. Michael didn’t explain that people hung out there, and sometimes wanted to stay over. He didn’t explain that he always offered guests his bed, and for the most part slept on the floor in the family room below. But, perhaps most important, he didn’t explain that the guests were always close friends like us Cascios and his extended family.

    One of the biggest misconceptions about Michael, a story that plagued him for years following the Bashir documentary, was that he had an assortment of children sleeping in his room at any given time. The truth was that random children never came to Neverland and stayed in Michael’s room. Just as my brother Eddie and I had done when we were younger, the family and friends who did stay with Michael did so of their own volition. Michael just allowed it to happen because his friends and family liked to be around him.

    What Michael said on Bashir’s video was true: “You can have my bed if you want, sleep in it. I’ll sleep on the floor. It’s yours. Always give the best to the company, you know.” Michael had no hesitation about telling the truth because he had nothing to hide. He knew in his heart and mind that his actions were sincere, his motives pure, and his conscience clear. Michael, innocently and honestly, said, “Yes, I share my bed. There is nothing wrong with it.” The fact of the matter is, when he was “sharing” his bed, it meant he was offering his bed to whoever wanted to sleep in it. There may have been times when he slept up there as well, but he was usually on the floor next to his bed or downstairs sleeping on the floor. Although Bashir, for obvious reasons, kept harping on the bed, if you watch the full, uncut interview, it’s impossible not to understand what Michael was trying to make clear: when he said he shared his bed, he meant that he shared his life with the people he saw as family. Now, I know that most grown men don’t share their private quarters with children, and those who do so are almost always up to no good. But that wasn’t my experience with Michael. As one of those kids who, along with his brother, had any number of such sleepovers with Michael, I know better than anyone else what did happen and what didn’t happen. Was it normal to have children sleep over? No. But it’s also not considered especially normal for a grown man to play with Silly String or have water balloon fights, at least not with the enthusiasm Michael brought to the activities. It’s also not normal for a grown man to have an amusement park installed in his backyard. Do these things make such a man a pedophile?

    I’m quite sure that the answer is no.

    The bottom line: Michael’s interest in young boys had absolutely nothing to do with sex. I say this with the unassailable confidence of firsthand experience, the confidence of a young boy who slept in the same room as Michael hundreds of times, and with the absolute conviction of a man who saw Michael interact with thousands of kids. In all the years that I was close to him, I saw nothing that raised any red flags, not as a child and not as an adult. Michael may have been eccentric, but that didn’t make him criminal.

    The problem, though, was that this point of view wasn’t represented in the documentary. Listening to Michael talk, people who didn’t know him were disturbed by what he was saying, not only because his words were taken out of context but also because Bashir, the narrator, was telling them they should be disturbed. The journalist repeatedly suggested that Michael’s statements made him very uncomfortable. Michael was quirky enough without the machinations of a mercenary newshound, to be sure, but there’s no doubt that Bashir manipulated viewers for his own ends. His questions were leading, the editing misguiding. As I watched the broadcast, it seemed to me that Bashir’s plan all along had been to expose Michael in whatever way he could in order to win the highest ratings he could for his show.

    … He thought the interview would be something he could be proud of, something he would show to his children one day, a part of his legacy. Instead, for the second time in his life, the world took Michael’s greatest passion-helping kids-and accused him of doing the opposite-hurting kids. I thought this was beyond fucked up. It was horrible. I had known Michael for most of my life. He was the most magical person I had ever met. And the world had a completely distorted picture of him when it came to his relationship with children.

    AFTERWARDS

    Then came the night when Gavin and his brother Star pleaded with Michael to allow them to sleep with him.

    “Can we sleep in your room tonight? Can we sleep in your bed tonight?” the boys begged.

    “My mother said it’s okay, if it’s okay with you,” Gavin added. Michael, who always had a hard time saying no to kids, replied, “Sure, no problem.” But then he came to me.

    “She’s pushing her kids onto me,” he said, visibly concerned. He had a strange, uncomfortable feeling about it. “Frank, they can’t stay.” He was absolutely aware of the risks he ran in agreeing to share a room with these boys, especially because this was the very issue that had provoked such a furor in Bashir’s video.

    “No,” I said flatly, “they can’t stay. Their family’s crazy.”

    But Michael didn’t know how to say no to Gavin, so he asked me to handle the situation.

    I went to the kids and said, “Michael has to sleep. I’m sorry, you can’t stay in his room.”

    Gavin and Star kept begging, I kept saying no, and then Janet said to Michael, “They really want to stay with you. It’s okay with me.”

    Michael relented. He didn’t want to let the kids down. His heart got in the way, but he was fully aware of the risk. He said to me, “Frank, if they’re staying in my room, you’re staying with me. I don’t trust this mother. She’s fucked up.”

    I was totally against it, but I said, “All right. We do what we have to do.” Having me there as a witness would safeguard Michael against any shady ideas that the Arvizos might have been harboring. Or so we were both naive enough to think.

    A “CONSPIRATOR”

    One morning in January, I walked downstairs to get a coffee and cigarettes at the corner deli. I had long hair at the time, and I was wearing my usual sunglasses and a hoodie. A TV was on in the deli, playing a show called Celebrity Justice. As I waited to pay for my stuff, a picture of me came up on the screen. I watched in horror as the TV narrator made me out to be a mobster from New Jersey and alleged that I had attempted to kidnap Gavin Arvizo’s family and hold them hostage at Neverland. The press was even reporting that I’d attempted to kidnap the Arvizos and take them to Brazil, possibly to make them “disappear.” That would have made for a great movie. Back when I absorbed Michael’s advice to be like Jonathan Livingston Seagull, to lead an extraordinary life, being falsely accused of kidnapping wasn’t exactly what I had envisioned. A cute little old lady was in front of me in line.

    “I hope they get that bastard,” she said.

    “Me, too,” I said.

    THE WAY TOM SNEDDON TALKED TO WITNESSES

    That spring, before the indictment, Joe spoke to Tom Sneddon, the district attorney of Santa Barbara County.

    “Listen,” Sneddon said, “Frank’s on a sinking ship. He can take our lifeboat or go down with the ship.” He offered me immunity if I came into the DA’s office to testify against Michael. I know people who watch shows like Law & Order are used to thinking that the DAs are the good guys, but this time they were on the wrong side of the case. Even if I were to be completely honest, they would look for ways to use whatever I said against Michael.

    LIFE IS A VERY COMPLICATED THING

    Michael invited my family to Bahrain to celebrate Christmas with him, but I didn’t go. I was negotiating with Russell Simmons, one of the founders of Def Jam, to do a tribute concert celebrating his contributions to hip-hop. I used that as an excuse not to go, but the real reason was that I was angry. As much as I wanted to put the past behind me, as much as I believed in being magnanimous, the fact was simply that I wasn’t. I still couldn’t believe that Michael had doubted me, doubted my unwavering loyalty to him, especially after all of the fear, anxiety, and depression that I’d been through since November 2003. I didn’t want to see him or speak to him. Part of me wanted to clear the air, but the years had made me stubborn…

    …Michael was a lot of things to me-boss, mentor, brother, father – but more than anything else, he was my oldest, closest friend. When he discarded me, I felt confused and lost. I’d seen him do this to so many other friends and colleagues, but I’d always thought the combination of my loyalty and our history made me exempt. Clearly, I was wrong.

    BUT THEY MADE IT UP

    All the questions I’d kept buried for almost three years came pouring out, each one practically running over into the next. In the middle of this torrent I told Michael, “For the record, I have a clear conscience. I have done nothing wrong. I don’t regret anything that I did. I was one hundred percent there for you in every way anyone could ever be there for another person. You’ve told me how you’ve been betrayed by so many people. You taught me to be loyal, and I was. I always have been and I always will be. Where was your loyalty?”

    Michael was calm. “Well, I was told you didn’t want to testify. You weren’t going to testify in my time of need. That hurt me, after all I’ve done for you,” he replied.

    “Who told you that?” I asked angrily. “It’s not true. Your attorney, Tom, told my attorney, Joe, that they did not need me to testify.”

    “I don’t remember who told me. That’s what I was told.” “By whom?” I insisted.

    “I don’t remember. It was said.” As he spoke, Michael was lying down on the bed, feet up, chilling out while he let me vent. “By whom?” I repeated vehemently. It was driving me crazy. It had been for years. I tried to calm myself down and fought to keep my emotions in check, but it wasn’t easy.

    “You said this wasn’t going to happen,” I was finally able to say quietly. “From the first time I started working with you. Now you’re telling people that I betrayed you, that I didn’t stand by you.” I was pacing, like I do, back and forth in front of the bed. “That wasn’t the case. And you didn’t call me to find out the truth because you believed what you wanted to believe-that I betrayed you. You wanted to be the victim, to say you helped me and I fucked you over, but I never did that to you. What did I do to make you hate me so much? You have no idea how you hurt me. I know how you get. Why didn’t you just call and ask me for yourself instead of letting your imagination run away with you?”

    At this point I was feeling like my impassioned words were finally beginning to sink in. Michael got teary, stood up, and gave me a hug.

    “I’m sorry,” he said. “You know I love you like a son. I’m sorry that I made you feel this way. Let’s just move on from this. I could have gone anywhere in the world, but I’m here, with you and your family. I want to move on.”

    http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-01/11mfm/11mfm0g.html

    A GREAT BOOK! The best thing I’ve ever read about Michael. My deepest thanks to the jetzi site for the opportunity to get familiar with it. There is no question I will buy it when it is available here. It is more than precious.

    Like

  325. January 5, 2012 4:43 pm

    “Everyone knows who Michael Jackson is.” http://fr.eonline.com/on/shows/chelsea/chelsea_lately/jackson_speaks_out_in_courton_camera/52710

    This article shows very well that the main tool in bringing Michael down was the MEDIA. The jury has just acquitted him on all counts but the public listens to what the media says, and not the law. If the media had been telling truth about Jackson, it would have been okay – but the media LIED about him, that’s the point!

    And once the media labeled Michael a criminal, his life turned into a vicious circle – now he could hardly get justice in the court of law either because it was impossible to find jurors who didn’t have “tons of opinion” about him.

    Anyone could blame Michael for whatever they liked, and winning those cases for him was a highly unlikely outcome. And some are wondering why he didn’t sue each of his offenders? This article is the best answer why.

    ..”Jackson is probably happy to miss out on the festivities, however, especially considering that 3 out of the 12 jurors who hold his financial fate in their hands may think that he’s a child molester.

    Either legal camp would be hard-pressed to find 12 individuals in Southern California who have not both heard a lot about Jackson’s recent troubles and have formed an opinion about them.

    Three out of four prospective jurors who raised their hands when Mundell asked if they thought Jackson was guilty of molestation, even though he was acquitted last year on all charges, were accepted on the panel.

    “I have lots of opinions about this man,” one of the three who was selected said. “How can you not? I read so much and I have tons of opinions.”
    Another man who said that Jackson possibly had a “character flaw” was dismissed.

    Other potentials were dismissed after saying that they couldn’t be fair to Jackson after learning about his behavior over the years.

    “I feel his actions as I have seen on TV were inexcusable,” one man said, recalling a past incident that was so talked about it inspired its own Law & Order episode. “Dangling the child is inexcusable. My feelings about Michael Jackson have been where there’s smoke there’s fire. I’ve been thinking about whether I can give him a fair trial and I’m not sure I can.”

    And still others were booted after saying they felt for the fallen pop idol.

    “I have a slight bias toward Mr. Jackson that maybe people were trying to extort him for money,” a media entertainment consultant told the court. “It happens to celebrities.”

    So, the remaining 12 all swore Thursday to decide the case to the best of their impartial ability, but what can be expected from six women and six men who burst into laughter when another lady, a nurse who saw Jackson when he was hospitalized after suffering burns during a commercial shoot, commented that he was “wonderful with the kids”?

    To quote King, who told the court Wednesday that he was representing “the unfamous party” in this case:
    “Everyone knows who Michael Jackson is.”

    (see the above link for the full text of the article)

    Like

  326. January 5, 2012 4:13 am

    I just read that article about the Schaffel jury

    “So, the remaining 12 all swore Thursday to decide the case to the best of their impartial ability, but what can be expected from six women and six men who burst into laughter when another lady, a nurse who saw Jackson when he was hospitalized after suffering burns during a commercial shoot, commented that he was “wonderful with the kids”?

    To quote King, who told the court Wednesday that he was representing “the unfamous party” in this case:

    “Everyone knows who Michael Jackson is.”

    http://fr.eonline.com/on/shows/chelsea/chelsea_lately/jackson_speaks_out_in_courton_camera/52710

    Like

  327. January 4, 2012 5:58 pm

    Do you have a link?

    Like

  328. January 4, 2012 5:52 pm

    I would imagine then that he released the “worse” ones during that lawsuit. I have them. Nothing bad.

    Calling money french fries, something about sunscreen, telling Schaffel to get a breath mint.

    Like

  329. January 4, 2012 4:28 pm

    I just read that article about Schaffel.

    “Schaffel says he has hundreds of voice mail messages from Jackson from 2001 to 2003 that show the nature of his relationship, including Jackson’s darker side.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/MichaelJackson/story?id=1336379

    Why was he recording him? Blackmail?

    Like

  330. January 4, 2012 4:25 pm

    I just found that document, I don’t know if it was already posted. It’s MJ’s answer to Schaffel

    http://abcnews.go.com/images/Entertainment/defense.PDF

    Like

  331. ares permalink
    January 2, 2012 3:37 am

    Happy new year and a special thank you to everyone here. Thank you guys.

    Like

  332. Truth Prevail permalink
    December 20, 2011 6:34 pm

    @Suzy

    Yes thats the guy!

    The “Priest” In the youtube clip was telling his audience it was Alistair Crowley LOL!

    Like

  333. Suzy permalink
    December 20, 2011 9:20 am

    @ Truth Prevails

    The guy on the cover of Dangerous is P.T. Barnum:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._T._Barnum

    Like

  334. sanemjfan permalink
    December 20, 2011 12:21 am

    @Truth Prevail
    I’ve seen that video too, and that is EXACTLY the person whose message I will be rebutting (among many others)! Part 1 will be posted on Christmas day! Stay tuned!

    Like

  335. Truth Prevail permalink
    December 20, 2011 12:19 am

    Yeah David i get what your saying i was on youtube once and there was this guy preaching MJ was a devil worshipper! he also said MJ Transformed himself to a women so he could be worshipped as a goddess (something along those lines) and he said MJ Worshipped Alistair Crowley and he said his proof was that crowley was on the cover of dangerous album when in fact i know who that bold guy was it wasnt crowley it was another guy he invented the circus or something right now i cant remember his name. And he also said We are the world was a satanic song and he didnt even provide convincing evidence other than he said it. what got me angry was not only was this guy BS but he chose the topic of MJ because mj just passed so wanted to make a buck off him.

    Like

  336. sanemjfan permalink
    December 19, 2011 8:41 pm

    @Truth Prevail
    I see the point you’re trying to make, and for some people it doesn’t matter what faith MJ practiced, but to the religious community, it DOES matter! After he died, there were some Christian websites that used the Muslim conversion rumors to slander MJ, and to make Christians feel guilty about mourning him. They’re “proof” that MJ had converted was the fact that his brother Jermaine had converted, and his being protected by the Nation of Islam bodyguards.

    It’s no different than the gay rumors: while it may not matter to most fans if he was gay or not, it certainly matters to the religious community! MJ has also been slandered by being called a “gay p…phile”, an “androgynous man-woman” and other false rumors, so these are topics that I’ll address in my next series.

    Like

  337. Truth Prevail permalink
    December 19, 2011 4:40 pm

    David I Dont think People thinking MJ was a muslim convert is slanderous in anyway its jus an assumption by some people the same way some people think MJ was jewish because of his close freind Liz Taylor and because of this red string he wore on his wrist other people he was around like schumuley MJ has never said he Converted to any of these faiths there really just discussions between people guessing.

    Like

  338. December 18, 2011 10:32 pm

    “If you or Lynette can write and publish a rebuttal to the hater’s site this week, that’s fine, but I don’t want to delay the start of my series.”

    Okay, I’ll try my best to make it quick.

    Like

  339. sanemjfan permalink
    December 18, 2011 9:27 pm

    @Helena
    I wasn’t trying to say that we shouldn’t refute them, but I was saying that I don’t think it’s an urgent matter at the moment because, as Suzy said, they’re using straw man arguments and cherry picking the information that they choose to present. Everything that they have written has already been rebutted on our site, and I worry that they may be trying to distract us again, the same way Desiree did when she wrote her “MJ Was Gay” posts earlier this year. The difference is that we were bombarded with emails and comments from readers asking us to rebut her, which we inevitably did. They don’t have any new, groundbreaking information that needs to be rebutted immediately, in my opinion; its just more of the same stuff that we’ve already heard before.

    The new series that I’m working on is called “Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith”, and it’s been something I’ve been researching for several months now. There are people in the religious community who have slandered MJ by calling him a gay child abuser, a devil worshipper, a Muslim, convert, a median who channels evil spirits to help him write songs, and other nonsense, and I wanted to publish the first part on Christmas day. If you or Lynette can write and publish a rebuttal to the hater’s site this week, that’s fine, but I don’t want to delay the start of my series. If you can’t have it finished this week, you can publish it in between my posts, as it will take me longer than usual to finish this series. It’ll be 4 or 5 parts, maybe more.

    Like

  340. Truth Prevail permalink
    December 18, 2011 9:00 pm

    “Now they are writing to refute solely our blog. They single us out from the rest of Michael’s supporters (they name us just “fans”) and say that we “have a sinister agenda”

    You know you are doing something right when you are being rapidly attacked

    “THE TRUTH IS ALWAYS ATTACKED”

    Like

  341. Truth Prevail permalink
    December 18, 2011 8:53 pm

    I ohnestly think that hater site is run by pedofiles seriously even our adversary!

    Like

  342. December 18, 2011 7:53 pm

    “I’m sorry about leaving that link. I didn’t post it to “advertise” their site, but mostly to allow our readers to visit their site and educate themselves about what the MJ haters are doing to smear MJ.”

    David, no need to apologize – I never ask for it. But posting a link to allow our readers to visit that site and educate themselves on what they do is exactly what I called advertising that blog (sorry if I chose the wrong word).

    “As advocates, we have to be one step ahead of them, and in order to effectively refute them, we have to know what they’re saying”

    This has been the idea all along. But it is our job, not the readers’, to see what haters say and do and refute their lies – we shouldn’t leave our readers one to one with these nasty allegations.

    “I would consider doing another post to rebut them, but much of what they’re saying has already been refuted in our posts, and I’m starting to focus on finishing up my current projects, and getting ready to start summarizing the 2005 trial.”

    Mentioning our adversaries’ ideas without disproving them is against our rules. The rule is universal for all of us here – if we mention someone’s lies about Michael we never leave them without a comment and provide our own arguments to disprove them. And if we do not intend to comment we don’t mention them at all until we have enough factual material to discuss that. Sorry I had to remind you of that.

    I think that your new planned series will have to be postponed at least until January because now that that site was brought to our attention we cannot leave the situation as it is. Lynette wanted to make a post and it seems that I will have to return to a couple of things.

    Like

  343. Suzy permalink
    December 18, 2011 12:21 pm

    So now they try to rewrite history by claiming Jordan didn’t say MJ was circumcised? WOW! Haters are getting desperate.

    I found it pretty funny how they try to explain away the fact Larry Feldman tried to get those pics barred from court. If they were telling the truth they should have been sure that it was a match and content with anybody showing them in court. After all it could only help them, right? That is, IF they were telling the truth. Whichever way they put it, the fact Feldman wanted to get them barred from court is very telling.

    I actually clicked on that website after a long time again now and I honestly say I’m still higly unimpressed by them. I thought they would come up with something better by now, but they still fail to focus on the very facts of the two cases, instead they operate mainly with already refuted claims, tabloid info and (questionable) generalizations about p-les. That’s all they have.

    For example, they try to refute the fact that p-les tend to have many, many victims in a lifetime. (That’s because MJ didn’t have many accusers, of course.) But then what they talk about in that section is not how many victims p-les tend to have, but about articles which say that p-les carefully select their victims. Having many victims and carefully selecting them are NOT mutually exclusive things! P-les carefully select their victims, but that doesn’t mean they don’t tend to have many, many in a lifetime, especially if they have access to so many kids.

    And that hater website has a LOT of strawman arguments like this!

    I’d like to see these people focus on actual facts of the cases against MJ instead of mudding the water with generalizations and tabloid rumors and by omitting important facts from their “research”. For example, how would they explain the timelines of BOTH cases? (Evan already plotting against MJ BEFORE Jordan “confessed” to him, the Arvizos claiming Gavin was molested WHILE Sneddon and the DCFS were investigating MJ). Of course, they are not going there. LOL.

    @ Shelly

    “The smoking gun articles were based on the grand jury transcript, so yes they were factuals, everything they said was in the transcript and by the way Bill Bastone was very fair to MJ during the trial.”

    Quoted for emphasis. Thanks!

    Like

  344. sanemjfan permalink
    December 18, 2011 9:32 am

    @Helena
    I’m sorry about leaving that link. I didn’t post it to “advertise” their site, but mostly to allow our readers to visit their site and educate themselves about what the MJ haters are doing to smear MJ. As advocates, we have to be one step ahead of them, and in order to effectively refute them, we have to know what they’re saying. I was going to point out to you that they have a link to our blog on their site, but you’ve already seen it.

    They are truly cowards for not allowing comments and not allowing anyone to email them directly. Personally, I’m flattered that they have added so much new content over the last few months, because it shows how effective we are at vindicating MJ! All of their arguments have more holes than swiss cheese, and can easily be refuted with logic. They like to omit important evidence and information to prove their point, such as not mentioning whatsoever the timeline of the allegations, or Evan’s desire to write a book and record an album. They try to paint the Chandlers as the victims of the MJ media machine, and of his crazy, rabid fans!

    I really, really think that our adversary is writing for them, as she is also included on their list of links, and she reached out to them last year to offer them research and ideas (remember how she thought that Charles Thomson was writing that blog because they used an email address that was very similar to his). I would consider doing another post to rebut them, but much of what they’re saying has already been refuted in our posts, and I’m starting to focus on finishing up my current projects, and getting ready to start summarizing the 2005 trial.

    Like

  345. December 18, 2011 8:57 am

    I’ve spent a substantial amount of time on their site and found that:

    1) Now they are writing to refute solely our blog. They single us out from the rest of Michael’s supporters (they name us just “fans”) and say that we “have a sinister agenda”.

    2) They do give a link to this blog calling us “the other side of the coin”. Therefore, for the sake of being fair, I will not delete the link to their site in David’s comment, though you understand that I am keeping it here totally despite my will.

    3) They do not have a comment section of their own and we cannot leave any of our facts and arguments in reply to their one-sided and often false statements. In their contact section they refer their readers to “topix” instead. They claim they are not part of it, but the connection between the two is more than clear.

    4) The authors of the site do not disclose who they are. If these people are really against pedophilia I can give them several links to pedophiles’ sites which do have a truly sinister agenda – only no one cares. The people working for those sites are numerous, so even from their number it is obvious that they present a heavy danger to the society. So if our adversaries are sincere, instead of fighting one dead man who can do no harm to anyone, they could do really useful work to rid the society of real pedophiles if they switched over to them – which I strongly suggest they do.

    5) Dear co-eds and Michael’s supporters, it turns out that our work for Michael and his legacy is far from finished. It is too early to say that the truth has prevailed and this isn’t the time for jubilations. Real work is only starting.

    Like

  346. December 18, 2011 1:23 am

    “I don’t know if you guys have been monitoring the MJ Facts Info hater’s site, but they have added a substantial amount of information over the last few months”

    David, thanks for the update but may I suggest you don’t post links to their site here any more? It is only giving them unnecessary promotion. I also doubt that they post links to our blog on their site, so it will be only fair if we didn’t.

    Please send the links to the researchers only, while it would be just enough to inform readers about what this pedophilia lobby is doing to Michael. If any of the readers want to go to that site they are welcome to look for it themselves.

    Why I think that those writing there are a pedophilia lobby? Because I cannot imagine anyone else to be so persistent in their lies against Michael Jackson – no, these people are fighting for their own rights! And they still hope to have him among their ranks, this is why it is so crucial for them to prove that he was what he actually wasn’t.

    There are other reasons why I think these people have a special interest in Michael but I will not voice them at the moment as they are definitely reading us.

    As could be easily predicted now these people claim that no one really remembers Jordan Chandler saying that Michael was circumcised.

    YES, THEY ARE CLAIMING THAT!

    Remember I warned you they would? And this is why they were erasing all traces of Jordan’s words from the media? And the fact that they have a chance to erase all mention of Jordan’s words shows how powerful these people are?

    Now they even ridicule us for using the Smoking Gun as the only source where this information is still contained, saying “what can you expect of those who believe tabloids?”

    No, my dear liars, it is very unfortunate news for you but the source you so much rely on, Victor Gutierrez, ALSO says that Jordan described Michael as circumcised.

    I haven’t read Ray Chandler’s book but it is highly probable that he mentioned it too. David, I think you’ve read it – could you inform us whether Ray Chandler quotes Jordan as saying that?

    But the thing that surprises me most about this site is that these people are so much dedicated to lying about Michael. They KNOW that Jordan said Michael was circumcised (everyone knows that because we simply remember the media screams), but they are ready to deny even the obvious.

    WHY SO?

    P.S. These people claim that we are selective in using tabloids’ information and say that if we believe some of the Smoking Gun lies we should believe the rest too. However the article used by us in this post https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/the-story-of-one-telltale-splotch-missing-from-the-smokin-gunpublic-eye/ is a very SPECIAL thing.

    It is the article which was first published but later disappeared from the Smoking Gun. So what was actually used by us was a retrieved ghost of it, which is now a totally unwelcome guest on its pages.

    Like

  347. shelly permalink
    December 18, 2011 1:17 am

    The smoking gun articles were based on the grand jury transcript, so yes they were factuals, everything they said was in the transcript and by the way Bill Bastone was very fair to MJ during the trial.

    Like

  348. lynande51 permalink
    December 17, 2011 10:46 pm

    I would like to add something else as a thought. If Sneddon knew that they were a match as the one site suggests why did he added the special disclaimer “except those based on information and belief”. Like I said before and it is not mere speculation, the SBSD asked for a search and arrest warrant on Michael prior to the photos. They would have had to have an arrest warrant attached when they stipulated that if he refused the photos and video of his private parts he would be arrested. I am not sure why no one gets that! In order for the search to be legal it would have had to include an arrest warrant because the Police in this case above all others would not be able to make empty threats to Michael and his lawyers present were Johnny Cochran and Howard Weitzman, they would have insisted on it being completely legal. Now if he refused he was to be arrested and if it was a definitive match he would have been arrested as the evidence would have proved the allegations. Why is it that no one understands that?

    If they come out now and say that there was no arrest warrant attached to that search they are saying that they in fact violated Michael’s Miranda rights by forcing him to an unnecessary and humiliating search of his naked body. If they obtained those photos illegally they would not have been admissible evidence in any trial ever. Do they want to go there? No one should forget that Sneddon himself was in that house on that day, that is proof that he was there to charge Michael if the photos were a match. If someone doubts that Michael was forced to do that search they should ask themselves why he did it if he did not have to. If the photos would have been a definitive match, he would have been arrested because they would have had their evidence. If he refused he would have been arrested because his refusal was to be considered a consciousness of guilt.

    There has been plenty said about the spots which did not matter then and they sure don’t matter now. What kept Michael out of jail was the fact that not only did the spots not match but neither did the “form” or the fact that he was not circumcised. Now suddenly the haters want to bring it back to a spot when they think Sneddon’s word means something. Ask them then why he wasn’t willing to back that up by really putting himself in jeopardy of perjury? I read what the other site posted and there was a Grand Canyon size chasm of omitted information in that post.

    One question or statement on the other site says that those that ask why Michael was not arrested do not understand the rules of evidence. Their statement that the detectives and photographers would have had to testify to the chain of evidence is correct, but only at trial, not during the gathering of evidence for an arrest. This was still an investigation not a trial. The rules of evidence only apply when the evidence is used at trial not when they arrest someone. If I were to give evidence that this is true just look at the list of things, including a used tissue retrieved from a waste paper basket that they collected from Neverland. Are they going to tell me that someone blew their nose and that was somehow supposed to mean something? No the police collect all kinds of things in an investigation and then they go through it to see if it is evidence of the alleged crime. It is this person that does not understand.

    This person’s second talking point is Larry Feldman requesting a second set of photos. They say that it means nothing because it was a civil trial and this was a criminal investigation. That is not true. The judge granted the police access to whatever evidence and depositions were gathered in the civil trial. If he wanted them brought in as evidence all he would have had to do was petition the court for those to be brought in not left out.

    Their attempt at showing that the drawing included in the Victor Gutierrez book was not effective either considering they have not included the entire version that does have notes in the header and sidelines and footer. They used the one that does not show that someone was taking notes about how to describe Michael in the first place. The drawing or description that clearly states that Michael is circumcised and Brett is not. Now who is using trickery and omission to elude an unsuspecting public?

    Then I guess that someone just made a mistake at The Smoking Gun and that is why that site has the description as a light spot according to affidavit instead of a dark spot like Sneddon said that around about in the right place. They also hit in the fact that Michael’s lawyers wanted them returned in July of 1994 when they had the affidavit for the search warrant sealed. Of course that was not granted because the investigation did not end until September of 1994. They were still investigating the case for another 3 months because they did not inform Michael’s lawyers that Jordan told them he would not testify on July 6th 1994. Up until then they were holding them. The reason that they were sealed by a judge is because one of the DA’s in question wanted to use them if Jordan ever changed his mind. Does anyone wonder which DA it is that I am talking about?

    IN 2004, when Sneddon was faced with the possibility that he was in trouble for abuse of power for searching Brad Millers office himself, he petitioned the court for an order not to allow the search warrants to be given over in discovery to the defense. He said that it was still an ongoing investigation and if the affadavit was released to the defense attorney’s they would be given priviledged information. Some of the privildged information the cited was the 1993 affadavit so it had been opened and was open from at least November 16th 2003 until it was resealsed on January 24th, 2004. To this day the defense has not seen that affadavit. Why is that so important to the prosecution that no one know what is in that affadavit besides them? It isn’t like they were ever concerned for Michael’s right to a fair trial, because they had already leaked enough information for the jury pool to have a skewed view.

    I say it is because that affadavit says exactly what the article said in The Case of the Telltale Splotch and it is not a match. They knew it. It was just Sneddon hell bent on revenge that said differently. Apparently they do not know what a driving need for revenge can do to someone. I guess I will have to put all of these points together and just do a proper post in it so they can get the point one last time. I expect that it will be done sometime tomorrow.

    Like

  349. sanemjfan permalink
    December 17, 2011 9:51 pm

    Guys, it looks like we’ll have to do a post on Sneddon’s desire to get MJ’s photos admitted as evidence at the end of the trial! I don’t know if you guys have been monitoring the MJ Facts Info hater’s site, but they have added a substantial amount of information over the last few months, including a new post that “proves” that the Jordan’s description matched! I can tell that they’re reading our site and trying to debunk our theories and facts, as they practically use our talking points against us! (Without directly naming us.)

    Here is their post: http://www.mjfacts.info/the_telltale_splotch.php

    Not only that, but in this article a professor wrote an essay on MJ that will be released next year, and she wrongly asserted that the photos were shown at the trial as well! So this is starting to get out of hand, and we need to debunk this ASAP. I will start posting my series that refutes attacks on MJ from the religious community beginning on Dec. 25th, and it’ll be a 4 or 5 part series that will be finished by mid-January, so we have plenty of time to work on it.

    You can read the article on that professor, and my thoughts on that article, under this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-it-but-were-afraid-to-ask-part-3/

    Like

  350. lynande51 permalink
    December 17, 2011 9:13 pm

    That is right. I personally believe that Sneddon over the years had taken a lot of heat over getting those photos. It was unprecedented and unnecessary to have done that to begin with. After that was when they started all the lies and innuendos about Michael’s behavior during the search in an effort to imply that he was guilty because, according to them he “threw a fit” so they did not get the pictures they needed. If that is the case the photos have no value whatsoever. Well they had an arrest warrant in the event he refused how do they explain that? It was Russell Birchim that said he saw the spot and he and Sneddon were/are friends outside of work. Then Birchim says in reality that he “thinks he saw” a dark spot. The photos should have been returned to Michael after that trial but Sneddon is going to have a very difficult time convincing me that he did not have a vendetta against Michael when he would not return them after the trial saying that they should keep them in case there is another case. That right there tells me that there is something seriously wrong with that man.
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/062205motptyrtd.pdf
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/062205pltrespdftprprtd.pdf
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/062705rplydarspptyrtd.pdf
    I could give a very good argument as to why they should be and should have been returned at that time due to the fact they are of Michael Jackson’s person and therefore fall under his image copyrights. If they are ever released whoever does it should have to pay the Estate of Michael Jackson. If they do not they would be violating the copyright that they have to his image and likeness. That is another thing that has eluded the minds of some of the detractors out there. Michael Jackson was a commodity, a product. I know that sounds strange but he knew that. When they state that he in fact is something that he was proven not to be that is slander. How is that? Because he lives on in his marketability or his image. When they slander and defame him it still has current financial effects on his marketability.
    The photos should by all purposes at this point in time be taken to Katherine for destruction. The only purpose for the description was humiliation by Evan Chandler and not one but two law enforcement agencies went along with it. I think Tom Messereau should petition the court for the release of these photos and the destruction of the description. They are not going to have another case to hear so they might as well just get rid of them and leave Michael to rest in peace on this matter. They never did it in life, it is the least that they could do now. Evan Chandler is dead, Michael is dead, and still Sneddon will not release those photos. That is absurd. The photos only depict a certain time frame because of the always changing Vitiligo they would have meant nothing in 2005 and they sure don’t mean anything now.

    Like

  351. December 17, 2011 4:47 pm

    Shelly, thank you for the document and the transcript – they will be helpful for studying things while I have limited access to Internet (if any at all) in the next few days. This will be a sort of homework for me.

    My first impression of Mr. Sanger’s words is that Sneddon not only violated Michael’s constitutional rights by trying to introduce those photos (without giving a chance to cross examine Jordan Chandler), but that it was also a totally illegal trick meant for emotional effect only.

    It was not on the 1108 list of “evidence” of “prior bad acts” and was to be sneaked into the 2005 trial under the pretext of showing Michael to be modest and shy – which he was – but what does it have to do with Sneddon bringing in the photos?

    When Sanger talked about a “moving” target they were forced to deal with, it again reminded me of Conrad Murray’s trial and the tactics used by Chernoff and Flanagan. It was the mirror image of the Arvizo case – Murray had the same slippery, chameleon and jelly-like case which was changing in the process of the trial as his defense was grasping at various straws that would occasionally stick out here and there.

    It is a method which does not even suppose that there is some truth lying in the basis of the case – it is just a combination of lies which are shuffled and reshuffled depending on how the events turn out.

    The same thing happened in 2005, only in reverse. There was no case – ‘molestation’ had to happen after the news about it was announced the worldwide; then a conspiracy charge emerged from nowhere aiming to explain the initial molestation nonsense; and when all that flopped, some highly dubious characters from the past were introduced to share their hearsay.

    And at the very end of it came the turn of some meaningless photos which do not explain anything because no one knows who said what about Michael’s genitalia before (how is it possible to compare things with something you know nothing of?) And all this is done in total disrespect for Law, in a stealthy manner and under some false pretexts that they are talking about Michael “being shy”.

    It is just the theatre of the absurd. Or a bad circus where a conjurer tries to pull a rabbit out of his hat at the last moment, but fails to do so because there is no rabbit, no hat and no knowledge how to do it.

    It is clear that Sneddon wanted those photos just to shock the jury by disclosing them Michael’s anatomy and humiliate Michael beyond any limit. And this failed drama gesture made for effect only is all Michael’s detractors have to produce to us as “proof” of their allegations.

    Like

  352. December 17, 2011 3:53 pm

    It’s from the judge

    ” THE COURT: I’m going to deny the request to

    19 bring in the evidence of the blemished penis. This

    20 is the reason: It’s twofold, really. And under a

    21 352 analysis, the Court agrees with the defense,

    22 that shyness really was not an issue of any

    23 proportion. I think you’ve reminded me — I knew

    24 there had been some statement somewhere in the trial

    25 about shyness, but the — I think you’ve reviewed

    26 that with me, and I think I agree with — my

    27 recollection now has been refreshed to exactly what

    28 that was. But I knew it was only a small thing to 12182

    1 start with, if anything. And you’re saying it was

    2 actually nothing.

    3 But the analysis there would be, even if

    4 shyness had been raised as an issue, the prejudicial

    5 effect would far outweigh the probative value of the

    6 shyness issue. And secondly, I think — even though

    7 your analysis is I think correct, I keep going

    8 through it, but I think it is not hearsay. I still

    9 think Crawford would apply to the ability to

    10 cross-examine the boy — or the — you know, Mr.

    11 Chandler. He’s not a boy anymore — on that issue,

    12 and that’s definitely not available, so that would

    13 be my reasoning for excluding that evidence.”

    Like

  353. December 17, 2011 3:50 pm

    This is from Zonen

    “24 it down in reports, and then they preserve that and

    25 the prosecution wants to bring it in, that violates

    26 the confrontation clause. You cannot do that.

    27 So you would have a violation of a federal

    28 constitutional right were this allowed in, in any 12180

    1 event, and so the Court can start at either end.

    2 Either just decide it on that and it’s over, or you

    3 look at the other end. It’s not proper rebuttal,

    4 because there was no evidence to rebut. And under

    5 the Carter case, it’s simply dramatic evidence that

    6 would be overwhelming at the end of the trial and

    7 really, in my opinion, and as we briefed, totally

    8 meaningless. There is no probative value. But if

    9 there was, by a stretch, it would be on a collateral

    10 matter.

    11 And so I think — I feel very strongly about

    12 this that this is absolutely inappropriate. And I

    13 will submit it, Your Honor. Thank you.

    14 THE COURT: Mr. Zonen?

    15 MR. ZONEN: Just briefly with regards to

    16 Crawford. This is not hearsay at all. It’s not an

    17 exception to hearsay. It’s not hearsay.

    18 The issue is whether or not this child had

    19 knowledge of the existence of that particular spot.

    20 And the evidence of his knowledge, certainly his

    21 ability to draw that picture, would be

    22 circumstantial evidence that he knew about it. It

    23 would be the equivalent of a child being able to say

    24 that a room was green. And he would only know that

    25 if he had been in the room. It’s not for the truth
    of the matter that the room is green. We can show

    27 that independently with the photograph as can we

    28 show the spot with the photograph. But the fact 12181

    1 that a child would know that the room was green

    2 would only be knowledge that the child would have

    3 circumstantially because he was there or because

    4 somebody told him.

    5 In this particular case, it’s the type of

    6 information that was not commonly available at the

    7 time, and circumstantially it would be relevant for

    8 the fact that he must have seen that particular

    9 spot, and therefore it’s not testimonial. It’s not

    10 communication in that regard. It would not fit

    11 within Crawford. It’s simply not hearsay.

    12 MR. SANGER: And if I may make just one

    13 comment on that — I know we shouldn’t go back and

    14 forth but —

    15 THE COURT: I’d really like you not to do

    16 that.

    17 MR. SANGER: Very well, Your Honor

    Like

  354. December 17, 2011 3:48 pm

    This is from the defense

    “MR. SANGER: I, once again, tried to keep

    25 the brief brief. I hope the Court —

    26 THE COURT: I appreciate you keeping your

    27 briefs brief.

    28 MR. SANGER: Yes. I don’t want a lack of 12176

    1 volume to suggest that this didn’t take well into

    2 the night to get done here. And I don’t want to

    3 repeat everything, but I think because it is such an

    4 important issue, we’re right at the end of the case,

    5 I feel compelled to speak about it just briefly, if

    6 I may.

    7 First of all, this seems to come directly

    8 within the California Supreme Court’s discussion in

    9 the Carter case, which basically says it’s not

    10 proper to bring in evidence that magnifies evidence

    11 that the opposition has not had a chance to meet

    12 squarely during the case-in-chief, which we haven’t,

    13 because this was not offered, it was not hinted at.

    14 It was not even in the original 1108 motion from

    15 which the Court made a cut and reduced what they had

    16 presented originally. So it wasn’t even in there.

    17 I mean, we had no notice to deal with these

    18 issues — with this issue at all. So there is

    19 certainly unfair surprise, as stated directly in the

    20 Carter case.
    21 And Carter also says that the Court is

    22 supposed to avoid dramatic evidence introduced late

    23 in the trial that’s going to have an undue effect.

    24 Now, as we pointed out, this was not

    25 offered. I mean, this is really a stretch to even

    26 come up with any kind of an argument as to why this

    27 should — why they could even ask to bring this in.

    28 And they’re not asking to bring it in as 1108 12177

    1 evidence. They’re asking to bring it in as 1101(b)

    2 evidence.

    3 And the idea is, I think they’ve said in

    4 their pleadings, that this goes to the issue of

    5 whether or not Mr. Jackson was shy or modest. Now,

    6 that’s not what Mr. Zonen just said when he got up

    7 here and argued. I think he shifted the argument a

    8 bit, if I’m not mistaken, and talked about things

    9 happening in the bedroom.

    10 They didn’t offer — I mean, we can’t just

    11 keep having a moving target here. They didn’t offer

    12 it in their moving papers. They didn’t offer it for

    13 that purpose. They offered it on the shy and modest

    14 purpose. So it would be 1101(b) evidence on kind of

    15 a collateral matter, if it ever happened. But it

    16 didn’t happen in this case in the defense.

    17 We went through and did a word search on the

    18 entire transcript, several different words, “shy,”

    19 “modest,” all sorts of things. We found one

    20 question that used the word “shy,” not even in this

    21 context. It had to do with whether or not a maid
    2 saw Mr. Jackson change his shirt. And the objection

    23 was sustained to that question. So it was never

    24 answered. So it didn’t happen.

    25 We also went through and — just to be sure,

    26 and read — we read all the testimony from the key

    27 witnesses in the defense who might have said

    28 something like that if anybody said it. And the 12178

    1 only thing we can come up with is an investigative

    2 report where the word — I think “shy” — it was

    3 either “shy” or “modest,” one of the two was used.

    4 We quoted it in there. And it turns out that that

    5 was never brought out from that witness on the

    6 stand.

    7 So it seemed to me that, when I was looking

    8 at this, this was a pocket brief the District

    9 Attorney had originally prepared in case somebody

    10 did this. It didn’t happen. Now they’re trying to

    11 bring it in by way of rebuttal, and it would just be

    12 absolutely inappropriate as 1101, because it doesn’t

    13 rebut anything, okay?

    14 What really they’re trying to do, and I

    15 think that’s what I heard Mr. Zonen just argue, is

    16 they’re trying to argue this is 1108. And it

    17 doesn’t meet the criteria for 1108. It doesn’t meet

    18 the criteria the Court set down that it would be

    19 somebody directly observing something. So it would

    20 have the prejudicial effect of the jury considering

    21 it, obviously, for 1108 purposes. Because it would

    22 be very shocking to see pictures of — anatomical
    23 pictures and all that sort of thing.

    24 So just from that standpoint, they’ve made

    25 no — show no basis. There’s no foundation to admit

    26 this as rebuttal, because there’s — they haven’t

    27 shown what they’re rebutting under 1101(b). And

    28 obviously, if they did that, the prejudice would be 12179

    1 so overwhelming, because it would go to the 1108 and

    2 it shouldn’t come in for that reason.

    3 And as we said before, 1108 — as the Court

    4 is well aware, 1108 is a very delicate kind of an

    5 issue. The jury is given tremendously prejudicial

    6 evidence, that is, prejudicial in the sense that it

    7 is propensity evidence, and that propensity

    8 evidence — under this weird law we have in

    9 California that doesn’t exist most other places,

    10 propensity evidence is allowed to come in, but the

    11 Court has to exercise discretion in limiting it, so

    12 it doesn’t overwhelm the trial. And the Court made

    13 those rulings. And to bring this in at this point

    14 and emphasize 1108 in rebuttal with something that

    15 isn’t even really 1108 evidence would be

    16 tremendously prejudicial.

    17 But when you get right down to it, the main

    18 reason that it has to stay out is it violates

    19 Crawford and the confrontation clause. It’s not

    20 admissible hearsay. It is testimonial directly

    21 under Crawford. This is the kind of stuff that

    22 Crawford is talking about, when police officers do

    23 interviews, and they get information and they write
    24 it down in reports, and then they preserve that and

    25 the prosecution wants to bring it in, that violates

    26 the confrontation clause. You cannot do that.

    27 So you would have a violation of a federal

    28 constitutional right were this allowed in, in any 12180

    1 event, and so the Court can start at either end.

    2 Either just decide it on that and it’s over, or you

    3 look at the other end. It’s not proper rebuttal,

    4 because there was no evidence to rebut. And under

    5 the Carter case, it’s simply dramatic evidence that

    6 would be overwhelming at the end of the trial and

    7 really, in my opinion, and as we briefed, totally

    8 meaningless. There is no probative value. But if

    9 there was, by a stretch, it would be on a collateral

    10 matter.

    11 And so I think — I feel very strongly about

    12 this that this is absolutely inappropriate. And I

    13 will submit it, Your Honor. Thank you.

    Like

  355. December 17, 2011 3:12 pm

    It’s about the US Supreme Court decision, it’s called Crawford vs Washington

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html

    Melville said even though, it was not hearsay, he still totally agree wih the defense analysis.

    Like

  356. December 17, 2011 2:47 pm

    Guys, I’ve been sent this link and signed it too: http://www.change.org/petitions/protect-and-preserve-the-legacy-of-those-deceased-those-left-behind-can-still-be-hurt.

    Please join – what if it helps? It would be crazy just not to try!

    And we also have William Waneger’s documentary about Sneddon’s crimes towards Michael still to be made by the MJ Innocent Forever Foundation: http://www.mjjiff.org/

    It is a cause worthy of spending a couple of dollars on!

    Like

  357. December 17, 2011 1:31 pm

    “In other words Tom Sneddon wanted to introduce Jordan Chandler into the picture without him being present in court.”-VMJ
    “He knew he coudln’t do that, there was a decision from the US Supreme Court taken a few months earlier which said that judges shouldn’t allow that because it would be a violation of the US constitution – Shelly

    Shelly, could you provide more detail about that decision from the US Supreme Court, please? A link to that decision and the essence of it, if possible? In simple language for those of us who are not very well versed on the subject?

    P.S.
    Oh, I see now that Lynette provided the Motion from Michael’s defense team explaining this point. I’ve only just started reading it, but the main idea there seems to be the notion of EX PARTE. The legal dictionary explains it as

    • A proceeding brought before a court by one party only, without notice to or challenge by the other side.
    http://www.oregonlaws.org/glossary/definition/ex_parte

    So the essence of it is introducing something into court which the other side cannot challenge – not because it is “irrefutable” evidence, but because they are deprived of a chance to verify its credibility.

    And in this case the photos were not even a piece of evidence but what Tom Sneddon personally ‘believed’ about them. And there was no chance to cross-examine Jordan Chandler on the subject as Jordan flatly refused to testify in court and said he would even sue the authorities if they tried to force him to!

    Like

  358. December 17, 2011 1:25 pm

    Lynette, thank you very much for the detailed explanation and the documents! I need to study everything before summarizing at least the basic things about this subject. There is a very big need for such a summary.

    Like

  359. Suzy permalink
    December 17, 2011 10:42 am

    If the photos were such a match Sneddon would have wanted to use them as his Nr 1 and main evidence in the 1108 part of the trial. But he only tried to introduce them at the very end after all his witnesses have been destroyed on stand, as a desperate last attempt to prejudice the jury. And like Lynette said he would have used them with his own commentary of “believing” and “being told” they were a match, not with the description. It’s indeed interesting that whoever talked about those photos from the prosecution side they all said they were “told” they were a match. The doctor, Sneddon etc. So why did nobody knew anything definite? Why did they all have to be “told”? Didn’t they see both the photos and Jordan’s description? They surely did. The only explanation for using this type of language (being “told”, to “believe” etc.) is what Lynette gave that it would protect them from perjury.

    I can also imagine Sneddon knew well the judge wouldn’t allow him to bring in the photos in the last moment, but he did this request to throw in yet another innuendo about Michael in the last moment.

    Like

  360. lynande51 permalink
    December 17, 2011 5:05 am

    What Sneddon wanted to do was introduce the photos without the affadavit and accompanying description or the affadavit without the photos. He did not want to introduce both of them. He wanted to be able to qualify the photos with his own statement that they were a match. He did not want the description to qualify the photos. Then in the same statement he qualifies it by using the legal term “based on information and belief”. So basically what that means is that he does not have first hand knowledge but he has been told what he says and he believes it. If you look up the term “information and belief in the legal dictionary it is just another way to say it is so because someone told me and I believe them. It wipes out the possibilty of perjury with that term because he is saying he believes what he is told, he is not saying it is the truth. If he was wrong he would just be considered stupid or gullible for believing it which is not a crime in a court of law. If you look at all of the Prosecutions filings you will find that term in many of them.

    information and belief n. a phrase often used in legal pleadings (complaints and answers in a lawsuit), declarations under penalty of perjury, and affidavits under oath, in which the person making the statement or allegation qualifies it. In effect, he/she says: “I am only stating what I have been told, and I believe it.” This makes clear about which statements he/she does not have sure-fire, personal knowledge (perhaps it is just hearsay or surmise), and protects the maker of the statement from claims of outright falsehood or perjury. The typical phraseology is: “Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges that defendant diverted the funds to his own use.”

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052605oppdamotevid.pdf
    And Sneddon did ask the court on 9/2/04 if he could examine photos that were in the custody of Los Angeles Police. I don’t know if that was granted or not. That was before Auchincloss and Zonen went to NYC to talk to Jordan, it was 9/26/04 when he met with them and told them no. The interesting thing about him seeing the photos in September nine months before he made this statement is he would have known which color mark to say he saw but with out the affadavit to prove it the jury would have had to take his word for it that they were a match unless Michael allowed himself to be examined in court to prove otherwise. And guess what else, before he could unseal the affadavit or the defense to unseal it they would have had to have the Chandler’s approval or someone that represented them. When he said that it took 2 signature that would have been one from either side.
    However there was a window of opportunity for the affadavit from the body search to be leaked to the press. Jeff Klapakis had it attached to the November 18th 2003 search of Neverland to use it to bolster their probable cause for the search warrant. That portion was not redacted and return to seal until January 24th 2004. So there was a window of time for the Smoking Gun to get it and write The Story of the Telltale Splotch. It is entirely possible the truth is that Jordan said it was light and the spot Sneddon said he saw was dark. Suffice it to say that it was wrong either way. The Chandler’s didn’t care so much about it because they say that it could have changed in the few months that Michael was away anyway.Funny thing about their book is no one wants to go into detail about it yet they sure are willing to let the world know that there was this detail? The thing that exhonerated Michael was his foreskin. If they had a search warrant that did not allow him to refuse under threat of arrest that is an arrest warrant. That is why Sneddon was there when the search took place to get his picture taken when he arrested him, like a hunter with their kill. The truth is it probably did look like his arms which would not have been one spot but many spots.

    Like

  361. December 17, 2011 4:10 am

    “In other words Tom Sneddon wanted to introduce Jordan Chandler into the picture without him being present in court.”

    He knew he coudln’t do that, there was a decision from the US Supreme Court taken a few months earlier which said that judges shouldn’t allow that because it would be a violation of the US constitution.

    Like

  362. December 17, 2011 3:45 am

    Here is a petition that I would like our readers to read and sign. It is a petition to stop the online bullying that occurs on Topix. It is time to make the CEO of Topix accountable for what he has allowed to go on for far too long. Here is a link to the petition. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/8/help-stop-bullying/

    Lynette, I don’t know whether it will help but I’ve signed it. Surprisingly I’ve spent some time on Topix today studying what else they say about the photographs of Michael’s genitalia.

    Now they consider the fact that Sneddon wanted to introduce those photos into the 2005 trial as proof that Michael’s photos “matched the description” (earlier they did not and therefore didn’t convince two grand juries, and now all of a sudden they turn into a match?)

    To me it is only proves that Tom Sneddon was playing a very cunning game – by the year 2005 no one could clearly remember what Jordan had described 12 (!) years earlier. No traces were left in the media of his concrete words about “circumcision” and “the light splotch the color of his face”. Everyone by then had been talking only about how a boy could make such a “detailed” description, “that it was erect” and that Jordan “identified” a certain splotch.

    Actually it would be really surprising that after seeing the photos of Michael in ‘They don’t care about us’ made in the 90s, some of us would be unable to say that Michael was spotted in that part of his body too. So what prevented Jordan from saying that Michael was mottled in his genitalia? Nothing at all. And which spot out a dozen or probably hundred did Jordan allegedly identify? And why didn’t he notice the foreskin though he was supposed to be involved in masturbation?

    It is clear that 12 years later no one really remembered what Jordan originally said – his initial description would have been effectively erased from the public mind and new lies would have been substituted for it.

    An added advantage for Tom Sneddon was that if someone had asked for the original words Tom Sneddon would have provided some interviews without actually summoning Jordan to the witness stand.

    If we compare it with Murray’s trial it would be the same as introducing Murray’s lies from the documentary into the courtroom instead of his direct testimony to the jury, and disseminating Murray’s lies there without a chance for the other side to cross examine him.

    In other words Tom Sneddon wanted to introduce Jordan Chandler into the picture without him being present in court.

    Even from Sneddon’s own declaration we know that there was no match – there was no circumcision, the white splotch suddenly turned into a dark one (so the background turned its color to the opposite too) and the ‘exact’ location turned into a ‘relative’ one only.

    But Sneddon’s ultimate goal was to shock, confuse and bring in a wave of negative emotion from the past allegations. And it could have worked, if that false Murray’s documentary – sorry, those true photos of Michael’s genitalia – had indeed been introduced into the trial.

    Lynette, I remember you saying that Sneddon knew that the pictures could not be introduced at the 2005 trial, and that it was a mere provocation and a huge bluff on his part. Could you remind us what you said then, please?

    P.S. By the picture of Michael Jackson in the 90s I mean this one – can ANY of us imagine Michael being like that all over his body?

    Like

  363. lynande51 permalink
    December 16, 2011 8:38 pm

    Here is a petition that I would like our readers to read and sign. It is a petition to stop the online bullying that occurs on Topix. We all know that there are many comments that are beyond ugly about Michael on there but there are also innocent non celebrity people that are harrassed on there daily. If you read through the comments you will find that entire communities have been effected by what is posted there. It is time to make the CEO of Topix accountable for what he has allowed to go on for far too long. Here is a link to the petition.
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/8/help-stop-bullying/

    Like

  364. November 28, 2011 2:59 pm

    Hey guys, this is the press release for a new book called “New Beginnings” which shows the parallels between MJ and President Obama! Here is an excerpt:

    In this book, readers will explore the journey of two icons and how history contributed to their success. Barack Hussein Obama, the first black president of the United States, and the life and death of Michael Jackson, undisputedly the best entertainer of all time.

    Readers will explore how the three C’s — Contradictions, Cycles and Choices — of their stories, paved a road map with hopes that they will inspire others to seek and achieve their true purpose in life.

    If readers find this information enriching and mentally stimulating, they are asked to please share it with others. If, in addition, readers would like to share their American history and have it included in the next book as a result of being inspired during this historic period, please feel free to email the information to secondyearinoffice@newbeginnings.com.

    285 pages in length, New Beginnings: The First Year in Office, The Parallel of Two Icons, Barack Obama and Michael Jackson is being aggressively promoted to appropriate markets with a focus on the 21st century history category. With U.S. wholesale distribution through Ingram and Baker & Taylor, and pervasive online availability through Amazon, Barnes & Noble and elsewhere, New Beginnings meets consumer demand through both retail and library markets with a suggested retail price of $17.95.

    http://www.outskirtspress.com/bookstore/9781432775797.html

    Like

  365. November 24, 2011 7:28 am

    Shelly,

    Thanks for the Gonzague Saint Bris video on Michael. It lead me on a quest for his book, which is only in French, but I have hopes of finding an E-reader that can translate into English. The book “Au paradis avec Michael Jackson” description found on the Amazon France site is intriguing.

    Like

  366. November 24, 2011 1:42 am

    http://whotalking.com/Dr+Murray

    Why it good to remember the internet is not our living room and to illustrate how easy it is for the Media and others to pick up on stories, investigations, strategy and gossip.

    Like

  367. sanemjfan permalink
    November 20, 2011 8:02 am

    Guys, I recently joined twitter, and I added my account and Helena’s account to the blogroll, and to our descriptions above! I’m sure I’ll be tweeting more than Helena, so I’ll probably be the public spokesperson for the blog on Twitter.

    Like

  368. lcpledwards permalink
    October 19, 2011 11:11 pm

    More good news! Raven is almost finished bringing back her “All For Love’ blog back to it’s original state! Here is a post from her FB page:

    Semi-good news to pass along! You can once again access Allforloveblog.com! A coupe of things to keep in mind, though; it is not-yet-a completely functional, 100% operating site again. I cannot add new content yet. You may be able to comment, but I cannot moderate/approve your comments (yet). But if you just want to browse the old articles, it’s al there and online.

    Now I can go back and finish reading her amazing 2 part series on MJ vs. Prince! LOL!
    http://allforloveblog.com/?p=5132

    And here’s a great post on MJ’s Native American ancestry!
    http://allforloveblog.com/?p=5212

    Like

  369. October 11, 2011 7:52 pm

    Good news! All For Love blog is back! Raven moved it to WordPress and she will have new posts coming soon. http://www.allforloveblog.com/

    David, thanks! Good news indeed.
    Raven, welcome back!

    Like

  370. lcpledwards permalink
    October 11, 2011 6:52 pm

    Good news! All For Love blog is back! Raven moved it to WordPress, and right now it’s still a work in progress. Eventually, the entire blog (starting from October 2009 through it’s haitus in February 2011) will be transferred, and she will have new posts coming soon.

    http://www.allforloveblog.com/

    Like

  371. Teva permalink
    September 25, 2011 11:17 pm

    I don’t think Sneddon wanted Evan testifying. He would muddy the waters too much.

    Like

  372. September 25, 2011 10:31 pm

    “Sneddon never believed the settlement prohibited Jordan’s testimony. Legally he knew if he had proceeded with a criminal case against MJ the Chandlers could never use the confidentiality of the settlement as a reason for not testifying”.

    Of course Sneddon never believed that the settlement was standing in the way to the Chandlers’ testifying – it was just the media version meant for the general public. Sneddon wanted the Chandlers to testify at the 2005 trial but they were so “eager” to do it that he managed to get only June Chandler out of the whole gang.

    Like

  373. Teva permalink
    September 25, 2011 4:22 pm

    I watch the show and it was not that bad, it could have been far worse. It was nowhere near the calibre of a Jaques Perretti, or the VG – NBC special. Nancy Grace did the intro for the various clips, but she didn’t have much to say, nor was she nasty. It was a collection of the thoughts of the various people that have their own show on HLN, and clips from some others:

    Ryan Smith
    Jane Valez-Mitchell
    Vinnie Politan
    Dr. Drew
    Joy Bahar
    AJ Hammer
    Robin Mead
    T Mez
    Randy Phillips

    What I liked about it was everyone pretty much agreed that the molestation cases hastened MJ’s death.

    Personally the worse of the lot was Joy Bahar, the woman is intentionally clueless and beyond repair. Followed by Jane Valez-Mitchell, who does know as much as she thinks she does.

    Like

  374. lynande51 permalink
    September 25, 2011 7:59 am

    HLN devoted a whole show called The Death Of Michael Jackson with all of the people that were listed in the other article. Just on the eve of the trial they produce a show for their ratings and the sole purpose of it is to make Michael Jackson look guilty.

    Like

  375. Teva permalink
    September 25, 2011 6:44 am

    I also think Sneddon rushed to get the law passed because he expected more accusers, but they never materialized. I don’t think he expected the 10 year wait.

    Like

  376. shelly permalink
    September 25, 2011 3:09 am

    I think they knew very well that they no way to win a trial with the Francia story.

    Like

  377. lynande51 permalink
    September 25, 2011 1:36 am

    I think I may have left this link here before but just incase it was missed I will leave it again. It is to the SBSD from back in 2003-2005 where they have their press releases. If you click on the links to the press releases there are a couple that explain the 288 law and others. The first one is that the one from the Bashir documentary and the second one is where he explains his fiasco press conference. The Lewd Acts law 288 requires that certain criteria be met in regard to charging someone with that crime and it explains a lot . Oh and yes the Sheriff and Sneddon did have an open casting call out for more “victims”. We should copy them just in case that becomes an “urban myth” like the DD/VG case has.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20071114164321/www.sbsheriff.org/mj/

    Like

  378. lynande51 permalink
    September 25, 2011 1:15 am

    It was actually Jason Francia’s decision not to testify and it was their decision not to file a separate case against MJ. Here is an interview with Jim Thomas where he talks about the JF case (when he wasn’t supposed to) and in it he says that the charges were not as “harsh”. Even Paula Zahn was asking what he meant by that. I mean if you can charge someone with something in regard to this why not charge them. How bad does it have to be before you charge someone with a crime if one was committed? Do you only charge a person with the felonies and let the misdemeanor offenders go?
    http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/04/cnna.jackson.sheriff/
    And as for the peculiarities of the trust it is just that a peculiarity that makes no sense.

    Like

  379. Teva permalink
    September 25, 2011 12:58 am

    About Jason Francia. I think his settlement was in 1995/6, and Sneddon’s law would apply IF there was going to a criminal case. To the best of my knowledge I see no evidence that Sneddon intended on charging Michael with a crime against JF. He was using Francia’s testimony to bolster Chandler’s accusations, and correct me if I am wrong, but he never intended to file a separate case for Francia.

    Sneddon never believed the settlement prohibited Jordan’s testimony. Legally he knew if he had proceeded with a criminal case against MJ the Chandlers could never use the confidentiality of the settlement as a reason for not testifying. However, I think after he realized they had no intention of cooperating with the police after May he cited the settlement as a cause because they took the money. If a civil could only occur after a criminal trial then accusers would have no choice, but to go through the process before the civil. I believe that was part of his thinking.

    I don’t know the peculiarities surrounding a trust that makes it different from any other kind of settlement. Maybe it more difficult to get a law passed regarding it. IDK.

    Like

  380. lynande51 permalink
    September 25, 2011 12:29 am

    Or better yet why didn’t he use this for the Francia settlement? Because he could have used it for that one couldn’t he? Was it only the price tag he was concerned about? Nothing he did made any sense including this law and then only using it when he wanted to which is a perfect example of his vendetta. Did anyone else in the state even use this thing? Oh, I forgot, Jason Francia would have been misdemeanor charges.

    Like

  381. lynande51 permalink
    September 25, 2011 12:15 am

    Right but you have remember too that they had another young man that they thought would testify if Jordan did right up until he found out that he wouldn’t. Jason Francia.He was still sure that they would get someone else to come forward in that time frame.
    The whole thing comes down to why he believed for so many years that the settlement prohibited Jordan’s testimony.
    So why did he allow for a settlement just like the Chandler’s settlement to be excluded from consideration even in future lawsuits?That is the point I was making? It doesn’t make sense to exclude the very thing that you want to stop. Why did they add subsection c because that is exactly the kind of settlement it was? It was set up in a nonrevocable trust and Michael had nothing to say over it. So why exclude what he wanted to stop.

    Like

  382. Teva permalink
    September 25, 2011 12:11 am

    It would be unconstitutional of Sneddon to apply his new law to the Chandler-Jackson settlement regardless of if the final payment was to be made in 1999 because at the time of the contract no such law existed. The law is not retroactive.

    Like

  383. Teva permalink
    September 25, 2011 12:02 am

    @lynette

    Yes, I read section (a) and (c), but as I understand it, and the law it can only be enforce to prohibit potential settlements between plaintiff and defendant after September 1994. Example if an agreement were to made between 2 parties in October 1994 before criminal proceedings in September 1995 Sneddon would have reserved the right to make that contract void even though it was signed a year prior.

    Like

  384. lynande51 permalink
    September 24, 2011 11:55 pm

    It was written to be retroactive for up to one year if he chose to use it.It does not say that a settlement made in the last year could not be considered under this new law. In case someone else came forward in the first year after the settlement he could have asked for an injunction to stop future payments until the criminal trial was over to get Jordan to testify. Basically it was because he never closed the case and the settlement was not considered concluded until it was paid in full.I think you have misunderstood the point I was making. the point was that Sneddon specifically excluded the Chandler type of settlement when he had the thing written. That is that Sneddon had this law changed to stop a future settlement by anyone else but it clearly excludes the type of Settlement that the Chandler’s entered in January. He could use it in the future to have Jordan testify of another child came forward. The problem he had in 2003 was that the Statute of limitation had run out by the time the second case was filed. It ran out in August of 2003. Sneddon had asked for the maximum extension on the Statute of limitations for the case saying that it was because Michael had spent so much time out of the country.

    Like

  385. Suzy permalink
    September 24, 2011 11:47 pm

    Yes, Lynette, but when the settlement was made this law did not exist yet. So to apply this law to the settlement would be retroactive, like Teva said.

    Like

  386. lynande51 permalink
    September 24, 2011 11:43 pm

    a)Any contract for the payment of money or other consideration to a minor who has been alleged to be the victim of an unlawful sex act, or to his or her legal representative, by the alleged perpetrator of that unlawful sex act, or his or her legal representative, entered into on or after the time of the alleged unlawful sex act, and providing for any payments to be made more than one year after the date of the execution of the contract, is void as contrary to public policy. A district attorney may bring an action or intervene in any action to enjoin enforcement of any contract which is in violation of this section.
    Because the payments were not complete until 1999.

    Like

  387. Teva permalink
    September 24, 2011 11:32 pm

    @Lynette

    I do not understand how he could void the Chandler settlement, the law is not retroactive. The settlement was concluded and signed by both parties in February 1994. According to your research Sneddon’s law came to be in September after the Chandler-Jackson settlement; hence, it would not be applicable to past transactions only going forward. Example you cannot serve time for a crime of 2 years, then the law changes and the same crime has a mandatory sentence of 4 years, the person(s) cannot be hauled back to jail to make up the remaining 2 years, only if the defendant recommitts would the new terms be enforced.

    Like

  388. lynande51 permalink
    September 24, 2011 7:50 pm

    The Prosecution knew in late September of 2004 that Jordan would not testify according to the FBI files. Then they deliberately held back the discovery on the 1993 case until October. They did not file to allow that case until December of 2004 substituting the testimony of Jordan with the Neverland Five, Blanca Francia, and Phillipe LeMarque for Jordan’s. We can now read in the Peoples Motion to Admit 1108 that they also say that they do not yet know if Jordan Chandler will be testifying when they file it in December.
    Another thing that I looked up is the law that Sneddon had changed in 1994 that prohibits a settlement in a child molest case here it is with a link. He spoke of having the law changed so he could intervene in a civil suit to keep Michael Jackson from settling money in the future. I looked up the date of this law being passed and it was in the First Extraordinary Session of the California Assembly Calendar which occurred on September 9th 1994. If you read the law it almost reads that Sneddon or Garcetti could have had the Settlement voided at that time in subsection a. However the law that Sneddon had written excludes the Chandler Settlement according to subsection c. So Sneddon could have had the law changed to not exclude the Chandler settlement and yet he didn’t. He could have gone in and said on September 10th ,1994 that the contract was illegal and demand that the Chandler’s submit to the criminal trial and leave the monies recovered from that civil suit pending except for subsection c. Considering that he was the one that asked for the law to be changed why would he do that? There is also the fact that the nonrevocable trust was opened in 1995 when Jordan filed for emancipation. Sneddon could have intervened then but he did not.
    Subsection b is also interesting because it allows for monetary compensation following the final judgement in a criminal case. So once the Chandler’s had testified theycould then have had all the money from the settlement recovered once the criminal case was concluded.

    You are here: California / Civil Code – CIV / TITLE 4. UNLAWFUL CONTRACTS [1667. – 1670.7.] / Section 1669.5.

    Section 1669.5. (Added by Stats. 1994, 1st Ex. Sess., Ch. 54, Sec. 1.)
    Cite as: Cal. Civil Code §1669.5.
    (a)Any contract for the payment of money or other consideration to a minor who has been alleged to be the victim of an unlawful sex act, or to his or her legal representative, by the alleged perpetrator of that unlawful sex act, or his or her legal representative, entered into on or after the time of the alleged unlawful sex act, and providing for any payments to be made more than one year after the date of the execution of the contract, is void as contrary to public policy. A district attorney may bring an action or intervene in any action to enjoin enforcement of any contract which is in violation of this section.
    (b)This section does not apply after the date of the final judgment in a criminal case against the alleged perpetrator for the unlawful sex act described in subdivision (a).
    (c)This section does not apply to a contract for the payment of money or other consideration made from a nonrevocable trust established for the benefit of the minor if the alleged perpetrator has no direct or indirect access to, or control over, the trust.
    (d)This section does not apply to an alleged perpetrator of an unlawful sex act against a minor to the extent he or she agrees to pay, or is required by court order to pay, child support for that minor upon a dissolution or legal separation.
    (e)For purposes of this section, “unlawful sex act,” means a felony sex offense committed against a minor.
    (f)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), any contract declared void as contrary to public policy under this section may still be enforced by a district attorney against the payor, and the proceeds thereof shall be deposited in the State Children’s Trust Fund pursuant to Section 18969 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

    http://www.oclaw.org/research/code/ca/CIV/1669.5./content.html
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/enjoin
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/enforcement

    Like

  389. September 24, 2011 2:23 pm

    Thanks Shelly. I wasn’t sure if it was about Raymond’s thing.

    Like

  390. shelly permalink
    September 24, 2011 1:24 pm

    Prosecutors only seem to want to invoke the 1993 investigation when it’s convenient to them. They actually alleged in court during one of the pretrial hearings that they weren’t sure if they were going to use the ’93 investigation. And called it “irrelevant” when defense attorneys asked the judge to force prosecutors to hand-over discovery (information) from the ’93 investigation! We learned from court documents that the defense is hot on the prosecution’s tail in trying to get them to hand-over documents from the ’93 investigation every since Mark Geragos was Jackson’s attorney.

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/ray-chandler-subpoenaed-by-the-defense/

    Like

  391. shelly permalink
    September 24, 2011 1:05 pm

    “At first, during the course of this case followed closely by some “case” observers who have shared their opinions with MJEOL, the prosecution backed away from using the 1993 investigation. One point, prosecutors stood up in court and called the 1993 investigation “irrelevant” after the defense filed a Motion to Compel to force prosecutors to hand-over documents from that investigation.”

    Where did you got that?

    Like

  392. September 24, 2011 12:37 pm

    Does anyone know the specifics on this:


    At first, during the course of this case followed closely by some “case” observers who have shared their opinions with MJEOL, the prosecution backed away from using the 1993 investigation. One point, prosecutors stood up in court and called the 1993 investigation “irrelevant” after the defense filed a Motion to Compel to force prosecutors to hand-over documents from that investigation.

    Like

  393. ares permalink
    September 24, 2011 4:00 am

    Fans work to protect Jackson’s name on trial’s eve

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — Inside the compact, wood-paneled courtroom that will soon host the trial of Michael Jackson’s personal physician, many of the tabloid-worthy elements of the singer’s life will go unspoken.

    Outside, however, many Jackson fans say they expect a media free-for-all that will dredge up discredited allegations and salacious story lines, once again tarnishing the singer’s legacy.

    Jackson, they fear, will once again be on trial.

    Around the globe, the King of Pop’s supporters are already scanning headlines and airwaves for stories that contain inaccuracies about the singer’s life, brand him a pedophile or describe him by the dismissive moniker “Jacko.”

    The items quickly result in calls to editors, reporters, producers and a flurry of Facebook and Twitter posts to press for changes. In some instances, the references are removed.

    As the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray draws closer — jury selection resumes on Friday and opening statements are scheduled for Sept. 27 — concerns about Jackson’s portrayal are growing.

    “We don’t want Michael Jackson to be put up on a pedestal like he never made any mistakes,” said Erin Jacobs, a founder of the Southern California-based group Justice4MJ.

    But she said the focus should remain on Murray, who is charged with involuntary manslaughter and who authorities allege gave Jackson a lethal dose of the anesthetic propofol and other sedatives. The Houston-based cardiologist has pleaded not guilty.

    Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor has already limited what information Murray’s defense attorneys can introduce about Jackson during the trial, excluding any details from the singer’s 2005 child molestation trial, which ended in acquittal, his financial troubles, and witnesses who might describe the singer as a drug addict.

    The rulings have drawn praise from fans and court watchers alike, but may have limited effect in the era of blogs and social media.

    “For some salacious news organizations and the blogosphere, there won’t be a check on fairness,” said Ben Holden, director of the Reynolds National Center for the Courts and Media.

    Editors and producers have long acted similar to judges by deciding what details are necessary or irrelevant for news coverage, said Holden, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and attorney who attended Murray’s preliminary hearing.

    Blogs and social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, which are now news sources, present new challenges.

    “It has always been the case that the juror’s neighbors had information that the juror didn’t have,” Holden said. Yet nowadays, the neighbor “doesn’t just get Walter Cronkite, he also gets Nancy Grace and TMZ.”

    Potentially skewed posts from fans also have to be considered, Holden said.

    Many fan groups have active Twitter profiles and Facebook pages, including those aimed at providing explanatory content on the trial.

    One such site, PositivelyMichael.com, has a forum focused on the Murray case and other aspects of Jackson’s death that has nearly 9,500 posts. Moderator Lynn Mathis said the site has become an international destination for updates on the case.

    “We have members all over the world,” Mathis said. “This trial will not be covered there the way it is here.”

    Similar to the efforts by U.S.-based fans, international groups are closely watching their domestic media for stories they feel treat the singer unfairly. One such group, MJ4Justice, has founders from three nations: the U.S., Ireland and Canada.

    Grace, who has been criticized for comments advocating the conviction of Florida mother Casey Anthony in her recent murder trial, is one of the television pundits Jackson fans say they are concerned about.

    A jury acquitted Anthony of killing her 2-year-old daughter earlier this year and Murray’s attorneys have cited Grace’s commentary as a primary reason jurors in Murray’s case should be sequestered. Pastor refused.

    HLN, which airs Grace’s show, is already offering significant coverage of the Jackson manslaughter trial. The network also airs a show hosted by commentator Dr. Drew Pinsky, who has devoted several segments to the trial and who Jacobs and other fans criticized for focusing on sensational aspects of Jackson’s life.

    “We don’t feel that it’s relevant that these talking heads like Nancy Grace and Dr. Drew get on every night and further degrade a dead man’s legacy,” Jacobs said.

    Pinsky addressed the fan reaction on a recent show: “Please, guys. I don’t have a strong feeling about this. I’m not trying to protect anybody. I’m just trying to make sense of it so we can all understand this case as we go through it.”

    The group Team Michael has distributed a press release calling for coverage of the Murray case that does not malign the pop superstar. “It is NOT Wacko Jacko, It is MICHAEL JACKSON!” the release reads in part. “It is NOT Pedophile, It is Humanitarian!”

    Taaj Malik, who helped coordinate the release, said the point is to keep the media focused on what’s happening in Pastor’s courtroom. “It’s not Michael on trial, it’s Conrad Murray,” she said.

    In addition to fans wanting to protect Jackson’s memory, also potentially at stake is the image behind continued success of the singer’s posthumous marketability, which has generated more than $310 million since his death.

    Manny Medrano, an attorney and former television reporter who regularly comments on high-profile cases, said he expects most of the media overall to report Murray’s trial fairly. Despite the issues the Anthony case raised with punditry shaping public opinion of a trial, Murray’s case won’t be a repeat, he said.

    “This case is not of that level,” Medrano said, noting that prosecutors aren’t seeking a murder conviction against Murray and that despite Jackson’s international stardom, the singer is a different type of victim than young Caylee Anthony.

    Pastor’s rulings have limited Murray’s defense, but Medrano said that won’t mean that the portrait that emerges of Jackson is pristine. “There is negative evidence about this pop star that the jury is going to hear,” he said.

    A former federal prosecutor, Medrano now practices criminal defense and said the physician’s attorneys have an ethical obligation to raise any viable theory that may exonerate Murray. “They’re doing their job,” he said.

    That won’t make it any easier on Jackson’s supporters, or his family, who are expected to attend most of the proceedings.

    Jermaine Jackson told The Associated Press that he expects Murray’s attorney to try to smear his brother. “They are going to try that,” he said, adding that he penned his new book “You Are Not Alone” in part as a rebuttal to defense arguments that his brother was weakened by an addiction to the painkiller Demerol.

    “There may have been dependency on Demerol, which was for pain, but that’s not what killed Michael,” Jermaine Jackson said.

    Jackson fans have a similar mission, one they expect will lead to long hours of fact-checking reports in the coming weeks.

    “Michael’s not here to defend himself,” said Millie Freeman, the New York-based co-founder of the group MJ4Justice. “It’s up to his family and up to his fans.

    “This is a matter of the man’s legacy at this point,” she said. “It needs to be respected.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/fans-protect-jacksons-name-trials-eve-163039952.html

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. “Crazy” vs. Ignorant Arrogance: A Rebuttal of Sullivan and Hill | AllForLoveBlog
  2. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith Part 1 of 7: Michael was NOT a Devil Worshipper « Fan Blog for MJ

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 )

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