A see-through-lies MANUAL
August 15, 2010
Dialdancer, I’ve read the article you’ve mentioned http://www.slate.com/id/2222567#add-comment and think we should start here an OPEN SEMINAR on how see the real motives of those who are writing such seemingly ‘unbiased’ articles.
Brian Palmer’s article has made me acutely aware of the problem as it is a vivid example of how ordinary people are being manipulated and more lies are introduced into their minds even despite their will.
The title of the article, “Can the kid who settled his child-abuse claim with Michael Jackson speak out about his case?” immediately sets you on the road to thinking that the author will talk about the legal consequences for Jordan Chandler if he tells the whole truth about the 1993 case.
Brian Palmer says:
“Now that Jackson is dead, can Chandler speak out? No. Jackson’s settlement with Chandler, like any well-crafted confidentiality agreement, binds not only the parties themselves but also their “heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors, and assigns.”
“If the Internet rumor turns out to be true, and Chandler has, indeed, breached the settlement agreement, then Jackson’s estate or heirs can sue him for breach of contract”.
1) Even if legally correct (which I doubt, but won’t deliberate on it for lack of time and necessity) it is ridiculous to think that the estate will ever sue Jordan for telling the truth, so the only motive for writing an absurd thing like that would be threatening Jordan Chandler and his surrounding with a non-existent danger or confusing him in his intentions.
But if we think that this is the only idea of the article we’ll be terribly wrong. The main information is dissolved in the remaining part of the text, where – by alluding to other confidentiality agreements, signed on the terms different from Jackson’s – the author conveys to the reader the following:
2) A lie that the agreement was only in the interests of Michael Jackson and was meant to hush up the Chandlers.
See how Brian Palmer is mentioning this fundamental idea somewhat in passing, as if explaining why Jordan might think himself free to speak up:
“Chandler might argue that the confidentiality provision in the 1994 settlement was personal to Jackson—it was solely for his benefit and, now that he’s gone, the obligation should be dissolved”.
The agreement was solely for Michael’s benefit??? Now that we’ve made so much progress in our investigation of the 1993 case it is a big, really big question in whose interests it was made – the Chandlers could not prove any of their lies even to the grand jury who did not indict Michael, let alone win the case in a criminal court – so it seems they grew really desperate with the situation and sighed with relief when the agreement was reached. By the way Larry Feldman did say that his party was ‘happy’ with the agrement.
Moreover, it was exactly the Chandlers who used the follow-up situation to their greatest benefit – Michael could not say a single word about his innocence due to the agreement, while the Chandlers – through their representative Ray Chandler – allowed themselves to babble about his “guilt” at every venue, saturating the whole of TV, radio and internet environment with lies about Jackson.
It is also clear that this plan was their intention from the very start – when the civil suit was initiated by Larry Feldman in September 1993 – as Ray Chandler was busy gathering all the information for his future book from the very beginning and offered his collection to various publishers immediately upon signing the agreement, ‘when the ink was not yet dry’.
3) Referring to other people’s confidentiality agreements Brian Palmer is hinting at the fact that the Chandlers could not testify in criminal court.
This may be true for other confidentiality agreements but is absolutely false for this one as its text proves to us.
See how Brian Palmer speaks about it, producing the impression that such an outcome could be a total and unpleasant surprise to Jackson:
“Even with a cooperative plaintiff, confidentiality agreements are not particularly reliable. Courts have, at times, voided the provisions because they can be at odds with the public interest”.
“Confidentiality agreements that do not contravene public policy can still be superseded by a subpoena in a criminal case, a doctrine that Michael Jackson learned during his 2005 molestation trial as he watched a parade of employees reveal his secrets”.
Since it is not in the interests of Brian Palmer it is no wonder he never mentions that the Chandlers had an opportunity to speak in a criminal court – and Michael Jackson knew about it better than anyone else – but all of the Chandlers (except Jordan’s mother) chickened out of it, as all our posts in this blog about Ray and Evan Chandler clearly demonstrate it.
4) But once we are able to disregard all the above lies other opportunities of the text suddenly start opening to us.
The side-effect of Brian Palmer’s article is somewhat unexpected to its author.
If what he says about Jordan’s inability to talk openly about Michael’s innocence is true, than this will totally backfire on the author as the only way out of the situation for Jordan in this case will be spreading an anonymous internet message about Michael’s innocence without having to legally or financially answer for its consequences.
This way he will be killing two birds with one stone – his conscience will be more or less clear (as he has done his duty) and his money will be intact too. Especially since this type of behavior will be very much in line with the character of the Chandlers.
Personally I think that the anonymous message attributed to Jordan could indeed be his. All those mistakes in his English look deliberate to me – if someone wants a real hoax the very least the person can do about it is ask a native English-language speaker to write a short text so that it more authentic.
The full article by Brian Palmer is provided below. You can use it to make an immediate check on your own immunity to the media lies:
Keep It in the Closet
Can the kid who settled his child-abuse claim with Michael Jackson speak out about his case?
By Brian Palmer Posted Thursday, July 9, 2009, at 6:06 PM ET
According to an unsubstantiated Internet rumor circulating since Michael Jackson’s death, Jordan Chandler, the boy who in 1993 claimed to have been repeatedly molested by the pop star, has now recanted his story. Fifteen years ago, Chandler reached a $20-million settlement with Jackson, in which he agreed that neither he nor any of his family members or representatives would make any public comment about the case. Now that Jackson is dead, can Chandler speak out?
No. Jackson’s settlement with Chandler, like any well-crafted confidentiality agreement, binds not only the parties themselves but also their “heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors, and assigns.” The death of Jackson, or Chandler for that matter, would have no effect on the settlement’s secrecy obligations.
Generally speaking, contractual rights extend to a party’s heirs even if the contract fails to make that point explicit. Death voids a contractual obligation only if the person who died was himself central to the performance of the contract. For example, if Chandler had agreed to cut Jackson’s hair every month, Jackson’s death would have released Chandler from his responsibilities. (No, your hair doesn’t keep growing after you die.) Chandler might argue that the confidentiality provision in the 1994 settlement was personal to Jackson—it was solely for his benefit and, now that he’s gone, the obligation should be dissolved. However, Jackson’s heirs could make the straightforward case that they rely on a stream of income (royalties on record sales, licensing fees, etc.) that is partially dependent on Jackson’s reputation.
If the Internet rumor turns out to be true, and Chandler has, indeed, breached the settlement agreement, then Jackson’s estate or heirs can sue him for breach of contract.
Most agreements stipulate that if the plaintiff spills the beans, he must either return the entire settlement amount or a specified sum (usually less than the original settlement) plus legal expenses.
But many people don’t bother to enforce confidentiality agreements for two reasons. The vast majority of settlements (unlike Chandler’s $15.3 million windfall, after legal fees) are relatively small. Most plaintiffs have relatively modest assets to start with, and they quickly become judgment proof by blowing the settlement money on everyday expenses. Also, a second lawsuit would only drag out the media circus and could make Jackson’s family look as if it’s trying to bully the victim. That may be why the Catholic Church has declined to sue loose-lipped victims of molestation by priests.
The most common and effective use of the confidentiality agreement is to get a court order silencing potential blabbermouths before they start talking. Oprah Winfrey has used this tactic successfully against former associates who threatened to go public about their time in Oprah’s employ. Violating a private confidentiality agreement is one thing; disobeying a judge is something entirely different.
Even with a cooperative plaintiff, confidentiality agreements are not particularly reliable. Courts have, at times, voided the provisions because they can be at odds with the public interest. For example, Jeffrey Wigand, the former Brown & Williamson scientist who was portrayed by Russell Crowe in The Insider, was released from his confidentiality agreement in order to publicize controversial research conducted by the tobacco industry.
Confidentiality agreements that do not contravene public policy can still be superseded by a subpoena in a criminal case, a doctrine that Michael Jackson learned during his 2005 molestation trial as he watched a parade of employees reveal his secrets.
Got a question about today’s news? Ask the Explainer
October 18, 2010
To continue with our open seminar on seeing through the haters’ lies here is a Message From A Hater (who is occasionally visiting here) with each of her/his statements commented on by me and some by David.
We were discussing Michael’s inherently innocent nature and purity:
– If only all of this were true. But, alas, I have a strong suspicion it is not.
– Beware, when you share your suspicions about MJ in defiance of all facts you are speaking of your nature, not his.
– His belief in children’s innocence is odd to me.
It can seem odd to you only if you are not believing in children’s innocence yourself. It doesn’t seem odd to any of us as ALL people think children innocent.
– You quoted from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s book and when I first read it when I was still a fan, or more of a fan (stop lying, you have never been a fan) I thought he was using children and throwing them away after he was done with them.
– I’ve also read Shmuley’s book and there is NOTHING there to suggest a ridiculous thing like that – not even a hint. You are either lying or are again unwittingly projecting your own thoughts onto the situation.
– Just like he did with the animals.
– First they took away his money and then wondered why he didn’t keep up the Neverland? Victor Gutierrez was bragging he was going to own Neverland. Since driving away Michael from his home was largerly his doing I suggest HE takes responsibility for the poor animals’ fate. However nothing terrible happened to the animals as Michael made special arrangements for them. His well-respected veterinarian Martin Dinnes said: “‘Michael told me that he didn’t care about making money from selling his animals, he just wanted me to make sure that they went to the best homes possible.’
– But, having researched into p–lia, that is the typical behavior of those affected with that mental sickness. They ‘love kids’ but they then throw them away.
– First you tell a BIG lie about MJ “throwing away” children, which even the despicable Shmuley never ventured, and then you make a FURTHER lie based on your first one by saying that this “typical behavior of p.” is applicable to MJ.
I know of only one other author who is also keen on this “throwing away” idea. It is Victor Gutierrez – he said that Wade Robson was so badly abandoned by MJ that he was thrown away homeless and had to beg for money in the street. Poor boy, and this is in spite of the fact that he could go to the Neverland any time and even in Michael’s absence which he did on numerous occasions (see Joy Robson’s testimony in 2005). I wish all people were as “homeless” as that.
– I thought it was cruel when I read Boteach’s book, what he did to children.
– A third false step. Now you are shedding a crocodile tear over something which was already found false on two occasions, thus making it a TRIPLE LIE. And where did you see cruelty in “what he did to children”? This is a somewhat new and unexpected twist of a hater’s thought to me as Boteach’s book actually tells us something completely different:
- MJ: “I have heard Gavin’s doctors, and his doctors say that it is a miracle how he is doing better and that’s why I know this magic of love is so important. I like giving them that love and that pride to feel that they belong and they are special. He was hiding and he was ashamed that he had a bald head and he had cancer. Everybody has made him feel like an outcast and that’s how he came here and I want him to let go. He is such a beautiful child, he doesn’t need that hat. I told him, “You look like an angel. What are you ashamed of?”
– When Michael had little Ryan White in his dining room (and he dined with him at a time when others were afraid to breathe the same air with him because of his AIDS!), Ryan told his mother at table that when he died he wanted to be buried in jeans and a T-shirt. Michael’s reaction was:
- “I ran to the bathroom and I cried. Imagine a 12-year old boy telling his mother how to bury him. How could your heart not go out to someone like that?” I took care of him and he stayed in my house. (Michael even presented Ryan with a Mustang car so that the ill boy could freely move). When Ryan died Michael promised “I will create a song for you. I want the world to know who you are. I did Gone too soon. That was for him”.
– Obviously JoRobson remarked about thiats to June Chandler, that Jordie would eventually be abandoned for a ‘new special friend’, ie TOY.
– It is obvious only to you, however Joy Robson said something absolutely different:
- To Tom Sneddon:
Q. And in a conversation you told June Chandler that with these special friends, that when Mr.Jackson moves on to the next special friend, that it has a tremendous emotional impact on the children when they’re no longer the favorite, correct?
A. As does everybody when they lose a friend.
Q. I’m sorry?
A. As does everyone if you lose a friend or a friend becomes friendly with somebody else.
- To Thomas Mesereau:
Q. Did you ever see something that you thoughtwas very suspicious when one child would get jealous of Mr. Jackson’s attention to another child?
A. No, I think that’s normal with children.
Q. When you used the term ‘special friends,’ what did you mean?
A. I think just the one that he was spending time with for now. That he considered all of his friends special.
Q. When you used the term ‘special friends,’ did you mean to suggest anything criminal was going on?
A. Absolutely not.
– It’s just… wrong.
– Yes, it IS wrong to twist the facts the way you do.
– I wish he was like he said he was. It would be refreshing. But he was not. Never was.
– Repeating hate mantras won’t help. Facts please.
– He was sexually abused by adult men.
– Not even by ONE??? Though even one is not true! He was abused psychologically and physically but not sexually.
– and that shaped his [ ].sexuality. He needed psychiatric intervention, not praise of the facade (which, ironically, was used to capture boys).
– You pass your judgment so freely, dear, that it is yet to be determined who needs a psychiatric intervention here.
– His secretary Jolie Levine called him a ‘chicken hawk’, which was slang for P. She disavowed her statement saying she was caught off guard but how do you get caught off guard and call an non-P a ‘chicken hawk’? I think she was lying… as usual.
– His employees were also humans who unfortunately read tabloids and watched TV. When the world around you is screaming dirt about your boss, some will start doubting even though they’ve have never seen anything themselves. It is the usual mob mentality – each person in the crowd thinks “I don’t know it myself, but look at all these people – all of them cannot be wrong. There must be something to it”. MJ’s bodyguards who told ridiculous stories to tabloids later admitted under oath at the trial that they were just saying what “they heard from others”
David, thank you for the information about Jolie – you have confirmed my doubts by saying:
- “If you look closely at what she said, it’s easy to see where she was coming from. She worked with MJ from 1987-89 as an assistant on his Bad tour (http://www.jacksonaction.com/?page=text/badtour.htm), and then moved on with her life for 4 years before being dragged into MJ’s mess in 1993. She was obviously very upset about having her life interrupted in order to be interrogated by police and lawyers about her time with MJ. And out of that anger, combined with the public perception of MJ being gay, she said that derogatory slur against MJ. She did NOT say it because she had any inside knowledge of MJ, because she was only with him on tour! She didn’t visit Neverland (in fact, Neverland wasn’t even purchased until AFTER the Bad tour)!!
– When we are dealing with Michael Jackson, all reason and ethics are out the window.
– Sure, only it applies to the media and his detractors.
– He’s just too powerful.
– This is an especially pathetic mantra told by haters which is meant to explain why they lynched and tortured Jackson. However I agree, Michael Jackson IS powerful, but not in the way you mean it.
– By the way, Michael Jackson abandoned God a long time ago.
– He was a true believer in God until his last breath even if he didn’t attend church. Michael’s later songs were increasingly turning into prayers: “Holy Mary, mercy me”, “Farther, please have mercy”. He prayed to God when he saw the beauty of the nature and the happy faces of his (and other) children. He was CONSTANTLY in a state of prayer. You should read more of Michael and less of Maureen Orth, Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez if you really want to know.
– If any of you believe in the Christian concepts and the Bible, Michael is probably in ‘Hell’…
– A serious statement and a very damaging one too. Not for Michael, but for you, I am afraid. If you do really read the Bible, then you should know that all sins are forgivable except one – sins against the Holy Spirit. But have you ever wondered what it is? Really wondered? Well, it has to do with speaking against the truth, telling deliberate lies to confuse the minds of other God’s creations (human beings), corrupting their souls, hindering their spiritual and moral development and dirtying their spirit this way.
By offering lies to people and taking them off the correct path, the cynical and the corrupt take upon their shoulders tremendous responsibility for other people’s downfalls. This is why the Bible warns against committing such a crime against humankind and calls this crime UNFORGIVABLE.
Just think of the spirit of those people you have tried, and probably succeeded, to take down by spreading lies about Michael Jackson, and you will know who is following the real road to hell. You simply don’t know the grave consequences of what you are doing.
The consequences for yourself.
October 30, 2010
by David Edwards
Hey guys, here is a new interview with one of MJ’s closest friends, David Nordahl! Deborah Kunesh from Reflections on the Dance conducted the 2 hour interview, and she recently posted the audio:
It was an amazing interview, and here is what stuck out to me:
I like how Nordahl mentioned that he didn’t do interviews about MJ because of the way that the media twists around his answers in order to fit their agenda. There is a method to their madness; it’s called asking a “loaded question”, which is a question with a fallacious assumption built in.
For example, when Oprah asked LMP if she saw any wrongdoing, the assumption is that MJ committed wrongdoing, but did LMP see it? Even if she flatly denied seeing any misconduct, it wouldn’t vindicate MJ, because nobody would believe that MJ would be dumb enough to molest a child IN FRONT of other adults!
Martin Bashir used this same logic on the day when MJ died, when he said on Nightline that he “never saw any wrongdoing“, and MJ was “never convicted of any crime“. Once again, Bashir is saying that MJ is guilty without actually saying it, you know? He’s saying that MJ could have been guilty, but he didn’t see it, and his celebrity kept him from being convicted! I included the wiki page for loaded questions, and you can do a google search for more examples.
July 7, 2011
Another update and another addition to this section – a post about “journalist” Daphne Barak and how to see through the way she manipulates people – Grace Rwaramba, Kit Culkin, Aaron Carter and others. I got interested in the problem when she posted some videos about Aaron Carter who was allegedly saying nasty things about Michael Jackson.
In one video he talked about Michael, in others he didn’t, but people thought he did and were resentful about his words. But I thought that the videos were heavily tampered with and terribly strange – in short it was such a terrible mess that I decided to have a closer look and this is what came of my small investigation – the first detailed post was about Daphne Barak:
DAPHE BARAK’S CAREER PORTFOLIO. Will there be any questions NOW?
Many wonder why I ask to be patient with the Aaron Carter situation and what we should have done instead. I think we should have investigated Daphne Barak first. I am not ready to pass any judgment on Carter at the moment as it is still too early to conclude what he really said, whether he meant Michael Jackson at all (at least in part 2 where he didn’t give any names) and under what circumstances his conversation with Daphne Barak took place.
In all his earlier interviews Aaron firmly stood by Michael’s side and I am not ready to shrug it off as a mere nothing. Daphne, on the other hand, has a long history of harassment of Michael Jackson – only this harassment took place in such a sly manner that even the good and well-meaning mother of Michael Jackson’s didn’t notice any malice on Daphne’s part and willingly gave her interviews.
I see Daphne Barak as an extremely ugly species of a tabloid viper. She is as vicious as Diane Dimond and Martin Bashir but is not as straightforward as they are – surprisingly, she poses herself as a “friend” of the Jackson family and does indeed have access to them. Michael’s parents evidently considered her trustworthy enough to give her several interviews (which means that they should be satisfied with her work), and there was even a time when Daphne, Joseph and Randy Jackson found themselves in a business project together. This points to her being considered an insider of the Jacksons’ family and someone who is trusted – at least by Michael’s parents.
This is a terrible mistake and misconception on their part of course, which is all the more harmful as it misleads other people as to Daphne’s real intentions regarding Michael Jackson. People assume that if Michael’s parents are friends with her, they can also rely on her being a friend.
Grace Rwaramba, for example, didn’t give interviews to anyone for 17 (!) years and the only person she chose to speak to was Daphne Barak. Why would a reserved and cautious woman like Grace do such a reckless thing? Only because she thought Daphne to be friendly and trustworthy enough to listen to some of her observations on why she no longer worked for the Jacksons. However you do remember what came out of that trust, don’t you?
The same could have happened to Aaron Carter. With someone else he wouldn’t have tolerated insistent questions about whether he ever saw Michael take any drugs (he said that he didn’t) but with a well-meaning Jacksons’ “friend” he didn’t regard such speculations suspicious – especially since it was a casual talk between the two of them. How many of us also babble our tongues with friends, discussing, for instance, the various versions of Michael’s death? And would it be normal for a “friend” to secretly record you and sell the tape to tabloids (as Daphne Barak did) especially after tampering with the tape and twisting your words into their opposite through heavy editing?
Thinking that you are talking to a friend when in fact you are not is an extremely dangerous thing because you lose your usual vigilance and open yourself to all sorts of provocations. From Daphne Barak’s cut-and-paste videos it looks like she is quite capable of framing up people, so learning about her ways is absolutely crucial for correct interpretation of the Carter situation – same as knowing Bashir’s cannibal nature is crucial for learning how and why he used Michael’s exceptional honesty and trust for his own cannibal ends.
I have scraped some information on Daphne Barak and must tell you at once that she produces a very contrasting impression. Her secret is that on the face of it she sounds very sincere and genuine, but when her true nature is accidentally uncovered you are shocked to see how malicious she is, how criminal her ways of obtaining information are and how big and shameless is her desire to falsify facts in order to get the best price.
If you don’t know the way she is operating her sophisticated lies may very well go unnoticed, but if you do, all of it is seen in a different light. This is why Roger Friedman who knows all the tricks of their trade calls her nothing less than a “vulture-like celebrity interviewer” and even “a blood-sucking vampire”.
- “an Israeli-American interviewer whose subjects have included film and music celebrities, royalty, world leaders, and international personalities”.
In the Wiki discussion section Daphne’s compatriots sound awestruck by her extraordinary talents. They say that she studied for 4 years in Tel-Aviv University and also attended exclusive programs for “over-intelligent” 15-17 year olds at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology – though she was only 14 at the time. She worked in “Haolam Haze” for 5 years (a famous Israeli magazine which doesn’t exist any more) and became a top interviewer in Israel almost overnight when she was barely 20. When she was in her mid 20’s she moved to the U.S as an interviewer for Fox TV and the NY Daily News.
Now she presents herself as an “international” journalist who interviews people and sells them (the interviews) to the world media channels after posting small teasers on her website. The bigger the initial shock is the higher the eventual price is. The fact that the follow-up full versions simply do not exist or do not corroborate the ideas suggested in the teasers doesn’t bother their author in the least – we are living in a free society so anyone is allowed to interpret what he sees as he likes best. It isn’t her fault that you assumed the worst while watching the teaser – it is your problem, not hers.
- Two Jackson television specials in 2004 produced b Daphne Barak and Elisabeth Murdoch. These specials continued to make huge ratings worldwide on 2005: from the eve of the Michael Jackson’s sensational trial, until his acquittal on June 2005.
- The first Jackson special aired on 20/20, ABC. Daphne aired three more Jackson specials between 2004 and 2005. The last two aired on 48 Hours, CBS.
- Since late 1990s Daphne interviewed Michael Jackson, his parents Joe and Katherine, his brothers Jermaine and Tito and his sons 3Ts, plus other key players during his trial.
It would be highly interesting to find what kind of specials were made by Daphne Barak about Michael Jackson during the trial. I haven’t seen them but from an earlier post made about the media remember that back in 2003-2005 the American TV channels went into a crazy competition over who would make a more damaging and salacious program about MJ. I also remember that after the “success” of his LWMJ documentary Bashir was invited to work for ABC too and did several revolting documentaries in cooperation with his assistant, a NAMBLA suspect member Victor Gutierrez .
My prayer is that Daphne wasn’t part of that horrendous Bashir/Gutierrez job – because if she was there would be no point in discussing the matter further. So let us give her the benefit of the doubt but make a mental note that one day we should check what kind of TV specials about Michael Jackson this woman made during the trial.
The fact that “since late 1990s” she has interviewed many of the Jacksons and they still kept coming back to her gives some reason to believe that the specials were probably not too bad (at least on the surface of them). From what Roger Friedman says Daphne had access to Neverland, was seen filming there and since she was even part of a “big support event” for Michael Jackson my theory of her posing herself as Michael’s friend is beginning to be substantiated:
Monday, December 22, 2003
By Roger Friedman
The word is that ABC, which already gave us one interview with Michael Jackson’s parents and another with his brothers, is ready for Round 3.
I told you yesterday that cameras were rolling at Neverland on Saturday for the big support event staged in honor of Jackson. There were celebrities, performances, and lots of family.
Now I’m told that Daphne Barak, the same correspondent who conducted the parents’ interview, was all over the Saturday event. Apparently it was her film crew gathering testimonials for Michael’s next TV show.
This, of course, would continue to be a sore point for CBS, which was supposed to air a Jackson special in November but postponed it for obvious reasons.
Barak and her crew were criticized last week when several outlets, including Jeannette Walls’, reported that some kind of payment was made to the Jackson family for their participation in the other specials. The same deal would seem likely for this one as well.
It’s one thing for ABC to pay the Jacksons or get money to them through an intermediary. But I wonder how Michael feels about his family cashing in during this time of great stress? Maybe he’s actually pleased they’ve found a source of income other than himself.
It was this measure of trust between Daphne and older Jacksons which led Grace Rwaramba (and probably Carter) to believe that talking to Daphne could do no harm to Michael. However as a result of it Grace found herself in the center of a terrible scandal as her “friend” attributed to her a good deal of lies which in reality had never been told!
Same as Gutierrez is constantly centered on you know what, Daphne also has a fixed idea of her own – she focuses on celebrity drug addiction (which makes me suspect that going to a rehab and overcoming Carter’s addiction was one of her pretexts for talking to him at all).
Daphne Barak has written a book about celebrities taking drugs and the way I see it the main character of her drug addiction book – which is yet to be released – is singer Amy Winehouse. As we all understand the book needs publicity, or better a good scandal over someone’s supposed drug addiction, in order to raise interest in Daphne Barak’s writings. The title of the book (“Saving Amy”) is evidently a misnomer as from the preview published in the Observer it becomes clear that that the book is more about drowning Amy in mud than saving her from it.
Following Roger Friedman in her assessment of Daphne Barak the Observer reporter calls our author “the devil of celebrity gossip” with whom Amy’s parents had the misfortune to dance (they will surely regret it after the book is released if you ask my opinion). The reporter says that Daphne managed to obtain impressive access to the family as her modus operandi – you’ve guessed it – is befriending her subjects:
- “Barak’s modus operandi is to befriend her subjects. She takes Mitch [Amy’s father] to dinner with friends, where the other guests – all “top lawyers” – lend a hand when a crisis unfolds. Blake Fielder-Civil – Amy’s then husband – has absconded from rehab and turns up at the hospital where Amy is being treated. Barak is there for Mitch, too. “I tell him: ‘Mitch, collect yourself. Be calm.’ And he follows my advice.”
- There is one gruesome picture of Barak with her arm around Amy, giving the camera a toothy smile while Amy and an unidentified woman are absorbed in something else”.
I don’t know whether I understood the reporter’s idea right but my impression is that the she says that one of the biggest troubles Amy Winehouse is currently going through is her association with Daphne Barak (please correct me if I am mistaken):
- The one fresh conclusion you can draw from this flawed but illuminating book is that, as well as all her other problems, Winehouse fille is suffering from the mother of all writer’s blocks.
If this is really the case then we can imagine what kind of “saving Amy” the book is, though I must admit that these trusting people involved themselves with the author of their own free will. They even allowed her to spend several months with their family which reminds me of another similar interviewer who also infiltrated another person’s life and ruined it forever:
- “Interviewer Daphne Barak spent several months with the troubled singer and her parents on the Caribbean island of St Lucia earlier this year filming Saving Amy”.
However it is time we returned to the way our good old Daphne went about Grace Rwaramba in the first days after Michael’s death in 2009. Since her main idea is to tear down innocent people and label them drug addicts the ugliest lie Daphne said about Grace was that she “pumped MJ’s stomach” and many times too.
Grace said she didn’t even know how to do it, but such minor detail didn’t bother Daphne – her job was to shock and run, and let the lie live a life of its own. She did promise she would back up that allegation with a corresponding video but for some strange reason this promise never materialized and no such video was ever provided.
The story of the big fat lie from Dahne Barak is told by several articles:
“Tabloid-contributor Daphne Barak interviewed Michael Jackson’s former nanny, Grace Rwaramba, shortly after the King of Pop’s death in 2009. In video footage of the interview, Rwaramba expressed her frustration over being fired by Jackson’s team — understandable and in no way controversial. Yet Barak’s later publication of the interview suddenly had Grace the Nanny claiming that she had pumped her former employer’s stomach for drugs, several times!
Rwaramba quickly fired back: “I am shocked, hurt and deeply saddened by recent statements the press has attributed to me. […] The statements attributed to me confirm the worst in human tendencies to sensationalize tragedy and smear reputations for profit.”
“I don’t even know how to pump a stomach!!” she added.
Mallika Chopra explained in the Huffington post article how Daphne managed to swindle Grace Rwaramba and work her name into this crazy story.
Grace got acquainted with Daphne through the Jackson family and was consequently led to believe that Daphne was a good friend of hers who “came to her rescue” at a difficult moment in her life. Daphne even promised to help Grace with some charity work in Africa and the only thing she asked for was an interview about her future work – however when it came to it all questions naturally centered on Michael Jackson only.
Doesn’t it mirror the situation with Michael and Bashir and show the pattern these vultures use against innocent and trusting people? Bashir also pretended to be a friend and lured Michael into an interview through a promise to help him with his humanitarian projects….
Though I’ve actually learned this story from you, guys, I need to repeat it here as what Mallika Chopra said is very illuminating as to the methods employed by this fake “everyone’s friend”:
“Daphne Barak, a so-called journalist who claims to be a friend of the Jackson family and who got to know Grace through them, has been cultivating a friendship with Grace over several years. Unfortunately, the story with Daphne and Grace seems to be one that echoes the vultures that took advantage of Michael throughout his life.
Daphne reached out to Grace a few weeks ago, when she knew she was in a vulnerable place, having recently been let go by Michael yet again (this was a regular pattern). In the 17 years that Grace has worked with Michael, she has never spoken to the press. She loves Michael and his children at her core.
Grace genuinely believed Daphne was her friend who was trying to help her. Daphne had offered to help Grace launch a foundation she was creating to monitor non profit work in Africa. (Grace was originally from Rwanda.)She told Grace that they should record her speaking about the work. However, every time they began to record, her questions would center on Michael. Grace would say she was uncomfortable speaking about him.
On the morning of June 26th, after finding out that Grace was also in London, I rushed to her hotel. She was staying in a suite with Daphne. Daphne told me she had invited Grace to stay with her in Switzerland as her guest, and how she had helped Grace with the immediate aftermath of shock hearing about Michael’s death. She said that she had spent several thousand dollars to buy a business class ticket for Grace to fly to LA. She boasted about how close she was to the Jackson family, world leaders, etc.
I witnessed Daphne act as a friend while trying to bait information from Grace on her conversations with Jackson family members and friends about his death. She warned Grace that the family was going to try to set her up for Michaels downfall, and that it was critical that Grace speak with a lawyer before leaving. As a friend, she had organized a “lawyer” to get Grace’s story before she left for the airport.
In essence, Daphne was setting up a scenario to garner more information from Grace before she left for LA. I discovered that one of her friends who happened to be there had made a documentary on Princess Diana.
When we tried to leave, Daphne screamed at Grace – in front of my young children who began to cry — that she was an ingrate. She had spent thousands of dollars hosting her, she was her guest, and she wanted to spend the time to say goodbye. (Daphne obviously could not believe her luck that she had baited Grace as a sympathetic friend for stories before he died, and had Grace with her on that sad day.)
Ultimately, Daphne, having obviously drunk a bit much, threatened to release the recordings she had made of their private conversations. Grace was petrified. I held her by the shoulders, looked in her eyes, and said lets just go. So what, let her put it out there. She is a washed up journalist trying to mine a tragic situation. Michael was gone now, and the future is the well-being of the children. Grace agreed.
Ultimately, I had to get the hotel manager involved to escort Grace out of the hotel. I also bought Grace’s ticket home myself, discovering that Daphne had misled us about the time and the price. It was a 650 Pound economy ticket, not several thousand dollars.
Twenty four hours later, I found that Daphne indeed had written an article full of quotes by Grace for a tabloid magazine. (A quick search of her other work not surprisingly shows she did a recent feature on Amy Winehouse.) Grace’s quotes are now being picked up by other tabloids and will find their way into more magazines and articles. (People Magazine is also featuring some today, including the inaccurate claim the Grace pumped Michael’s stomach several times. For the record, Grace never pumped Michael’s stomach. She has no idea how she would even do such a thing.) Which quotes are true, which are in context, (many are not) to me frankly doesn’t matter. I will not be surprised if Daphne releases audios or videos soon.
Grace feels used, insecure and shaken that she could have been so naïve, particularly having witnessed so many vultures in Michael’s world over the years. She made a mistake. The sad truth is that when you are a celebrity, or a close friend or family of one, in a world of tabloids, you must be impeccable in what you say and to whom. Michael probably faced the epitome of vultures, bloodsuckers and hanger-ons displayed in his endless cycle of managers, enabling doctors, and new business partners. How could anyone blame him for becoming so paranoid in his life?
In the article, Daphne tries to portray a rift between Katherine Jackson and Grace. This is not true.”
So even if we forget about the near-criminal methods of forcing Grace into that interview some of the quotes were true, some were true only in context and many were not?
And Grace felt used and shaken that she could be so naïve? And realized that in order to deal with those vultures one should beimpeccable – otherwise you don’t have a chance to stand up to their methods? And she was also caught in a very sensitive moment of her life, when she was on the cross-roads and needed help?
Doesn’t it remind us of anything? I mean the present situation with Aaron?
Here are the two videos over which all the terrible fuss was made by the media (or at least I didn’t find anything else). As we could easily expect there is nothing bad in Grace’s words to Daphne:
It is hard to believe it but the above innocent content was reported by Daphne Barak to the Daily Mail or embellished by the local guysin such a crazy manner that it is impossible to recognize the original interview in a pile of things mounted on top of this story. The lies are very inventive, with a lot of credible details to them, and if it weren’t for Grace’s vehement denial and the actual absence of the tapes we wouldn’t be able to prove that all of what is written below is just one BIG, insolent and blatant LIE.
The lie is naturally told by some anonymous “Sunday reporter”:
I love my babies and I miss them…when Michael Jackson was around they froze: Former nanny’s shocking revelations
Last updated at 1:21 AM on 28th June 2009
According to journalist Daphne Barak, who spoke to Ms Rwaramba on the night Jackson died, the former nanny said: ‘I love my babies. I miss my babies. I used to hug them and laugh with them. ’
However, she said they ‘froze’ when Michael was around. [INCREDIBLE LIE which doesn’t even need a disproval on our part]
‘He didn’t like me hugging them,’ she said. ‘But they needed love. I was the only mother they knew.’
‘Usually, the security would alert me that he was about to come,’ she said. ‘Blanket immediately stopped. The kids looked frightened.’ [They must be CRAZY to say that!]
She said that Jackson was furious – and she knew he would fire her. ‘Whenever the children got too attached to me, he would send me away,’ he said. [I thought she said refused the job HERSELF as Tohme cut her salary?]
She said the children hated the masks they were forced to wear, supposedly to protect their identities. [The children said to Oprah the masks were indeed helpful as they could open their faces when there were not around their father].
The glamorous 42-year-old also claims she frequently had to pump Jackson’s stomach after he took dangerous drug.
She is reported to have said: ‘I had to pump his stomach many times. He always mixed so much of it. ’
[Pump his stomach? Many times? Mixed so much? These tabloids should indeed be collected into one big pile of trash and set fire to not to spread the infection among the people!]
Miss Barak says Ms Rwaramba called her a few weeks ago, telling her: ‘He doesn’t let me see my babies.’
And so on and so forth with the rest of it having no word of truth as the real videos preceding this article show.
The difference between real life and the way it was reported by Daphne Barak and her Daily Mail collaborators isstaggering, shocking, unbelievable.
However it worked and lots of people fell for it at the time. Even Roger Friedman who knows the true worth of Daphne Barak and calls her a vulture-like interviewer made the mistake all of us make when we face such a really BIG lie – instead of doubting the lie and disproving it we tend to find fault with the poor victim whom this lie is attributed to. What is noteworthy is that the author of the lie always manages to get away with it, to modestly stand aside and go unnoticed by public attention….
Thus even the experienced Roger Friedman swallowed Daphne’s lie like any ordinary citizen would and fumed so much about Grace Rwaramba’s “betrayal” that I began to suspect him of being a secret fan of Michael Jackson. This is what he wrote after seeing the video and evidently under the influence of rumors about it:
Jacko Nanny Was Paid For Negative Interview
Michael Jackson’s longtime nanny and employee, Grace Rwaramba, did indeed sell out to vulture-like celebrity interviewer Daphne Barak.
Barak has posted a clip from the interview on her website and on YouTube as a teaser.’ The intention is to sell it somewhere. Barak routinely gets her “scoops” by paying her interview subjects, according to sources.
Today Barak started e-mailing the clip around to various Jackson insiders hoping to get them to jump on her bandwagon.
Rwaramba has denied doing the interview. But the clip speaks for itself. She tells Barak how she was fired last spring on a Sunday morning by telephone. The nanny says “the guy”’ presumably Tohme Tohme ’”terminated” her by offering her a “ridiculous” salary.
“Were you surprised?” Barak asked her. “Not really,” Grace replied. “It had happened before.”
The minute-long clip is interesting because Rwaramba will be offered as an important person in the lives of Jackson’s children when their grandmother, Katherine, goes to court next Monday to establish custody rights. The Jacksons seem unaware that Rwaramba’ who was well compensated by Jackson would turn on him, and for money.
Also, the nanny seems to indicate to Barak that she was “laid off” because she refused to take a low salary. That would certainly bring into question her selfless devotion to the children.
Ironically, Barak now is the common thread between Rwaramba and Michael’s parents, Katherine and Joe Jackson. Back in 2005, Barak interviewed the Jacksons, then sold the interview to CBS. Sources told me then that Barak kicked back a fee to the Jacksons.
In 2005 I reported that both Joe Jackson and Daphne Barak were secretly in business with a man named Charles Coupet, who also served as a literary agent for Macaulay Culkin’s father, Kit.
‘A year earlier, in 2004, Barak called this reporter and said, “I have Joseph Jackson on the phone and we want to talk to you about a project.” I passed.
In other articles Roger Friedman lashes out against Grace in a much harder way and finds a very apt comparison for Daphne Barak – now he calls her a “blood-sucking-celebrity vampire”. However Roger’s general attitude to the problem reminded me of the recent outbreak of rage against another victim of Daphne Barak’s interviewing:
Since Daphne Barak was never able to produce proof of Grace telling any of those things attributed to her, Roger Friedman must be sorry now for being so harsh on her. However his reaction does make you wonder – what can be expected of us, laymen, if even he was naïve enough to believe that big media lie? And this in spite of the fact that this brainwashing technique is very well known and is called exactly “the big lie technique”. Its idea is to present so big and so shocking a lie that it would never occur to people to even think of verifying it – so they swallow it hook, line and sinker and without thinking twice too.
The truth of what happened with Grace is most probably lying somewhere in the middle between the people’s misconceptions and her own words. Misled by Daphne’s friendly passes Grace could have agreed to give an interview about her humiliation by Tohme, her refusal to work for a ridiculous salary as well as her future life and projects she might undertake. She may have even taken money from Daphne intending to partially spend it on charity work. But when it came to the interview she was asked questions not about her future, but only about Jackson, drugs and similar nasty things which she actually refused to answer (as there is no video of it) – and voila, here we have the fact of an interview but nothing bad said in it about Jackson.
The absence of the horrifying revelations, however, did not stop our good old Daphne from shamelessly replacing the missing content of the interview with her own ideas which were then repeated (or further embellished) by the Daily Mail, Times of London and other media outlets. The actual video was of course never found – but what does it matter if all the harm is done, the price is asked and received, the necessary publicity is made and the whole world is being agog over the “bad nanny” and “evil ways” of her boss?
Does it remind you of anything again?
It should be noted here that Daphne Barak does not select just anyone for her treachery interviews – no, she chooses only those who are capable of saying a word of support for Michael Jackson. This is an extremely important point as those who are the real sources of Daphne’s information are treasured and guarded by her in a most careful manner.
When in 2010, on the eve of the first anniversary of Michael’s death, Daphne published some tapes recorded by an answering machine where Michael asked for cash and sounded sleepy (it was at 4:30 in the morning) which she naturally explained by him “being drugged” – Daphne Barak did not say a single word about who provided her with those tapes. It was only through a comment of a German fan that I found out that the tapes came from Dieter Wiesner and were therefore totally disregarded in Germany. The fan said about about them the following:
- “the German manager of MJ Deiter Wiezner, who happened to be a mafia himself, published these tapes …he told the fans that he loves MJ but MJ fans in Gemany are smart enough to boycott this leech”.
What is funny is that those tapes also look like a cut-and-paste job. The fans who listened to them noticed the following:
- “I listened to the tapes, the speech pattern, word choice, rhythm etc…sound nothing like him, the last portion however, talking about the super hero movies and stock prices being low…that sound very much like him. I think they’ve got babbling nothinginess spliced together with some actual messages that were taken out of context.”
- I don’t believe anything I read or hear about Jackson. His voice was easy to imitate and of course there is some motive in releasing this now – fake or real.
- You know why they are put out there today, don’t you? To help strengthen Conrad Murrays Demonstration tomorrow. They were released just in time to attempt to sway the MJ fans and public into thinking MJ was just a druggie. He may have done drugs, these tapes are from 2003,but I am sure he didn’t know Conrad Murray was going to kill him – they are irrelevant – they are in the PAST. Let them stay there.
Yes, all of the above is beginning to fall into a pattern. Releasing some dubious interviews on the eve of everyanniversary of Michael’s death, tampering with the tapes so that Michael doesn’t sound right, implying each time that some “drugs” are being involved and all this instead of looking into Conrad Murray’s criminal deeds as if the main idea is to substitute innocent Michael for the real criminal in whose hands he actually died?
And isn’t it interesting that the author of the ‘answering machine tapes’ was never mentioned by her – though the names of Grace Rwaramba and Aaron Carter were trashed inside out? Is it because Dieter Wiesner is no friend to Michael and should be protectedfrom the public outcry?
In this context it becomes extremely interesting that the next victim of Daphne Barak’s journalism was Kit Culkin, Macaulay Culkin’s father. The story of his relationship with Daphne Barak follows exactly the same pattern – she says that there was an interview but in reality it never took place (though it was nevertheless reported in the press). This story didn’t acquire the same level of scandal as Carter’s situation, but only because Kit Culkin is no shy guy and reacted to the lie with all the rage it deserved.
He also had a good reason to be enraged by Daphne Barak – besides lying about the interview which he never gave, this woman urged Kit Culkin to send his book to a so-called “literary agent of the Jacksons”, who took advantage of his book and published big portions of it in the New York Daily News. And in the end it turned out that the man was no literary agent at all and said he didn’t know who Kit Culkin was!
Culkin’s Father Fumes Over ‘Exclusive’ Jackson Interview
Apr 8, 2005, 17:18 GMT
Macauley Culkin’s father Kit is fuming after the New York Daily News published what they called an “exclusive” interview on Sunday (03APR05), in which he spoke frankly about his children’s experiences as close companions of troubled superstar Michael Jackson.
Kit is adamant he never gave an interview to Daphne Barak and did not authorize any such publication – claiming the journalist used material from a proposed book without permission, according to esteemed Fox News correspondent Roger Friedman.
Last autumn (2004), Barak visited Kit and his co-author Jeanette Krylowski in Oregon to film them for a TV special where she heard Kit read segments of the book, and she suggested he send it to a literary agent linked to Jackson’s parents.
Krylowski says, “She told me to send it to Charles Coupet, an agent in New York. Daphne said he handled Joseph and Katherine Jackson.
But Coupet and his associates were less than impressed with the book. She continues, “They continually told me how bad it was. They laughed at it once. I just never told Kit how bad they told me it was. (Barak’s assistant) Erbil told me he went crazy just trying to read through it.”
Following the negative response to their narrative, Kit and Krylowski were shocked to discover their copyrighted material printed in the New York Daily News – and that Coupet is not a listed literary agent,reports Friedman.
In the article Kit says he saw no signs of child molestation during his children’s numerous stays at the singer’s Neverland ranch.
© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com.
Roger Friedman tells us this incredible story in more detail. What stands out of his narration is that Daphne Barak employed with Kit Culkin her favorite method again – she befriended him and his companion, made them believe that she was highly sympathetic to Jackson and won their trust to such a degree that they provided her (or her collaborators) with the manuscript of Culkin’s unpublished book from which they allowed her to use some pieces in order to help Jackson.
However our Daphne preferred to write a fictional interview instead where she attributed to Culkin only God knows what, while her collaborator stole Culkin’s book and published its content without the author’s consent!
And after all that Daphne Barak’s spokesman didn’t bat an eyelid saying that Daphne had the right to do all of the above:
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
By Roger Friedman
Macaulay Culkin’s Dad Ripped Off?
“Celebrity interviewer” Daphne Barak is at it again.
On Sunday, Macaulay Culkin’s father Kit Culkin was horrified to see in the New York Daily News an “exclusive” interview that he supposedly gave Barak. He says that he never gave the interview and didn’t authorize it.
A spokesperson for Barak said that she did have the right to use the material.
But Kit Culkin and his companion, Jeanette Krylowski, tell a different story.
You may recall that about 10 days ago in this space, we ran excerpts from a written piece by Kit Culkin in which he claimed that Jackson never touched his children inappropriately.
It was part of a book proposal that Culkin and Krylowski had written, but not yet sold. This column secured their permission to use an excerpt.
However, Krylowski tells me that last fall, Barak came to their Oregon home to film them for TV.
“She said it was for a special,” Krylowski said. “But it wound up on ‘Access Hollywood.’ We were shocked.”
In the filming, Kit Culkin read some portions of his proposal. Afterward, Krylowski recalls, Barak told them they should send it to a book agent. That’s where the story gets even weirder.
“She told me to send it to Charles Coupet, an agent in New York,” Krylowski said. “Daphne said he handled Joseph and Katherine Jackson.”
Krylowski did as Barak suggested. But all she heard from Coupet, she says, were criticisms.
Barak, coincidentally, has made her name lately “interviewing” the Jackson parents and then selling the material to shows like “Access,” “48 Hours” and “20/20.”
“They continually told me how bad it was,” Krylowski said. “They laughed at it once. I just never told Kit how bad they told me it was. [Barak’s assistant] Erbil told me he went crazy just trying to read through it.”
But Krylowski was also under the impression that Barak, a journalist, had access and was sympathetic to Jackson.
“One day, Daphne tried to put Katherine Jackson on the phone with us to say ‘Thank you’ because we’d written something nice about him in our book,” Krylowski said.
The referenced chapter was about how Michael thought he was abused, she said, but really just had a tough father.
Ultimately, nothing happened with the book. The project drifted.
Krylowski says she wrote to Barak and told her they had no interest in pursuing a book project any further. She said that if there was anything that could help Michael, he could use it.
Krylowski said that Barak seemed like an agent for Jackson and that’s why she trusted her.
“I thought she would use a little bit of it. But I wasn’t giving the whole thing to her. She could use pieces to help Michael. But I wasn’t giving the rights to her,” she said.
Krylowski says that she wrote to Coupet at Tech Plus Systems Inc. and told him they no longer needed his services. She says she received a reply on Feb. 8 acknowledging cancellation of their relationship.
Yesterday, I tracked Coupet down on his cell phone after calls to his office produced no replies.
He said he was not a literary agent, “knew of” Daphne Barak and nothing of Kit Culkin.
“Macaulay Culkin I’ve heard of, but no, not Kit Culkin,” he said.
He said he did not represent the Jacksons either, and did not know what I was talking about.
“He’s called here, and he’s e-mailed me. I have a copy of this letter,” Krylowski said.
The relationship between Barak and Coupet remains a mystery. There is no listing anywhere for Coupet as a literary agent.
His Tech Plus Systems, at 99 University Place in Greenwich Village in New York City, is described on a Web directory for “minority and women-owned” businesses as “custom computer programming services.”
As you have noticed Daphne Barak often uses the magic names of Joseph and Katherine Jackson to win people’s trust and give more weight to her words and actions. Katherine Jackson did indeed give Daphne several interviews (which I am not even willing to look at) and Joseph Jackson and Randy Jackson were close enough with Daphne to get into a business project together. Roger Friedman explains that the idea was to get Michael’s finances under the family’s control and force two Michael’s financial backers out of the picture:
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
By Roger Friedman
Jacko $aved: But Father and Journalist Almost Wrecked Deal
In a strange twist of fate, Michael Jackson’s family members almost derailed the deal to restore him financially.
As I reported in this space last month, yesterday — February 17 — was a key date in Jackson’s financial soap opera. It was the day a $70 million “put” or loan installment was due on Jackson’s $350 million worth of loans with Bank of America.
The New York Times incorrectly reported last week that Jackson could be filing for bankruptcy on that date. The reporter there failed to read with care our January story, which outlined how Jackson’s backers, Charles Koppelman and Al Malnik, had guaranteed the $70 million to Bank of America.
Of course, the two men came through with their promise. Yesterday the papers were drawn up between Jackson and Bank of America for the payment of the $70 million, with funding provided by Jackson’s two leading dealmakers.
But now I’m told that a second proposal by Jackson’s father, Joseph, with help from a brother, Randy, nearly derailed the Koppelman/Malnik plan.
A couple of weeks ago, Randy Jackson, according to sources, announced to Malnik that he’d been in touch with a Las Vegas businessman and entertainer named Tony Brown.
In turn, Randy Jackson claimed, Brown had managed to gain the confidence of an investment bank, which offered to undertake the entire Bank of America loan, including the “put.” Michael would be free of his commitment to the bank, and to Malnik and Koppelman as well.
Joseph Jackson endorsed the deal, and consequently became allied with Michael’s two previous managers, German Dieter Wiesner and Canadian Ronald Konitzer. Both of those men, who had been iced out of Michael’s business life by the Nation of Islam, were suddenly back in the picture. In addition to them, my source claims, came a new party: journalist Daphne Barak.
Barak did not return messages sent to her through her publicist yesterday. But apparently at some point in the last two weeks, she crossed the line from journalist to quasi-manager, taking part in phone calls with Wiesner, Konitzer and Joseph Jackson regarding Michael’s finances and making a deal through Tony Brown with the new investment bank.
This new twist is maybe the most interesting part of the story. Last Sunday, Barak — who portrays herself as the only TV journalist with access to the Jackson family — interviewed Wiesner on NBC’s “Dateline.”
There was no mention that in fact she may have been in business with Wiesner and his group and participated in phone conversations advocating one deal over another for Michael Jackson.
On “Dateline,” Barak pestered Wiesner for answers to questions about Jackson’s finances. But according to my source, she may have already known the answers.
Nevertheless, it didn’t matter. Several days ago, I am told, Barak, Joseph Jackson, Wiesner and Konitzer called Malnik and Koppelman to say their deal with Brown had fallen through, and that they had failed to come up with the goods.
This means that Joseph and Randy Jackson’s attempt to wrest control of Michael’s financial dealings has also failed, and they are back to square one.
Besides the Jacksons’ association with Daphne Barak it is again Dieter Wiesner’s name which pops up here and there. Considering that he gave Barak numerous interviews (I mean, really gave them) it seems that this man is deeply involved with this vulture of a journalist. But isn’t it strange that despite all their contacts we never hear about their close association? I hope you will understand that now that we know of their “friendship” the persona of Dieter Wiesner has become a non-grata for me – same as the persona of his friend Daphne Barak.
To close this small investigation of Daphne Barak’s ways it wouldn’t hurt to learn of the mess she created around the name of the former Pakistani Prime-Minister Benazir Bhutto. Daphne called Benazir Bhutto a bosom friend of hers and wrote an article where she boasted she managed to win so much trust of the former Pakistani political leader that they even discussed sexy lingerie together:
- “I had the great fortune to get to know her as a woman, wife, mother and friend, the sides she revealed only to people she could trust, and these are the areas I want to concentrate on”
- “She cared about what she looked like under her clothes. I introduced her to Victoria’s Secret, the sexy stylish underwear company, whose range she loved and always wore. She was very Americanised and wore her headscarf only when it was politically correct to do so”.
- Of course we talked a lot about men, as all women do when they get together. She enjoyed hearing in detail about other people’s love affairs but most of all she was totally fascinated by Princess Diana. She knew I was friendly with Hasnat Khan, the Pakistani doctor whom Diana fell totally in love with before she died. Benazir enjoyed speculating endlessly about the couple’s relationship.
- Asif [Benazir’s husband] is also very liberal and they behaved like teenagers together. In public they were very restrained, but in private or with close friends they were very demonstrative and would hold hands and kiss. You could feel the passion between them. She could be very giggly when she was with Asif and I can tell you he was the power behind her throne because although she was very strong-willed, she always wanted to please him.
- He is really the one who has been calling the shots. He is a brilliant man and she always did everything political that he advised her to do. He will certainly run for office instead of her to maintain the legacy.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera…
I can very well imagine that the above typically women’s irresponsible (and unverified) gossip can hurt the feelings of those who remember Benazir Bhutto not as an idle housewife but as a powerful political leader. The enraged comment on this article which you’ve also posted in this blog, called Daphne Barak “a meddling tabloid vulture masquerading as a journalist” and said that “any references to Bhutto or Pakistan that she writes should be taken as near-fiction or nothing less than a complete fabrication”.
Here are some excerpts from that comment:
TUE MAR 24, 2009 AT 06:41 AM PDT
Daphe Barak, a platinum haired femme-fatale, has been foisting herself upon the famous and noteworthy families of the world for years now. Her living is made by offering “exclusive” interviews, scintillating gossip, and manufacturing rumor and innuendo at every turn. She is often spotted interviewing members of families in crisis, taking advantage of their grief and need for hope, in order to fuel her personal drive for fame, access, and notoriety.
Her journalistic standards, if they can be called that at all, fell to a new low recently as Daphne tried to insert herself into the political turmoil afflicting Pakistan.
Daphne Barak likes to portray herself as a journalist, but she is much closer to paparazzi or tabloid writers. She shamelessly pursues the tawdriest of stories about drug-addled stars like Amy Winehouse , cozying up to her parents, feeding off their grief and concern for their daughter. In the tragic death of Princess Diana, Daphne Barak’s quest for fame and notoriety at any cost ran her afoul of the law . [VMJ: Daphne was indeed sued by Al Fayed but didn’t appear in court and was on the run for four months so that they couldn’t serve the court papers on her].
Daphne’s predilection for the banal and fictitious takes on a scandalous and humiliating turn for the late Benazair Bhutto, beloved former leader of Pakistan, in this article which Daphne exposes, literally and figuratively, the most private aspects of Bhutto’s personal life. Daphne portrays and tarnishes the image of Bhutto by revealing or blatantly manufacturing details that cannot be independently verified about Bhutto’s life.
Bhutto’s legacy will not be stained here by repeating the slanders put forth by Daphne Barak, but any references to Bhutto or Pakistan that she writes should be taken as near-fiction or nothing less than a complete fabrication.
In Daphne Barak’s “news” stories, the names have not been changed to protect the innocent. In more recent Pakistan news, Daphne Barak has done the nation of Pakistan and its people a grave disservice by manufacturing a news story featuring “statements” from Benazair Bhutto’s sister, Sanam, regarding the President of Pakistan, Asif Zardari. While biased journalism may be tolerated in many circles, Daphe Barak crossed the line into complete fiction. Sanam Bhutto, outraged and distressed at the lies attributed to her, vigorously denounced the fiction produced by Daphne Barak, via print and video .
Daphne Barak could best serve the public by ceasing her shameful, tabloid-style writing, and blatant manufacturing of hurtful lies.
The Sanam Bhutto situation the article refers to is just another of the innumerable Daphne Barak’s lies. According to this lie Benazir’s sister gave Daphne an interview after her sister’s assassination where she allegedly spoke against the current President of Pakistan.
- “Sanam who rarely talks about politics lost it after an emotional dinner with Bilawal, myself and my producer Erbil. On our way back from dinner, Sanam’s anger came out: “I will never forgive HIM. Why is he taking over the party? Let democracy happen.
- Let the people in the PPP decide who will be the leader. He always criticised my sister that she did not have the right people around her, that she does not know… that he knows better… She was working so hard. He always criticised her… She wanted so much to spend time with him. He always preferred to spend time with his friends. And she tried so much to please him… So now, let us see what he can do. Whether he can do any better…”
After reading the above and not knowing a thing about why Sanam would be so much against the present Pakistani leader I – to be frank with you – was also overwhelmed by a dark suspicion that Sanam might be thinking him responsible for Benazir’s death. But the very first sentence from Wiki made me realize that my dark thoughts, triggered off by this beastly Daphne Barak, are totally ridiculous – it turned out that Azif mentioned earlier as the beloved husband of Benazir Bhutto and Azif Zardari, the current President of Pakistan,was one and the same person! He is a widower of Benazir to whom she bequeathed her party so that he could maintain her legacy!
So it didn’t surprise me when I saw a video of Sanam Bhutto practically shaking with anger at Daphne’s irresponsible lies about her, her sister and her brother-in-law. We find from her video rebuttal of Daphne Barak’s lies that her interview with Daphne naturally never took place, that the whole of it is a total fabrication and that Daphne Barak was never a friend of Benazir Bhutto – but was just an acquaintance. And the video of that interview was naturally not existent.
Sanam Bhutto’s statement reads:
ISLAMABAD, 18 March , 2009
“I was stunned to read today’s piece in the News International titled “Another bombshell for Zardari by Azim Mian”.
The allegations in the article are a total fabrication and a vicious attack on me, my family and the memory of Benazir Bhutto Shaheed. I made none of the statements attributed to me in this piece. There was no interview with Daphne Barak and each insinuation is a complete fabrication.
Barak was never a friend of my beloved sister Benazir Bhutto Shaheed. They first met for an interview fifteen years ago. Ms. Barak being a socialite remained an acquaintance. She knows nothing about my sister nor about our family’s relationships.
She is not, as is suggested, in any way an insider of the Bhutto family on any issue. I am on excellent terms with my brother-in-law, President Asif Ali Zardari. I have no property or financial issues with him as has been alleged in this article. Views attributed to my nephew Bilawal Bhutto Zardari are also a figment of the authors imagination, clearly designed to damage our family and create a rift in the Pakistan Peoples Party.
Ms. Barak knows nothing about events surrounding my sister’s murder on 27 December 2007. Any suggestion otherwise is a blatant attempt to exploit and ingratiate herself for her own purposes into what is a serious investigation by the UN of the assassination. I want to be very clear to avoid any misunderstandings; I totally deny all allegations made in this article.
Such baseless stories are not only a disservice to objective journalism but are also a source of immense anguish to me and the children of Benazir Bhutto Shaheed. I reiterate that the Bhutto family stands united with President Zardari at this critical juncture when the nation faces serious internal and external threats. I expect the media to carry this rebuttal in the same prominent manner as the concocted news story has been splashed.
Here is the video of the angry Sanam Bhutto:
So it is he same pattern of behavior, the same missing videos, the same big lies told about everyone around, the same embittered people who find themselves slandered, hurt and betrayed! However this doesn’t stop our good old Daphne Barak from going on with her “journalism”…
As a small postscript to what our blonde author wrote about Benazir’s husband here is a little more bragging from her. I bet you will never believe what she is saying this time.
This time she is bragging that she prompts the President of Pakistan what to say to the public for him to look clever and produce the right impression on the people! I’ve learned about this fantastic turn of Daphne’s mind from a reader who contacted her and surprisingly received the following reply:
Didn’t Daphne Barak earlier say (in that article devoted to Benazir) that Asif was a brilliant man who advised Benazir on political issues? And now we find out that she claims she is prompting him smart answers to make him appear like a statesman?
Frankly, it was only after reading of the above that I noticed another feature of Daphne Barak – she evidently considers herself a prominent figure in the world politics as besides the above self-aggrandizing craziness she also drops here and there phrases like the following ones:
- In one of our last phone calls, Benazir told me: “Washington is behind me. I can’t lose this opportunity. I have been waiting for it for nine years. We need to get Pakistan democratic again. I am needed here. It is now or never.” I said: “There will be a better opportunity for you and I wouldn’t bet on Washington’s support. You have already been prime minister.Try something else.” Again she didn’t listen”.
GUYS, I AM AWESTRUCK.
The former prime-minister of Pakistan, who had been in power for two terms, consulted Daphne Barak on whether she would be supported by the US?
Daphne put in a word for Benazir and arranged parties for her so that she could meet the right people via our good old blonde?!
And the blonde is also busy writing smart answers for the current President of Pakistan so that he is able to say a few words on each issue and looks like a leader?!!
THIS IS INCREDIBLE STUFF….
I never knew there were so many mental cases around us.
All of them are good enough for a lunatic asylum – Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth, Martin Bashir, Victor Guiterrez – but Daphne Barak seems to be outdoing them all.
Do you have questions about this woman now?
* * * * *
To finalize the matter of our good old blonde and her possibly existent or possibly non-existent interview with Aaron Carter here is a statement from the Michael Jackson Estate concerning this matter (Shelly, thank you for providing it):
You can find the post complete with the comments here: http://wp.me/pIuKO-1DX
July 18, 2011
And here is a post about Daphne Barak and Aaron Carter. I think it also belongs in the see-through-lies manual:
DAPHNE BARAK vs. AARON CARTER in a beastly game against Michael Jackson
- PART 1. WHAT WE KNOW
The situation with Daphne Barak and Aaron Carter has turned into such a mess that tidying it up is rather difficult. To tell you the truth I know what to say to you but I am having a problem with how to say it. It is a somewhat sensitive issue where not only the truth about Michael Jackson matters but the well-being of other people as well. Therefore I wouldn’t want to present here my ready-made conclusions but rather take you on the road I’ve taken hoping that you will arrive at the same point.
If this arrangement is agreed on then you will have to start where I’ve started.
I first learned of Aaron Carter when I came across a video where he, at the age of 16 or so, spoke about Michael and women. His account about Michael’s love for girls was so genuine, so sincere and so typically boyish that you could almost feel being part of the boys’ gang where they discuss girls between themselves:
– I know it for a fact that he likes women. Trust me.
– How do you know for a fact that he likes girls?
– Because I’ve seen him with girls! I’ve seen him walk up to a girl and get her number, and call her up and talk to her and say “Hey, baby, what’re you doing?” [ ]
– Were there children there [in Neverland]?
– There were five or six kids there.
– And you never saw anything inappropriate?
– No. I NEVER saw anything.
The same idea was expressed by Aaron in an article from which we also learn lots of details about him and his family affairs. What makes this story special is the date of it – Aaron is justifying Michael in the midst of the Arvizo allegations:
February 14, 2005
Jacko’s Straight, Says Singer Aaron Carter
Despite rumblings from his mother to the contrary, 17-year-old pop singer Aaron Carter says Michael Jackson is straight and that nothing inappropriate ever happened between them.
Carter, who is estranged from his mother, also told me that his brother Nick Carter of the Backstreet Boys did indeed hit pop tart Paris Hilton, as was intimated in many tabloid reports late last year.
“He hit her,” Aaron told me on Sunday night at the big Grammy celebration party following the awards show, “and he hit me.”
Aaron Carter plays BB King’s in New York this Friday, and has all the aplomb and polish of a kid who’s been working since he was five years old.
Sporting blond highlights and a 42-carat diamond-studded watch popular with rap stars, Carter also told me that he continues to be estranged from his mother and former manager, Jane Carter. He’s just finished a new single for release later this month and is working on a new album due in June.
I liked Aaron Carter, which was unexpected. Being forced into the adult world at an early age has made him self-assured, opinionated and not a bit clueless. He told me that he did complete his G.E.D. for high school, but that brother Nick “is a drop-out.”
He said of Jackson that the charges against him are false. “He lives in isolation,” Carter said. “He would never touch anyone.”
However, Carter insisted that he thought Jackson liked women. “He’ll see a girl and comment on her,” Carter said, “or want to touch her [bottom]. He likes girls.”
The next two videos were made in 2006 when Aaron was eighteen and gave an interview together with his brother Nick to a certain Howard Stern and two other clowns whose names I don’t know. These three TV hosts think themselves to be very clever and loosen their tongues over a man whose little finger they are not worthy of. They enjoy themselves greatly mocking at Michael Jackson, snubbing Aaron and continuously making all sorts of nasty hints about their friendship.
Aaron clearly dislikes the tone of the conversation but keeps smiling and firmly stands up to all the innuendos. Assuming the same tone and going along with their jokes would have been much easier for him – but no, both he and his brother keep taking this horrible talk to the right track again and again.
Howard Stern, who most probably never met Michael and knows nothing of him, insists on his highly negative point of view (this seems to be a pattern with all of them – the less they know, the more they gossip, hate and vilify). Watching this talk makes you realize that the only normal people here are Aaron and Nick Carter:
(my many thanks to Suzy for all the transcripts)
Nick: I was there with him and Mike. So I saw what happened.
Aaron: Yeah, it was actually me and Mike and –
Howard: Did you have sleepovers with Michael Jackson?
Aaron: No, never. You know what, actually, Chris Tucker was there too and Rodney Jerkins, he was producing his album[interrupted].
Howard: Wait, Nick, how does your brother end up at Michael Jackson’s place?
Nick: We had gone there with…
Aaron: It was his birthday party.
Nick: It was his birthday party and Mike Tyson was there and…
Female host: How do you get invited?
Nick: Him and Aaron were friends.
Howard: Now how do you become friends with Michael Jackson?
Aaron: Well, we met him through Rodney Jerkins, he was in the studio and he wanted to meet the both of us.
Howard: Now when Michael met you he was VERY interested in you, wasn’t he?
Aaron: No, I don’t think he was interested like everybody portrays him to be. He’s definitely – he’s definitely – [makes a symbolic gesture and is interrupted]
Howard: Did he give you a car?
Aaron: No, never.
Howard: Is he viewing this situation wrong, Nick?
Nick: No, no, I’m gonna defend him –
Aaron: You don’t even need to. You don’t even need to. Because it really pisses me off that people would think about Michael like that because… [interrupted]
Howard: I do.
Aaron: Well, you’re wrong. You’re wrong, Howard. You’re wrong, you’re WRONG, Howard!
The interrogation goes on:
Howard: How old are you now?
Howard: How old were you at the time Michael Jackson was hanging out with you?
Howard: Okay, you were fifteen. How old was he, in his forties?
Aaron: I don’t know, fifty something? [LAUGHTER. It was Michaels’s birthday party and he turned 45 in 2003]
Howard: Why is he buying you a car? [Aaron already said he hadn’t given him any!]
Aaron: He never did.
Howard: Did he buy you a lot of expensive gifts? Be honest.
Aaron: No. He gave me a jacket that he wore for the 2001 anniversary that he did with his brothers.
Howard: Would you ever hang out with him at his house?
Host: Does he want to hang out with you now?
Aaron: No, I haven’t spoken to him for…
Male host: He is too old, he’s too old [for him]. He’s getting a beard. [LAUGHTER]
Aaron: That’s so mean.
Nick: I went there and saw what happened. But I got some slack later from my mum because she was like “Why did you leave him at that house?” and stuff.
Host: Oh you left him there?
Nick: No, let me explain. What happened was we went there, we hang out, we literally hang out with all these people and I’m not going to lie… it’s a little awkward, a little weird, a little different, you know, it’s not like everyone else’s life, but he’s a nice guy, nice – [interrupted]
Howard: Did you smoke weed with Michael Jackson?
Aaron: No, never, nu-uh.
Howard: Tell the truth, raise your right hand and swear to God “I never smoked weed with Michael Jackson”.
Aaron: (raising hand) I swear I never smoked weed with Michael Jackson.
Howard: Did you drink wine with Michael Jackson?
Aaron: No, it’s not true, none of this is true.
Howard: Why did you leave Aaron alone with Michael Jackson? What happened that night?
Aaron: Not a damned thing.
Nick: It was fine, he hang out, Chris Tucker was there and Rodney Jerkins –
GENERAL LAUGHTER AND RIDICULE.
I left because it was a little weird at that point, I had to go – to be honest, there was a girl I took home from that party back home and I couldn’t stay long.
Aaron: [raising his finger] I saw Michael take a girl home from his own party too.
Female host: Really?
Aaron: Yeah. And I stayed in the movie theatre…
Stern: You were blond, you were young, you were not hairless. I mean, come on – [LAUGHTER]
Aaron: Chris Tucker was staying in the movie theater and I stayed on the other side of the movie theater.
Howard: Did he put his arms around you, did he touch you?
Aaron: Never, never. NEVER.
Stern: Never suggested a sleepover?
Carter: Never. Never heard anything like that.
Female host: I begin to agree with Aaron – he was too old [LAUGHTER]
What I also managed to hear in the above conversation was something like:
Howard: Aaron’s sister said that Michael and you smoked weed together.
Aaron: [with some disbelief] Which sister of mine would say something like that? [He has three sisters]
Howard: I don’t know.
Male host: I have an article here about a lawsuit and it says that Bruce Willis bought you over a million dollars worth of gifts –[end of video 1]
The “gifts from Bruce Willis” will be discussed later, while now we are more interested in a remark about Aaron’s sister. It sounds rather serious and implies that Carter is lying about not smoking weed at that party. It is clear that by the time of this TV interrogation everyone assumes that Aaron is taking drugs and it is the interviewer’s idea to catch Aaron lying about it (and about Michael Jackson).
Frankly, knowing some teenagers’ ways, I do not rule out that Aaron could have smoked weed before he went home. However it was not necessarily in Michael’s presence. According to a girl who was at that party Michael stayed in the centre of attention all throughout the night (as if we ever doubted it!) and left them only in the morning when he either went to bed as the girl thought or took one of the girls home as Aaron told us. This gave the rest of them ample opportunity to do whatever they liked in Michael’s home (which is unfortunately often the case with irresponsible guests).
Roger Friedman says that the party was arranged on September 13, 2004 and was more of a family affair than a wild party for some teenagers – the ranch was packed with the family members, kids and their parents:
Roger Friedman’s column on November 10, 2004:
There’s a little fallout from Access Hollywood’s big “scoop” the other day regarding Michael Jackson. Teen singer Aaron Carter’s mother, Jane, told the syndicated show that she was very concerned last year when 15-year-old Aaron stayed overnight at Neverland following Michael’s 45th birthday party.
Well, not exactly. Michael’s birthday celebration was held at the Orpheum Theatre in Los Angeles on Aug. 30, 2003. Access Hollywood was actually there and filmed it, but somehow all that got lost in translation. If Carter had been there, he was not caught on camera by the paparazzi.
Jane Carter, who’s been on the outs with her son for several months and no doubt received compensation for her story, may have been confused about the dates and events. Her two sons, Aaron and Nick, were at Neverland on Sept. 13, 2003, for a charity fundraiser. That event resulted in Neverland being jammed with guests, lots of kids, parents and Jackson family members. One insider who was there told me she remembers Carter, but finds it unlikely that there was an opportunity for him to spend time alone with Jackson.
Calls to Jane Carter and her husband, Robert, were not returned.
Source: FoxNews; Fox411 Roger Friedman by special permission / MJFC
According to Aaron and guests’ accounts Michael, Aaron and Chris Tucker rode four-wheelers in Neverland until five o’clock in the morning. The girl mentioned earlier said that after Michael had washed himself (there was a food fight before that) he was always in view of all the guests who had a lot of fans among them:
- I saw Michael leave for just a few minutes to wash off that cake, he was later zipping on a glass of wine, and he never finished it. They were out driving around the ranch with the fourwheelers and we were many out there having a laugh about it. .. Michael said he didn´t even know half of the people being there but he loved that the fans could be there.
When he finally left the party after driving around the ranch, he was alone except for one security guy. He invited a few (I was among them) into the house, we were there for about an hour.
And there were no Aaron Carter anywhere to be found in that house during that night. He was taken care of by Tucker I think, I didn´t see him after the drive around the ranch.
So much more happened, but not a single minute was Michael out of sight except when he cleaned up himself.”
It is no wonder Aaron was not seen in Michael’s house after that drive. It was five o’clock in the morning and he and Chris Tucker went to the Movie Theatre to have some sleep there (as he told us in his interview with Howard Stern).
The Movie Theatre is a totally separate building on the premises – see No.24 on the map – it is across two roads to the left of the main house which is in the center.
Returning to the “weed thing” let me repeat once again that even if Aaron did smoke something he absolutely didn’t need Michael’s presence for that – Michael was in the centre of attention of the whole crowd, so if anything like that had taken place we would have had a hundred people’s account about it and not just one from someone’s sister who wasn’t even there.
So what about Aaron’s sister? Out of his three sisters those words are attributed to Leslie (the oldest) and the crucial point about her is that by the date of the party she and her mother had been estranged from Aaron for a year due to a rift in the family, so it is highly doubtful that Aaron would confide in Leslie about his alleged weed activities in Neverland (or anywhere else) – telling his sister about it would have been only adding more fuel to the fire which was already burning within the family.
The estrangement started much earlier than Michael Jackson’s party – in November 2004 the People Magazine said the feud in the family had been going on since 2003:
Estranged Carters Feud Over Michael Jackson Concerns
Pop star Aaron Carter and his former manager mum have launched a new media war of words after she questioned her son’s friendship with Michael Jackson on American TV.
The estranged pair split after the singer accused his mother of stealing from him a year ago (03) and they’re fighting publicly again in the pages of the new PEOPLE magazine after Jane Carter told TV show ACCESS HOLLYWOOD she still had her concerns about what happened at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch home after the pop superstar’s 45th birthday party.
Jane Carter told the show that she spent a sleepless night worrying for her teenage son when she heard he was spending the night with Jackson – just months before he was arrested on child molestation charges.
But now Aaron, 18, has hit back, claiming “it’s all about money and publicity” for her.
He explains, “Michael and I have been friends for three years. I went to Neverland for his birthday bash. We were smashing cake in each other’s faces. It was really cool.
“Until 5am, me, him and Chris Tucker were out on four-wheelers, riding around in the mountains. Nothing happened between me and Michael.”
But his mum is standing by her decision to make her concerns public, telling People, “I was concerned like any parent would be.”
This was rather informative.
We learn from the above that Aaron’s mother was his former manager and that their feud was over money issues (what an old story!).
We also learn that Aaron spent only ONE night in Neverland after which his mom created all this havoc.
This “five o’clock in the morning” fact is getting an extreme, crucial, utmost and never-ending importance for us.
The thing is that Daphne Barak’s tape #2 (where she claims that Aaron talks about Michael though he never mentions his name) tells us that some incognito wanted Aaron to sleep in his bedroom, and at 5 o’clock in the morning Aaron woke up and found him sitting at the foot of his bed to which he gasped something like “what you are doing?” and the other said “ Oh no, I didn’t!” , so on and so forth.
All of it is very interesting of course, only it cannot apply to Michael Jackson AT ALL for the simple reason that at 5 o’clock in the morning Aaron, Michael and Chris Tucker were riding four-wheelers in Neverland and this was happening in full view of the other guests at the party!
So if now Aaron is intentionally lying about Michael Jackson this lie is an extremely ridiculous and amateurish one because each of us can thrust his own words about the four-wheelers in his face and demand an explanation why he is refuting his own words and the facteveryone else was a witness to.
But Aaron doesn’t look like a complete fool to me, so the only other logical explanation for this absurdity is that he was speaking aboutsomeone else. Finding out who this person is would be an interesting direction to pursue, however since this factor is of lesser importance to us I suggest looking in another direction first – at Daphne Barak who was the author of the tape and presented it to the public as if it were about MJ:
If you listened to the tape you’ve noticed that Aaron Carter never said that it was Michael. However since the scandal has acquired gigantic proportions we are expecting him to give the name of this person at least now – but for some strange reason Aaron is not doing it…
On the other hand, irrespective of whether he does or doesn’t say it, it is clear that the tape cannot be about Michael Jackson. The timeline simply doesn’t allow it and it is only Daphne Barak who wants everyone to think that way.
Daphne Barak has a long history of covert harassment of Michael Jackson which is done in an extremely shrewd and sophisticated way. Whatever interview she is doing and whatever subject she is discussing you can be half-sure that it will end up with some innuendo about Michael. I remember an interview she did with Charlie Chaplin’s son – exclusively for a Russian newspaper, – which naturallyfinished with a story called “The King and children” about Michael’s relationship with “boys” in which she ‘innocently’ repeated all the allegations from the 1993 case and the resulting “pay-off” . In that article all of them lamented over the poor fate of his poor children who were forced to wear masks and seemed to have never heard fairy tales read to them at night (according to Daphne Barak it was so rare an occasion that Chaplin’s wife had to read fairy tales to them).
So knowing Daphne Barak’s strange obsession with writing stories about Michael Jackson it doesn’t surprise me in the least that back in 2004 it was Daphne Barak who did an interview with Aaron Carter’s mother and sister Leslie about his single overnight stay in Neverland and it was in that very interview that Leslie allegedly said that she thought she remembered Aaron speaking about smoking weed there. “She thought she remembered” – what a wording!
The story is filled by Daphne with all the horror and suspension required for a fantasy story. It was repeated by every tabloid:
A NITE WITH JACKO
BY MICHELLE CARUSO DAILY NEWS WEST COAST BUREAU CHIEF
Monday, November 8th 2004, 6:54AM
TEEN POP SINGER Aaron Carter spent a wild unsupervised night with his “idol” Michael Jackson last year, and Carter’s mom is still haunted by fears of what may have happened, she says.
Aaron was only 15 when his big brother – former Backstreet Boy Nick Carter – ditched him at Jackson’s 45th birthday bash at Neverland Ranch in California, triggering a night of sheer panic for Aaron’s mom, Jane Carter.
And when Aaron came home about 24 hours later, he never gave his mom a full explanation of what went on, she reveals to celebrity interviewer Daphne Barak on tonight’s “Access Hollywood.”
“I don’t know if he was alone with Michael. I don’t know. I don’t know what transpired that night!” Jane Carter says.
Aaron’s sister Leslie Carter says he told her some things about his night with the King of Pop – but she’s not sure how much was true.
“I think I remember him saying that he had smoked some marijuana with him or something like that. That was a really wild story he told me, but I don’t know if I should believe it or not,” Leslie Carter tells Barak.
Just a few months after Aaron spent the night at Neverland, Jackson, 46, was charged with molesting a 13-year-old cancer patient.
After that, Jane Carter says, prosecutors called her and later grilled Aaron about his night at Neverland. But she says she has “no idea” what he told them.
“. . . Even if nothing happened, which probably nothing happened, that I know of, it just doesn’t look good,” she said.
Aaron told his mom he spent time in Jackson’s bedroom and “that he had a crystal bedspread,” but mostly described innocent fun like “dance lessons” and “riding around” the ranch, she says.
The mom says she agreed to let Aaron attend Jackson’s birthday bash only after giving big brother Nick “strict instructions” to stick with him all night and bring him home early for a scheduled audition the next day.
But when she couldn’t reach either son on their cell phones about 11 p.m., she got frantic.
“It was 3 a.m. I was lying awake in bed, worrying sick, wondering, where the heck are they?” Jane Carter reveals
When she finally reached Nick on the phone and found out he’d left Aaron alone at Jackson’s home, the mom blew her top. “I was furious with him. You should have heard me at 3 o’clock in the morning chewing my oldest son out. I was furious, furious!” she said.
Nick told his mother Aaron “refused” to leave with him, so he left him there.
Aaron also told his mom and sisters that Jackson gave him an expensive Bentley car, but Aaron never brought the car home, and Jackson later denied giving it to him.
The mom said she doubts her son’s credibility at times “because Aaron lied about me on national television, said that I stole money from him, when he knows that’s not the truth.”
Aaron did show off one big present from the King of Pop – a glittery jacket Jackson wore on stage at his Sept. 10, 2001, reunion concert at Madison Square Garden. She said Aaron was so proud of the jacket “he carried it all over Japan” when he went on tour last fall.
After she was contacted by prosecutors, Jane Carter phoned Jackson and warned him, “Aaron is telling everybody you gave him a Bentley, and the prosecution has called me, and they’re wondering what is going on.”
She said Jackson told her, “Nothing happened. Absolutely nothing happened. All we did was hang out. . . . I didn’t give him a Bentley!”
But the whole episode haunts the mom.
“Not because I believe anything about Michael one way or another,” she told Barak. “Just because, as an adult, as a parent, I was responsible. . . . I trusted Nick to bring him home, like he promised me he would.”
You see that the informative value of the above article is zero as all it is boils down to is “probably nothing happened” and “I don’t believe anything about Michael one way or another” but the story is so heavily loaded with various innuendos that it is still doing all the necessary damage Daphne Barak was aiming at. Nothing happened but all the suspension turned it into a major horror movie …
One of the most damaging pieces in the article is “the crystal bedspread” which seems to be mentioned innocently but is actually meant to convey to the reader that Aaron was probably sleeping in Michael’s bedroom. Well, firstly, Aaron slept in the movie theater and secondly, the detail Daphne Barak fails to mention is that going to Michael’s personal quarters was no big thing for his guests – it was part of the excursion over his home and many people preferred exactly those quarters for hanging out in the house. In fact, as Macaulay Culkin said at the trial, raking through a closet adjoining Michael’s bedroom was the favorite pastime of many of his guests.
Ten days after Daphne Barak’s non-story Aaron made a kind of a rebuttal to it. He confirmed a rift within the family which was so serious that after reading about it you immediately start wondering how much the mother and daughter (who were living apart from Aaron) could know about him at all, let alone hearing his revelations about “smoking weed with MJ”. It turns out that they didn’t know as much as his telephone number at the time!
Aaron Carter Bashes Mom, Defends Jacko
By Steve Helling and Marisa Wong
Wednesday November 17, 2004 04:40 PM EST
Teen pop star Aaron Carter is speaking out to PEOPLE about his troubled relationship with his mother and sister – and about his friendship with Michael Jackson.
After Carter’s mother Jane told “Access Hollywood” that her son had spent an unsupervised night with Jackson at his Neverland Ranch, and Carter’s sister Leslie, 18, implied that drug use may have been involved, Carter told PEOPLE: “I don’t do drugs. I didn’t do them with Michael Jackson and I don’t do them with anyone else.”
Carter, 16, had a lot more to say in a frank discussion.
On his mother and sister: “I really don’t like being around them. All I hear is ‘You need to go on television and make me look better.’ I just think, ‘Just be my mother, just be my sister.’ It’s all about money and publicity for them. My last word to (my mother) is that she’s the adult, not me. But it seems to be switched around.
On his playdate at Neverland with Jackson, who has been charged with child molestation: “Michael and I have been friends for three years. I went to Neverland for his (45th) birthday bash. We were smashing cake in each other’s faces. It was really cool. Until 5 a.m., me, him and Chris Tucker were out on four-wheelers, riding around in the mountains. Nothing happened between me and Michael. We didn’t sleep in the same room, we didn’t share a bed. We have a normal friendship. There’s nothing sexual to it.”
Meanwhile, Carter’s mother Jane stands by her decision to go on television and question the night her son spent with Jackson [why should anyone go on TV to question it?]
“I told the truth,” she says. “I don’t know what happened at Michael Jackson’s house, but I was concerned like any parent would be.”
Jane does admit to a rift between mother and son: “I don’t have a regular phone number for him, I don’t see him like I would like to.” But she hopes to work things out.
“I will say that I love Aaron with all my heart,” says Jane, 45. “I want to be a loving mother to him. I am on his side. I want what’s best for him. I know that he may not believe it at this moment, but it is true. I would do anything for him.”
Aaron says that there is a fairly easy way to end their family squabble. “I would forgive my mom,” he says, “but she’s going to have to admit she did some things that were wrong.”
Full story here: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,784076,00.html
I have a problem with believing Aaron when he says he doesn’t do drugs at all. Now he looks thirty something though he is only twenty three – and this is only seven years after that 2004 interview. So knowing about his present drug-addiction problems, it is hard to believe that he hadn’t tried drugs by the time of that interview and this, unfortunately, undermines his credibility. However usually a drug addict tells lies about himself only…
Aaron’s mother had a reason to be worried about her younger son as her older son Nick Carter was going through a very hard time with drug-addiction too. One of the articles dated February 2009 speaks about it in the past tense as Nick managed to overcome it but the article tells us a lot about the ten-year period prior to that.
Among many other things we learn from the article is that the family ran a bar and the children tasted wine at a very early age – Nick Carter, for example, first had it at the age of 2 (!). So if some Michael’s haters are still weeping over poor 15-year old Aaron who drank a little wine at Michael Jackson’s party – where it was served to all guests – I suggest they should please wipe their tears and admit that the boys had a drinking career of their own and most probably with full consent of their parents too.
Here is a story about Nick Carter – please remember that we are reading a tabloid, so let us divide everything written here by a hundred and remain skeptical about its truth even after that:
Nick Carter Gets Buff
By MARISA LAUDADIO
Monday February 16, 2009 01:00 AM EST
During the decade boy-band heartthrob Nick Carter spent abusing drugs and alcohol—typically downing half a bottle of hard liquor a night, often followed by what he calls “a bump” of cocaine—there wasn’t anything that could make him stop. Not a 2002 arrest after a Florida bar brawl or a 2005 arrest for DUI. Not his ballooning weight, which shot up to 224 lbs. in 2006, or the self-loathing he felt after a May 2008 trip to Russia, when he competed with locals to see who could down the most Sambuca. “There were things that were happening, proving that maybe what I was doing was out of control, all sorts of crazy stuff,” Carter admits. “But every time those red flags would come up, I’d appease people in my inner circle and make them think everything was all right.”
Even when it became clear that everything was most definitely not all right—last spring, during the European leg of the Backstreet Boys’ tour, he began experiencing a mild discomfort in his chest—Carter would not stop partying. “I was thinking, ‘Something is physically wrong with me,'” says the 29-year-old singer, who in June went to Ft. Lauderdale cardiologist Richard Polakoff for two days of medical testing. But the night before his results were due back, “I went out and I just went nuts,” he recalls, staring out at the Pacific Ocean through the windows of his high-rise condo in Santa Monica. “I drank so much and did a bunch of blow. I felt like I was trying to kill myself—because I didn’t want to get the results.”
Carter had good reason to be afraid: The years of abusing his body had left a buildup of toxins in his heart, weakening the muscle so that it had difficulty pumping blood. This condition, known as cardiomyopathy (see box), is the same one that led to the death of singer Andy Gibb and killed actor Chris Penn—and Carter learned it could kill him as well if he didn’t get clean and sober. “My doctor said, ‘You need to change your lifestyle. I don’t want you to end up like that,'” Carter says. “I was like, ‘I don’t want to end up like that either.'”
In the eight months since his diagnosis, Carter has indeed taken dramatic steps to turn his life around. He has lost more than 30 lbs. and—with the exception of a few slips early on—stopped drinking and doing drugs. “I don’t want to die,” he says. “I don’t want to be that person people read about and think, ‘That’s sad that he couldn’t stop it and killed himself.'”
Yet Carter admits that committing to a clean lifestyle remains a daily challenge, perhaps because his self-destructive behavior was a lifetime in the making. The oldest of five children born to Robert, 56, and Jane, 49, Carter says alcohol was always around when he was growing up in Jamestown, N.Y., where his family owned a bar called the Yankee Rebel. “If you want me to be honest, I had my first drink when I was 2 years old,” says Carter.
Easy access to alcohol was only part of the story. As revealed on the short-lived E! reality show House of Carters, family life for Carter and his siblings—Bobbie Jean, 27, Leslie, 22, and twins Aaron and Angel, 21—was tumultuous. “There was a ton of fighting between my mother and father,” he says. “The kids would be thrown into the middle, to choose sides.” The dysfunction only intensified after Carter found success as “the cute one” in the Backstreet Boys, which he joined at age 12. “Fame is a lot of pressure, especially when you’re responsible for your entire family,” he says. “Financially, emotionally—everything.”
And while he was out touring the world, his home life was falling apart. Not only was his parents’ marriage breaking down, but rumors—never proven—had started to surface that the Backstreet Boys’ former manager Lou Pearlman was behaving inappropriately with some of his boy-band charges. (In 2007 Jane Carter told Vanity Fair that “certain things happened and it almost destroyed our family” but stopped short of specifying how it affected Carter, who did not want to discuss Pearlman with PEOPLE.)
By 2003 Carter’s parents had split, and a tug-of-war over Aaron, a teen pop star, ensued; at one point Aaron considered filing for legal emancipation. He also accused his mother, who co-managed him for 10 years, of stealing $100,000 from him. (She denied the charge and they settled the dispute a month later.) “We tried to make it seem like there weren’t problems,” says Aaron, “and then when there was some sort of argument or fight, it really showed.”
Looking back, Carter refuses to point fingers. “It was never a one-way street. You can’t just blame one person,” he says. Yet the turmoil led to Carter being estranged from his parents and siblings at various points throughout the years. To cope, he drank himself into a stupor; he also took up marijuana in his late teens before entering what he calls “my Ecstasy phase,” eventually moving on to abuse pills, particularly the prescription painkiller Vicodin. Then, in his mid-20s, friends on the Hollywood party scene introduced him to cocaine, which he would take to get through all-night clubbing. “I would get tired because we were partying so much, so I would do a bump [of cocaine] just to wake myself up,” he says. “I would be that person who would stay at these clubs till the lights come on and they’re playing “Don’t Stop Believin.'” People are looking at me going, ‘Is that Nick Carter?’ And I’m like, ‘Yeah, it’s me, gacked up.'”
Yet in a way, his life had never been better. In 2002 he released a solo album that went gold; a year later he embarked on a high-profile relationship with Paris Hilton. But that relationship unraveled seven months later amid accusations from her friends that Carter had hit Hilton (a charge he vehemently denied to PEOPLE at the time), and by the time the Backstreet Boys reunited in 2004, it was clear, say his bandmates, that Carter was struggling. “Sometimes the last people you want to take advice from are the people closest to you,” says bandmate Howie Dorough, 35. “Nick was on a journey to find himself. When he was scolded, rather than motivating him, he curled up and crawled into a darker hole.”
Carter’s drinking wasn’t the only thing out of control: Although a teenage diet of fast food and candy meant Carter had always been “a little bit overweight,” in 2006 he hit an all-time high of 224 lbs., a direct result of his partying. “Healthwise, I was feeling gross, getting bigger,” says the 6-ft. Carter. He recalls a particularly raucous night of partying in Hollywood that fall, during which he and a friend “did a bunch of blow” before deciding to take a bus back to his place. “We were walking past a school the next morning, and we look like zombies, and I just remember these kids looking at me, and I felt so disgusted.”
The episode prompted Carter to seek help, enrolling in an outpatient treatment program. He then stayed sober for six months before relapsing; over the next 18 months, Carter found himself trapped in a wicked pattern where he would quit drinking cold turkey for a few months, followed by a few months of “hardcore drinking. It was off and on, off and on,” he says. “I thought it would show people that I did have control over it, that I wasn’t an alcoholic.”
Even after his cardiomyopathy diagnosis, Carter struggled to accept that if he wants to live, he can no longer drink alcohol. Although he is in therapy to help cope with his addictions, there have been a few times, he admits, “where I started to drink, like, a couple of glasses of wine, and I couldn’t control it.” A blunt talk with his cardiologist set him straight. “Once you get this condition, it can get progressively worse until the heart is extremely weak,” says Dr. Polakoff. “But if he abstains from alcohol and other substances, I think we can get his heart back to normal.”
Today Carter is sober, living in a two-story, colonial-style home just outside Nashville (“I had to get away from the temptations” in L.A., he explains) and in the best shape of his life. And while he has not spoken to his father recently, Carter says their relationship is intact, and he is repairing the rift with his mother. “It’s a process, and something that’s going to take years to mend,” he says, “but we’re moving forward.” Things with his younger brother have also improved, so much so that Aaron moved in with Carter last summer. “I tell him all the time, ‘You’re a completely different person than a year ago,'” says Aaron. “Then he was irritable, unhappy. And now he’s happy, fun to be around.”
The biggest change, however, is that Carter is looking to the future instead of at the past. About to complete a Backstreet Boys world tour, Carter and his bandmates are also recording a new album. And although his parents’ divorce proved scarring enough to lead Carter, who has been dating a salesgirl for the past few months, to say, “I don’t believe in marriage,” he could see himself starting a family “someday, a little ways down the line.”
For now Carter’s focus remains squarely on himself and his recovery. “I’m trying to make myself better,” he says. “But I don’t regret anything that I’ve gone through, because it makes me who I am.”http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20258140,00.html
There are lots of things in this article which are quite a revelation. The first thing which makes us shudder is a nasty suspicion about the strange inclinations of Nick’s impresario – Lou Pearlman who created a number of highly successful boys’ bands back in the 90s. Another revelation is that alcohol was always in easy access to the Carter boys. And thirdly, it turns out that it is customary for Hollywood party-goers to smoke weed, so if such a thing is so widely spread, the public’s feigned shock at hearing the news about Aaron looks to me very hypocritical.
I understand that the shock is mostly connected with Daphne Barak’s presentation of this alleged activity allegedly taking place in Michael’s presence, but let me repeat it that this lie is hard to believe as Michael was monitored throughout the night by guests surrounding him, never left the party until morning time and Aaron said to Howard Stern raising his hand in a solemn oath: “I SWEAR I NEVER SMOKED WEED WITH MICHAEL JACKSON” (which could mean that he probably did smoke it sometimes but notwith MJ)
This phrase – same as that “5 o’clock in the morning” evidence – has a crucial importance for all Michael Jackson’s supporters and not only because this way Aaron Carter refutes Daphne Barak’s version of the events. It is top important for us because it was most probably this very phrase that was used by this falsifier of a journalist in tape #3 of her so-called interview with Aaron Carter.
Considering that we don’t see Aaron speaking and all we hear is a clatter of tableware and singing of birds it would be a matter of one minute to do a little cut and paste job and take the word “never” out of the above phrase and turn it into its complete opposite – unfortunately the English language grammar does allow a tricky thing like that.
Another half an hour for an knowledgeable engineer would add the necessary birds and cutlery and voila – here we have the final product where we can hear Aaron saying the complete opposite of what he solemnly said before.
I know that many took that tape at its face value and don’t agree that it was tampered with, however all previous Daphne Barak’s exploits (see the post here, please) are a convincing proof that this woman would have never missed such a chance of a lifetime. It is indeed so easy a job that for a woman who shamelessly slandered Grace Rwaramba and Salom Bhutto it would be inconceivable to have overlooked such a splendid opportunity.
It is equivalent to underestimating her abilities – and she, as you remember, attended the Israel Institute of Technology when she was only fourteen…. No, this woman is capable not only of taking every opportunity that comes her way – she is able to create opportunities as any good graduate of a technology institute would.
However despite all the latest technology which went into working that alien phrase into the real talk with Aaron Carter there is still anoticeable difference in its intonation and volume in comparison with the remaining part of it. The phrase was tampered with so much that it became almost totally incomprehensible and it was while trying to understand what was being said that I noticed how different it was (I am actually surprised that you didn’t see it – in my opinion it is the first thing which catches the attention here):
In short we have exactly two versions of one and the same thing – only one of them sounds plain and clear, is seen with our own eyes and is said under oath: “I swear I never smoked weed with Michael Jackson” and the second sounds like a shortened version of it “I smoked weed with Michael” and is of extremely poor quality, is heard on tape only and is being presented by an author who has quite a reputation for falsifying things.
Out of these two variants Michael’s haters will naturally select the second variant, but I will ask the remaining sane people to consider the following factors before they make their opinion:
1) In the original variant we see him giving an oath “I NEVER smoked weed with MJ”
2) people at a younger age tend to tell the truth much more often than at an adult age when they learn to be street-smart
3) Daphne Barak has a history of fabricating things which trails after her like traces of blood spilt on a crime scene – from the ruthless massacre of trust and confidence of people like Kit Culkin and Grace Rwaramba to the sister of Pakistani former Prime-Minister Benazir Bhutto who spoke about Daphne Barak’s fabrications at a special press-conference in London and with the vehemence and anger which are rarely displayed in public.
In other words I hope that sane people will not believe parts 2 and 3 unless they see the full version of the interview.
Listening to Aaron speaking about we don’t know who and not having an opportunity to make sure that the tape is real, would be giving too much confidence to a woman who doesn’t deserve a single grain of trust from the people who have some shreds of sanity left.
Out of the three tapes Daphne Barak presented for our scrutiny only the first one is worthy of attention. In video 1 we are able to at least see him – though the phrases are cut and taken out of context and are compiled in a way to create the impression that Aaron talked only about Michael’s alleged addiction. However even in this heavily tempered version of the tape he is not saying anything bad.
All of the above is a far cry from the completely crazy story told in the OK! Magazine. Nothing said there is even remotely close to Aaron’s words – I am not wishing to repeat it, but if anyone is willing here is the link to that garbage:
Many blame Aaron for saying that some things were “different” and “weird” about Michael. However Nick Carter is saying absolutely the same in their earlier interview with Howard Stern and nobody pays much attention to it because in that context it doesn’t sound anything horrible and the impression produced by that video is actually very good. Let me repeat Nick Carter’s words from part 1 of that video:
- “I’m not going to lie… it’s a little awkward, a little weird, a little different, you know, it’s not like everyone else’s life, but he’s a nice guy”–
What difference was Nick talking about? He definitely wasn’t talking about anything sinister otherwise he wouldn’t be saying that “Michael is a nice guy”. What he most probably meant (quoting Aaron’s words) was that “Michael lived in isolation” and “he was a very timid person”. Or he could be speaking of the fact that at the age of 45 Michael was ready for food fights or ride four-wheelers like a wild teenager – which really does make him different from all of us, doesn’t it? But even if Nick called him weird and different from others what does it matter if all the rest of the interview was fabulous, just fabulous!
And how do know that Aaron didn’t make a similar fabulous interview this time too? Probably he did and it is only Daphne Barak who does not allow us to hear the whole thing? That interview is supposed to last for hours (according to Daphne’s assistant) while all we hear is a couple of minutes of selected phrases cut out of context. And what would happen to Nick Carter’s interview if only his remarks about “weirdness” remained? We would immediately label him and his brother Michael’s haters, wouldn’t we?
To prove once again that the interview with Howard Stern was indeed fabulous let us listen to the second part of it. My transcript may be slightly inaccurate and not covering the full conversation – but this is all I managed to decipher. It starts with mentioning Bruce Willis who allegedly bought Carter over a million worth of gifts. This is another of the nasty innuendos in respect of Aaron Carter which he answered with much dignity despite the tabloids reporting the following:
“Bruce Willis bought Aaron Carter $1 million worth of gifts, a recent lawsuit by the teen heartthrob against his mother revealed. Willis’ rep didn’t return The Scoop’s calls wanting to know what prompted Willis’ generous bouts of gift-giving. . . .” http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/4065772/ns/today-today_entertainment/
The host: Is that true?
Carter [incredulously]: That’s NOT true!
Carter: Bruce Willis flew me to Animal Kingdom where Rumer was having a birthday party and I stayed with him for a couple of days.
Carter: And I learned a lot about industry from him.
Howard Stern is apparently not very much interested in Bruce Willis as the allegations that he could have given Aaron gifts for some kind of “special friendship” sound highly improbable – to say the very least – so he quickly goes back to Michael Jackson once again:
Stern: So you need to tell me, you need to tell me. Nick split from Michael Jackson’s house and you spent the night there. And nothing happened.
Carter: Actually nothing.
Female host: Where did you sleep? [It is astonishing how they keep sticking to that subject – hadn’t Aaron told it to them already?]
Carter: In the theater. I slept in the theater.
Male host: Is it a movie theater?
Female host: Yeah. There were kids bedrooms [There were hospital beds there for crippled children so that they could watch movies from their beds]
The male host makes a face. Laughter. Stern, in a tiny voice, “Where are we going to sleep today?”
Carter: [closing his face with his hands] IT WAS NEVER LIKE THAT! STOP IT! PUNCH YOU IN YOUR ARM!
Sorry that I didn’t understand everything, but what I did understand is enough to see that the Carter brothers are the only sane people in this shameless circus:
The same words of support for Michael Jackson were said by Nick Carter when he was speaking on TV as part of the Backstreet boys band. He makes it totally clear that when interviewed by police investigators both brothers spoke of Michael’s innocence:
– Nick, you are very nearly a defense witness at the Michael Jackson trial?
– Honestly, my brother and myself hang out with Michael a couple of times, on occasions. I didn’t know him as much as my brother did and didn’t know enough to make a kind of a statement about him, how he was, or address at the trial.
– You were on the list?
– We were on the list.
– Everybody was on the list [LAUGHTER]
– Yes, and the thing about Mike what I know is that he is a great guy. He really is a great person, he is a good person….
After Michael’s acquittal Aaron Carter said that he always believed Michael was innocent:
- June 13 2005. “I’m glad everything worked out for my friend Michael Jackson. I always believed that his innocence would be proven. I will continue to support Michael and wish him all the best.”
And when Michael died Aaron said exceptionally wise and appreciative words about Michael and his desire to see people more positive and ridding themselves of hatred and negativity. Unfortunately these words have a direct bearing upon us too:
SS: I know that you and Michael Jackson were friends and I’m so sorry for your loss as well as the rest of the world’s loss. Have you taken any comfort in reflecting on your relationship with him and knowing he is now at peace?
AC: I kind of have some animosity. I knew Michael personally and we grew up very similar. His death, for some reason, made people realize, but only for a minute—that their negativity in this world is what brings everybody down. It’s a very touchy subject for me. Michael was a very timid person. The world made him timid, but he also felt he had to continue to keep himself out there and show his face because he had all of those fans. He really did love his fans. That was the only thing that kept him going—was his fans and that he wanted to make the world a better place. When he said that, he wanted to help people be more positive and be more caring and giving. It didn’t really happen. People just mourned over the fact that he died instead of realizing what he did. That’s pretty much all I have to say.
All of the above is surely not new to you since you are the ones who provided me with the major part of this material. But I thought it necessary to post it here for our inventory about the Carters to be full and accurate. Aaron and Nick Carter won my wholehearted support by standing up for Michael in a sincere, courageous and outspoken way. It was all the more valuable to Michael since the support came in the very midst of the Arvizo allegations, at a time when he needed it most.
The brothers showed themselves true human beings and real men who despite their young age had the courage to go against the tide and stand up to all the nastiness they had to endure from the beastly media and totally unfunny guys like Howard Stern.
Things like that should not be forgotten. Forgetting about it at hearing the very first lie told by an avid hater is the same as immediately forgetting Bashir’s crimes if this avid hater says that Bashir regrets his past deeds. Firstly, what is being said or attributed to Carter now does not eliminate all the good he did to Michael in the past, and secondly, since these things are said by an avid hater their value to us should be close to zero.
And this is this attitude from which I suggest we only start analyzing this situation. I know, guys, that this has taken you by surprise and that the post is too long already, but this is what lies and truth are all about – a lie is quick to tell and run with it, while the truth takes time as first you need to scrape off all the dirt and only then get to a point where you only start looking where the truth is.
- PART 2. WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW
What we’ve learned about Aaron and Nick Carter concerns the period of 2003-2009.
However in the year 2011, just on the eve of the 2nd anniversary of Michael’s death, our good old technology journalist, Daphne Barak did an interview with Aaron Carter.
All the circumstances came in extremely handy – Carter was straight from a rehab and was working on a new album (which naturally needed promotion). This was very convenient a pretext for a conversation which could cover up for the real goal of the conversation – to extract as many revelations as possible about Michael Jackson (and Aaron’s past) and fulfill Daphne Barak’s never-ending desire to cement Michael into people’s memory as another of those hard-core drug addicts and molesters who should have never stepped on this earth at all.
Besides all the harm she previously did to Michael Jackson Daphne Barak has been consistently pursuing this goal for the last three years. She marked every May or June since Michael’s death with a regular story about him being “a lost soul” in terms of narcoticdrugs.
Daphne’s first big lie about Michael, told in June 2009, was a big success and was about the co-called “regular pumping of Michael’s stomach for drugs”. The lie was attributed to Grace Rwaramba, nanny of MJ’s children and effectively smeared Michael’s name, trashed Grace Rwaramba, devastated Michael’s fans and is delighting Michael’s haters even to this day (for more on that story please go to this post).
The second lie, told in mid-May of 2010 came in the form of highly dubious tapes where someone remotely resembling Michael and allegedly being under the effect of drugs, spoke to the answering machine of some unnamed “friend” of Michael Jackson. The tapes looked hardly credible and many people thought that the man didn’t sound like Jackson at all – but for want of anything better Daphne still presented them to the public on the occasion of the 1st anniversary of Michael’s death. This time the idea was to muddy only Michael Jackson as she tried to leave the name of her informant, the so-called friend of Michael Jackson, undisclosed and untainted.
Now we know that this “friend” was Dieter Wiesner – so all Michael’s supporters, ATTENTION please – let us make a mental note that Daphne Barak must have kept his name out of the scandal for a reason, which in its turn is reason enough for us to firmly place Dieter Wiesner among Michael’s secret opponents and surely not his friends.
The 2011 second anniversary of Michael’s death brought another ugly story from Daphne Barak – this time in the form of Aaaron Carter’s “interview” devoted to smearing Michael and accusing him not only of drug-addiction but adding a couple of hints about his “inappropriate” behavior with youngsters.
The story is extremely ugly from whichever angle you look at it. First the Australian “OK! Magazine” screamed with excitement that Aaron allegedly said that MJ had given him wine and cocaine . Then Aaron refuted it through his representative and in a TV interview and said that Michael had never given him cocaine and that he only drank a little wine there. Then Frank Cascio wrote on his twitter account that during the 25 years of their friendship he never – not a single time – heard or seen Michael taking cocaine or offering it to anyone.
I am totally unwilling to spread lies here but for the sake of comparing Daphne Barak’s fabrication with real life I finally decided to repeat the trashy story by the OK! magazine:
‘MICHAEL GAVE ME DRUGS’
Date posted: June-23-2011 17:30
Opening up for the first time about his controversial relationship with Michael Jackson, fellow child star Aaron Carter shares some shocking truths with OK!
On the second anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death, his former friend and confidant, Aaron Carter, 23, has come clean about his close – and controversial – relationship with the pop singer, revealing all to internationally renowned interviewer Daphne Barak [she doesn’t price herself low, does she?] during a charity visit to Marbella, Spain.
Exposing their most intimate moments together, Aaron tells OK! how MJ gave him drugs and alcohol when he was just 15.
‘I never talked about it… This is the first time. I do… I miss Michael… I have spent such incredible times with him. I did things with him that nobody else did… But I was also troubled about what he did to me,’ Aaron says.
When asked whether Michael gave him alcohol, Aaron tells Daphne, ‘Yes, he gave me wine. I mean, I could have refused, but I was 15.’ As for drugs? ‘He gave me cocaine. I felt weird about that and other stuff… We spoke afterwards, hours and hours, on the phone. I admired Michael, but his behaviour bothered me a lot. Then my mother called the police…’http://www.okmagazine.com.au/insider/michael-gave-me-drugs.htm
Michael’s fans froze in horror expecting the actual video to confirm the revelations. But when it finally came the content didn’t suggest anything of the above. Fortunately you have provided me with a transcript so you can make sure yourselves that the actual interview had nothing, absolutely nothing which could suggest all that hysterical screaming:
AC: The only other person who knows about this is Chris, so… and it was a great time. It was fun, ’cause I don’t think Michael ever really got a chance to do stuff like that.
Fame is for me, it’s nothing, you know. A person is a person, that’s how I look at it. People are people. That’s how I looked at Michael. If I had a feeling or a question, I asked him. I never had a filter with him. I think he respected that.
Daphne: Did you see him doing drugs or anything?
AC: I mean, there was definitely things that happened, you know, that were just different, you know, weird. He drank around me a little bit.
Daphne: And you were like what, 14, 15?
AC: Yeah. I was around 14 years old. (He was 15)
Daphne: Did you have a drink?
AC: Yeah, a little.
AC: I personally didn’t see any drug addiction issues. You know, I never saw any injections, nothing like that.
Daphne: (Can’t understand)
Aaron: The time that I spent with him, yes, he was fine. But who knows, human body builds tolerance for things you know. The human body, it’s just how it is. So who knows, I mean he could’ve been doing something I didn’t have a clue, so.
Daphne: But you spent a short time with him actually. He could’ve been taking pills and you wouldn’t know?
Aaron: Yeah, absolutely. Go in the bathroom (mimes snorting). It takes two seconds. You know.
I wanted to express a message to him so that he could hear it. I want to protect his legacy. It’s funny because a lot of the things that Michael did that I want to do. This is a tribute. (starts playing the piano)
The above shows that Daphe Barak is a professional provocateur. Each of her questions is heavily loaded with innuendo and is leading Aaron into saying things which he wouldn’t have said on his own. Here are all her questions in the order they came:
- Did you see him doing drugs or anything?
- And you were like what – 14, 15?
- Did you have a drink?
- But you spent a short time with him actually. He could’ve been taking pills and you wouldn’t know?
Funny how explicitly provocative it looks when you see only the questions? It seems that it is only due to Daphne Barak’s extraordinary ability to pose herself as the best friend of the interviewee that she manages to get away with so leading questions and produce the impression of still being a friend. I told you that she is something special….
6:17 pm – 06/30/2011
OK Lied: Aaron Carter NEVER Said Michael Jackson Gave Him Cocaine, Alcohol
Over night, the internet exploded with the news that, in a recent interview with OK Magazine, former teen idol Aaron Carter claimed that Michael Jackson had once given him cocaine and booze — all when he was only 15-years-old.
Yet today, the audio of Daphne Barak’s interview with Carter was posted online — revealing that Carter said no such thing!
According to a transcript of the audio, the now 23-year-old instead told tabloid-journalist Daphne Barak that he once attended a party at Neverland Ranch with his older brother Nick, actor Chris Tucker, and many other guests. During the party, Carter witnessed Jackson drinking alcohol. “It was fun,” he said, “’cause I don’t think Michael ever really got a chance to do stuff like that.”
“Did you have a drink [at the party]?” Daphne asked.
“Yeah, a little,” Carter replied.
When later questioned about Michael Jackson having an alleged addiction to prescription drugs, Carter plainly stated: “I personally didn’t see any drug addiction issues [with Michael].”
“I mean, there was definitely things that were just different, you know, weird,” he said of the singer’s behavior, before again conceding that “the time that I spent with him, yes, he was fine.”
The interview ended with Aaron playing a Michael Jackson song on piano, as a tribute. “I wanted to express a message to him so that he could hear it,” the singer said. “I want to protect his legacy. It’s funny because a lot of the things that Michael did that I want to do.”
There you have it. No cocaine. No adult purposefully supplying a minor with alcohol. No phone calls to the police. So how did this massive twisting-of-words come about? The answer may lie with the article’s author. . . .
Tabloid-contributor Daphne Barak, some may recall, interviewed Michael Jackson’s former nanny, Grace Rwaramba, shortly after the King of Pop’s death in 2009. In video footage of the interview, Rwaramba expressed her frustration over being fired by Jackson’s team — understandable and in no way controversial. Yet Barak’s later publication of the interview suddenly had Grace the Nanny claiming that she had pumped her former employer’s stomach for drugs, several times!
Rwaramba quickly fired back: “I am shocked, hurt and deeply saddened by recent statements the press has attributed to me. […] The statements attributed to me confirm the worst in human tendencies to sensationalize tragedy and smear reputations for profit.”
“I don’t even know how to pump a stomach!!” she added.
The former-nanny’s close friend, Mallika Chopra (daughter of Deepak Chopa), then took to the blog-o-sphere, defending Rwaramba and explaining the full situation of how “so-called journalist” Daphne Barak had acted as a confidant, baited for information, and then manipulated it for her subsequent article.
Grace the Nanny was not the first to accuse the platinum haired “journalist” of such dirty dealings, either.
Shortly after the late Princess Diana’s tragic death, Barak ran afoul of the law for breaching an agreement with Mohamed Al Fayed, regarding an interview he’d given. A judge subsequently ruled Barak “in contempt of court for being evasive about her whereabouts when attempts were made to serve papers on her.” Instead of sticking around to see whether she’d end up in the slammer or not, Barak reportedly fled, living “on the run” for four months.
And in 2008, after writing an exploitative article about Benazir Bhutto (the late former leader of Pakistan), Barak again found herself bombarded by heavy criticism. Here, she was accused of “blatantly manufacturing details that cannot be independently verified about Bhutto’s life.” (Are you beginning to see a pattern?)
“While biased journalism may be tolerated in many circles, Daphne Barak crossed the line into complete fiction,” wrote the Daily Kos. “Barak could best serve the public by ceasing her shameful, tabloid-style writing, and blatant manufacturing of hurtful lies.”
All of which begs the question: Is this what happened with Aaron Carter’s comments about Michael Jackson? After all, the recently released audio of the interview between Carter and Barak is quite vanilla. So where did the juicy quotes about cocaine and frantic phone calls to the police come from?
We’ll just have to wait and see, when an official response from Carter and/or his PR team pops up. . . .
UPDATE: Frank Cascio (who attended the same party at Neverland with Aaron Carter) just Tweeted his two cents: “I knew Michael for over 25 year and NEVER once did he use cocaine or suggest to anyone else to use cocaine. Never!!!!”
Aaron Carter publicly refuted the story about the cocaine:
Aaron Carter: I NEVER Said MJ Gave Me Coke
Aaron Carter’s rep claims the singer NEVER told an entertainment reporter Michael Jackson gave him cocaine and alcohol when he was 15 years old … and says the reporter COMPLETELY FABRICATED the story.
The controversy stems from an article that ran in OK! Magazine in Australia, written by international journalist Daphne Barak. In the article, Carter was quoted as saying, “Yes, [MJ] gave me wine. I mean, I could have refused, but I was 15. As for drugs? He gave me cocaine.”
But Carter’s rep tells TMZ, “Nothing was said that was reported” … and directed us toward a YouTube video of the interview with Barak … which seems to back up Aaron’s side of the story.
We’ve reached out to Barak for comment — so far, no response.
*****My note: I’ve been in contact with Daphne Barak’s assistant since last night, and she tells me that not only did Aaron say these things, but he made some “more disturbing claims” and that they will release two more clips onto their website in a “matter of days.” She also forwarded me a text Aaron sent to Daphne on June 15th. He seemed very nervous about the repercussions of his interview.
6:04 am – 07/02/2011
Aaron Carter – Aaron Carter Considering Suing Tabloid Over Michael Jackson Misquotes
04 July 2011 01:40
Former child star Aaron Carter is considering taking legal action against a U.S. tabloid after he was quoted suggesting Michael Jackson had offered him cocaine when he was a teenager.
Carter, a longtime pal of Jackson’s, reportedly told OK! magazine’s Daphne Barak the King of Pop had offered him wine and drugs when he was 15 in an interview that recently ran in the U.S. and Australian issues of the publication.
The young singer angrily blasted the allegations, insisting he did not make the remarks and now Jackson’s older brother, Randy, claims Carter is looking at his legal options.
In a series of Twitter posts on Saturday (02Jul11), Randy Jackson wrote, “I was suspicious about the Aaron Carter comment… From what I understand, Aaron Carter has already denied ever making that statement & is considering suing ok magazine.
“When negative things like this surface, it is hard not to have an emotional reaction. But the truth eventually comes out.”
However the ugly story has not ended there and is still in the making (yes, I think we can expect more of it).
In reply to Aaron’s refutation Daphne Barak struck back by releasing tapes in support of the idea that Aaron Carter had indeed talked to her and presumably told her various bad things about Michael. And this is where the story becomes even more interesting than ever.
The first thing which attracts out attention is that we no longer see him talking – all we see is a slide show of pictures of Aaron Carter rehearsing, singing, Daphne Barak taking photos of him, some girls screaming (presumably at Carter’s rehearsals) and so on and so forth – all of it distracting us from the idea that the video of the conversation is actually missing. The cutlery clatter shows that they are having a meal and the extremely poor quality of the tape suggests that the tape was most probably made secretly – without Aaron Carter knowing it.
This horrendously unethical way of obtaining “information” from Aaron will be surely totally overlooked by Michael’s haters – they will justify it by the need to get “raw information the way it is” which is usually got from people when they don’t know that they are being recorded. My only hope is that in view of the recent scandal with Rupert Murdoch and the criminal ways in which his press obtained their information, these people will be able to understand that in journalism such things are totally unacceptable – journalists are not allowed to treat normal people like criminals and use methods employed only by the police towards suspected criminals, and it is betraying ordinary people’s trust in such a ruthless manner which is actually a crime.
However even if we disregard the above highly unethical practice the main point about Daphne Barak’s tapes is that she says that Aaron is speaking about Michael Jackson while Aaron doesn’t give the name of the person he is talking about.
The situation is further aggravated by the fact that all of us were waiting for him to say that he didn’t mean Michael – however he is keeping suspicious silence about the identity of that person and this makes us wonder and feel resentful towards him and his silence. Indeed, why does he keep silent about this matter if the man is not MJ? We know that someone who allegedly sat on Aaron’s bed was NOT Michael as it was physically impossible for Aaron to be asleep and ride a four wheeler at 5 o’clock in the morning – so why not say point-blank that it wasn’t Michael without beating about the bush?
If we put all these questions to Aaron aside for a time being and look at the tape we will see that Daphne Barak is again leading the conversation in the direction she wants to. Her work is fine and practically unnoticeable – a mere couple of words here and there plus a part about children most probably pasted to the first part of the tape (which surprised many readers by a sudden change of the subject) is taking the conversation into the direction she wants us to follow:
Aaron: He wanted me to stay in his room, so he got a cot and I stayed on the cot in his room, and it must have been like 5 o’clock in the morning
Daphne: Well, that’s a story from you nobody knows?
Aaron: 5 oclock in the morning. He’s on my bed. He’s on the foot of the bed and I wake up –
Daphne: this is King –
Aaron: I [gasps] What are you doing? like you know …15 years old .. you know. What are you doing? And he says Oh my god I didn’t .. I didn’t know. He went to his bed and I’m like –
Daphne: You’re scared what are you going to do?
Daphne called this man “king”? Who else could she call that way and Aaron wouldn’t pay attention, I wonder? Of course he could have overlooked that remark altogether but for the sake of accuracy everything should be examined, including this remark… This looked like a big question to me but only until I came across the headline of an article which called “king” another person in Aaron and Nick Carter’s surrounding – only king of Music this time. This person was their former manager Lou Pearlman, with whom Nick Carter started working at the age of 12 and Aaron Carter at the tender age of 10.
It seems that Lou Pearlman was indeed quite a celebrity in his prime time. He was the one who managed several boys bands which enjoyed much success – his first pop group was the Backstreet Boys, created in 1992, followed by subsequent hitmakers including *NSYNC, Aaron Carter, O-Town, and the German boy band US5. However beside a talent in making boys bands Pearlman showed a great talent in swindling people out of their money and it is for this talent that he is currently serving a prison term of 25 years.
But what is even more horrendous about Pearlman is that the members of his boys bands (mostly those who left or never made it into the bands) spoke of the manager’s strange ways with boys who were in his charge. To be fair to Pearlman none of the boys ever accused him of molestation (the only thing they did was non-stop suing him for machinations with their money, all of which was settled out of court) and it was only the mother of Nick Carter who was rather outspoken with a Vanity Fair correspondent, Bryan Burrough. His damning article frankly surprised me by its serious 9-page approach to this and other problems about Lou Pearlman (see the article here ).
The short of the story is probably best reported in this account where it is partially given by one of the boys’ lawyers:
Article Alleges Lou Pearlman Molested Boy Band Members
Posted: 11:17 pm EDT October 2, 2007
ORLANDO, Fla. — Eyewitness News obtained a copy of a tell-all article in Vanity Fair that will go on sale nationwide next week. The article contains allegations that former music mogul Lou Pearlman molested young members of boy bands.
In the article, titled “Mad About the Boys,” the strongest allegations come from Pearlman’s assistant and aspiring singer, Steve Mooney, who said during the late 1990s he witnessed teenaged singers walking out of Pearlman’s bedroom at his Windermere home late at night.
Mooney also described what happened when he once asked the boy band creator what it would take to get into a music group. He said Pearlman “leaned back in his chair, in his white terry cloth robe and white underwear, and spread his legs. And then he said ‘You’re a smart boy. Figure it out.'”
“Certain things happened and it almost destroyed our family. I tried to warn everyone. I tried to warn all the mothers. I tried to expose him for what he was years ago,” the mother of Backstreet Boy member Nick Carter is quoted saying.
An original member of the Backstreet Boys, Phoenix Stone, said in the article that Pearlman was definitely inappropriate with Nick Carter. Eyewitness News spoke with Phoenix Stone’s attorney, Clay Townsend, who works in Orlando.
“The suggestions are pretty darn serious and I’m sure Pearlman is going to be livid,” said Townsend.
Townsend also said his client believes while Pearlman was inappropriate with young boys, it never turned sexual, but the allegations are still serious.
“There’s some things that will concern some folks and aggravate others. It’s tragic all the way around, the personal and business side,” said Townsend.
Townsend said, at this point, it’s all hearsay and charges are only possible if a victim goes to the authorities. The Orange County Sheriff’s Office said it was not aware of the allegations.
Lou Pearlman is set to stand trial in March. He has been held in the Orange County Jail without bond since July on federal charges of bank and mail fraud. Pearlman is accused of stealing $317 million from investors and another $130 million from banks.
Fortunately the above are allegations only and fortunately nobody is saying that this inappropriate behavior ever turned sexual – however even if it went only as far as “touching”, “sitting on their bed”, “making uncomfortable advances” or “rubbing their muscles” it should have been still disgusting to have to stay beside this person for years and years on end – so it is no wonder that many of the boys who were in his charge had to seek therapy or turned to drugs trying to cope with their emotional problems…
Since some of the boys did speak out, their accounts struck me by their similarity with the labels Tom Sneddon and the media constantly tried to stick to Michael – beginning with them being a “family” and forcing them to live in his home to questions like “Do you trust me?” or requests “not to tell the parents”.
If you come to think of it all those issues – “being a family”, “having trust in him” or “alienation from parents” – they were a constant talk only of the media and prosecutors and not something typical of Michael Jackson himself – witnesses for the defense were very surprised when they were interrogated over all that “family” stuff…
In fact what the media said about Michael was like a parody of what was reallytaking place in Pearlman’s home – only Michael didn’t do anything but was railroaded for his non-existent crimes for decades, while the King of Music probably did do something, but easily got away with it with only a dozen journalists being after him.
Burk Parson who left the boys’ band to become minister in church described his short time with Pearlman as follows (if Pearlman exerted so much pressure on boys before they joined the band, how much more of it came later?):
- Two weeks later I got the call that I was officially in the band. That next weekend my mother, sisters, and I drove to Orlando. My sisters swam in the hotel pool with Nick Carter and his brother, Aaron, and I was picked up in the nicest limousine I had ever seen—myself along with the other guys hopped in with Lou Perlman and went to eat. I didn’t quite know what to make of it all, and I was skeptical from the outset, yet I went along with it for the time being. It was January 2003, and for the next several months the other guys and I met in Orlando for voice lessons, rehearsals, dance lessons, and conversations about private tutors for school and about our future together.
- I walked into Lou’s office one week before contracts were to be signed and told him that this wasn’t what God had for my life. I explained to him as he sat behind his desk, breathing heavily, that I believed God had other plans for me and that I believed I would be in ministry some day. That’s really about all I said; it was one of the hardest things I have ever had to do in my life (even to this day). Lou Pearlman, a lapsed Jew, first cousin of Art Garfunkel (kind of ironic), and self-made millionaire (or so it seemed at the time), looked at me, smiled, and said, “We love you Burk, you can’t leave us; we’re you’re family.”
He then stood up and said, “you must do it, Burk.” His face turned red and he huffed and puffed. He then proceeded to remind me of all he had invested in me and in the rest of the group. By this time the rest of the guys could hear what was going on as they sat in the game room outside Lou’s office. He was yelling, and he was beyond upset. In tears, I thanked him for all he had done and how said how sorry I was for letting him down and leaving. I walked out, said goodbye, and waved to the guys whom I dearly came to love and care for and drove home to Sarasota. It was one of the longest two-hour drives of my life.
- It was during this period, in 1997 and 1998, that the first allegations of inappropriate behavior involving Pearlman appear to have surfaced. One incident centered on the youngest of the Backstreet Boys, Nick Carter, who in 1997 turned 17. Even for many of those closest to the group, what happened remains unclear. “My son did say something about the fact that Nick had been uncomfortable staying [at Pearlman’s house],” Denise McLean says. “For a while Nick loved going over to Lou’s house. All of a sudden it appeared there was a flip at some point. Then we heard from the Carter camp that there was some kind of inappropriate behavior. It was just odd. I can just say there were odd events that took place.”
- Neither Nick Carter nor his divorced parents, Robert and Jane Carter, will address what, if anything, happened. But at least two other mothers of Pearlman band members assert Jane termed Pearlman a “sexual predator.” Phoenix Stone says he discussed the matter with both Nick and his mother. “With Nick, I got to tell you, this was not something Nick was comfortable talking about,” says Stone. “What happened? Well, I just think that he finally, you know, Lou was definitely inappropriate with him, and he just felt that he didn’t want anything to do with that anymore. There was a big blowup at that point. From what Jane says, yes, there was a big blowup and they confronted him.”
- In a telephone interview, Jane Carter stops just short of acknowledging Pearlman made improper overtures to her son. “Certain things happened,” she tells me, “and it almost destroyed our family. I tried to warn everyone. I tried to warn all the mothers.” Told that this article would detail allegations that Pearlman made overtures to other young men, she replies, “If you’re doing that, and exposing that, I give you a big flag. I tried to expose him for what he was years ago.… I hope you expose him, because the financial [scandal] is the least of his injustices.” When I ask why she won’t discuss it further, Carter says she doesn’t want to jeopardize her relationship with Nick. “I can’t say anything more,” she says. “These children are fearful, and they want to go on with their careers.”http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/11/pearlman200711?currentPage=5
- “He wanted to [seduce] everyone. He wanted to [seduce] everyone there … he’s disgusting,” Cronin told Howard Stern on his radio show on Wednesday (January 21), when he stopped by to promote his new album, Billion Dollar Sound. “He needed you to sing a little bit, but really he just wanted you to be good-looking.” ….
- “I’ve had to go to therapy … he’s really a creepy guy,” Cronin said after describing Pearlman’s “wonderland for guys” mansion, which was full of Star Wars memorabilia. He added that Pearlman’s attention was invasive to say the least.
- “He goes, ‘You could be a star … take off your shirt.’ Then he’s like, ‘Turn around,’ ” Cronin recalled. “He’s massaging my shoulders and he’s like, ‘You wanna watch “Top Gun”?’ “
- “Eventually he did [try to do it] … some other dudes went for it. And if you did, he took care of you. He’d buy ’em cars.” Rich jokingly added that one of the guys is now very famous because of it.
(No, it wasn’t Nick Carter that Rich Cronin was speaking of).
The article about Steve Mooney, whom Pearlman recruited as a 20-year-old to work as his assistant, says:
- Pearlman enjoyed hugging him, rubbing his shoulders, and squeezing his arms, usually in conjunction with one of his odd pep talks. “He would say, ‘Do you trust me?’ [And I would say], ‘Of course I trust you, Lou,'” Mooney recalls. “He always said, ‘I want to break you down, then build you up, so we can be a team together.’ Then he would say, ‘Your aura is off,’ so he begins rubbing my back. I was like, ‘Whoa!’ And he’s going, ‘It’s O.K., we’ve got to get your aura aligned.'” It got to the point, Mooney says, where every time they were alone Pearlman would rub his muscles. “As soon as the elevator doors close, he would grab you and rub your abs,” he recalls. “The first few times, it’s O.K. But it gets to be too much. It’s like you have this creepy friend who’s always touching you.”
- Mooney also says, “There was one guy in every band—one sacrifice—one guy in every band who takes it for Lou. That’s just the way it was.” And Pearlman’s publicist, Jay Marose, says, “You’d see Lou kind of moving in on one of them, and you’d just tell someone, Get that kid away from Lou before it’s too late.”http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/making_the_band/2007_Oct_05_lou_pearlman
Tim Christofore, a member of Take 5, recalls:
- “During a sleepover at Pearlman’s house, the music czar swan-dived onto his and another boy’s bed and wrestled with them wearing only in a towel, which came off. “We were like, ‘Ooh, Lou, that’s gross.’ What did I know? I was 13.” http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/15987175.html
The ABC News:
While Mooney and some of the older band members accuse Pearlman of outwardly looking for sexual favors in lieu of advancing their careers, the younger boys remember Pearlman more as a “sleazy uncle.”
“Lou’s house was a fun place to hang out,” Tim Christofore, 24, told ABCNEWS.com. “There was a pool table and slot machines.” Christofore moved to Florida from Minnesota at 13 as part of the band Take 5. Christofore recalls two incidents in which Pearlman exposed himself in front of him.
“There was one time where he answered the door naked,” he said.
Another time Christofore and band mate Jeff “Clay” Goodell, then also 13, had fallen asleep at Pearlman’s house. They woke up to Pearlman jumping into bed with them.
“He jumped into the bed in his towel,” said Goodell, now 23 and a senior in college. “He rolled all over us and the towel fell off.”
Goodell said that when he was 13 or 14, Pearlman took him and his brother Ryan, then 17 and also a member of Take 5, to a strip club.
“It was one of those days where we had gone through our normal routine and ended up hanging out together at Lou’s,” he said. “The strip club came up and we ended up going ? That was weird, but it wasn’t happening all the time.
On another night, Pearlman screened a Star Wars film, but the movie was interrupted with a pornographic video. “Because we were minors there was always at least one parent at the house. That night was the only night I ever stayed at Lou’s house,” said Ryan Goodell, 27 and now a second year law school student in Los Angeles.
“We were watching Star Wars and all of a sudden a porno came on. It was literally 10 seconds and then it got turned off. We were all teenagers snickering and he made some excuse,” Ryan said.
“Who knows what he was thinking. Was he trying to be the cool ‘Big Poppa’ uncle?” asked Ryan referring to the nickname Pearlman used for himself. “Or was he trying to get a sense of how we would react?”
Ryan said that despite the incident with the pornography and the strip club, he is skeptical of some of the stories he has heard.
“Maybe it’s just that Pearlman was only willing to take that extra step with guys like Mooney who were older than 18, which is why I never saw it. But some of these guys always wanted to be in bands and never got into them and you have to question their motives ? If the things they say they saw happen are true, and they didn’t say anything at the time, that is just wrong.”
Many of the boys interviewed by Vanity Fair and ABC News said that Pearlman would often offer them massages that he said would “balance their aura” or “help build bigger muscles.”
“The aura massage thing,” said Christofore. “He always said he had a way to feel up on your arm or bicep so that when you curled your arm it would make your muscles look bigger. He was a weird, touchy guy and would sometimes rub kids’ abs.”
The boys from Take 5 resent Pearlman for other reasons, however. They said that when the Backstreet Boys and ‘NSync, backed by their record companies, sued Pearlman to get out of their contracts and collect moneys owed them, Pearlman switched tactics in promoting Take 5. In an effort to keep the bands making him money, but not enough that the labels would support them in a protracted legal battle, the members said Pearlman never let them get too big and barely paid them after five years of extensive touring in Europe and Asia. They sued Pearlman before breaking up the band and leaving Florida.
None of the members of the Backstreet Boys or ‘NSync would speak to ABC News or Vanity Fair.http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3709785&page=1
I must admit that in his rebuttal of the boys’ accounts Lou Pearlman effectively refuted Tim Christofore’s story involving a towel by saying “I’ve never owned a towel that could wrap all the way around me anyway”.
On the other hand Tim Christofore’s story strikes you by its vivid similarity to what Aaron Carter said to Daphne Barak in that private conversation of theirs:
- Tim Christofore was 13 when he joined the Pearlman-guided band Take 5. During sleepovers at Pearlman’s place, Christofore told Gray, “[Lou] would let us watch porn.” Once, Christofore said, he awoke to find Lou standing at the foot of the bed, wearing only a towel, which came off when he dove on the mattress to “wrestle” with the boys.
So they woke up and Lou was standing at the foot of his bed? Noooo, this is too close to Aaron Carter’s words to be just a coincidence.… Aaron said that he woke up and someone was sitting at the foot of his bed. The chances that he was speaking about Pearlman to Daphne Barak are growing bigger and bigger with every new fact we are learning!
And who knows how far Aaron could go in his revelations about his former manager in a talk which he thought was private and which was carried out with a person who presented herself as his friend ?
And since many boys say that Pearlman showed porn to them can we rule out that it was him who also introduced them to weed and cocaine or something else which Aaron talked about in tape 3?
The impression I was getting while reading all those accounts was of something surrealistic going on and bordering on the supernatural too. It was like recognizing that ALL the allegations they threw against Michael were actually taken from Lou Pearlman’s life – as if someone was playing a kind of a cruel game where they were looking at one person but painting another man’s picture. The only difference was that the innocent was meant to suffer while the guilty one was allowed to walk about free…
As a result of the Carters’ association with Lou Pearlman Nick Carter’s emotional state was so bad that he had to undergo therapy.
The tabloid tells a story about it which should naturally be divided by a hundred to remotely resemble the truth:
Justin Timberlake and Nick Carter have been dragged into a gay scandal so far up that Nick has even had to undergo therapy to deal with it.
The two pop stars, along with other members of their former boy groups NSYNC and Backstreet Boys, were exposed to the corrupt sexual surroundings of boy band kingmaker Lou Pearlman.
This all started when an obese Pearlman convinced the parents of aspiring singers to let their children live in his Florida mansion.
An insider said that once the boys were in his home, the 350-pound Pearlman would prance around naked in front of the young boys, and hop into their beds.
Nick’s mother, Jane, was so convinced that Pearlman was molesting her son, that she dragged him to a psychiatrist, according to Nick’s father.
“Jane made the accusation when Nick was just 15.” said Nick’s dad. “She took Nick to a therapist because of it. The therapist decided that Lou never touched Nick, but Jane was still convinced of it.”
Backstreet boy A.J. McLean’s mother said she was unaware of Pearlman’s behavior, but nevertheless, she still did not allow him to stay over at his home.
According to Nick Carter’s former high school tutor, Pearlman acted especially affectionate towards him. “When I went to Lou’s mansion to tutor Nick, I saw Lou put his arms around Nick and massage him.”
“There were security cameras filming the boys, and Loud had this ornate bathroom with a shower that had a zillion shower heads. He was a strange person.”
“Some of the band members would stay at Lou’s house when they were under his umbrella. But there came a time when they refused to stay there anymore,” claims the tutor.
To be fair to Pearlman there were never any charges made against him and as regards Nick Carter’s mother Pearlman gave the following answer:
- “Jane Carter has been in and out of settlement agreements with my company. I’m sure her boys, like I, have no idea what she is talking about. She’s just trying to get attention, as usual. Just look at her problems with her family. After Aaron left his mom as his manager, he came back to me for management until recently. Not only are Nick and I still friends, he was in our studio recording a duet with Aaron.”http://www.shoutmouth.com/index.php/news/Hold_The_Phone%3A_Lou_Pearlman_Might_Not_Be_a_Child_Molester
I fully agree that all of the above could have been brushed away as nasty and unsubstantiated innuendos – but only if the boys, who are now grown-up people, did not more or less admit it that they were indeed subjected to some kind of inappropriate behavior by Lou Pearlman.
Oct 31 2007 7:31 PM EDT 12,965
Backstreet Boys Open Up To John Norris About Disgraced Boy-Band Mogul Lou Pearlman: ‘Karma’s Karma’
As the Boys drop a fifth album, their former manager awaits trial on fraud charges and is accused of being a sexual predator.
It was a difficult moment in an interview ostensibly to mark the release of a new album, and, in searching for the right comment, the Backstreet Boys’ AJ McLean turned to a lyric from a onetime boy-band rival.
“One of the radio stations asked us about this, and Brian and I started singing Justin [Timberlake]’s ‘What Goes Around … Comes Around.‘ I mean, you can’t run from these things forever. You know if you’re doing something bad from the very get, it’s gonna come back around and bite you in the ass. There’s no way around it.”
The person in question — indeed, a guy Backstreet would just as soon not be talking about in 2007 — is Lou Pearlman, the impresario once known as “Big Poppa,” the man who helped turn Orlando, Florida, into the late-1990s capital of boy-band teen pop-dom, and a man who has seen better days. Not only is Pearlman presently sitting in an Orange County, Florida, jail awaiting trial on charges of bank and investment fraud, accused of bilking investors nationwide of millions of dollarsthrough what amounted to a Ponzi scheme, he is also the subject of a damning article by Bryan Burrough in the November issue of Vanity Fair.
The VF piece not only exhaustively chronicles Pearlman’s years of financial shenanigans and tall tales that landed him in his current hot water, it also alleges that Pearlman was a habitual sexual predator — harassing, abusing or worse — the teenage boys in his charge.
McLean continued, “I mean we thankfully got out of that whole situation when we did, and you know we don’t wish bad upon anybody, but karma’s karma.”
The karma that has apparently caught up with Pearlman on the financial front can hardly be considered surprising. His tendency to play less than fair — signing the teen groups he launched to awful deals from which they made next to nothing — has already been well-documented, most recently in Lance Bass’ book “Out of Sync.” Years ago, both ‘NSYNC and Backstreet sued Pearlman in order to get money owed them and to finally be free from his financial grasp. Bass, in his book, called it a “stab in the back; Justin Timberlake has called it “financial rape.”
Whatever other kind of grasping was going on behind closed doors in Pearlman’s boy-band-chocked world is still anybody’s guess. But the creepy allegations made in the VF piece are troubling — from former LFO singer Rich Cronin’s saying that Lou had a penchant for “massaging” his young dudes, to an Abercrombie employee-turned-personal assistant named Steve Mooney alleging that Pearlman once full-on propositioned him and implied that sexual favors would land him a spot in a band. Mooney tells Burrough, “There was one guy in every band — one sacrifice … who takes it for Lou.”
According to a onetime singer and co-manager, Phoenix Stone, that guy was Nick Carter in the Backstreet Boys. Stone claims in the VF story that Pearlman was “inappropriate” with Carter, leading to a “big blowup.” Nick’s mother, Jane Carter, is even quoted in the article, saying, “Certain things happened” and calling the financial scandal “the least of [Pearlman’s] injustices.”
Needless to say, none of this is anything that now-27-year-old Nick Carter is keen to talk about, especially in what ought to be an interview heralding the release of a new record, but he did have a comment for those people speaking out.
“There’s a lot of people who maybe were involved in our stuff in the past who want to take an opportunity maybe because they are a little bitter, you know, maybe because of where they are right now,” Carter said. “And they tend to, like, throw us under the bus, you know what I mean? Because of where we are right now. I mean, I’m not naming anybody but … any attack on any one of us in this group is an attack on the whole entire group.”
When I suggested that if anyone is being “attacked” it’s Pearlman and not Backstreet, Nick would only offer, “Well, not necessarily an attack, but it does affect the whole entire group. Because we’ve all gone through stuff together, and it just feels like, it’s unfortunate that people have to talk, ’cause they have nothing else to talk about.”
As for whether they knew of sexual abuse by Pearlman, McLean said Backstreet were somewhat out of the loop.“We were the first group that started with Lou, so once we kind of took off, there was so much going on in our lives that there was no time for us to focus on or really pay attention to what was going on, if there was anything going on, behind closed doors, and now, obviously he had group after group after us, and now it’s like these things are coming up. And who knows?”
But if the alleged sexual harassment and/or abuse of these boy-band members was as habitual and widespread as is suggested in the Vanity Fair story, why have we heard nothing until now? Backstreet believe it may well have to do with the fact that “Big Poppa” is behind bars.
Says AJ, “I guess it’s just the perfect opportunity now because of his situation and where he’s at and people are like, ‘Well, he can’t really defend himself. He can’t do anything, and so let’s just go.’ … And maybe they feel comfortable saying whatever they’re saying.”
Brian Littrell agreed, and suggested it’s also a case of time, and distance, emboldening Pearlman’s alleged victims. “You don’t necessarily come into this business with a backbone. You have to grow a backbone,” Littrell said. “We love music, we’ve always been about music and touring and traveling and making the fans happy, and at the same time you can get walked all over in this business. Financially and in all kinds of ways. So people coming out now would be like somebody growing a backbone. You know, ‘He can’t do anything to me now, so it’s the time.’ ”
It’s the time, as far as the Backstreet Boys are concerned, for the group to focus not on unsavory stories about Pearlman, not on last year’s departure of Kevin Richardson (who they insist they remain on “great” terms with) but on their fifth album, Unbreakable (which hits stores Tuesday), the one that certifies that they, alone among their vocal-group peers (please, let’s not call ’em a “boy band” anymore), are still around.
“There’s so much laundry that’s been aired out in the past,” Howie Dorough said. “I mean, everybody knows about us from lawsuits to, you know, everything that’s happened, so I think we’re at the point in our career where we’re just trying to move forward, not look back.”
A final rejoinder, AJ? “Again, what goes around comes around, and we’ve been the ones to not succumb to anything, and that’s why we’re still here because we’ve always focused on what’s most important to the Backstreet Boys, which is the music.”
Here is the VIDEO of AJ McLean talking – WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND:
Over here the musicians say it clearly – they do not want to look back. They are trying hard to move forward despite all the dirt they had to see or possibly go through under Pearlman’s management – though it seems that at least the Backstreet boys band managed to get out of this loop as they were the first in Pearlman’s charge and he couldn’t go too far with them yet.
And I am very much willing to respect their desire to forget about it.
I am pretty sure that Aaron Carter could speak about Lou Pearlman in his private conversation with a highly “sympathetic” woman Daphne Barak and could say something about their common and dreary past which he doesn’t want to share with the rest of the public.
He could have mentioned some other performers who wouldn’t want their skeletons in the cupboard revealed as this may ruin these people’s life and career (and potentially land Aaron in a series of lawsuits).
In fact there are many reasons why he may be now unwilling to have the names named and these highly private tapes disclosed.
And it is absolutely not his fault that he opened up his mind and soul to this BEAST – a journalist who not only betrayed him by making a secret recording of his revelations, but is slandering another innocent person now – Michael Jackson – by forging the tapes and manipulating the public into thinking that Aaron was speaking about Michael.
If Aaron Carter had been speaking of Michael he wouldn’t be defending his innocence in all other tapes except those from Daphne Barak and he would certainly not be saying that Michael was his biggest teacher and inspiration in life like he says it in another of his recent tapes.
Here is a video of it and let us make a note that we’ve never heard him speak like that about his former manager Pearlman.Considering Aaron’s unique childhood experience he seems to know the difference between a real predator and an innocent person and his opinion may be trusted:
However I haven’t yet answered why Aaron Carter is not making a clear statement that the man he was talking about wasn’t Michael Jackson.
Given that Daphne Barak has already tried to intimidate another person (Grace Rwaramba) by threatening that she will disclose the tapes of their private conversations if Grace doesn’t do what she wants of her, I think that Daphne Barak is now blackmailing Aaron Carter by threatening to disclose his very private tapes too.
He is afraid that she will do it.
This is the reason why.
Below is an updated version of Aaron’s video 2:
The post complete with replies to it is here: http://wp.me/pIuKO-1Fj
January 20, 2012
Here is the link to the full post while I – following the goals of this “See-through-lies Manual” – will focus only some issues of Diane Dimond’s performance and the methods she is using in her work of brainwashing the public:
To be frank with you I’ve managed to watch only two parts of the program as what Diane Dimond is saying is totally outrageous.
First, she constantly refers to “what the prosecution said”.
But what does it matter what the prosecution said? The prosecution LOST their case and did not prove at the trial ANY of the points she is repeating now!
How much longer will this incessant chewing up of the old gum go on? People are behaving in a way as if there had been no trial! They repeat the same accusations again and again, as if we were just at the beginning of the case…
Second, I am utterly disgusted by the way she constantly repeats “I am not saying that Michael Jackson was a p-le”. This never-ending mantra betrays Diane Dimond to be a professional propagandist who employs the tricks of her profession.
She knows perfectly well that the more you repeat a statement (even in its negative form) the stronger is the impact and the more lasting the impression is. This is the CLASSICS of the genre and is based on human psychology. The goal is to establish a fixed link of associations between two words – Michael Jackson and p. (this other word). You repeat it a hundred times and here you are – the old allegations are refreshed in people’s memories and firmly implanted in their minds.
To prove to everyone that she is doing it on purpose, let me ask you the following question – if you think that the wall in front of you is not yellow, will you constantly say “This wall is not yellow”?
No, you won’t? Absolutely the same principle applies here!
If she doesn’t think Michael to belong to that class she should not say it AT ALL. It would be quite enough to say just once that she never thought he was capable of anything bad (without naming the word), and that would be it.
While this constant talk like “I do not say that the wall is yellow. Do you think it is not yellow? Who also thinks it is not yellow? Why do you say it is not yellow? You’ve always thought it is not yellow?” etc., is only implanting in your memory that the wall is indeed yellow.
You can check your memory now and you will see that the example of a “not yellow wall” proves to you that incessant mentioning some word has a lingering effect on your memory. After the word is repeated a hundred time, your reason knows that the wall is not yellow, but the moment you recall the word “wall” “yellow” springs into your memory too….
This is a law of human psychology. (Psychology is different from psychiatry – it studies why a healthy human being behaves in this or that way and how human memory, perception, emotions work). By speaking about a healthy mind I mean that Diane Dimond is absolutely sane in the technical meaning of the word – all she is doing is using a well-known psychological mechanism every teacher of foreign languages knows and she is doing it on purpose.
I’ll explain it in even further detail.
If you want someone to remember the word “yellow” it is absolutely not enough to state the word just once and as it is. How will a foreign language student remember this word if you do not put this word into a context? You show him pictures and give the word in various combinations – a yellow wall, a yellow book, a yellow lemon.
Or speak of a girl in a yellow dress who is eating a yellow apple and is sitting in a yellow car which is driving up to a yellow house with a yellow fence and garden with yellow flowers in it.
You’ve guessed it – the word is best remembered in a text and the more colourful, funny and emotional the context is the better the memory effect is. If a bright picture of a girl in a yellow car has been implanted into your memory it is just enough for you to remember the image to recall the necessary word.
Diane Dimond is using this principle with Michael Jackson and … (this other word). She is painting the same kind of picture and is implanting it into our memories in the same way I did it with a “yellow girl”.
And what does it matter if I insert NOT into the picture?
The girl not in a yellow dress is not eating a yellow apple and is not sitting in a yellow car which is not driving up to a yellow house which has no yellow fence and no garden with yellow flowers in it.
Though I inserted “not” into the same text you still memorized the word “yellow”, didn’t you? Actually you fell that almost nothing changed? The same girl and the same yellow are still coming together?
And this is exactly what the media has been doing to Michael Jackson all these long years. They repeated these words in association with Michael not a dozen times (the way I did it now), but thousands, and even millions of times and for many years too. They wanted him and that word to fuse together and form a link of stable associations. Even if they were using NOT with it.
They could have very well gone without the repetition of that word because there a lot of other ways of saying the same thing – but no, they insisted on refreshing in people’s memory of that old and nasty image.
The damaging effect Diane Dimond did to Michael in the “In Session” program by repeating “I am not saying he was a p.” is impossible to calculate. Is it devastating.
And this is why they introduced her into the show at the last minute. Someone wanted her to speak of the “old things” and wanted to nullify new links of associations formed in people’s minds – Michael Jackson was a great father, Michael Jackson was innocent, Michael Jackson was slandered, Michael Jackson was harassed, Michael Jackson was a loving soul, Michael Jackson had a heart of gold, Michael Jackson was a great human being…
And this is why the sincere and genuine words said by those bodyguards were also very good in support of Michael though they lacked facts to counter Dimond’s arguments and didn’t refute her most outrageous lies (even now she says the settlement with the Chandlers was for $30mln, while it was for half the sum and all $15,3 mln were paid by the insurance!).
The bodyguards drew a different image of Michael in people’s minds, and though they are unable to undo the damage done by Dimond’s tricks, their impressions of Michael still leave a warm feeling in your heart. They knew Michael Jackson while Diane Dimond did not. She allows herself to speak of him as the final authority though she never even met him. True, she has been to Neverland as she reported from there in November 2003 during the police raid . However in this program she lies and says she has never been there.
Yellow journalism is just like that.
January 30, 2012
Why was Nancy Grace furious?
The video of Nancy Grace talking to Mike Garcia – Michael Jackson’s bodyguard – was posted on a different thread but I am adding it to the “See through lies manual” because this is where it truly belongs.
The video is another page from a textbook on how they are doing anti-Michael Jackson propaganda work.
I agree with the readers that Nancy Grace was very DISgraceful to Mike Garcia. DISgraceful and disrespectful, but not only that – she used him simply as a pretext for expressing her own (or her bosses’) views on Conrad Murray.
All she needs Mike Garcia for is to say that Murray produced a favorable impression on him when Michael Jackson was alive – and this is meant to be the starting point for her long monologue on what a decent doctor he is, and how he is liked by his patients and all the rest of her totally disgraceful pro-Murray crap.
However, to her great annoyance, Mike Garcia uses this opportunity to say what he really thinks of Conrad Murray and what impression he gets of him as the trial unfolds.
Nancy Grace interrupts him referring to the news following the interview (reminding him that they are short of time), but talks and talks herself forever about why prosecution is allowed to show pictures of dead bodies.
When Mike Garcia manages to put in a word and says that for the prosecution it is okay, it is the media who shouldn’t be making a show of it, Nancy Grace pauses in deep annoyance and repeats her question twice and slowly, as if for an imbecile.
And when Mike finally says that [initially] Conrad Murray looked like a nice guy, this is what she was waiting from him all along! Never mind the rest of what Mike Garcia said – she still claims he “hit it on the nail” when he said “Murray was nice” and goes on talking from 2:23 to 2:51 (and probably longer) about how “imposing” Conrad Murray is, how dignified his attitude is, how he is liked by his patients, etc. doing the rest of her propaganda work.
Hence a question: What did she need Mike Garcia for? Because her monologue about Murray was ready and all she wanted of the bodyguard was to give her the necessary cue.
Another question: Why couldn’t she do it on her own? Because she needed to observe the formalities and present her own views as an interview.
So what is formally an interview with another person is actually her own talk show and propaganda of her views.
Mike Garcia however, somewhat ruined her plans as he managed to insert his own text and this is why she is so furious with him.
See how the experienced actress Nancy Grace gets furious with her stage partner for making a successful debut and stealing part of her show:
Here is a rough transcript of it (the way I understood it):
Nancy: With me is Mike Garcia, former Jackson bodyguard. Mike, thank you for being with us. Thank you for your observations of Conrad Murray.
Mike: Thank you for having me, Ms. Grace. First of all I just want to say how disappointing it was to see Mr. Jackson deceased and the new picture that was displayed in the media. [ ] It wasn’t good for his children…
Nancy: Yes, we’ve got a news cast, Mr. Garcia. No offense, but this is a homicide trial and to prove a homicide if you are a prosecutor in a murder case or not, but you have to have a dead body and no prosecutor wants to show just for kicks a victim’s dead naked body, all right? That is not what this is about. But I understand, you want as a friend…
Mike: One thing, one thing…
Nancy: …as I was saying as a friend of Michael Jackson… I didn’t like it either, I didn’t like it either, but a homicide trial is not a pretty thing. What I am trying ..
Mike: They need to show it at the trial. That’s fine. But there is no need to show it in the media, that’s different. That was my point.
[slowly] So what were your observations of Conrad Murray…?
Mike: I think the trial is a kind of an eye-opener. I mean the fact that there was no proper equipment available for Mr. Jackson, the fact that he wasn’t doing the necessary care for him. I mean for one hundred fifty thousand dollars a month you would think there would be better equipment and even added help with Mr. Jackson at the time, so as I watch the trial and things unfold, it really seems like a kind of an eye-opener of what the verdict is going to be.
Nancy: Okay, let me try one more time, Mr. Garcia… You worked in the Jackson home. You observed Conrad Murray. [slowly uttering her words] What were your ob-ser-va-tions of Doc-tor Con-rad Mur-ray?
Mike: [slowly] He was a nice guy.
Nancy: What do you mean by that?
Mike: When he came to the house the children were sick, Mr. Jackson was sick, so he was treating them for colds, and I was here in Las Vegas at that time. So his impression to us seemed that he was a good guy and acted in Mr. Jackson’s best interests but as the trial unfolds you can see that there was a lot of negligence.
Nancy: You know, Mike Garcia, you’ve really hit the nail on the head. What’s gonna happen in this trial is that Conrad Murray does come across – though he didn’t take the stand – he has this gravitas, his presence, his imposing figure, he is 6 foot 4, he sits there like a dignified doctor, people like their doctor generally and he comes across as a nice guy. Just like Mike Garcia said and Garcia knows – he has been in Jackson’s home, he was seeing Conrad Murray…
End of video, but apparently no end of Nancy’s praises for Conrad Murray, based on only one good word she managed to extract from Mike Garcia under enormous pressure.
So now you see that she simply uses people to express her own point of view? And see how flagrantly she distorts the truth building her story around something which barely exists?