A see-through-lies MANUAL
Image via Wikipedia
August 15, 2010
Dialdancer, I’ve read the article you 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, then 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:
explainer: Answers to your questions about the news.
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
- Michael Jackson and Lisa Maria Presley surrounded by children at Neverland ranch
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:
http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/interviewwithdavidnordahl.html
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
==================================================================
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.
- You can recongnize the vultures by the way they smile
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”.
Wiki introduces Dapne Barak as
- “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.
The site names the following Daphne’s specials:
- 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:
Reddit.com says:
“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
07/10/09 12:00am
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.
http://www.showbiz411.com/2009/07/10/20090710grace-rwaramba-nanny-daphne-barak-interview
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!
PEOPLE NEWS
Culkin’s Father Fumes Over ‘Exclusive’ Jackson Interview
By WENN
Apr 8, 2005, 17:18 GMTMacauley 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.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/printer_5959.php
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.
Quote:
- “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!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asif_Ali_Zardari
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 CarterDespite 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?
Aaron: Eighteen.
Howard: How old were you at the time Michael Jackson was hanging out with you?
Aaron: Fifteen.
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?
Aaron: Yeah.
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.”
19/11/2004 02:17
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:
Video 2
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.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2004/11/08/2004-11-08_a_nite_with_jacko.html
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):
Video 3
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.
Video 1:
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:
http://www.okmagazine.com.au/insider/michael-gave-me-drugs.htm
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.
Stern: Nice.
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:
7/18/10
http://www.sandy-lo.com/aaron-carter-talks-new-music-michael-jackson-struggles-in-new-interview/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….
The author of the article below succinctly tells us of the ugly way Daphne Barak twisted Aaron’s words and is absolutely correct in pointing at her as the true mastermind of the project:
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:
07/01/2011
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.
Another article says that Aaron is even considering suing the OK tabloid over that fabrication:
6:04 am – 07/02/2011
Aaron Carter – Aaron Carter Considering Suing Tabloid Over Michael Jackson Misquotes
04 July 2011 01:40Former 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?
Aaron: Yeah
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.
- Lou Pearlman was universally called King of Music
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…
- It seems that it is only Lou Pearlman who is enjoying the game
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.”
-
- Lou Pearlman kidding with Chris Kirkpatrick of N’Sync, 1996
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.
http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/challies/to-backstreet-and-back-part-2-11607166.html
- 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
Rich Cronin of LFO spoke of the same to that nasty Howard Stern guy (source: MTV News):
- “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).
- Pearlman liked games
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.
- Lou Pearlman and Aaron Carter at a ‘Family Day’ in 2005. A strained smile on one face and a look of suffering on the other face…
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…
- Backstreet boys cd cover
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.
http://celebtrashtalk.com/justin-timberlake/justin-timberlake-and-nick-carter-in-gay-scandal.html
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.
The following article puts the final touch on their attitude to 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:
http://www.mtv.com/videos/news/185834/aj-mclean-what-goes-around-comes-around.jhtml#id=1573185
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.
P.S.
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
YELLOW JOURNALISM
Sanemjfan made a post about Tru TV’s “In Session” airing a round table discussion on Michael Jackson’s life, legacy, and upcoming trial on Friday, September 16th,2011.
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….
Why?
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?
NOTHING.
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.
Nancy: [pause]
[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.
[pause]
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?
================================================
This page has not been updated for full seven years. There was no need to as actually all posts in this blog are about the way to tell the truth from lies. However the post below is even called “A see-through-lies manual” and as such surely belongs here.
DECEMBER 22, 2019
A See-Through-Lies Manual on Orietta Murdock, Victor Gutierrez and Joy Robson
In the comments for one of this blog posts there are two short texts about little Wade Robson in Michael Jackson’s recording studio – one is Orietta Murdock’s statement from the Prosecution ‘Prior Bad Acts’ Motion for the 2005 trial and the other comes from Victor Gutierrez’s literary opus about Michael published in 1996.
For those who don’t know the above characters here is a reminder: Orietta Murdock was Michael Jackson’s administrative assistant in September 1989–January 1991 and Victor Gutierrez is a pedophilia advocate who dogged Jackson since the late 80s, spread innumerable lies about him and who by Diane Dimond’s own admission, was the latter’s best source.
The stories by Murdock and Gutierrez are the usual kind – they are blatant lies about Michael Jackson and the only peculiar thing about them is that they are identical, though told by different people and at different times. My conclusion was that in the job of smearing Michael Jackson these two personas worked in close cooperation with each other, and Gutierrez was most probably the one with whom the false text originated.
The story proper was not analyzed as I thought that the proof of Murdock’s cooperation with a scumbag like Gutierrez was reason enough to immediately flash it down the toilet, but a reader left a comment to the effect that who told whom is a secondary matter as the basis of the story is true.
Indeed, who told whom doesn’t matter that much, but I am highly resentful of the idea that the basis of the story is true. It is absolutely not true, though I understand why people fall into the fallacy of thinking that it is – if some elements sound familiar people get the impression that they know the general idea, and if a couple of details are real, they imagine that the whole of it is basically correct.
But clean and dirty waters are also basically the same as they share the same molecular structure, only one is safe to drink while the other will cause you sickness and even death. And the same goes for stories and information at large – though looking similar some of it is downright poisonous.
So it’s high time we realized that it is absolutely not enough to know the story ‘in general’ – this is only the illusion of knowledge and if you don’t know the story in full you may as well consider yourself ignorant of the matter.
HARD FACTS
Before we deal with the Gutierrez and Murdock lies the first thing to start with is establishing the hard facts of the story. And there can’t be a better source for the episodes described than Joy Robson, mother of Wade Robson. She testified to all that at the 2005 trial and her account can be trusted as even after her son’s U-turn against Jackson she hasn’t changed it and it is only her perception of some details that may be different now.
At the 2005 trial Joy Robson described two episodes involving Michael Jackson at the recording studio in Sherman Oaks.
Firstly, this was where she and her husband Dennis and their children Wade and Chantal met Michael Jackson in February 1990, the first time after the two years lapse when they had no contact with MJ whatsoever.
And the second episode was several months later, during Wade’s second visit to the US, in May-June 1990 when Michael and Wade stayed at the recording studio for two days and forgot that in a few hours time Wade and his mother were to catch a plane to Australia. Joy was in a sort of a panic as she didn’t know her son’s whereabouts and had to call around. The only new element she has added to that story since 2005 is that now she admits that she was extremely worried, while at the trial she said she was not.
The Robsons came to the US as a team of two parents, two children and two grandparents. The adults were accompanying the Johnny Young Talent dance school where Wade and Chantal Robson were dancing. The dance school was invited to Disneyland to celebrate Australia Day there, marked every year on January 26.
By the time of the journey Wade Robson had been with the dance school for two years as he joined it literally the next day after he won a dance contest in his home country in 1987 where the prize was to meet Michael Jackson.
As promised, the five-year old winner and his mother had a meet-and-greet with Michael Jackson and Michael invited Wade to take part in his show the next day. After that Joy took her son to Michael’s hotel to thank him for the chance and they had some further interaction with him discussing the boy’s dance and costumes while Michael showed them some pieces of ‘Smooth Criminal’ he was editing when they came.
After Michael Jackson left Australia and his ‘Bad’ tour was over the Robsons were eager to keep in touch with MJ and sent him three or four letters and a video of Wade’s dance to the Havenhurst address that Michael had left them, but there was no answer, most probably because in May 1988 Michael had already moved to Neverland.
This is how the Robson family lost all contact with Michael Jackson, but when they arrived in the US two years later in January 1990, Joy Robson vigorously renewed her effort to find him. Eight days after celebrating the Australia Day at Disneyland they finally managed to reach Norma Staikos who put them through to Michael Jackson at last.
The Robson family at the recording studio with MJ in February 1990
And this is when they met him in the recording studio for the first time.
The Robsons spent an hour and a half there, showed Michael the videos of Wade’s dance they had brought from Australia, had a picture of them together and when Michael asked them if they would like to go to his ranch for the weekend, they were only too happy to say ‘Yes!’
Michael doesn’t look too enthusiastic [screenshots from ‘Leaving Neverland’ horror film]
Mind you that when Robson claims now that he was left alone with Michael Jackson in-between those weekends, he blatantly lies you straight in the face as there is a pile of evidence that he wasn’t there, including his own mother’s three testimonies given under oath and there isn’t a single witness at Neverland – not even Michael’s foes – to confirm Robson’s false story. These good people could have probably obliged and willingly lied in Robson’s favor, but at that time they didn’t know they should claim that the 7-year old stayed alone with Michael at Neverland, so none of them left any trace of it in their numerous memories and statements for the Prosecution side.
So the hard fact of the story is that the whole family left for the Grand Canyon and you can forget Robson’s false lamentations in ‘Leaving Neverland’ about the abuse that allegedly started when his family ‘was away’.
This is how Joy Robson described their first visit to the recording studio:
A. So we called around, and we eventually were put onto his personal assistant, which at that time was Norma Stakos, and they called Michael. He remembered us, and said he would like to see us again. So we met him at a recording studio where he was working at the time.
Q. And did you stay at Neverland on that first visit?
A. Yes, he invited us to stay that weekend, so we did. We went — we were touring the United States, we were here on vacation as well. We went away for the week, and came back for the second weekend.
And this is how Joy Robson described their second episode at the recording studio that took place several months later, in June 1990, when only she and her son were in the US.
To the Prosecution she said:
Q. Now, do you recall an incident that occurred where you were supposed to catch a plane and you couldn’t find your son?
A. Yes.
Q. And the fact is that you hadn’t seen or heard from your son for two or three days?
A. I think two.
Q. And he had been with Mr. Jackson during that entire time, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe what you said was you were upset and you were hurt by this, correct?
A. I don’t remember that.
Q. You called a number of people trying to locate your son, correct?
A. I was trying to call Michael, and he was in the recording studio, not answering, not receiving phone calls. And I think I called Neverland to see if they had gone to Neverland.
Q. Well, you called Neverland and you got the Quindoy — Mr. Quindoy, correct?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Did you call Norma Stakos trying to locate your son?
A. Yes.
Joy Robson explained a little more to the Defense:
A. That was — that was the time that we were staying in Westwood, and Wade and I had our ticket booked to return to Australia. And he had been at the recording studio with Michael for a couple of days, and I just hadn’t heard from them. I know that they were working long hours, and then they’d take off again the next day. And I was getting – [ ]
–I had called Norma looking for him, and she found them. She said they were in the recording studio and, “Michael is bringing him back to you. They’re on their way.”
Q. To your knowledge, did your son spend a lot of time with Michael Jackson at recording studios?
A. Often, yes.
Q. And why was that?
A. Because Wade was interested in being a recording artist, he was interested in being a producer. He was learning. He loved to be around that and absorb that. He was like a sponge. And he — that was the relationship that he and Michael had. It was — a lot of it was a working relationship and Michael was teaching him.
Indeed, their second visit was mostly about work. The reason for the trip was that Michael signed a contract with LA Gear for advertising their sneakers and invited Robson to take part in the commercials. According to Zack O’Malley the scale of the LA Gear venture was supposed to be grand:
“Jackson promised he’d shoot television commercials for LA Gear and wear the sneakers in the promotional materials for his upcoming album, Dangerous, which was supposedly almost finished.
To help promote Jackson’s shoe, Sandy Saemann [LA Gear cofounder] directed a commercial that features the King of Pop spinning through a dark, steamy street in his new kicks. His face appears for only about three seconds toward the end when, after destroying a street lamp with the sheer force of his mojo, Jackson looks up to find a young girl smiling and clapping from an upstairs window.”
The LA Gear company didn’t restrict Michael Jackson in selecting his counterparts for the commercials, promising to pay their expenses, and Michael suggested Wade Robson from Australia.
In her 2016 deposition Joy Robson said they must have had a fit when they heard it, especially since they had to pay her fare too as Wade was a minor and had to be accompanied by his mother.
She testified in 2005:
Q. In May, when you came back, it was for the purpose of your son participating in an L.A. Gear commercial?
A. Yes.
Q. And who arranged for him to be in that commercial?
A. Michael.
Q. And Mr. Jackson paid his way over here, correct?
A. L.A. Gear paid.
Q. And how did you — how was yours paid?
A. L.A. Gear. He was a minor.
Q. L.A. Gear paid for that?
A. Yes, they have to if a minor’s working.
The May/June 1990 working visit was long and lasted for 6 weeks – it started with photo shoots for LA Gear and continued with Michael’s intense work at the recording studio on the songs supposed to be for ‘Decade’ later turned into ‘Dangerous’ album. The LA Gear advertising campaign was tightly connected with that album as the launch of the new shoe line was scheduled for its release.
But at the time Michael was also going through a huge reshuffle of his business team – in 1990 Geffen’s people fully replaced his former managers, lawyers and business advisors, and it was also as a result of those complications that the new album was taking longer than expected.
Zack O’Malley describes the race Michael Jackson found himself in:
“Saemann and Jackson developed a close working relationship. They’d go to record stores and sales meetings together; on one occasion, Jackson elevated the moods of seven hundred sales reps by dancing on a table. He and Saemann would even edit videos together late into the night.
Jackson, however, still hadn’t completed his new album. Yetnikoff was gone[ ]. Perhaps Branca or Dileo would have hurried him along, but they were out of the picture. Whenever Saemann broached the subject with Jackson, the response was the same. “I’m a creative guy,” he’d say. “You can’t force it.”
In the end, LA Gear had to move forward with the launch of the sneaker line though neither the album nor the promised product tie-in had emerged. Retailers were expecting the shoes to be delivered on schedule—but they were also expecting the footwear to make an appearance in promotional material that accompanied Jackson’s new record. When that didn’t materialize, the results were disastrous.
LA Gear Vintage shoes
LA Gear would go on to sue Jackson in 1992; after the singer countersued, the two sides settled for an undisclosed sum.
[‘Michael Jackson, Inc.’ by Zack O’Malley Greenburg]
It was for this ill-fated LA Gear venture that Joy and Wade Robson came to the US in May 1990. Most of their time was spent in Los Angeles where the Robsons stayed at a hotel across Michael’s condo in Westwood. Michael arrived at his condo late after work.
Joy Robson said about it:
Q. Now, at the time that you came over here for the L.A. Gear commercial, you were staying in The Holiday Inn?
A. Yes. In Westwood.
Q. And you were here for approximately six weeks?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Jackson had a condo right across the street?
A. Yes.
Q. And you testified before, I believe, that during that six-week period on at least half of the occasions that your son was with Mr. Jackson in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom in that condo, correct?
A. I think so.
Q. Now, these visits to The Holiday – these visits to Mr. Jackson when you were staying at The Holiday Inn, many of those calls from Mr. Jackson were very late at night; isn’t that correct?
A. Yes, he was working.
Q. When you came over to make the L.A. Gear commercial, did your husband come with you?
A. No.
Q. At this point in time, were you and your husband separated?
A. No.
In contrast to his mother Wade Robson testified that the occasions he went over to Michael’s condo were rare and most of the nights were spent at the hotel:
A. … we stayed – I think it was the Westwood apartment, his Westwood apartment. There was a Holiday Inn that was across and we stayed there most of the time. And then certain nights I would go over to Michael and stay with him.
On several occasions the two Robsons went to Neverland, and this is where another notable incident took place. Actually their stay in the US started with that incident as it happened on Mother’s Day celebrated that year on Sunday, May 13th.
Michael, Joy and Wade arrived at Neverland on Saturday night as Michael had a family day with his own mother and the next day Wade slept well into the afternoon, so Joy Robson had lunch all alone and since she didn’t see her son almost all day she cried.
In 2005 she said about it:
Q. Now, do you recall an incident that occurred on Mother’s Day during 1990 on a trip to the ranch?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were upset, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were crying at one point?
A. Yes.
Q. And the reason for that was that you had not seen your son all day, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you found out that the reason that you hadn’t seen your son that day was because he had been sleeping all day, correct?
A. I think so. Yeah.
Q. And did you tell Charlie Michaels that you felt that the defendant, Michael Jackson, was separating you from your son?
A. I don’t recall saying it.
In her recent deposition on September 30, 2016 she blamed Michael for that oversight:
Q. …you were concerned about your son on Mother’s Day?
A. I wasn’t concerned for his welfare. I was concerned that Michael knew it was Mother’s Day. He had had the day before with his mother. That’s why we came that night, because he had a family day on the Saturday. So I was angry and I was hurt that he kept my son away from me on Mother’s Day.
Q. So you were — you felt left out?
A. Very — well, I felt left out of my – with my — from my son, yes.
Q. Right. You wanted to be with your son on Mother’s Day?
A. Of course.
So their second visit to the US began with an unhappy episode on Mother’s Day and ended with them nearly missing the flight back, and on both occasions Joy Robson felt vulnerable and unnerved.
My personal opinion is that after two incidents like that every responsible mother would think twice before taking a radical decision to move to another country and would realize that Michael Jackson was living in a bubble and was sort of shut off from the real world with its everyday routine. And that relying on a big kid like him to arrange their life in the US and take care of them on a permanent basis would be asking too much of him (or any other pop star, for that matter).
However even those two unhappy incidents didn’t stop Joy Robson in her determination to move to the US. They arrived for good a year later, in September 1991. Joy Robson explained that the immediate reason for their arrival was Wade’s participation in Michael Jackson’s ‘Black or White’ video after which they stayed:
A. He came here originally in 1991 to work on the “Black or White” video, and we stayed after that. That was the reason for coming in the first place.
It certainly wasn’t a spontaneous decision, but Michael Jackson had little to do with it – when Joy considered that move he told her that she should decide for herself and follow her heart.
“Michael told us when we were first considering a move to LA, to `follow our heart’, and it felt right to go,” said Joy.
Whether her heart, reason or sheer calculation, but Joy Robson’s activity in the year before their departure betrays that it was solely her plan and she was fully dedicated to making it happen – she divorced her husband, went to court to obtain sole custody of their children, as a result of which she got the sole right to decide their future, and only then did she bring Wade and Chantal to the US, hoping to start a new life for them all.
Her elder son Shane was already of age and chose to stay with the father, but eventually Shane also moved to the US and his personal drama is that the day after his departure the abandoned father committed suicide.
Part of these facts are in Joy Robson’s 2005 testimony, the tearful part about the children’s remorse for the way they treated their father is in the ‘Leaving Neverland’ drama, but the divorce itself and the matter of Joy’s sole custody of the children have never been mentioned before. The Robsons prefer to keep mum about it – even in that film.
You’ll learn more about it at the end of this post, while at the moment we have another issue at hand – the need to compare Joy Robson’s testimony with the tales about those recording studio episodes told by Victor Gutierrez and Orietta Murdock.
GUTIERREZ’S STORY
Gutierrez’s horrid pro-pedophilia book says that by the summer of 1992 he had been looking for Wade Robson for five months and when in June 1992 he finally saw Wade and his mother on the Venice Beach in California where Wade was imitating Michael Jackson’s dance, he couldn’t believe his eyes.
“I couldn’t believe it, I had been looking for this boy and his mother for more than five months without any luck and here, by chance, I found both of them. It was a great opportunity to interview them.
Joy sat down on the grass and began to confide in me. Wade was reading a magazine, but was close enough to hear his mother’s story. “My son was born September 17th, 1982 …
Does it sound to you almost the same as the real story? If yes, then let us examine it line by line.
“My son was born September 17th, 1982 and we lived in Chatswood Hills, Australia. When my son was five, he won a dance contest in Australia. The prize was to meet Michael Jackson and go to Disneyland.”
The address where the family lived in Australia is probably correct and the fact that Gutierrez knew it suggests that he did talk to Joy Robson. But the story about Disneyland is false – the prize was only to meet Michael Jackson. The trip to Disneyland was arranged by somebody else and is a totally different matter.
“And so we met him in Australia. Right away, Michael gave Wade presents and gave us a fax machine so that they could communicate better. The trip to Disneyland would come four years later.”
The trip to Disneyland was two years later, and Michael certainly didn’t give Wade any fax machine ‘right away’. For two years after the contest there was no communication between them and their attempts to reach Michael were futile. The fax machine was given to the family sometime after their first visits to the US. It was a novel device then, and MJ and the Robsons sent messages and drawings back and forth to test it and just for the fun of it.
Gutierrez continues in Joy Robson’s name:
“We arrived in the United States in September of 1991. On the first day, my husband took Wade to the recording studio to meet Michael.”
The lie is growing thicker with every new word. ‘We’ in reference to Joy’s husband is completely out of place here, because when they arrived in September 1991 the parents were already divorced. And the visit to the recording studio when the father was still there was in February 1990 and since it wasn’t only him but the whole family, it is a lie again. And certainly none of it happened on the first day they arrived – even on their first visit they met Michael only 8 days later.
“When they met, Michael asked if he could leave Wade with him and he would drop him off later in the afternoon. My husband said it was okay. Michael, though, didn’t bring him back as promised, and I began to call his office like crazy so that I could locate Wade. Finally, one of the secretaries was able to locate Michael and called me at the hotel to say that Wade was okay. I didn’t see my son until the next day. That was my welcoming to the United States.”
This is where the lie becomes real thick. Michael didn’t ask for anything; they did not leave Wade at the recording studio; her husband didn’t say okay as he wasn’t even present; none of it happened at the time described here; and all of it was certainly not the way she was welcomed to the United States.
And even familiar words like ‘recording studio’, ‘Disneyland’, ‘fax machine’, etc. cannot turn this crazy mish-mash into a true story. Gutierrez misplaced all the people, times and locations, but more importantly, he changed the very essence of the story, thus creating complete fiction where a mass of lies is just sprinkled with a few recognizable words that only create the impression of something familiar. However this is an illusion and essentially the story is a big lie.
ORIETTA MURDOCK’S VERSION
If you look at Orietta Murdock’s statement in the so-called ‘Prior Bad Acts’ (1108) Motion made by Tom Sneddon on December 10, 2004, you will see that the part concerning the recording studio is an almost word-for-word repetition of Gutierrez’s story.
Here is the respective piece from the 1108 motion:
Though similar to Gutierrez’s variant there are some telling differences too.
“In the course of her employment, Ms. Murdock became aware that Jackson met the Robson family as a result of Wade Robson winning a dance contest, which may have been sponsored by the Disney Company. Part of the prize was the opportunity to meet Michael Jackson.”
‘Became aware’ is a roundabout way of saying that Ms. Murdock didn’t have first-hand information but heard it from somebody else. The Disney factor is also present as she mixes up the dance contest in Brisbane with the 1990 trip to Disneyland. The 1987 contest was sponsored by Pepsi as far as I know, and as an administrative assistant she should have known it, however she started working only in 1989, so it is obvious that the twisted story reached her ears much later and could be relayed to her by Gutierrez.
Another fantasy she shares with Gutierrez is that ‘meeting MJ was only part of the prize’.
“Robson met Jackson in Westlake, California. Jackson asked Mr. and Mrs. Robson if he could spend the afternoon with the young Wade, and the parents consented. Jackson, however, did not return the boy to his parents that afternoon. In fact, Jackson did not return the child until the next night, and then only after being contacted by Disney security guards who told Jackson that the parents had to catch a plane back to Australia, and were now running late.”
The above is almost a replica of Gutierrez’s very specific tale. But in her version some fictional ‘Disney security guards’ pop up and she implies that only the parents were to catch a plane to Australia (leaving Wade alone???).
All of it suggests that she knew even less than Gutierrez and therefore created an even less coherent version than his story, crazy as it was.
But little as she knew when she fed on rumors only Orietta Murdock was much better informed about the matters within the immediate range of her responsibilities. For example:
“Jackson assisted Wade in getting a job on a “L.A. Gear” commercial. However Wade did not have the permits required to work in the United States at the time, so his check was made payable to MJJ, who then made out a check to his mother, who Ms. Murdock characterized as a “gift.” Wade was also paid considerably more for his appearance – over $3,000 – than the other children, who received only $500.”
The fact that Wade Robson received over $3,000 for the LA Gear commercial instead of the regular $500 paid to other children is probably true but was never mentioned by Joy Robson. If true, the only thing it points to is that Michael really tried to help and wanted to cover their expenses during their stay in the US.
And Michael did assist Wade in getting a job for the LA Gear commercial as we already know. The permit allowing them to be employed in the US was required only half a year after their arrival when their temporary 6-months visa expired and Joy Robson finally realized that she would have to pay her own bills. She found the job of a manager with ‘Pigments’ cosmetic company but was officially registered with MJJ Productions so that her salary was paid via Michael’s company.
The permit to work was a complex issue as it required the status of a resident and to obtain it the family needed somebody who would sign up as their ‘sponsor’. This is a formal procedure every immigrant goes through if he/she wants to obtain a residence permit in a foreign country. It doesn’t require any money to exchange hands and this is what Michael’s consent to ‘sponsor’ them actually meant.
In 2005 Joy Robson explained it:
Q. …in 1991, in September, you came here on a — originally you came here on a visa, temporary visa?
A. A six-month visitor’s visa.
Q. And the idea was that because you weren’t a resident, you were not supposed to be employed; is that the idea?
A. I was on a working visa, but it was through MJJ Productions. I was — I was employed to be employed by MJJ Productions only. So I managed to find this job for myself. And in order to make it legal, it had to be diverted through MJJ Productions.
Q. Now, what was this issue — you needed him as a sponsor for what purpose?
A. To remain in the United States. We — permanent residence. To be able to have a green card, we had to have someone sponsor us into the country.
The rest of Orietta Murdock’s statement regarding Wade Robson in the 1108 Motion falls exactly into the category of truth imitation, where true elements are intertwined with lies and form the illusion that you know the story.
During the time Ms. Murdock was working at MJJ, she remembers Robson’s mother calling every day to inquire about the status of the green cards that Jackson had promised to obtain for her and Wade. Eventually Jackson was able to assist Wade and his mother, Joy Robson, in gaining entry into the country. Shortly thereafter, Jackson had Ms. Murdock, arrange for the Robsons to say at the Holiday Inn on Wilshire Boulevard, which is across from the building at Wilshire and Selby where Jackson had a condominium. Wade used to spend every night with Jackson, not his mother. Ms. Murdock could see that this relationship had begun to trouble Wade’s mother. Jackson handled this by getting the mother a new car to appease her. Jackson assisted Wade and his mother in obtaining permanent residence in the United States and got the mother on the payroll as an employee, even though the mother apparently didn’t have a real job with Jackson.
It looks more or less coherent only when you don’t know the details, but if you know at least the dates, the story immediately falls apart.
Staying at a hotel across Michael Jackson’s condo was in May-June 1990 and was in no way connected with the green cards they got with the help of MJ’s office approximately two years later (in early 1992, after 6 months of staying on a temporary visa). In fact, by that moment Orietta Murdock had not even worked for MJ and for a very long time too – she was fired in January 1991.
And Wade didn’t spend ‘every night’ with Jackson in that condo – Joy Robson said it was probably half the time that he stayed with MJ, and Robson said that it was on certain occasions only.
Several incidents did indeed trouble Joy Robson during the May-June 1990 visit as described above, but it didn’t stop her from moving to the US a year later.
And according to her 2005 testimony the car was given to Joy Robson in early 1993 and certainly not to ‘appease’ her – she needed it to get to her place of work at the cosmetic company. She said she wanted take a credit, but couldn’t get it on her own, so somebody had to co-sign for her. She approached Michael Jackson and instead of co-signing he said “Why don’t I just pay for it.”
Q. Okay. Now, the issue of Mr. Jackson helping you with an automobile, when did that happen?
A. I think maybe ’93. Early ’93.
Q. And did you go to him and ask for some assistance in getting an automobile?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And what was his response?
A. Well, I had asked him to co-sign. I wasn’t asking for money. I was just asking for a signature. And his response was, “Well, why don’t I just pay for it.”
The matter was discussed over the telephone because Michael was away, most probably on the Dangerous tour, and his response shows how trustful he was of Joy Robson – he told her where the money was (in the ‘secret closet’ everyone talks so much about) and where to take the key to his private quarters (behind a photo in the hallway). As a result Joy Robson opened the closet used by Michael as a safe herself and took out of it the $10,000 required for purchasing the car.
This wasn’t the first time Michael helped her with the money – the first was a $10,000 loan that helped her ‘to establish themselves’ in the US which she didn’t repay. And the second was the car that also turned into a gift.
Q. Would you please explain why you borrowed $10,000?
A. The first $10,000, we had been here for, I think, a year, 18 months. And it was a lot more difficult to establish ourselves here than I had anticipated, so Michael offered to help us out for a while. So we borrowed $10,000 at that point.
The second one was a car. I had been here for a while. My credit from Australia cannot be transferred, so I had no established credit in the United States. I was listed as an employee because of the cosmetics company paying through Michael Jackson’s company. Because I was being sponsored by MJJ Productions, I was listed as an employee of the company. So I had asked if the company would co-sign for my car because I was unable to get the credit to buy a car, and Michael just offered to pay for it rather than co-sign.
I thought that nothing could surprise me any longer, but was still amazed to find that in her recent September 2016 deposition this grateful woman presented her taking money from Michael Jackson’s closet as a favor she did to Michael.
She said that ‘once’ he asked her to go into this room to get something for him:
A. Once Michael asked me — when he was out of town, he asked me to go into his room to get something for him. And he told me about where —where the room was.
Q. This time when were asked to retrieve money from the hidden room, do you remember when that was?
A. No. It was around the same time as the grand jury or maybe just before that. It was around that same period.
You see that not only does it look like a favor to Michael Jackson, but the implication is that if the money did exchange hands after all, it was after the Chandler allegations and before her testimony to the grand jury, and in this context it sounds almost like a bribe.
And the good lawyer Katherine Kleindienst representing MJJ Productions did not use this opportunity to ask even a single question to clarify the matter. It is exasperating to see that even lawyers may be clueless and have so little care for the details.
Things like that actually drive me mad.
SOME IDEAS
Now what ideas do you have after comparing the real facts with all those half-truths, lies and fabrications from Gutierrez, Murdock and even Joy Robson? Here are some of mine – not in the order of their relevance but in the order they crossed my mind.
In the rare cases when Orietta Murdock knew at least something she gave a more or less adequate account of the events. Her perception of them was biased, but even her twisted interpretations are nothing serious to talk about. None of them prove the allegations against Michael and her ‘evidence’ in the 1108 motion is actually worthless.
But for the most part Orietta Murdock knew nothing and this is when she compiled the innuendoes she heard somewhere into an unsavory mix – showing that she, like many others, didn’t make heads or tails of what she was talking about.
Despite the vagueness and glaring absurdity of her statements, her so-called testimony was nevertheless included into the Prosecution ‘Prior Bad Acts’ Motion which gives us the idea of the general quality of that document and the value of other people’s statements there.
The tale about ‘the father in the recording studio who left his son there overnight’ shared by Murdock and Gutierrez, is very specific and is not repeated by any other ‘witness’ and this reveals the indisputably close link between the two personas.
Victor Gutierrez and his collaborators – Orietta Murdock (above) and Blanca Francia [from Gutierrez’s book ‘Michael Jackson Was My Lover”, 1996)
Her employment finished with a dismissal and much of her spite for Jackson stems there. She sued him and Norma Staikos, and Gutierrez was so close a confidante of hers that she gave him the number of her complaint filed with the Equal Employment Department of California.
Murdock was originally from Costa Rica (so was another of those Spanish-speaking Gutierrez’s friends) and claimed that MJ thought her to be a Latino, but when he allegedly learned that she was black, he fired her.
“On January 29,1991, Orietta filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Department of California against Jackson and Norma Staikos claiming that she had been unjustly fired because of her race. In the report, case No. 340910600, Jackson’s ex-assistant says “I was fired and intimidated for being black. Michael doesn’t like black people. He would say that he wasn’t black, that he was a chameleon. He used creams and white makeup, like they use in the theater, since he didn’t like to look black. Much less did he want to be associated with black organizations, like the NAACP.”
So the stories about Michael not having Vitiligo, bleaching his skin and ‘not liking black people’ were fanned and fueled by Orietta Murdock as those innuendoes were the cornerstone of her complaint against Jackson.
Her name is even stated on Evan Chandler’s drawing presenting his vision of Michael Jackson’s private parts in combination with a bleaching cream (MJ was prescribed Beloquin cream used by Vitiligo patients for evening out their skin). So when Evan Chandler was working on his ‘theory’ Orietta Murdock was also involved – to help and determine the color of Michael’s penis which in reality neither Jordan, nor any of them had ever seen.
The drawing of the way Evan Chandler imagined MJ’s penis to look like is provided in Gutierrez’s book. It comes under the telling title “MY THEORY” and is made in Evan’s handwriting. It also mentions Orietta and ‘Bleaching cream’.
Jordan Chandler’s handwriting is different. It is heavily slanted – here is his signature under the declaration made on December 28, 1993:
Gutierrez claims that Orietta Murdock volunteered to help Evan Chandler with ‘information that would help his case against Jackson’ and says that she contacted Evan Chandler after his story broke in the media, but it won’t surprise me if it was Gutierrez who brought them together and at a much earlier date too.
Gutierrez describes Orietta Murdock’s cooperation with Evan Chandler peddling the lie that MJ didn’t have Vitiligo:
Thursday, September 2.
That afternoon, Evan received a call from Orietta Murdock. Orietta, who had ceased working for Jackson in 1991, wanted to give Evan information “that would help the case against Michael.” They made an appointment with Evan and his brother Raymond. Orietta arrived with her friend Marie Sabino Jones. Among other things, she said that she had seen Michael Jackson and Wade Robson hugging and that they were only wearing underwear. Two days later, Orietta was interviewed by the L.A.P.D. As Jackson’s personal assistant, Orietta worked closely with Jackson. “One of my duties was to buy him cosmetics and bleaching cream that we bought with doctor’s prescriptions prescribed under false names.” She asked Jackson about the color of his skin, and he claimed that he had a skin condition called Vitiligo. “For me it’s clear. I was the one who was buying the cream and I saw Jackson in his underwear. Michael is black. He doesn’t suffer from Vitiligo. He uses creams to whiten his skin.” Orietta’s statement was confirmed by several other persons, including Jordie, two other personal employees who had bought creams, and his own dermatologist who had testified to the authorities.
The point about Michael’s dermatologist is utterly redundant even for this mass of lies. Dr. Arnold Klein always spoke about Michael’s vitiligo and testified to it to the authorities.
According to Gutierrez Orietta Murdock also attended a meeting with Gloria Allred, Evan and Jordan Chandler. Jordan seemed to her worried and guilty about all that was happening around him.
Monday, September 6.
June, Dave, Nathalie and Evan met with Gloria Allred and Nathan Goldberg at the Loews Hotel to discuss strategy for the soon to be filed civil complaint, and how to best handle the press. Later, Allred, Evan and Jordie met with Orietta. Orietta noticed that Jordie looked worried. “When I met Jordie, I noticed that he appeared to feel guilty about all that was happening around him.” He asked me about my experiences working with Jackson, and we talked for a while. At the time, I didn’t know that Evan was more interested in the money than his son’s justice.”
You have probably noticed that in the first piece from Gutierrez Orietta Murdock allegedly saw MJ and Wade wearing only underwear and hugging each other. To scare some of you out of your wits and give others a good laugh let me quote Quiterrez alleging the following about Orietta Murdock:
One day, Orietta saw something she shouldn’t have. “One night, the apartment door was open. I knocked, but nobody answered. The music was loud, so I said ‘Michael? …Michael?’ and again nobody answered. At the end of the passage was Michael’s room. The door to the bedroom was open and I found him sitting on a chair with Wade. They were nude from the waist up, the rest of their bodies covered by sheets. I was startled at what I saw. Michael didn’t see me. So I said loudly, ‘Michael!’ He came to the door closing it very firmly. He asked me what I was doing there and wanted to know how I had entered. I told him that the door was open. He explained that it was probably his private cook that left the door open as they had asked for some food earlier. Then I left. I didn’t mention this to anyone in the office.”
Whether the above was wholly Gutierrez’s invention or Orietta Murdock really said something of the kind we don’t know, but even if she did the prosecution avoided using this piece in their ‘Prior Bad Acts’ Motion as the above was too much baloney even for them.
Indeed, the apartment door was open… (What apartment?) The door to the bedroom was open too… (all doors were open in that apartment). The administrative assistant was going down the passage at night… (What did she do there at night? Wasn’t her workplace at the office?) They were sitting on a chair nude from the waist up with ‘the rest covered by sheets’….. Michael didn’t see her (but she wanted him to notice her), so she said loudly, ‘Michael’ (!)
The nude (half-nude) Michael Jackson stood up and closed the door ‘firmly’, but before that he had a conversation with his assistant (standing naked in front of her)… They talked about the open door, about his private cook and the food he asked for earlier…. After the small talk she left…. (Why did she come at all?) She didn’t mention this to anyone in the office…. (I wonder why the prosecution didn’t bring criminal charges against all these people who saw ‘everything’ but kept it to themselves?)
Gutierrez’s book abides in similar descriptions some of which are attributed to Orietta Murdock. Apparently, the prosecutors knew their worth and this is probably why they never mentioned them. However one story made it into Orietta Murdock’s statement for their ‘Prior Bad Acts’ motion and see how accurate it is.
The 1108 Motion says:
Ms. Murdock became aware that another of Jackson’s special friends was Jonathan Spence. During Spence’s relationship with Jackson, Jackson took him on the “Bad” Tour. Spence would often sleep in Jackson’s room. Spence was allowed to shop for whatever he wished, and send the bills to Jackson’s office for payment. Trips to the toy stores started to turn into trips to jewelry stores as Spence grew older. Ms. Murdock noticed that as Spence neared the age of 15, Jackson took up with another, younger boy.
During the time Ms. Murdock was employed at MJJ, Jimmy Safechuck became another recipient of Jackson’s obsessive attentions, which included, as usual, numerous extended telephone calls between the two.
Even those who saw only the ‘Leaving Neverland’ thriller and are totally unaware of the real picture, will tell you that what Orietta Murdock alleged about Jonathan Spence should be alleged about Jimmy Safechuck, and vice versa – the little she knew about Safechuck should be said about Spence.
Orietta Murdock mixed apples and oranges, and it isn’t an exception to the rule, but a routine occurrence in their case against Jackson. The other prosecution witnesses’ statements are almost universally the same kind – they are also a mix-up of names, dates and locations betraying their total lack of knowledge about what they were talking about, and most of those sexual fantasies carry the stamp of Gutierrez’s authorship written all over the stories.
So if Gutierrez made a mistake in his story, those ‘witnesses’ repeated the same mistakes in their statements too.
And if Gutierrez knew nothing about James Safechuck (which he didn’t, a deplorable omission!), the prosecution witnesses knew nothing about him either and practically never mentioned him in their statements.
And if Gutierrez mistakenly claimed that Mr. Robson had taken his son to the recording studio and they hadn’t seen the boy until the next day, the prosecution witness Orietta Murdock would repeat the same mistake.
And if Gutierrez confused Jonathan Spence with Safechuck, the prosecution witness would confuse them too.
In fact, Orietta’s muddled story about Jonathan Spence mirrors Gutierrez’s book again – he tells there a similar apples and oranges story attributed to Orietta, which again focuses on Jonathan Spence with every possible innuendo piled upon his poor head.
Gutierrez speaks about Jonathan Spence in the name of Orietta Murdock:
“Another witness that told me about the relationship between Jackson and Jonathan Spence was Orietta Murdock. She told me how Jonathan, at that time 16 years old, would call her office. “He would call often and ask for concert tickets. Michael had given us instructions to give him whatever he wanted. I remember when Michael gave him a convertible Mustang. They both went to Japan, too. The limousine was always at his disposal. I knew that his family lived in Encino. Michael gave them a house and a Mercedez Benz each,” said Orietta.
When Orietta heard that Jonathan had denied her statement, she added: “a young boy of sixteen isn’t able to buy a brand new Mustang convertible, and if he had, it would have been with Michael’s money. I was the one who received the call to start processing the purchase of the car. And as for his father, perhaps he was musical, but I found out that his father worked as a refuse collector for the city, and his mother was a social worker.”
Outsiders may believe it, but any person who knows real facts will see the above as the exceptional BS it really is.
Jonathan Spence was indeed one of Michael’s friends who often called his office for tickets, and this is the most we know about him.
But the Mustang car was given to Ryan White, an AIDS victim who was 17 at the time and who died a year later after Michael made him this gift. The car was sent to Ryan’s home in the summer of 1990 which was exactly the time when Orietta Murdock was Michael’s assistant and received a call to process this purchase.
And the ‘father who worked as a refuse collector’ is a clear reference to James Safechuck, whose father owned a refuse collection company, and it was for their house that the well-meaning Michael helped to pay credit as Safechuck’s mother explained it in the Leaving Neverland horror film.
So a story which was supposed to be about one person is actually a collection of twisted facts cherry-picked from the biographies of three people. And though separate elements of the story may be true, the result is a huge bundle of lies which is the truth imitation most probably created by Gutierrez’s idle and vicious mind.
Whether Orietta parroted Gutierrez or it was the other way around, it’s clear that Murdock, Quindoy, Blanca Francia, Adrian McManus, Ralph Chacon and all those other ‘witnesses’ were in close cooperation with Gutierrez who collected every single rumor about Jackson, spinned them beyond recognition and promoted them further to the hungry public with the help of Diane Dimond, for example.
It is also a stunning fact that many of those ‘witnesses’ included into the Prosecution 1108 motion worked at Neverland and left it at approximately the same time. The motion gives us the periods of their work for MJ:
• Blanca Francia: 1986 – June 1991
• Mark and Faye Quindoy: May 1989 – August 1990.
• Philippe and Stella LeMarques replaced the Quindoys and worked for 6 months only, between January and July 1991 and left or were dismissed at the same time as Blanca Francia.
• Orietta Murdock: September 1989 – January 1991
• Charlie Michaels left or was dismissed a year later, but her time of employment overlapped with all those mentioned above and was March 21, 1990 – March 6, 1992.
To me the fact that all those ‘witnesses’ were active against Jackson at approximately the same time looks very odd indeed. It suggests that in 1990-1992 all of them were pumped for information and possibly coached by Gutierrez, who was preparing the ground for a future hatchet job against Michael Jackson.
The culmination came in 1993 when the Chandler scandal broke out, but it was the two year period prior to that which actually decided Michael Jackson’s fate.
THE SKELETON IN THE CUPBOARD
It’s time we got back to the Robsons and learned a couple of details about their family life.
In her ‘Nightmare in Neverland’ article published in 1994 Maureen Orth mentioned an anonymous man who called her about his son and was extremely worried about his well-being, but had little opportunity to see him as the boy was too far away. The article said:
“One anguished father who had spent considerable time at Neverland called me in despair over the fact that he had ever allowed Jackson to share a bed with his son. He has no proof that anything untoward occurred, but he claims that he himself was molested by an uncle and kept the secret from his parents for 30 years. That knowledge tortures him, because he and his wife are divorced, and he lives so far away that he is rarely able to see his son. He says that his wife, who has custody, told him that if he spoke to the press he would never see his son again. A week later, after talking to his wife, who was in contact with Jackson’s side, he called again, eager to give me a quote in favor of Michael Jackson.”
Since we’ve amassed a huge amount of information it is easy for us to recognize the anonymous man – it was Wade’s father Dennis Robson. It turns out that he was extremely worried about his son after the Chandler allegations and was in despair that he had allowed him to stay with Michael Jackson.
Dennis and Joy Robson
We also learn that Dennis Robson himself was molested by an uncle and he disclosed his secret to his parents when he was well over 30.
He was a tortured soul and this is why the suspicion that his own son may have been molested too gave him real anguish – at least until a week later his former wife Joy reassured him of the opposite.
Wade Robson of course knows that his father was sexually abused as a child, but as far as I remember never speaks about it, however this skeleton in the cupboard provides him with a good example he models himself after in order to play the same molestation cards and tell exactly the same story of ‘a son and his anguished father’.
The family had a vivid example of such tortured soul in front of their eyes and all of them eventually learned the reason why, however it didn’t prevent them from leaving him all alone, and it is the memory of this betrayal that’s adding to the guilt the children now feel for abandoning their father.
So when you watch the second part of the ‘Leaving Neverland’ saga you should realize that the reason why Dennis’s three children are tearful when they speak about the break-up of their family is not because of Jackson who had nothing to do with it, but because of the remorse they feel for leaving their father alone at a time when he needed them most.
Wade Robson’s grandmother Lorraine in ‘Leaving Neverland’ horror film
The two parts of ‘Leaving Neverland’ make a striking difference in this respect – when they talk about the alleged molestation of Wade Robson the family is calm, composed and even laughing (remember the jolly old grandmother Lorraine).
But when it comes to their real tragedy Chantal and her brothers can’t help crying. Even the elder brother Shane Robson breaks down when he speaks about his father though he is a hardened policeman who must have seen a lot of human tragedy due to his profession.
Of course the Robsons put the blame on Michael Jackson – their family was broken up, Michael took their father’s place, etc. etc.
But the reality is much harsher than this publicity trick, because what happened to their family and particularly their father was wholly their mother’s doing.
Joy Robson in ‘Leaving Neverland’ horror film about the ‘abuse’ of her child
In that article Dennis refers to his wife having ‘custody’, and this point makes it clear that Joy Robson not only divorced her husband before leaving for the US, but also obtained sole custody of their children.
And according to Australian family law this required her to go to court to demand that the father should be stripped of his parental rights.
When parents are divorced Australian family law presumes that ‘each parent of children under 18 has equal parental responsibility for their children, ‘unless otherwise ordered by a court.’
The court can grant sole custody to one of the parents only if there is a solid reason for it and equal parental responsibility is considered ‘inappropriate and not in the children’s best interests.’
‘The effect of this is that the responsible parent will not be required to consult with their former spouse with respect to any decisions made about the children.’
Attention please to this part of their family law:
“In order to have the Court provide ‘sole parenting’ or ‘sole custody’ responsibility to one parent, that person will be required to provide the Court with a full report on all matters relevant to their claim against the other parent. This might include evidence of police reports or other witness statements; evidence of a total breakdown in communication between the parents, or any indicator demonstrating that joint parenting would probably create more problems for the children than a sole custody parenting order. The mental and physical health of each parent might also be a relevant factor.”
I don’t think that Dennis Robson had a police record to his credit, however since Joy Robson did obtain sole custody of their children it means that she must have given to court at least some reason why her husband should be denied his parental rights.
And the mental factor mentioned above suddenly reminded me that Robson’s father was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. This made me suspect that this diagnosis could be made right at the time when Joy Robson wanted to decide her children’s future single-handedly, without seeking her former husband’s consent. And if she resolved to take the children out of the country and her husband was against it, the diagnosis of his bipolar disorder could perfectly settle the problem.
It would be pure speculation to assert that in order to deny her husband his parental rights and take the children to the US, Joy Robson made arrangements to have him certified as a mental case, but if someone has an opportunity to check up the dates, it won’t hurt to find out at which period of time Dennis Robson was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
And if it was just before they left for the US (and not years afterwards or at a much earlier time, for example), this date will speak volumes and will add a small but telling detail to this family saga.
The timeline tells us that in June 1990 Joy Robson was still married, but in September 1991 she was not and was already free to decide the future of her children without any hindrance on Dennis’s part, so there is some ground for speculation here after all.
Whether Dennis Robson did or didn’t have bipolar disorder in addition to suffering from his childhood sexual trauma I have no idea, but in any case this mental condition is not serious enough for denying a man his parental rights. With adequate medication a bipolar disorder can even go unnoticed during the whole span of a person’s life, because all it means is that a person has mood swings and will go from euphoria to depression and back. In fact Evan Chandler also had a bipolar disorder, and most of his life lived quite happily until one day he decided to extort Michael Jackson for $20 million, and this damaged not only Michael but also himself.
Whatever the case with Dennis Robson, the situation with their divorce and the mother’s sole custody sheds a little light on the character of Joy Robson and the extent she may go to in order to reach her goals.
This woman possesses infinite ambition, rare determination and a steel hand, and if there was anyone who broke up that family in order to open up new horizons for her and the children it was surely Joy Robson. 
Of course she was doing it for the sake of the children to give them a better chance – apparently, this was the way she understood her parental duty. She said that she thought she ‘wasn’t losing anything’ anyway, and therefore wanted to give it a try.
But I still don’t understand why Michael Jackson and MJJ Productions should be held responsible for the ‘undue care’ for her children, if it was Joy Robson who was resolute to take all the risks and made her decisions with her eyes open.
After all she went through the unhappy experience of those two incidents with MJ (tears on Mother’s Day and the flight they nearly missed) even before they moved to the US, but disregarded even her own concerns.
She certainly never believed the allegations against Jackson and most probably doesn’t believe them now because she is no fool not to notice that Wade contradicts even her own memories (like that staying-alone-at-Neverland story that never happened), but she keeps mum about it to avoid further complications with her beloved son.
It’s obvious that she doesn’t want any more suicides in her family and may erroneously think that appeasing Wade in whatever he does is the best way.
Joy Robson herself is also mentioned in Maureen Orth’s article, and knowing the story we can decipher it even further:
They [the Quindoys] knew the boy whose father had called me in despair. They remembered that his mother would leave the boy with Jackson for “three or four weeks” at a time, and claimed she would cry, “My son has been kidnapped.”
The crying mother can be easily recognized as Joy Robson and the Quindoys’ statement that she ‘left the boy with Jackson for three or four weeks at a time’ definitely refers to their long May-June 1990 visit which falls within the time of the Quindoys’ employment (May 1989-August 1990).
The story is a lie of course or at least a heavy exaggeration – Joy rarely left her son unattended and that incident at the recording studio was one of those exceptions. In any case the Robsons spent most of their time in LA on that visit, and the Quindoys were at Neverland, so even for that reason they could know nothing about it.
Those allegations were the usual spin. Joy Robson simply made the mistake of calling Quindoy when she was looking for her son and this was enough for them to start weaving their tales (the reason why the guests at Neverland were asked not to run around with their problems but take them directly to Norma Staikos).
In her anger Joy Robson could even mention kidnapping and at the 2005 trial she was reminded that Tom Sneddon wanted her to confirm the ‘kidnapping’ story to the grand jury, but Joy said she didn’t remember and in any case never thought that her son was kept by force.
But Quindoy did remember and jumped to a conclusion that if this woman didn’t know where her son was she must have left him totally unattended for weeks at a time!
~
In fact it is incredibly easy to read through these texts now and see what really happened and what is pure fiction.
With the amount of information in our baggage even the most intricate text suddenly opens up and becomes clear. The events form into a logical succession, people who wanted to stay anonymous reveal their names and most ingenious lies fall apart almost at first touch.
You are able to spot liars and measure the degree of their degradation. You see which lie springs from which story, you watch puzzle pieces fit into their proper place and see how even the most baffling stories make themselves unravel.
It is a totally miraculous process when unbelievable things begin to happen. Maureen Orth’s articles suddenly turn into a treasure trove of hidden facts waiting to be discovered because now you are able to read between the lines there and connect the dots never connected before.
Each text suddenly becomes transparent and it feels like you are able to read an ancient text in a long forgotten language. The feeling is fantastic.
This must be the effect of the truth. Try it yourself and you will open the door to a different reality.
Truth is real magic, guys.
UPDATE
One of the readers (Maria) found a new article by Maureen Orth (March 1, 2019) https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/10-undeniable-facts-about-the-michael-jackson-sexual-abuse-allegations and left the following comment:
In her “Nightmare in Neverland” she said: “One anguished father who had spent considerable time at Neverland called me in despair” but in the 2019 article she admits it was HER who first called Dennis Robson, and Dennis “surprised her by returning her call”.
Also interesting: “Dennis, who had been diagnosed as bipolar SHORTLY before his wife left”.
Shortly before his wife left! I guess, it’s safe to say that your hypothesis that his diagnosis was connected with Joy’s intent to have full custody IS CORRECT!
Yes, my supposition turned out to be absolutely correct.
After more than 18 years of marriage to Dennis Robson his wife Joy was so intent on starting a new life, probably for herself too, that not only did she divorce her husband, but she also had him certified as a mental case and took this diagnosis to court to strip him of his parental rights.
The court gave her sole custody of the children and the right to decide their future without her former husband standing in the way – his consent was no longer needed for anything she did. And with great expectations for a new bright future ahead of them she set out on a journey to the US, taking their younger children with her.
Does the discovery that I was right make me happy?
No, it doesn’t. It makes me extremely sad.
Maureen Orth says that Dennis Robson never got over losing his family.
After his wife took the children away from him, leaving him with a mental diagnosis at that, Dennis Robson more or less survived with the help of his elder son Shane who fortunately stayed by his side for over 10 years. But in 2002 Shane left too and this is when Dennis Robson committed suicide.
Muareen Orth tries to convince us that Dennis Robson “never got over losing his family, all because his son, then five, had won a local dance contest, and the first prize was a meeting with his idol, Michael Jackson.”
In the opinion of these people Michael is to blame for every life problem, so they are falling over themselves to prove their point. But thousands of people all over the world met Michael Jackson, and it was only those who were guided by avarice and ambition who destroyed their lives, and with their own hands too.
Maureen Orth claims that “in the new HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, Wade Robson says he never fully understood what caused his father’s pain”.
Well, if he never understood it, let us explain it to him.
His father was in so much pain because he was sacrificed to his wife’s ambitions and was ruthlessly betrayed – by all of them and Joy Robson in particular.
Betrayal seems to be running in this family.
Like mother, like son.
Vindicating Michael 
Is there anything special in this See-through-lies Manual, last updated almost eight years ago, that it suddenly got to the top of all posts?
Please tell me.
It used to be a separate page here but I I took it off long ago as I thought it was no longer needed.
Is it that important? Is it because of Aaron Carter?
LikeLike
Wendy, I seriously think that all “theories” should be debunked only after/if Wade Robson tells his story. Debunking these theories now is actually equipping this monster with new knowledge. He will look at our arguments and say – “no, this is no good, this is too easy a story, I need to think of something else”.
It is ridiculous to be helping Robson to build his lies this way. When/if there is a story there will be an answer to it.
By the story I mean not what he is saying (anyone can say that), but how he “recalled” it.
LikeLike
I’ve seen a theory about this Wade case that I hope can be debunked. It says that Wade was payed a ton to testify for MJ, say great things about him his life and even after he died, but since he has been betrayed (i.e. no cirque du soleil) and is not being paid anymore by the estate or whomever, he is telling the truth as revenge. However, he can’t say he was paid for years as this is not something that can be proved, other possible “victims” like Barnes and Culkin would deny it (because they are still being paid to not say anything bad about Michael), and it also makes him look bad for confessing he took money for years instead of telling the truth. So instead, he’s using the less believable story to cover up why he’s really confessing. Please tell me this isn’t true:(
LikeLike
This is the realm of pure speculation and I guess that this is a new idea promoted by Michael’s detractors.
So it is not enough for them that in order to prove his innocence Michael went so far as submit himself to all that media and police torture – up to a degrading strip search. Now they say that he simply didn’t expect Evan to start the whole story and this is why he did not pay him at once…
But why don’t these people speak about the fact that Michael didn’t want that case to go to a civil trial at all and that he insisted on a criminal investigation instead? YES, his lawyer Bert Fields was fighting for a chance to put the criminal investigation first – before any civil case went forward.
The civil trial could take years which Michael couldn’t afford and placing a civil case before a criminal investigation was even unnatural. The usual order of events is to establish guilt or innocence of an accused person in a criminal investigation and possibly trial – and Michael was so sure of his innocence that he WANTED a thorough criminal investigation of the case.
An alleged criminal insisted on his case to be investigated by the police! Where have you seen anything of the kind?
In contrast, Jordan’s lawyer Larry Feldman insisted on the civil case going first. Jordan was reaching 14 and after that he could no longer expect any exceptions for himself. And a month or two before Jordan turned 14 the judge did make that exception and allowed the civil case to go forward – which was indeed a big blow to Michael’s team.
Michael thought of the Chandlers’ accusations as an extortion and was sure that in the process of the investigation the police would get down to the bottom of the matter. To help establish the truth he even submitted himself to a degrading strip search.
This is how far Michael was ready to take the case to, and it was not his guilt that the judge allowed the money case to go first.
By taking this crazy decision the judge actually said to the parties “Decide the matter with the help of money first”. How is that possible at all? Now we know how long civil cases may last – up to for several years. Michael could not even afford it, he had to work.
So what Michael really intended to do in August 1993 was prosecution of Evan Chandler for extorting him of money. However his intentions do not even matter now.
What really matters is that the police did not find a single scrap of evidence against Michael during the whole year of carrying out a criminal investigation of him – which was carried out before and after the settlement with the Chandlers.
And the fact that Jordan refused to testify in 1993/94 does not matter either. Already in 1995 Tom Sneddon had a chance to open the case without his witness, on the basis of the “evidence” alone, however he didn’t do it.
He did not do it because he had not evidence. And without evidence all these ideas are just pointless speculation.
Michael’s haters simply don’t know what else to invent in order to find fault with him.
I suggest they pour all the mammoth energy they spend on vilifying Michael into really serious matters. Their preoccupation with Michael Jackson alone is highly suspicious.
I also suggest that people educate themselves about the case before asking questions.
Here is one more post about the 1993 case:
The questions handled there are as follows:
1. Did Jordan Chandler ever want to testify?
2. Why wasn’t Jordan Chandler deposed?
3. The criminal investigation is over. Tom Sneddon goes on talking
4. Prosecutors urge changes to the law to “nail” Jackson
5. Can a child’s declaration be admitted without the child’s testimony?
6. The Sixth Amendment and exceptions for children allowing them not to testify
7. Jordan’s case – a declaration with no evidence
8. A bluff with the 1993 photos for the 2005 trial
LikeLike
Erin, I’ve already answered this question many times. I think no one will be able to tell you for sure whether Evan Chandler thought of it himself or whether someone started him on this road.
I am of the opinion that he was approached by Victor Gutierrez. Gutierrez had been making rounds of all parents around Michael for several years by 1993 spreading lies about him, and there is no reason to believe that Gutierrez would have bypassed Evan Chandler. Why should he?
I think so only because I see no reason why he would exclude Evan Chandler from the whole pack, though Evan Chandler could have come to that idea all by himself. But the question is – what does it matter?
Yes, indeed, please explain to me – what difference does it make whether Evan Chandler came to this idea himself or someone suggested it to him?
LikeLike
Oh, that’s interesting. I never thought that Evan might actually believe his own accusations. I thought he made them up for sure and wasn’t actually suspicious. Do you know if he thought of the accusations himself or whether someone suggested them to him? Also, I’m a bit confused about the first blackmail attempt where Evan said he wouldn’t tell the media if Michael paid him first. (With the psychiatrist letter and all) Is there any chance at all Michael didn’t pay him then purely because he didn’t think Evan would actually go to the media or was paranoid of what would come of a secret payoff? (Again, I don’t believe this, but I see these theories on websites and I love when you all disprove them)
LikeLike
If I understand it right you are saying that even if Evan Chandler thought that Michael was clean it doesn’t make MJ innocent?
I agree. What Evan thought or didn’t think is not the main thing that determines Michael’s innocence. Similarly I can say that the fact that Michael paid money in a settlement did not mean that he was guilty.
All these factors are variables that can change with the circumstances and they alone do not determine the person’s guilt or innocence.
What determines it all is that there was nothing to prove these people’s words. Evan Chandler subjected MJ to lots of tests – he put him into Jordan’s room and (as we hear) placed a tape recorder there and still had nothing. He interrogated him under Toradol and asked him intimate questions but still got nothing. He tried to catch him unawares and shocked him with a direct question to test his reaction, but it still gave him nothing. This is why he said to David Schwartz that he “had no idea what was going on”.
As to Jordan he claimed many things in this declaration but the description he gave of MJ didn’t conform to the photos to such a degree that his own lawyer demanded that those pictures should be “barred from the trial” (meaning the civil trial of course).
And Tom Sneddon couldn’t do anything with those pictures either. Even when the law was corrected the next year and allowed him to renew the case against Michael without the minor witness, on the basis of the evidence alone, it didn’t help Sneddon because there was nothing against MJ and the photos were actually the evidence of Michael’s innocence.
And when people can’t prove what they say even the most interesting and detailed sagas they tell are simply a huge pack of lies. They turn into Hollywood scenarios like those Evan and Jordan Chandler were writing for their films.
By the way, the fact that the Chandlers had ties with Hollywood is probably much more important than “what Evan thought”. Hollywood again!
P.S.
I simply cannot help but have this chain of associations: the Chandlers – their Hollywood film released in 1993 – journalist Andrea Peyser, Chandler’s relative and a simultaneous Michael’s hater/Woody Allen’s supporter – Woody Allen’s case running parallel to Michael’s in 1993 – Hollywood ped-lia problem Corey Feldman spoke about – people in Hollywood who thought Michael to be a p-le according to Victor Gutierrez.
I’m sorry but there is definitely a Hollywood trace in this Chandlers’ business.
LikeLike
Interesting. That’s all so awful. Also, just one question on the Chandler case. A website once suggested that Evan was a greedy person who cared more about money than his son, but he told MJ’s people he wouldn’t bother pressing charges if he was just given the settlement (irregardless of the form that said they could still proceed to trial) simply because he didn’t care about Jordie, and therefore MJ still could be guilty. This is false right? It doesn’t sound plausible to me. Sorry for all the questions.
LikeLike
This question I probably know an answer to. There is no law against defaming deceased people which would allow relatives of the deceased to sue the slanderer. This why the AdLaw initiative is so important – they are calling on the legislators to allow relatives of the deceased to sue the accusers and make them submit their “evidence” to the scrutiny of the court:
At the moment whatever Robson says is okay from the point of view of law and he can get away with anything. The absence of this law very often turns into a tool of taking revenge on someone.
In this case, for example, it may be the revenge on the Estate of Michael Jackson who didn’t give Wade Robson the job he was counting on. The idea is: “You didn’t give me the job? So you will pay me these millions all the same – without me even having to work for it”.
As Thomas Mesereau rightfully said on King Jordan’s radio talk show the money Robson asks for doesn’t belong to the Estate, so if they pay out a settlement to Robson it will not be from their own pocket and will be an easy way out for them. And since it is so easy Thomas Mesereau is afraid that the Estate will choose to settle – just in order to spare themselves from all the trouble of it.
However it will be a complete disaster for Michael. Therefore we should make every effort to force the Estate to take up this challenge and face this beast in court (if it ever comes to it).
Any settlement with Robson is OUT OF THE QUESTION. Only face him in court and rip him inside out there.
No matter what he says. No matter what he thinks of. No matter how horrendous a story he invents.
He will lose nothing, and this is the “beauty” of all these post-mortem lies. Anyone can tell any lie they want and there will be no stopping it. This is why it is so despicable.
Ask him and not me.
LikeLike
No, I cannot answer your question, and you’ve all convinced me almost 100% that this is yet another lie. I’m just left with a few things to ask, and that’s how Wade thinks he can get away with this. If the judges see it as a lie, he will loose money, so why even do it in the first place? What makes him think they will believe him? And what was the “earth shattering information on Michael” Murray said he had in that article? And why did he give such an ambiguous answer to whether MJ was guilty? Again, thank you for clearing up the lies.
LikeLike
And one more question to Erin.
If you know Wade Robson’s story, can you guarantee to us that this will be his last? I mean he has changed it so often…
Actually this is the reason why I was against discussing it now. We discuss one version and he comes up with another one. We discuss this other verson and he comes up with a third one.
I think that until we know for sure HOW he came to his “discoveries” and WHAT exactly he discovered it is pointless to discuss anything at all.
However I’m ready to look into it if you can guarantee that it is his last story.
LikeLike
Susannerb and Sina, thank you very much for answering this question. I cannot even make myself write a reply when the answer is so obvious.
It is not only totally untypical but there are also some nuances here, and in this connection I have a very specific question to Erin.
Erin, do you know what Wade Robson is saying in his claim? Can you specify all the details of his case against Michael Jackson? If you can please do. But only in case it is documented of course.
LikeLike
@Erin:
He doesn’t need or want money? How do you get this idea when he submits a “creditor’s claim” to MJ’s Estate, which is simply and solely about money? And when we know that he lost all the jobs he wanted to have in the surroundings of MJ tribute shows which would have secured his future?
His story about knowing what was going on but being convinced it wasn’t bad is plausible? What is plausible about it? This is not a typical reaction of a victim. Being molested for 7 years (in which he certainly didn’t see MJ as often as he claims), in which you grow up, become knowledgeable as a young man and even are examined and cross-examined about it in a trial as an adult and still not knowing what happened to you? There is no plausibility, real victims never forget the slightest detail of their molestation and know from the beginning that something is wrong.
You can’t understand why he would say this happened unless it were true and he just didn’t realize it was wrong? You see no other reasons for him saying this? So what about the other 2 accusers whose reasons became very obvious and were proved? It’s the same thing again: It’s money, it’s jealousy, it’s rage about being excluded from the benefits MJ’s name brings.
MJ isn’t around to threaten him to not tell what happened? MJ is not around to defend himself! And that’s why WR submitted this “creditor’s claim” only now and to an Estate instead of confronting his “molester” directly – for example when he visited MJ in 2008 in Las Vegas to have a barbecue with him and his kids. And MJ never threatened WR with anything, he supported him all these years to make him a name in showbiz which WR himself destroyed now. He sold his soul to the devil and will not come back into limelight except as an accuser. How deplorable!
LikeLike
Erin, I am not going to speak for Wade Robson or Conrad Murray. If they speak out I will handle the subject, but not earlier.
All I will comment on is the doll. From the way it was neatly placed together with the CD player – facing the door and on the opposite side from Michael – I gather that it was Conrad Murray who placed it there for the photographers to come and take a picture of it. The doll itself could have been left there by Paris.
What’s interesting is that Murray was setting the scene after the paramedics had carried away Michael’s body. One of them returned into the room to pick up his equipment and to his amazement saw Conrad Murray still running about and picking up things. Murray did not expect his return and was seemingly surprised.
Why was Murray doing it if he was supposed to be taking care of his patient at that moment?
LikeLike
No he can’t be stopped because the one he is accusing is not here to defend himself . And if it is not money he is after why sue MJs estate, a business entity that only deals with MJs businesses ergo his money. The estate is not the person, the man with a heart and a soul, the father and son he is accusing. So why go after the estate?
WR had plenty time during the trial to make up his mind about right or wrong. He was an adult, not a child. If the Arvizo kids were not afraid to look Michael in the face and lie, then WR could most certainly tell “his truth” Michael died 4 years after the trial, then it took WR another 4 years to realize he was either threatened or did not know right from wrong.
If indeed he was threatened not to talk, how come as an adult it never crossed his mind something might be wrong, not even during the 2 year trial ? So which one was it.
If its not money he is after he could have written a letter to the NY times or another newspaper, the way Dylan Farrow did.
And if its retaliation he wants because he believes his own truth, I got news for him Michael Jackson is not in this realm anymore, nothing can hurt him. The only ones who suffer are the ones who are left behind and who Michael took care of with his estate. But that does not seem to bother Wade at all.
I hope the judge sees this for what it is.
LikeLike
Thanks for your response. But what does that article mean? What sort of information does Murray possibly have? Why didn’t he answer if he thought MJ was guilty or not? Is that doll comment even true? And most of all, what reasons does Wade have to accuse him after he’s dead unless it really happened?
LikeLike
Who? Wade Robson doesn’t want money? And what about this?
LikeLike
I’ve thought MJ was innocent until the Wade Robson thing came out. He clearly doesn’t need or want money, his story about knowing what was going on but being convinced it wasn’t bad is plausible (other victims of these crimes often react the same way), and he used to be such a staunch defender that I can’t understand why he would say this happened unless it were true and he just didn’t realize it was wrong. What do you make of this? He also can’t be stopped now as MJ isn’t around to threaten him to not tell what happened. I hope this isn’t true as I want to believe MJ didn’t do this:(
LikeLike
Maria, as far as I know Jerry Sandusky was proven guilty while Michael was proven innocent.
How do I see their similar reaction to the allegations? And if someone accuses you of this crime won’t you deny it and suspect extortion too? So how can a denial of the crime be the proof of anyone’s guilt?
How do I see the fact that both of them associated with children? But many other people have chosen their profession out of their love for children too (teachers, doctors, for example), but it does not mean that all of them are child abusers (or potential child abusers).
As regards Michael I know for sure that he could never harm a child. Why? Because in contrast to all other people Michael had something which all these other people didn’t have. Guess what?
LikeLike
just out of curiosity, how do you compare michael to jerry sandusky? i know back when that was happening, people referred to the twos reactions upon allegations as similar (denying bad behavior, claiming extortion) and how they both believed they were doing good for kids and saw them as innocent and were charitable towards them. i know mj’s cases had many more holes, but i’m just interested in whether you perceive their behavior as similar, being that jerry was convicted and proved guilty.
LikeLike
Hello Dear, are you really visiting this web site on a regular basis, if
so after that you will definitely get nice know-how.
LikeLike
Hi Lynette,
As I stated in my email I remember many of the players and events. The comment was a combined conversation btw me and a German Fan who voiced her thoughts on their site wishing Helena would talk about it. She too found Helena’s blogs instructional. I explained Helena wasn’t really posting here regularly, but I try posting it there and see if she’d answer. Although I do believe DD is going to slip one day due to desperate need for attention and say something which will land her in legal hot water.
Thank you for you commentary.
LikeLike
Thanks for clearing that up, Lynette.
Tatum. Here’s an interesting fact. There was a crucial point for Evan and Larry Feldman to get their civil suit and do all they could do to postpone Michael’s criminal trial. Jordan’s 14th birthday was looming on them. If the criminal trial came first and Jordan was the legal age to testify, God knows what would happened. But we know Evan was bricking it, then Feldman won the right for Evan’s civil suit, resulting in Michael not getting his want of the criminal trial first.
Helena, I agree. June is an important factor. Just look at how she told her side of the story in 2005, which conflicted with Jordan’s tales with Dr. Gardener. But still, I don’t think she was such a MAJOR threat to Evan and Jordan’s lies, she was just more or less relaying the basics of her and Jordan’s time with Michael. But it still showed the conflicts of Jordan’s version of events, which is important for showing Michael’s innocence in the matter.
LikeLike
“That is why you have to read all those book so you can compare them to documents and get the true picture of what happened.”
Lynette, frankly I am surprised that you constantly tell me that I should read DD and other haters’ sources. You make me look like someone who avoids doing it. This is a totally wrong perception of me as I was the one who actually started reading and analysing haters’ sources. Back in 2009 not a single Michael’s fan wanted to look even at the transcript of Evan Chandler’s tape, and it was a kind of a taboo which I broke.
Let me repeat what I said long ago – it is a paradox but most of the information for my posts was taken not from fans, but from haters’ sources as they are the ones who raise questions and also provide the necessary links (!). MJ’s fans just never had a look and that was the main problem with them – if they had they would have learned a lot of truth long ago!
There is a myriad of sources at the moment. As a priority I prefer the documents, but the lies told by haters are sometimes also helpful, especially timewise as the mere fact which lie surfaced when can be very enlightening.
Take DD’s book, for example. It is copyrighted in 2005, so DD was working on it as a final nail to drive into the coffin of what she expected to be a guilty verdict for Michael Jackson. It turned out differently and now the same book is seen as her retaliatory blow against Michael’s acquittal (and probably it is). In any case everything she says there about Jordan Chandler should be seen from the perspective of the year 2005. She evidently tries to present it as if “she has known it all along” (for example, about that “dark spot”) but knowing the date of her book shows that this is not so. She only tries to present the facts disclosed in 2003/05 as if they were known or said in 1993. It is one of her most dangerous tricks.
And as regards circumcision/non-circumcision and dark/or light spot I don’t know which of them “kept MJ out of jail”. What I know is that in matters of truth there are no minor factors – every little thing is important. Sometimes a tiny fact helps to verify the bigger truth or adds the necessary missing link to the whole puzzle. Actually these “small” things serve as the best verification tool of the truth which we are trying to reconstruct – if the “small” thing does not fit it means that the whole premise on which the hypothesis was made is wrong. And if it does fit in, it becomes extra proof that the train of thought is correct.
In this particular case the fact that Jordan described a light splotch in 1993, but after the photos were made all those who had access to them suddenly started talking of a dark spot (Maureen Orth in 1995, Diane Dimond and Tom Sneddon in 2005) is exactly that very small thing which is fitting in perfectly into the picture and explains a lot of their roundabout turns and lies.
And you didn’t make me write or post any videos about non-circumcision not being the equivalent of erection – I did it completely on my own. I come from a country where ALL men are non-circumcised, and it was inconceivable to me that Americans could confuse one with the other (even Taraborrelli claims that it is almost the same. I thought that at least men should know the difference, but they do not!).
I didn’t want to post the video of a man masturbating because this blog isn’t a porn site, but I managed to find the animation of it in a medical site which looks more or less decent and this is when I posted it.
It seems that you still go on hinting in your comments that you supplied me with this or that information. Yes, sometimes you did, sometimes I did and very often our readers did, but this is not the point. The point is doing serious research and not pulling the blanket to one side only.
There will surely be a time for me to read DD’s book. In the meantime if you really want to help please send me the transcript of Blanca’s story from Hard Copy in DD’s version of it which is enclosed with her book (I say “her version” because Blanca said that DD distorted her words).
For my sources I usually use the fabulous jetzi site but in this case DD’s book is missing there.
Thank you very much in advance for your help.
LikeLike
“June…she knew basic things”
Rodrigo, I think that June Chandler is a key to solving Jordan Chandler’s “mystery”. Everything depends on how you look at her role in it. No one has yet looked at June Chandler from the angle of her possible personal relations with MJ. But if you introduce at least this possibility into the analysis a whole lot of things begin falling into their place.
LikeLike
“still they already had the mother on board, they were trying to get Jordie to testify. I wonder.”
Tatum, let us introduce the exact timing into the picture and you will see that at the moment of meeting Jordan Chandler in the New York City there could be no idea yet that June Chandler would testify. The link to the FBI files you provided says that the interview took place on September 28, 2004. And it could be after Jordan’s words that the District Attorneys office approached June Chandler. In short Jordan told them to ask her questions and they did.
And let me draw your attention once again to the fact that before going to New York Ron Zonen and Gordon Auchinchloss met with the experts of the Behavioral Analysis Unit (the link you yourself provided says it: http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%20305%20File%20Part%201%20of%201/view).
The article below says directly that this department was asked to do a behavioral analysis of Jordan Chandler and what else could it be other than checking his credibility?
So the meeting was organized not only for the purpose of making him testify but check him up as a witness too. This point was overlooked before but it is VERY important. The DA office doubted Jordan Chandler as a witness!
LikeLike
@lyn
Thats interesting that you mentioned the laws of perjury in California because in Evans declaration of facts he only maintained that Jordan was under 14 years old. Evan never alleged anything under penalty of perjury. Figures
LikeLike
First Jordan never left the country he just went skiing in Sun Valley or at least that is where he was photographed.There is more to the sentence which is why I wanted to get Evan Chandlers FBI file under the FOIA. It had nothing in it of value about Michael’s case just another case that his name was mentioned in from 1968 or around there.
He was never called to testify in the trial and he should have been.
The only people that believed that the description was a match was Sneddon based on what Gary Speigel said and what he actually says is ” I think I saw a dark spot” he isn’t even certain of it and he says he doesn’t think he had the time to take a photo of it yet he has 23 other photos of Michael’s genitalia? They were just trying to make Sneddon happy because he was so disappointed that he didn’t get to arrest Michael he was probably the one that threw a fit not Michael.
That is why you have Dr. Strick say that he was told later that it was a match. Then Michael died and before his autopsy is made public there is his conversation with Geraldo where he says that he was told it was a match. Suddenly the autopsy report comes out and what the world doesn’t know it that in every autopsy an intact foreskin is a defining characteristic of the male body and will be listed in the legal description of that body. They weren’t expecting that and neither was the public at large.
Here is what is missing from the Chandler book. If it was truly a match wouldn’t they have had the actual detailed description in their book? Of course they would have no one can tell me or anyone else that they would have left that out. The lie about a spot light or dark is not what kept Michael out of jail. What kept Michael out of jail is the fact that he was not circumcised. That is why people like DD and MO try to perpetuate the myth that an uncircumcised penis look the same as a circumcised one when it is erect. That is why I had you post that video of what it looks lke when an uncircumcised man is masturbating because that is what Jordan orgininally said that he saw until it wasn’t a match then he all but says in that declaration.
That declaration isn’t a legal document in the eyes of the court because Jordan was only 13 and a 13 year old can’t be put under oath and held for perjury in California your have to be at least 14 to be held legally responsible for your testimony in California.IT was just a legal trick that Larry Feldman pulled to force public sympathy when he filed that thing it meant nothing legally and never will. What he did was attach it to hsi motion for Michael’s finanaces which Michael did not want to made public because of his business dealings.
Lots of things happened but by her own words DD says that she trusted Vg as a source ub her lawsuit so you know he was her source. He does have a description in his book. He was in on this thing from the beginning and he wanted his information out there and he used DD to do it for him. Read the FBI files and then read DD’s book or Ian Halperns because it is in there too abou VG and someone that he refers to as the Mormon who is an undercover FBI agent that he gave information to but the FBI covered it up. Each and every lie out there is from that man. That is why you have to read all those book so you can compare them to documents and get the true picture of what happened.
LikeLike
Right. But Jordan must have said something extremely sensitive for them to completely blank it out. And even with June onboard, she hadn’t spoken with him in years, so they would have been treated as separate cases. Might have been the revelation of her already testifying, which would be sensitive to his identity.
Personally, I think he flew from the country, not only just so he couldn’t testify, but out of fear of having the lies exposed in some way. Cause we know he revealed to several people that Michael never did anything to him…Evan and Ray fought tooth and nail as well to be excluded. Just so all incriminating stuff against them wouldn’t be used and exposed in court.
June…she knew basic things, but not enough for Jordan and Evan to worry about.
LikeLike
Unless I’m just confused with what you guys are saying.lol
LikeLike
“He had that habit of telling Gardener that his mother would know a lot of the facts”
True, still they already had the mother on board, they were trying to get Jordie to testify. I wonder.
LikeLike
You’re right, Helena. You would think Orth’s article would have been a pretty big deal, but it’s practicality been swept under the rug. Just cherry picked by Desiree and a few others to JUST DISCREDIT Michael. They don’t even realise the true significance that’s going on with the article…
Jordan could have mentioned June. He had that habit of telling Gardener that his mother would know a lot of the facts. The Feds could have blanked that out since it’s sensitive to the identity of the accuser, who’s parents were involved quite heavily. Most would have known that straight away. So the rest of the conversation was a dead give away to Jordan’s identity, as well sensitive information on those involved and what was possibly utilised by him in the past, hence the total blank.
LikeLike
I understand your point but we can still speculate all day about what was said which makes me more curious. It looks like it was alot of information taken out and it could have been an admission of guilt as well involving other characters.
LikeLike
“It’s in the FBI files and some fans end it with Jordan telling the prosecution he did his part but there is no period there. He clearly said something afterwards that was blanked out, but what? I understand that they do this with names and locations but why a whole sentence? http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%20305%20File%20Part%201%20of%201/view“
Tatum, I see absolutely no reason why we should mistrust the FBI in their explanations why they blank out some points. If they say that these are people’s names, then it must be the case. But then it means that Jordan must have named some people in his surrounding who wanted to keep this information confidential. I personally think that he either mentioned Even Chandler, or his mother June Chandler.
Since I have my own theory about June Chandler and MJ I can easily imagine Jordan asking them, for example: “Why don’t you approach my mother instead of me?” This would be exactly the kind of information which would be deleted for reasons of confidentiality.
It is good that you provided a link to the document. Did you notice one more thing about its text? It says that in June 2004 the Santa Barbara District Attorneys office met with the Behavioural Analysis Unit at Quantico.
Behavioral analysis! No one ever focused on that but this is extremely important. I’ve read in some other article that Jordan Chandler was approached not just for a mere testimony – no, he was approached for a behavioral analysis to evaluate the credibility of his words. And this means that even the Santa Barbara District Attorneys were doubting Jordan’s story!
Now it becomes clear why Jordan was so terribly hostile and said he would sue them. He didn’t want to be subjected to a behavioral analysis the purpose of which was to assess whether his words were true or false. If what he had said before was indeed the truth he would have been even interested in the police thinking of him as a credible case (irrespective whether he testified or not), but he refused pointblank… This is something for Michael’s haters to really think about.
LikeLike
“I’ve been looking for ‘The Jackson Jive’ info. There’s not really a lot to go on.”
Rodrigo, that’s the point. For some reason the article is not as well-known as the rest of Maureen Orth’s articles. Considering that it contains a “graphic description” of MJ’s genitalia it should be central to her collection, but everyone, including her, preferred to focus on that vodoo and other nonsense instead.
You think it is unimportant? But in cases like that there are no unimportant things. It is simply illogical to assume that the article where Maureen Orth practically accused MJ of lying to Diane Sawyers did not become a sensation and was pushed into the shade. There must be a reason for it.
I see two possible reasons here. One is Maureen Orth’s apprehension that someone will put two and two together and compare her story with Jordan’s real description. And the second one is her fear that Jackson might sue her.
By the way as regards Jordan’s description I think that several months ago I read his “splotch and circumcision” description in some Taraborrelli’s book. My memory completely fails me as to which book it was and in what year it was written but I remember almost laughing at finding the text so easily as previously I had had a difficulty to find the sources and here it presented itself without any effort on my part. However I did not make a copy of the text as I considered the matter of the description clarified. Now I won’t be able to remember the details. If anyone knows what I am talking of please help with a link.
LikeLike
Yeah, thats definitely unusual. The names and locations are blanked out in order to protect privacy. But I’ve never seen that be used in something like this…but when it is like that, it’s usually something the Government doesn’t want anybody knowing about.
LikeLike
You know what else I find questionable, the 2004 document where Jordan said he would legally fight if they made him testify against Michael. It’s in the FBI files and some fans end it with Jordan telling the prosecution he did his part but there is no period there. He clearly said something afterwards that was blanked out, but what? I understand that they do this with names and locations but why a whole sentence? http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%20305%20File%20Part%201%20of%201/view
LikeLike
Jordan’s original description was that there was a distinguishable light splotch, which means Michael’s penis would have to have been considerably dark for Jordan to notice.
Then, later after Sneddon saw it, it turned to a dark spot, which means Michael’s penis was suddenly lighter for Jordan to notice it.
Why the huge change?
As Helena pointed out before, people in the media tried covering up Jordan’s original description.
Truthfully, if that was the case itself, I think, like with the Arvizo’s, Sneddon knew it was bogus. But in his mind, he wasn’t going let that get in the way of this kid’s damning accusations, cause he always firmly believed in Michael’s guilt…but the question is, why?
Cause we know Sneddon and the city council wanted Neverland, and Michael outbidded Sneddon’s close business friend for it. Lynette pointed out to me, that Neverland was across the road from an elementary school and not far away from a boy’s prep school.
Was Sneddon’s ‘genuine beliefs’ about Michael being guilty just a mask for his scheming to get him out of Neverland?
And, Helena. I’ve been looking for ‘The Jackson Jive’ info. There’s not really a lot to go on. I feel it would be a good idea for you to compare Orth’s stuff with Gutierrez’s.
LikeLike
“Is there any way to find the orginal information where Jordan describes the area?”
Tatum, as far as I know, it was only the Linden affidavit, which is sealed now. When it was temporarily unsealed (as Lynette writes about it) it became known to the Smoking Gun which reported it, but then the article, together with some other important news, was put into an archive. If anyone has access to this source, please provide.
LikeLike
“Diane Dimond did have documents from the 1993 case that she said Pellicano or someone working for him broke into her car and stole them. That is where she got all of the information and she got it from VG.”
Lynette, you should indeed make yourself more clear on some issues. What “all” information did she get from VG? What is meant by “all”?
What Gutierrez knew (or thought he knew) at the time was stated in his own book published in 1996 as far as I remember. Now I recall that Victor Gutierrez was exactly the one who described Michael as circumcised. He didn’t say anything about any spot on MJ’s private parts in his book because he himself didn’t know it, and if he didn’t know it he could not say about it to Diane Dimond either, correct?
So when Diane Dimond was writing in her book of 2005 about the “dark spot” it was not from Victor Gutierrez that she got this information, right? The only other source she could get this information from were the official sources – like Tom Sneddon, for example.
Guys, what are we discussing here at all? Is there anything I need to know which I don’t?
LikeLike
I know we have the information of the “Tell Tale Splotch” but are there any other legal documents? Do you guys know?
LikeLike
Is there any way to find the orginal information where Jordan describes the area?
LikeLike
“That was done in July of 1994.”
What was done in July of 1994? The description was made public or sealed? And until then there were no leakages of information? Do you mean to say that back in the 90s no one knew of Jordan’s description? And no one heard that Jordan said that Michael was circumcised? But this story has been circulating since time immemorial!
Okay, even if no one heard of Jordan’s description in 1993/1994 and even if its details were disclosed only when the documents were unsealed at the end of 2003-beginning of 2004 and Jordan Chandler’s description was still all wrong, what does it change in our train of thoughts?
Absolutely nothing. The description was still wrong!
LikeLike
Helena you are misunderstanding something. The original description was attached to the 2003 search warrant in support of it. The actual description was not made public in 1993 or 1994 because it and the supporting affidavit were sealed by Michael’s attorney’s because the press wanted them made public. That was done in July of 1994. Then, when they wanted to search Neverland in 2003 Paul Zellis attached the original search warrant to the 2003 warrant. So it was opened for that purpose and it was during that time that it was open from November 17th,2003 until January 14th,2004 that it was leaked to the press. The actual description is the one from The Smoking Gun and Matt Drudge confirmed that he had seen it on his show as well. That was the first time that anyone had seen it and they quoted directly from that affidavit.
All other description came from Russ Birchim and Gary Speigels account of the body search. Diane Dimond did have documents from the 1993 case that she said Pellicano or someone working for him broke into her car and stole them. That is where she got all of the information and she got it from VG.
I will get back to you later I have to go now.
LikeLike
Lynette, thank you for the link, but I read and copied long ago most of Maureen Orth’s articles from this blog http://judecalverttoulmin.blogspot.com/2009/06/maureen-orths-5-articles-for-vanity.html Today I’ve been there again and see that the same articles are missing. Okay, probably this author changed her views about Maureen Orth and no longer promotes her stories, which is good.
But initially the five articles posted there didn’t list the “Jackson Jive”, so this article was new to me. In fact it is not as well-known as the rest of Maureen Orth’s stories and the reason for that is because the media could not promote the article while Jordan Chandler’s description was still fresh in people’s minds. It was 1995 and at the time people still remembered what Jordan really said about Michael.
The media could not risk it – what if someone recalled that Jordan was speaking about a “light splotch which was the color of his face”? Now the situation is different and the story can resurface very well again, under a totally new dressing and revolving around that dark spot.
There was a time when I was planning to make a comparison of Maureen Orth’s articles. As well as Ray Chandler’s and VG’s book. And the analysis of VG’s book was left unfinished too. There was a lot on my waiting list.
LikeLike
Lynette, I don’t disregard Diane Dimond’s lies, but I disregard her as a source for that “dark splotch” evidence as the book was copyrighted in 2005, or well after Jordan Chandler made his description. It must have been at about the same time when Sneddon was making his declaration.
So what if Diane Dimond said so in 2005? Sneddon lied that the dark spot was described by Jordan and Dimond lied about the dark spot too. If Dimond had said it before the photos were made (following Jordan Chandler’s words), then we would have something to discuss, but since she made that description after the photos were made (12 years after it) , there is no subject for discussion here. She just repeated what Tom Sneddon told her and what was actually the description of the photos.
Now I am checking up when Maureen Orth lied about the dark spot (the fact that she lied I do not doubt). Initially I thought it was in 2007 as the search for her Jackson Jive article in the Vanity Fair magazine gives January 1, 2007 as the date of that article. See the link: http://www.vanityfair.com/search?page=2&query=Maureen+Orth+September+1995&sort=score+desc
But later I found out that she indeed published the article in the September 1995 issue. Here is another link which proves it: http://www.moviemags.com/main.php?title=vanity%20fair%20&etos=1995 .
So the Vanity fair archives somewhat misplaced the article in time. Probably intentionally.
But even though the article was written in 1995 it does not change anything. It still comes WELL AFTER the photos were made and must be also using the information from Tom Sneddon or someone who had access to the photos. She claims that the dark spot was described by the photographer? But no one is disputing it! The photographer described what he really saw. The only problem is that JORDAN CHANDLER told everyone a different story and gave a different description. He was it as a “light splotch which was similar to the color of his face”!
We here are not discussing what the photographer saw – we are discussing what Jordan Chandler claimed he had seen. The photographer saw one thing and Jordan Chandler claimed another thing – this is where the discrepancy is!
And the fact that both Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth changed their story in accordance with what Tom Sneddon (or someone in his surrounding) told them makes their lies all the more disgusting. They knew that the description and the photos didn’t match and still went on with their lies!
Both of them LIED and both of them misinformed the public KNOWING that they were lying.
LikeLike
Oh by the way David bought the one magazine that had the original article that has since changed and made a post on that too. I think he used it in one of his first articles about Michael’s faith because of the voodoo spells and the bathing in blood thing. Like I said these are not original thoughts. Maureen Orths source for that one was Dr. Myong Ho Lee that tried to sue Michael in 2002 but the case was thrown out becaue he lied and forged Michael’s signature on the business agreement saying that it was signed on Septemeber 14th 2001 when Michael was not even in LA he was in New Jersey at the Cascios because of the 9 11 attacks and all air travel had been stopped in the US for the next five days before a plane took off from anywhere near New York City and the Cascio’s home in New Jersy is just across the river from NYC.
Everyone and I mean everyone that is a source of their articles or book have an axe to grind or have a direct corelation to VG. You have to spend more time reading some of the things that you dismiss because otherwise you don’t get all of the information.
LikeLike
If I can make a suggestion I will leave you a link to the Vanity Fair Archives of Michael Jackson Articles. I think you should read them all. The thing is that some article say something that is pertinent and some articles say other things that are pertinent. Don’t disregard DD’s book because of when it was written because it has actual excerpts of the police statements. It also has a fill transcript of the Blanca Francia interview on Hard Copy. Remember what I said the haters don’t have an original thought in their heads and these are the people that taught them the spin to put on it. She managed to get them back in 1993-1994. I also suggest that you read an article that I will send you via email. There is a line in it that shows that Blanca was in touch with VG prior to the allegations being made by the Chandlers and remeber that she quit working for Michael in 1991 two years before the false accusations. If you have read Chandlers book you will know that he quotes Maureen Orth extensively throughout that book. Do you still have the links to the articles where he was trying to sell his book or go back through the articles that I have written and find them because they are in there.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/testlayoutb
LikeLike
Helena I was never deceived by Diane Dimond. I intended to make a post about it the same thing. The one thing that you should not do is disregard her book because that is where the haters get their spin. That has been a common mistake that you make when you disregard certain things because of when they wee written or who said them or if something wasn’t said exactly as you think it should be said. The haters do not have an original thought in their heads it comes from somewhere and they expand on it. Once again I read her book long ago and have known the origins of the difference on the spots equally as long.ago. As for Orths article I read that when it was originally in Vanity Fair.
LikeLike
I need time to make the post. While I am at it, all Michael Jackson’s supporters, please join me in finding everything you can find about the article by Maureen Orth called “The Jackson Jive”. EVERYTHING about it.
Links to it, the dates, references to it, blogs writing about it. I am asking you to do it to be able to verify the strange thing I’ve noticed about this article. The thing is there but it would still be good if you saw it with your own eyes.
And hurry up, please. If necessary please make screenshots of the data found.
Whatever you manage to find about it please post it here, in the comments to a see-through-lies-manual. For you to be able to do it I will open the comments to everyone.
And please remember that EVEN if the article by Maureen Orth was indeed dated the year 1995 the article still came a year and a half AFTER the photos had been made and was citing the “official” lie voiced by Sneddon.
Also please pay attention to the fact that “the Jackson Jive” article is not as well known as the other Maureen Orth’s articles – “Nightmare in Neverland” or “Losing his grip”, for example. WHY isn’t it?
P.S. I totally disregard Diane Dimond’s book as it was written in 2005.
LikeLike
Lynette, I see that you, like everyone else, were easily deceived by Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth and the media in general. Okay, I’ll make a post about it.
LikeLike
Hello, I actually went to her most recent article on the Huffington Post and posted the facts of Michael not being circumcised and I didn’t see anything that she might have written about it but many of the comments by one person on there did. I corrected them if you go to read them they might not be there because one of the comments that I left was cut out. That was the one where I told her that her primary source VG was in fact the P*** and so forth and so on.She didn’t want anyone to know the truth about her and VG that’s for sure.
I don’t know if she ever saw the photos. I can tell you that in her book she quotes the police Photographer Gary Speigel when he gave his statement about the body search. This is where everyone gets their information that there was a dark spot because he said he had seen one but he was not able to get a photo of it because MJ “threw a fit”. He also says that he already had 23 pictures of his body how many pictures can you take of someones genitals anyway? It is also quoted in the Maureen Orth Article from 1995 ” The Jackson Jive”. That is where Sneddon is quoted and so are Russ Birchim and Gary Speigel.
That is why in the prosecutions motion to admit the photos in 2005 Sneddon said that he swore that there was a match except for those statements based on information and belief.That excludes a charge of perjury because what you are testifying to is what someone told you and you believed it and if it is wrong it is not yout fault if you believed it. Just a tricky way to get around the hearsay rule and admit the photos without the accompanying affidavit. It was nothing more than a legal trick and my guess is Sneddon just wanted to make MJ feel humiliated. Like he hadn’t done enough of that already.
If you want I can send you the pages from her book about the search but it is only a penny on Amazon right now if you want to buy one. You should see where her book ranks in books 🙂 I think it is like number 1 million plus the last time I checked. Poor Diane:(
LikeLike
“Now she has taken to writing about the appearance of Michael’s body more so than before. Is it because…?”
Dial, I am sorry for being away for so long. Just didn’t have a chance to come earlier. This information about Diane Dimond is very interesting. So now she has taken to discussing Michael’s body? I am more than sure that she has read some of the articles in this blog, as simply no one else raised the issue of the “splotches”. Recently I left some notes to her articles several of which were suspended by her and never published. She could have followed me to the blog and read the facts of Michael’s innocence.
I would very much like to know what she is writing now about his appearance. Could you provide a link, please? Sorry for not keeping track of the events around this mechanical doll. I got distracted by the awful events taking place in my country and the draconian laws adopted one after another here. I should hurry up to do something for Michael while we still have the Internet open to us. These people are capable of closing it altogether for us.
LikeLike
Helena don’t know if you are keeping up with the current, but Dimond is making another attempt to regain lost glory as the only “true”..(a joke) Michael Jackson expert.
My opinion: Instead of leaving her on that almost unknown backwater page doing her typical use of Michael with all the vagueness of reporting on “so called” information and evidence she is infamous for some sensibly addressed her comment and then others went on her personal FB page to attack. (like she wasn’t waiting and praying for it) Giving a new breathe of life her career and psychology desperately needs.
Now she has taken to writing about the appearance of Michael’s body more so than before. Is that because:
(a) She has researched from sites like this and others to “smooth” out her tales?
(b) She was given an opportunity to view the photos & videos?
And if she is talking of Michael’s body with any intimate knowledge other that his not being circumcised and that “so called” spot which are well reported, then she is admitting to having seen pictures which Sneddon and former SB Superior Court Judge Anderson swore were secure in a bank box. She accepted stolen material from someone who had the means to access that box. (you will remember this one)
Click to access 062205pltrespdftprprtd.pdf
(c) I wonder if her bid for attention may set in motion the kind of attention a good friend Sneddon might not be able to help her out this time?
(d) Do Judges even if they issued it, DA’s and/or appointed Officers of the Law get in trouble for violating Court Orders?
By the way I don’t know how your browser gives you results, but today when I typed in “extraordinary criminal court cases” for the first time in 2 years the SB Database WAS NOT offered up on the first, second or third page of Google results.
LikeLike
The video of Nancy Grace talking to 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 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 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 (so time is short), 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 some perplexity and repeats her question twice slowly, as if for an imbecile.
And when Mike finally says that [initially] Conrad Murray looked like a nice guy to him it was at last what she wanted from him! 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.
Question: What did she need Mike Garcia for?
Answer: Her monologue about Murray was ready – all she wanted of the bodyguard was to give her the necessary a cue.
Question: Why couldn’t she do it on her own?
Answer: 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 only.
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 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.
Nancy: [pause]
[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.
[pause]
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].
LikeLike
As you may know be now former Penn State coach Joe Paterno has died. How much was due to his cancer and other medical problems and how much due to a wounding done by the Media few if any will ever know. My condolences to his family at their loss.
The reason I posted this story if not to focus on Mr. Paterno, but the Media and their writings. Read the below AP article. I suspect it has been “decided” with the use of certain verbs in this article tells us how future reports will be made……. (a decision has been made)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jI2pldlMcxObwOKM02sATrfhja6w?docId=2f4978f778114841885cc9354ab8abf9
LikeLike
This documentation does not prove that Jordan was administered sodium amytal.
LikeLike
Can’t read it.
LikeLike
@teva,
It’s that document,
LikeLike
@Shelly
Can you send me that document please?
LikeLike
regarding the remark attributed to brett…someone gave it to me off facebook…thats all i know..i like it because it doesnt distract from the truth..however that stuff was put out for public consumption…it still is lies
LikeLike
So they paid Torbiner to shut up, because he was accused of doings illegal things and had his name on the document.
LikeLike
@ Shelly
The anasthesia was always the Chandler’s story. So it originated from them. VG took it over from them. Maybe it were the Chandlers who created the false documents for that.
I always suspected and still do that this story is not true. I’m with Geraldine Hughes about this. They probably used this so that Jordan would have an excuse not to testify.
LikeLike
@nan
Where did you read that?
LikeLike
Brett Barnes 15 iulie la 11:29 Denunţă
i don’t have an opinion of him. whether he said those things or they were fabricated, they still remain lies.
somebody gave me this quote supposedly from Brett regarding Aaron Carter…I think that is a good statement to make …
as always , i love this website..so much really fantastic information…
LikeLike
VG had no reason to create a false document about anesthesia. What does it bring to his story.
LikeLike
Point proven. Why are we basing theories from liars? As if VG is more creditable than RC.
LikeLike
How do we know Levin broke the sodium amytal story, Fischer never gave the name of the journalist. I tbink we shouldn’t forget the VG book and his document about the anesthesia.
LikeLike
The issue was not Carter or sodium amytal it was speculation. At the end of the day we have to go by what was actually proven and I think that’s where people are starting to drift. For example, the sodium amytal, Harvey Levin is the one who broke that story, a tabloid source. The only linking between sodium amytal and Jordan is Raymond Chandler’s book which manipulated other documents, not only that, but Jordan told many people it never happened – so the whole false memory syndrome thing doesn’t fit.
Personally, I’ve noticed that there has been a lot of speculation here lately. Why are we basing theories on people who are liars?
LikeLike
vmj, you want to be as fair as posible to A.C.Time will tell and he is not worth more space at this time. This Nikky Sixx even less so.Every
second or 2/3 of words out of his mouth are f**** or b*** and such.
How interesting!?!? Or does he specialize in masochisic audiences,
without brains?
LikeLike
@ rockforeveron
It’s amazing how it ALWAYS turns out whoever has a problem with Michael is projecting the things on him that he/she is guilty of! This guy had an autobiography titled “The heroine diaries” and slept with underage girls back in the 80s – and the difference between him and MJ is that Sixx really had sex with underage persons, unlike Michael. And he calls MJ a p. and a druggie? Some nerve.
LikeLike
To Helena & All,
Over the past year there were amazing things that happened here. Revelations that were not possible before. This site took what was and would become available drawing in people to read, discuss and investigate in order to clear up the lie and set the record straight. There were then and now much that remains unknown, but the one thing any who are honest knows the Media lies, it manipulates and because of his continue popularity remains a commodity to be exploited. Even those who have been exposed to them get fooled (MJ & Bashir) and some allow themselves to be used for fame and fortune. Rather than coming to blows over Aaron Carter I’d suggest we do not allow this to distract us. One thing is for sure, eventually the truth will out.
Carter is in a category similar to J. Chandler. G. Hughes said he’ be given false memories, later we believe (knew?) he hadn’t, now due to some leads we are back to he was again. Some believed he was drugged and others believe he was not. The information about the interview is out there and will eventually be discovered, but whether you believe or not we’ve cannot let it come between us, to stall the work. Why do you think MJs employees came and went, he’d distance himself from friends after while, cut himself off? Who is real, who is not an who is manipulating the whole for their agenda?
LikeLike
@VindicateMJ
Daphne Barak has not fooled me, and I regard her intentions suspiciously, but I am also concern about something else. We lament DD’s salacious articles based on speculation, rumour, innuendo, and unnamed sources; therefore, we ought to be careful not to do the same. I do not say this as an attack on you Helena, but more of a cautionary tale. From what you have written on July 14, 2011 1:41am it seemed to me like you were implying Aaron Carter was speaking about Lou Pearlman to Daphne Barak in the second tape, and my mind cannot make that leap. However, if you feel strongly about this, and you can connect the dots I am willing to listen, I don’t know how you will do it without hearing the entire interview, but I will listen.
You are the founder of Vindicate Michael Jackson (a stellar site), and your opinion will always be valued by me even if I don’t always agree with it.
LikeLike
I don’t normally believe everyone who hates on MJ is racist, but in this instance Nikki Sixx actually does have a history of that.
Here he is at @00.58, “How does that feel you fucking n*gger?”
In his book he talks about his black girlfriend from the 80s, Vanity, and calls her a “black bitch” in moments of anger, and ends one chapter saying, “Maybe I’m just a n*gger.”
His treatment of women here again:
50 year-old rocker Nikki Sixx, the bassist of Motley Crue, was at a concert in San Diego when he was videotaped spitting on a female fan who threw a water bottle on him, telling her to give him a BJ and calling her a “whore.” Incidentally he had just thrown the same water bottle into the crowd and the fan was just throwing it back. He then made fun of the woman for crying.
At about 1:30 in the video above, the woman threw the water bottle at him, which went over his head and just sprayed water.
He said “You think that sh*ts funny motherf*cker? Suck my dick. Come here. F*ck you.”
He then held his bass over his head like he was going to throw it and pointed at her like he was daring her to come up.
“The fact that you’re a f’ing wh*re just means you can suck my dick a little more, bitch. Aw, She’s f’ing crying.”
What an asshole. There were so many other ways he could have handled that. It was a bottle he had just thrown out and it was plastic. You can understand musicians getting upset when things are lobbed at them but to respond that way and to mock the woman for crying about it is outrageous.
http://www.celebitchy.com/36732/nikki_sixx_spits_at_female_fan_calls_her_a_whre/
Fans on his twitter have asked if there’s any difference in pedophilia with him having sex with under age groupies, some of his fans have countered that yes there is a difference in having sex with “5 year old boys” and under age groupies.
He’s not a nice guy, this isn’t about any issue he has with child abuse, just attention seeking, much like all the other crazies who fixate on MJ.
LikeLike
“i am not going to let stupid and disgustings people like Barak and Aaron Carter ruin what you have created here.” agree Ares. You apologized and it’s very positive although I would suggest that you never compare this blog with any haters blog especially with D’s.
@VMJ, like Gigi, I am interested in reading your next post on this issue. Thank you for your hard work.
LikeLike
I don’t want to defend Carter but when he is said “I said what I said”, I think he was only speaking about the first video.
Aaron was speaking in terms of the entire interview. There is no video just a sound bite of Aaron speaking of Michael being on his bed but it’s not as if Aaron has gone to great lengths to clear that up. Its sad that no one reported the good things he said about Michael when he was drug free. Aaron has still not been vindicated — the one clip he references is not even half of the interview.
LikeLike
I don’t want to defend Carter but when he is said “I said what I said”, I think he was only speaking about the first video.
“AC: I went to Spain, to do a charity, a gala for kids. And it’s right around the time of Michael’s two year death anniversary so… you know, I sat down, I did an interview with the lady and you know, what I said on video was what I said, you know? And you can clearly see me saying that “Well, I want to protect his legacy.” Michael was an amazing person. Yes, he was my friend, you know, yes we go back and we had great times together, but for someone to do that, to say that about me – that I said, “Michael Jackson gave me cocaine” – that is absolutely absurd. And that makes me very angry. Very angry for someone to slander him and myself. But he can’t even do anything about it, he’s not even alive, so… you know, my message is just “Leave it alone, and let Michael rest in peace.” ”
By there is no video of him saying MJ gave him weed, and that the same for the bed story.
LikeLike
Aaron Carter is set to appear in ITV1 reality TV game show I’m A Celebrity … Get Me Out Of Here!.
http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/869289-aaron-carter-is-latest-star-lined-up-for-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here#commentsAnchor
The thing that sticks out for me is when AC was talking about this with Enews. Aaron said that “I mean what’s on the tapes is what I said” (something 2 that affect) It was still under the reference to MJ cause the interviewer asked him specifically if he said these things about MJ in that Barak interview. If Aaron was really talking about someone else (going with the coulda woulda shouldas) Aaron should have told Ken Baker he wasn’t talking about MJ, but someone else. Should have said Barak twisted his words, etc. He didn’t want to clear it up when folks approached him before for whatever reason. Well, he had ample opportunity with the Enews interview to clear it up and speaking for myself he was still unclear and left things wide open.
Anywhoo
___________________
@Helena
I’m still interested in reading your next post on this issue.
LikeLike
-it is very frustrating to hear that. I never knew that my word was so worthless.- Helena
Your words are not worthless. If they were, no one would visited your blog or consider it the most objective and important source of informations that there is out there. I have repeatedly stated my feeling about you and VindicateMJ. But in this case I believe that you are wrong and you are fighting for something that is obvious. Am not going to continue the debate because who have made up your mind, as I have made up mind. But the vindication of Michael’s is more important to me than who is right or wrong in this case. As I said, it is your blog, you can do whatever you feel right.
By the way, I wasn’t trying to offend you and if I did, it wasn’t intentional and I apologize. I don’t know you but from the way that you are writting I can easily say that I respect you and what you and other people here are doing for MJ. Other than that i am not going to let stupid and disgustings people like Barak and Aaron Carter ruin what you have created here. And by that i mean that am not going to discuss that person’s interview ever again. He doesn’t worth it.
LikeLike
“i think that everybody here, except you, are pretty sure by now that Aaron Carter did say those things about MJ”
It is very frustrating to hear that. I never knew that my word was so worthless.
“i think that you should accept the truth for what it is. Jackson yet again was used by people close to him”
This isn’t the whole truth.
“Why didn’t he speak?”
This is exactly what I am interested in.
“Come on now, this was a publicity stunt and nothing more”.
This is too easy an explanation which doesn’t suit me in the least. Probably because I simply cannot imagine a thing like that.
“he was speaking about Lou Pearlman it’s total speculation and to tell the truth it’s not fair for Lou Pearlman.”
I don’t know whether he was speaking about Lou Pearlman or Bruce Willis in whose home he also stayed for two days. But I know for sure that he wasn’t talking about Michael as Aaron couldn’t be both asleep and riding a four-wheeler at 5 o’clock in the morning. And it would be too foolish of him to tell a lie now as there is a written proof of what he said several years ago. So he was speaking about someone else.
“Those articles that you posted as proofs don’t prove anything, don’t prove that Pearlman was a pedophile”
I have other articles and other evidence now, but I am not going to prove that Pearlman was a pedophile. My intentions are totally different and I am very much afraid that none of the readers realized what I was talking about – even in the least. This is very frustrating again as I expected a different level of understanding on their part.
“i think it’s wrong to write a post in which you would desperately try to prove that Pearlman is a pedophile and that Aaron was talking about him, in order to justify Aaron.”
I am not going to desperately do anything of what you’ve mentioned. This is so flat an allegation that I am insulted even to hear it.
I wouldn’t like to see it turn out like that Desiree’s one.
Thank you.
As a postscript let me say that I am very upset by being alone in thinking that it was a big set up for both Michael and Aaron. I should applaud Daphne Barak and accept my total defeat – she is the one who is having the last laugh. All my efforts to show where the truth is were in vain, and in these circumstances I am even beginning to doubt that Michael’s vindication is possible at all. If people are ready to swallow any lie they are offered and are unable to get to the truth on their own unless someone tells them (in this case Aaron) the vindication job is becoming totally useless. Because no matter what you say and do the very first liar, rascal or fool who comes their way will take the whole crowd in the wrong direction again.
In case someone didn’t notice the goal of this blog let me state it point blank – I was aspiring to prove Michael’s innocence irrespective of what someone said or did. I truly believe that truth exists in an absolute form and is therefore possible to be reached no matter what – even if someone makes a blunder or does intentional damage and then keeps silence about it.
So what I wanted to do was learning the truth of what really happened in Aaron’s case even without his help.
However now I feel that my efforts will be taken for his justification and will not be listened to because everyone has already decided who the main villain is. And if people decided something there is no power on earth which is able to change their opinion.
Same as with haters who also decided everything about Jackson for the rest of their lives and never intend to change their mind. Human nature, you know.
I will still try to make a post about Aaron as I am curious – yes, curious – about what really happened and it is up to the readers to agree or disagree with me. However I will most probably refrain from any further discussion of this or any other matter in the comments section. Michael’s vindication should go on and I need to save the very little remaining energy I have to be able to do that.
LikeLike
Helena, i think that everybody here, exept you, are pretty shure by now that Aarone Carter did say those things about MJ and that he wasn’t a little angel dupped by Barak.They were into this together and franky it really annoys me that are trying so hard to justify Aaron whose idiotic moves for fame and money led to a posthmous spitting this time on MJ’s legacy. Am not going to be bothered by this again since i made my feeling on this matter pretty clear but i think that you should accept the truth for what it is. Jackson yet again was used by people close to him.It is not the first time and it won’t be the last.
If Aaron wanted to protect MJ legacy, as he said, or he was tricked by Barack he should have speak before the story take fire and spread like a virus on the internet. Why didn’t he spoke Helena but he waited to be called in a large tv station in order to give his poor explanations? The “he was afraid” thing is just stupid justification. He wasn’t afraid to delete messages, even, polite ones from people who asked him if he said all those things. He saw that the legacy of the man that he claimed he wants to protect was being draged throught the mud, why didn’t he say anything at the time to prevent some of the mess? Come on now, this was a pubblicity stunt and nothing more.
The last video is not edited Helena .It is him saying all those things about MJ. I know that it shocked you and irritated you because you were pretty shure that Aaron didn’t say those things, but to say that he was speaking about Lou Pearlman it’s total speculation and to tell the truth it’s not fair for Lou Pearlman. I think labeling someone a pedophile is a very serious accusation and we should be very carefoul about that. Those articles that you posted as proofs don’t prove anything, don’t prove that Pearlman was a pedophile.Were are the proofs, were are serious articles about him?Because someone said something on internet or on a tabloid magazine like People,that is proof? And why wasn’t he prosecuted? No, i think it’s wrong to write a post in which you would deseperatelly try to prove that Pearlman is a pedophile and that Aaron was talking about him, in order to justify Aaron.Uneless you have actually proofs, then do it but based on internet or tabloid articles and hersay, no, totally anexeptable.
But again it really doesn’t matter anymore, does it. The majority out there believed those stupid lies on that OK magazine because they would believe anything bad Michael Jackson related. The damage is done, Aaron didn’t ran to fix some of the mess that he created so for me this the end of this story. Other than that this blog is your and you have the right to writte whatever you want but i really hope you don’t procede with what you are thinking of. VindicateMJ is a very liable, objective and amazing place. I wouldn’t like to see it turn out like that Desiree’s one.
LikeLike
Apparently this Nikki Sixx guy not only destroyed his brain with drugs and he doesn’t have a clue about reality but he needed to find a way to become famous outside US. The guy is nobody outside his country and he is the ugliest freak I have ever seen.
LikeLike
I hope this has not become a novel and fashionble trend among 20 something rockers to get cheap, no-cost publicity for themselves.
See comment by Ares July 3:rd and Lepledwards July 14:th.
.
LikeLike
“this weekend I hope to finish transcribing Matt Drudge’s four radio shows from 2005, and I will post it early next week (if not sooner).”
David, I am sorry that I am constantly putting off a post about JC Agajanian (thank you and all the contributors for the transcript). We will surely make it – but first I need to finalize the matter of that beastly Daphne Barak. The set up she involved ALL of us in is simply devilish. It is a big challenge for me but I must do the best I can.
LikeLike
@edwards,
I don’t think we should give to those people the attention they want. We are making the sotry bigger than it is.
LikeLike
Time to break the monotony of speaking of either Daphne Barak, Aaron Carter, or Stonegrooved over the last week or two. It looks like Gene Simmons isn’t the only MJ hater in rock and roll!
Earlier today, for no apparent reason whatsoever, rocker Nikki Sixx posted 2 cruel, vicious, and totally baseless status updates on his FB page! This link here has the screen shots. Don’t worry, it’s the usual hater BS that we’re all used to by now. The only shocking thing is that he said it out of the blue, with no apparent provocation by anyone else. If he wanted attention, he sure got it, because MJ fans blew up his FB page, and of course he never responded, and Sixx’s fans hid behind the First Amendment by saying that he had every “right” to say it (which is true, but of course he didn’t offer any facts to back up his claims).
Read the following link for more info: http://www.lipstickalley.com/f227/nikki-sixx-facebook-page-goes-into-meltdown-over-michael-jackson-comment-316243/
By the way, I know I’ve been quiet lately, but this weekend I hope to finish transcribing Matt Drudge’s four radio shows from 2005, and I will post it early next week (if not sooner). I’m also working on yet ANOTHER post about Bashir and his evil tactics during the trial (for example, he asked that he be released from his gag order in order to air his second hit piece, and he also had an online chat with fans where he “defended” his work.)
LikeLike
“I don’t know what to say, I am stunned. Everything you have written is speculation. You do not know if Aaron was talking about Pearlman in the second tape, we infer it was Michael because the interview was about him. Why are you willing to give Aaron a pass on this? Again looking in some other direction, and talk about splicing tapes and adding cutlery and birds here and there to white wash what Aaron said. Please Helena you have a good thing going here, in the name of all that is good and decent do not become like the those we despise, don’t become like the New York Post.”
Teva, ever since I listened to the 1st, 2nd and 3d tapes I’ve been thinking about several things which didn’t fit in Aaron Carter’s story. These things are small and most people disregard them, but when we have to decide whether the “interview” is true or not, these details matter a lot as everything should be in its place and fitting for it to be genuine. And over here lots of things were wrong.
The last tape from Daphne Barak which is an obvious fake (at least to me) was too much even for my patience and it started me on the road to look what this Aaron Carter thing is all about. When I came upon that information about Lou Pearlman it suddenly formed into a clear picture. It happens like a bang when you think about something for a very long time because all you needed was one detail to fill a missing link. Over here the missing link is why Carter is so evasive about stating clearly what he said and what he didn’t say. And whom he was speaking about at all.
What I wrote in the comment was no speculation but the conclusion I made after very long thinking. I just skipped all the links between the beginning and end of the process and brought you immediately to the result – never expecting it would take people by surprise. However if you haven’t yet grasped what’s what you will have to wait until I have time to put down the whole fact-checking and thinking process on paper and turn it into a post.
However for those who have also taken to the path of investigative research I would like to give the following clues:
– in Mallika Chopra’s article she mentions that Daphna Barak threatened Grace Rwaramba that she would make public their private conversations
– video 1 and videos 2-3 of Aaron’s so-called interview are different in their setting – in video 1 we see Aaron, and in videos 2-3 we see only pictures and what we hear is a very poor sound with a background of cutlery and birds. Does it look like an official interview or a private conversation to you?
– in video 2 there is no mention of the name of the person who “sat on his bed”
– MJ couldn’t be “sitting on his bed” at 5 o’clock in the morning as at 5 o’clock in the morning they were riding the four-wheelers (and there was no other night Aaron spent in Michael’s home)
– the article provided by Shelly mentions sleepovers in Lou Pearlman’s home
– several articles speak of Lou Pearlman as a suspected pedophile
– Lou Pearlman was the creator of Nick Carter’s band
Try to link these separate facts together and you will know an answer to the question asked at the very beginning.
“Aaron Carter said what he said for reasons only known to him. Can we please leave this uncredible person behind. There is nothing to justify here.”
It may sound funny to you but over here I justify the truth.
LikeLike
“I think we should be more careful before using the word pedophile. Lou Pearlman is in jail but not for pedophilia.”
Shelly, I am only repeating what was said in the article you sent a link to http://www.hollywoodrag.com/index.php?/weblog/comments2/boy_bands_are_evil/ . And I wouldn’t be repeating it at all if I didn’t find the same information in the PEOPLE magazine as well:
“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.) ”
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20258140,00.html
More about it:
http://www.nndb.com/people/567/000172051/
At the age of 14 Aaron Carter sued Pearlman:
http://zerozeros.com/the-fall-of-lou-pearlman/
P.S. I will change my comment to say that it is the Vanity Fairy which thinks that Lou Pearlman is a pedophile.
LikeLike
@Teva
I agree.
LikeLike
@vindicatemj
“Daphne Barak is concealing the name from the public but it is most probably the Backstreet boy band manager, Lou Pearlman, who is a pedophile. Yes, it is THEM AGAIN!” – VindicateMJ
I don’t know what to say, I am stunned. Everything you have written is speculation. You do not know if Aaron was talking about Pearlman in the second tape, we infer it was Michael because the interview was about him. Why are you willing to give Aaron a pass on this? Again looking in some other direction, and talk about splicing tapes and adding cutlery and birds here and there to white wash what Aaron said. Please Helena you have a good thing going here, in the name of all that is good and decent do not become like the those we despise, don’t become like the New York Post.
Aaron Carter said what he said for reasons only known to him. Can we please leave this uncredible person behind. There is nothing to justify here.
LikeLike
” Daphne Barak is concealing the name from the public but it is most probably the Backstreet boy band manager, Lou Pearlman, who is a pedophile.”
I think we should be more careful before using the word pedophile. Lou Pearlman is in jail but not for pedophilia.
LikeLike
“I don’t know if there is any truth to that story but it might explains something
http://www.hollywoodrag.com/index.php?/weblog/comments2/boy_bands_are_evil/
It’s based on a Vanity Fair article, so I really don’t know.” – Shelly
Folks, I finally found myself working on Aaron Carter’s case and in the process have come across the material similar to Shelly’s. It seems that at least half of this story is true. And it does explain a lot of things and one of them is the identity of a person whom Aaron is talking about in part 2 of that video. Daphne Barak is concealing the name from the public but it is most probably the Backstreet boy band manager, Lou Pearlman, who is strongly suspected of pedophilia (according to the Vanity Fair surprisingly serious article http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/11/pearlman200711?currentPage=5 ).
Pearlman seems to have had “issues” with Aaron’s older brother Nick and that is why Aaron’s mother was so terribly on the look out for possible passes against Aaron from anyone else. She knew about Pearlman and when she heard about the allegations against Michael which broke out just at that time she grew terribly hysterical about the only night Aaron spent in Neverland – and spoke about it for weeks, months and years on end.
It seems that Aaron Carter is not speaking up because he doesn’t want to disclose the terribly ugly story with Pearlman which concerns his family directly. He probably doesn’t want to explain WHO sat on his bed at 5 o’clock in the morning. It definitely wasn’t Michael Jackson because with Michael Jackson they were driving four-wheeled carts until 5 o’clock in the morning. Aaron couldn’t be both asleep and driving a cart at one and the same time!
No, he was speaking about someone else. And Daphne Barak knows of this secret but is manipulating him and his story the way she likes it – she knows for sure that he will try to stay away from it as much as he can.
Just give me some time to bring all the material together.
LikeLike
In 1996, Evan alleged that Michael broke the confidentiality agreement but in the documents that everyone signed it was clear that by Michael being a public figure he could enforce his innocence. Long story short, Michael didn’t break the rules, Evan was making up things as usual.
LikeLike
Guys, Jordan Chandler can not speak about the case publicly good or bad. It’s located in the agreement that he has to get the estates permission to push aside the confidentiality. His freedom of speech was allowed in a court room and speaking privately amongst those who are close – not in front of a camera. Not speaking in front of the camera has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
LikeLike
@ Dialdancer
I totally agree but from what I have seen in this debacle is that haters are wrong because they tell lies and manipulate truth.
We apparently are entitled to hate because we are in the right.
I don’t know where this chain of thought came from but you can see it everywhere (not only on this story either).
I can already see Friedman ask carter for interview with the headline “Crazy MJ fans cyber attacked me”. And all fans will rush to wherever the article is and leave comments whilst giving the websites the hits they wanted so they can get more advertising 4 more money. That’s why the story spread on 30th because the other sites saw the hits they got for the story and thought “yeah we’ll get some of that” and so they did copy and paste.
LikeLike
On twitter
Ken Baker
Thanks for coming in to @enews and setting record straight @AARONCARTER. Interview airs Wed on the show!
LikeLike
I saw on retweet on twitter it seems a Ken Baker of Enews (aka E! a tab channel) interviewed Aaron Carter and the interview will air on the Wednesday show. Ken Baker thanked Aaron for coming in to set the record straight.
If such an interview was done it would be interesting to see how this plays out again…smh
LikeLike
Here is something to consider. How much damage has been done to any vindication & legacy projects due to a few out of the many who failed to understand there is the right and wrong way to go about voicing concern or complaint? How many with a public face may be having second thoughts about adding their voice with ours?
Regardless to my feeling about how this could have been handled, there is one thing for sure. Any MJ Fan who went on a site dedicated to Carter and cursed him out, slandered his family or posted outrageous unproven filth gotten from Tabloid stories was wrong. If any came to us with that against Michael it would be war. And so it is, and we are no closer to the truth.
LikeLike
@ TatumMarie,
“Can Jordan speak out about the case? I can not stand the authors speculative theories and misinformation but he was right about Jordan’s legal inability to speak out because the agreement. Everyone is assuming that the estate wouldn’t sue or wouldn’t mind — that doesn’t change the fact that they could.
What has to happen first is the estate has to approve his public appearance, context and answers of what will be discussed. There can be another lawsuit formed based on what Jordan says alone, and yes he was 14 when the allegations were made but he received money in his adult years.”
Jordan can speak out about the case, but he cannot use the allegations or MJ’s name, likeness, etc. for commercial exploitation. Meaning he cannot be paid for anything that has to do with his allegations or MJ.
The estate cannot take away his right to freedom of speech, but they can sue him if he tries to profiit off of the case. Jordan can do the same to MJ’s estate if he thinks they are trying to profit off of his allegations. This is what Evan did in ’96. He sued MJ for breaking the settlement agreement because he felt that MJ profited off of the allegations with songs from the HIStory album. However, the court ruled in MJ’s favor saying that he had a right to publicly defend himself.
LikeLike
@shelly
I have thought about that. I mean the fact that we don’t hear his specifically saying Michael Jackson gave me blah blah blah or i found Michael Jackson when i woke up at 5. I find it strange. Maybe he didn’t want to specify for whom he was talking so he could later say that he wasn’t talking about MJ. But, on the other hand, even though i am convinced that he and Barak are both in this farce, maybe he indeed was talking about someone else and that woman edited the video so she could have the result she wanted. But again, if Carter hadn’t say anything about MJ why not deny it all this time. I don’t know. I personally have made up my mind about this whole thing.
LikeLike
I meant we don’t know about who aaron was talking about. Each time he is speaking, there is no name it’s just “he” so maybe he was talking about someone else, just maybe.
LikeLike
@shelly
I don’t see what that story has to do with this current one? Did Carter said something about that dude that wasn’t true?
LikeLike
I don’t know if there is any truth to that story but it might explains something
http://www.hollywoodrag.com/index.php?/weblog/comments2/boy_bands_are_evil/
It’s based on a Vanity Fair article, so I really don’t know.
LikeLike
In that case, he should sue her ass. Anyway, I find the whole story interesting to say the least.
LikeLike
Paris couldn’t remember who he was.
LikeLike
I read something yesterday that Aaron also spoke about his friendship with Bruce Willis and that he was friends with their children. As I stated, the little snippets that Barak provided are cut and pasted and you can’t hear a direct question and a direct answer.
LikeLike
By the way, in the second video he said he spend lots of times with MJ’s kids, but I did some research this afternoon and I don’t when it happened. He met MJ in 2001 for the September concert, when he left NY he was with his manager not MJ. He then joined the charity concert the he went to Baltimore and spend christmas in colorado. He spend 4 months on tour during the first 6 months of 2002 and MJ was not in the US most of the time. After, you have the whole Bashir and Arvizo so we know he wasn’t with him during that time period.
LikeLike
@ Shelly
Aaron is all over the place about MJ’s age. To Howard Stern he said it was MJ’s 50th birthday. Now he says he was 40. What a close friend – he doesn’t even know how old MJ was! But maybe it’s just what the drugs do to his brain.
LikeLike
By the way, MJ wasn’t 40 but 45, he should have known that.
LikeLike
@Julie
Yes, I think it will be his defense, he was talking about someone else, lol, what an idiot.
LikeLike
You know what’s funny is that no where on that little snippet do you actually hear him say specifically that it was Michael Jackson that gave him wine. You do not hear Barak ask him if Michael gave him alcohol and I heard nothing about cocaine. He could have been talking about anyone
LikeLike
The third video is out and Aaron did say MJ gave him wine during that party. And the oscar of the biggest idiot and coward goes to Aaron Carter.
LikeLike
Daphne Barak is not Aarons fairy godmother. Aaron wants to eat his cake and have it too.What Is Daphne expecting to get out of all this, and
are some monies from a few tabloiods going to be her only reward?
There is so much hate coming out about old issues like this stonegrooved type.
LikeLike
Oh come on now. Why would Jordan Chandler want to speak up? He had the opportunity in 2005 to tell his truth, to tell his side of the story, to either convict MJ and ‘save’ the children of the world from that ‘monster’ or finally put an end to the speculations and ‘save’ MJ from his then accusers . He refused to do either way, so the man is not going to speak up, ever. Whoever waits for Jordan confession to make up his mind about MJ, then he-she has to wait forever because it ain’t going to happen. But the evidences are there and they are overwhelming pro MJ. Michael was the real victim and that’s the truth. And that is something that Jordan has to live with because he knows that he is also responsible for MJ’s downfall
LikeLike
Can Jordan speak out about the case? I can not stand the authors speculative theories and misinformation but he was right about Jordan’s legal inability to speak out because the agreement. Everyone is assuming that the estate wouldn’t sue or wouldn’t mind — that doesn’t change the fact that they could.
What has to happen first is the estate has to approve his public appearance, context and answers of what will be discussed. There can be another lawsuit formed based on what Jordan says alone, and yes he was 14 when the allegations were made but he received money in his adult years.
LikeLike
Aaron Carter is being apologetic and he’s so remorseful … blah blah. In the snippets of interviews that Barak has released Aaron is saying some damaging things about Michael. He hints about alcohol use and he also alleged that he woke up with Michael at 5:00 am in his bed. The kid is not innocent – its definitely a mixture of his own words and the reporters.
LikeLike
The best joke of the year. It’s from a poster on imdb about Desiree
“Agreed. She is just on the other end of the spectrum. Doesn’t make her more rational.”
It’s D answerHave you actually read my blog and my pieces? Otherwise you are slandering my good name because you disagree with me. I am leaps and bounds different from fanbots who believe that Michael being Michael means he’s innocent.
I love how those in denial try to shoot the messenger. It’s pretty shameful.
By all means, you may thoroughly read my pieces and if there is irrationality and things you can refute, have at.
Don’t slander my name on a pathetic message board. It is unscrupulous.
“
LikeLike
It’s actually thanks to the fans that this story is being handled at all and dampened.
For anyone who’s been at the frontline of this story and contacting people, you might know what I’m talking about.
We did not cause that. It was the media yearning for yet another confirmation that Michael was just what they had turned him into years ago.
Yes, exactly. This was a welcome relief to them. Two years of having people say nice things about Michael and then they get to bring it all back to 2003, except they know now that Michael isn’t alive and so can’t fight this fairly. Remember how much 2003-2005 was worth to them? They had special websites, TV channels, news clickers dedicated to that story. The concept of Michael Jackson molesting children is worth huge money for anyone in the media.
We do not blow it up, the media will seek to blow up anything remotely close to that in order to get a story and Aaron provided them with it.
Here’s LaToya’s interview, July 1st:
Dennis: Now Aaron Carter came out, just recently, and he said he thinks your brother introduced him to drugs. Do you think that’s true or do you think this is just kind of a publicity stunt?
LaToya: I spoke to Aaron yesterday when that came out and when I heard about it and Aaron apologized to me on the phone. He said, “LaToya I am so so sorry for this.” He said, “You have absolutely no idea – they took my story, they twisted my story, and I did not say those things.” He says, “I’m so sorry.” He was really really sorry. I said, “Aaron, how do you plan to refute this, if you’re sorry and if you didn’t say this?” He said, “Well, I didn’t say that, they just took it and lied with it, just to sell a story, to put a twist on it.” And I was trying to show him and tell him on the phone yesterday that Aaron, you have to be careful with reporters, because they will twist your words just to get a spin on a story. And now he understands that so I’m very sorry that he was caught into a situation that he was caught into and he put that out there, that is not a good thing, no. And he did say that it was a lie, it wasn’t true.
http://xcsli.com/news/2011/07/01/carters-retelling-of-michael-jackson-was-twisted/
LikeLike
“We NEVER post any of Daphne’s interviews on our website. She is syndicated worldwide through leading TV and print outlets, which carry the interviews exclusively in their markets. On the website – we only post short Mpegs of some of her lengthy interviews. In this case – couple of minutes out of hours!
“Another short Mpeg will be posted after all our outlets finish with it, as usual. The published version is still much softer than what Aaron said in length.”
Well if their website will not post the full interview why not get it from one of the outlets she sold it to? They are not going to go soft it doesn’t make sense. They will pick the juiciest sound bites to use.
LikeLike
All i know is that the majority of people out there is in desperate need to believe that Michael Jackson was a child molester and lots of them wish that he really was so they can keep hating him. This is how sick our society is. People actually hopping that children were abused and hurt so they can feed their irrational hatred about a man. I was listening to those videos again. Actually Carter doesn’t say anything wrong about MJ and that’s the beauty of it. He lets people interpret his word to their wish.This way he can say that he didn’t betray MJ, he didn’t say anything wrong and it’s not his fault that his words were twisted. Smart very smart.
LikeLike
“But that doesn’t excuse Aaron if he went along with it. I have the feeling even if Aaron indeed said those things – and he said them about Michael, not somebody else -, Daphne Barak was the mastermind behind it all.”
I am not excusing Aaron. All I know is that not all people are able to handle experienced journalists – they will swindle you in a couple of minutes by their “innocent” questions, feigned interest, fake sympathy, loaded questions and lots of other things. This is a specific Bashir-type interview where first the journalist will be winning your trust (for hours on end) and then all of a sudden asks you some question which you do not even notice and answer automatically – as if in passing. And then you are terribly surprised to see that all the good words you said about someone are missing but that chance sentence is glaring at you from the front page of every tabloid.
You can make an experiment with any text, even written by a good journalist (M. Fischer, for example) by making a cut-and-paste job of her text – and you will see that this way it is possible to attribute any lie – any lie – to anyone at all! That is why I simply refuse to believe the pieces Daphne posted – I want the whole of it, and only then a serious conversation about that tape can start.
LikeLike
“Wait, what? So we’ll never see proof of Aaron Carter’s alleged claims that Michael Jackson supplied him with alcohol and cocaine? We’ll never get to hear Carter’s supposed declaration that his mother called the police on Jackson in either 2002 or 2003?”
Thetis, this is how Daphne Barak works. She posts on her website some choicest episodes as a teaser and then waits for orders from various media channels relying on the effect the first episodes have. It doesn’t matter whether they are true or not (they may be a cut and paste job all right), but If it produces the effect of a bomb she sells it at a higher price. So the whole idea is making as much fuss as possible about those episodes and get the best price.
Last year, a month before the 1st anniversary of Michael’s death she did the same thing by posting some tapes provided to her by a secret source (now we know it was Dieter Weisner) and recorded by an answering machine. Over there Michael was speaking about his need for cash. However since the quality was very poor and the voice was barely heard (some even doubted that it was MJ) she used his slurred words as “proof” that Michael was under medication. He actually left a message at 4:30 in the morning and was tired and half drowsy/half awake (as all insomniacs are). The next day tabloids came out with headlines like “A paranoid insomniac is desperate for money” but the story didn’t produce the necessary impression, so the first of her ‘anniversary’ projects wasn’t very successful.
Her new project – now dedicated to the 2nd anniversary of Michael’s death – enjoyed much more success as a very big havoc started around this Aaron guy. Instead of saying that this is just another of Daphne’s provocations everybody began accusing Aaron – thus showing that we believed her story. Now she will sell it at a very high price and we will probably see it one day over some TV channel with sinister music and terrible voice-overs (as usual). No one will look into the fact that most of it was a cut-and-paste job and Aaron wasn’t probably speaking about Michael at all. No, everyone will be misdirected again, over emotional, screaming and biased. And when the truth finally surfaces no one will really pay attention.
I think that our job is to refute the media and never pass judgment on anyone until we see the picture clearly. Let me repeat it – after all lies told about Michael for decades I DON’T BELIEVE THEIR STORIES IN PRINCIPLE. They should try very hard to win back my trust for them. So whenever they lie again I will first look at them and only then at those whom they used to reach their dirty goals. These people are as confused as everyone else and the example of Michael’s mother – who is a very well-meaning woman but constantly makes blunders when communicating with the press – only proves it.
The author’s note following the above article quoted by Thesis is rather interesting. It says:
“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.”
Why would Aaron be nervous about the repercussions of the interview if he was in it from the very start? When people plan some malice they usually enjoy the effect of it but do not get nervous about it. He is very nervous because he was taken unawares by what she posted on her website!
http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/60705693.html?page=1#comments#ixzz1QtRVONtt
LikeLike
This is an ugly story.Aaron should have known, and perhaps did,
about Daphne Barak being the worst kind of vulture.He was not 13 or 15 yo. And if there was somekind of agreement that Michael will be discussed he should not have agreed knowing Daphne.Aarons way of speaking is strange,weather taped secrect or not,Unfocused, ambiguos,
unnecessarily soft, well just not that clear.He must have known that questions about Michael will come up and this was meant to minimize their impact.Could ofcourse be the cutting. If so all the more reason
to speak up.
LikeLike
@ Thetis
Well, it’s just Randy saying this, so it’s still not something official from Carter.
LikeLike
@ Helena
I totally agree with you about Daphne Barak’s role – she’s the main one. But that doesn’t excuse Aaron if he went along with it. I have the feeling even if Aaron indeed said those things – and he said them about Michael, not somebody else -, Daphne Barak was the mastermind behind it all. I blame Daphne Barak the most too but I don’t think Aaron is blameless either. That’s my stance at the moment, unless Aaron comes out with an explanation that changes it.
@ Thetis
I’m really curious if Daphne Barak will indeed post those “lot less soft” snippets, including the cocaine claim. Because when she made that claim about Grace telling her she pumped Michael’s stomach she also promised videos to prove Grace indeed said that. She never provided those videos!
It seems to be her modus operandi: she provides some videos to distract attention from the origal, more sensational claim – and the need to prove THOSE. Also Grace she provided some videos to convince people she indeed talked to her, but she never provided any video in which Grace claims she pumped Michael’s stomach. I have the feeling this will be the case with this cocaine claim as well. Otherwise, what takes so long for Daphne to provide that video?
LikeLike
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.”
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/aaron-carter-considering-suing-tabloid-over-michael-jackson-misquotes_1230743
LikeLike
“I emailed Daphne Barak (nydesk@daphnebarak.com) last night to find out, and surprisingly, I received a speedy response. A woman named Linda Green (who works for “Daphne Barak’s office”) told me the following:
“We NEVER post any of Daphne’s interviews on our website. She is syndicated worldwide through leading TV and print outlets, which carry the interviews exclusively in their markets. On the website – we only post short Mpegs of some of her lengthy interviews. In this case – couple of minutes out of hours!
“Another short Mpeg will be posted after all our outlets finish with it, as usual. The published version is still much softer than what Aaron said in length.”
Wait, what? So we’ll never see proof of Aaron Carter’s alleged claims that Michael Jackson supplied him with alcohol and cocaine? We’ll never get to hear Carter’s supposed declaration that his mother called the police on Jackson in either 2002 or 2003?
Because if I’m reading this correctly, Linda Green appears to have stated that, even after Barak’s “outlets” are finished with the valuable video/audio proof of her interview with Carter . . . we, the public, will only ever have access to a short, “much softer” version. For some reason.
Stay tuned for further updates of this weary, bizarre saga. . . .”
Read more at ONTD: http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/60721907.html?thread=10403856115#t10403856115#ixzz1R7llhOh6
LikeLike
Except that you don’t say those kind of things to your friend if it’s not true.
LikeLike
“But if it’s manipulated then Aaron should speak out and say so! His silence is deafening”.
I am also wondering about his silence and speaking for Aaron is the last thing I would dream of doing – but there might be reasons for his silence – he could have signed some kind of an agreement with her and is afraid she will sue him, he could be waiting for her article about his album in the magazine or he might be in a total coma due to returning to drugs. He is definitely under very much pressure now and is unable to distinguish a friend from a foe.
Speaking about why Aaron did it would be speculation on my part – and I terribly dislike things like that. If I don’t know I frankly so and disregard the issue until some information illuminating it comes my way. In the absence of information about Aaron it is much more important to see why this blood-sucking vulture did it – I mean Daphne Barak. She is in constant contact with the older Jacksons and took several of their interviews, she was filming a special for TV direct from Neverland (so she was accepted in Michael’s home?) at one point in time, she had mutual business with Joe Jackson – and now she is still more or less a good girl and Aaron is the only bad one?
Who betrayed Michael more – this vulture who positions herself as the Jacksons’ friend or Aaron who was most probably misled by the fact of her “close relations” with the Jacksons and confided in her more than he should thinking her to be a friend?
How often do we babble our tongues in a totally unnecessary way in chats with our friends? Speculating about this and that? Repeating some crazy gossip about someone? And what if our friend secretly records our irresponsible gossip and sells it to various TV channels for money? What will you say? That you have never said it?
LikeLike
@ Helena
I would give Aaron the benefit of doubt, but his behaviour doesn’t look good. If I’m misqouted and misinterpreted like this I’d get just as angry as the fans! He had a lot of time to correct and stop this. Instead he was blocking fans, threatening them, changing the address of his Twitter account etc. The only comment coming from him so far was the one on TMZ, in which his rep (not him) said he didn’t say MJ gave him cocaine. That’s all he denied so far but I think he should give a little more explanation of this all. I don’t trust Daphne Barak and I suspect she probably manipulated at least some of these tapes (like we don’t know who Aaron is talking about in the second one). But if it’s manipulated then Aaron should speak out and say so! His silence is deafening.
LikeLike
“I don’t know what the truth of that story is but he did betrayed MJ with that interview”
I don’t rule it out either, but it is impossible to pass final judgement on anything BEFORE knowing the truth.
LikeLike
Lol at that pictures.
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/AaronCarter1#
Helena, I don’t know what the truth of that story is but he did betrayed MJ with that interview.
LikeLike
“We did not cause that. It was the media yearning for yet another confirmation that Michael was just what they had turned him into years ago”.
Lynette, you are right. We didn’t cause that but fans shouldn’t have fallen for the media lies so quickly. It isn’t Aaron who should have been reprimanded first but the media and this Daphne Barak. By cursing Aaron and not the media we’ve shown that we’ve believed the media and not the man who up till now has never let Michael down. Absolutely the same thing happened with the Cascios when they introduced two of their songs into the posthumous album – many started shouting that they are fake though people like the Cascios are simply unable to lie!
My position is totally different. The media have taught me such a terrible lesson as regards Michael Jackson that it will be a long time before they regain my respect and trust for their information. At the moment I take everything they say with a grain of salt and will double check each of their statements before I even give them the slightest of chances.
Even now we can’t be sure that Aaron is part of it – he may be a victim of slander himself – so before labeling him various names we should first find out what the real situation is and whether he really did say all those things. From what I understand about those tapes Daphne made a fine cut and paste job and we don’t even know who he even spoke of (at least in part 2).
What I am totally against is passing judgment on someone without really knowing what’s what. Speculating now whether Aaron was or wasn’t in it is simply not right – there will be a time to determine it same as there will be a time to determine whether Jordan Chandler was or wasn’t in that plot of theirs – but it is the media and their mechanism of lying, twisting facts and slandering their victims which should be examined here.
Nobody wondered about this Daphne Barak while from the little I’ve found about this vulture it seems that she is another Diane Dimond – only a much more dangerous one as she poses herself as a friend of the Jacksons!
Now that I am at my proper computer I will try to make a post about her (it will take some time).
LikeLike
I am a fan and I for one will take no resposibility for the story taking flight. I read the original story in Australian OK magazine and in less than 24 hours it was in every type of print and electronic news source out there including the 3 majors here in the US. We did not do that. I was patient and did research it was the media that didn’t. I should say that it was even less than 24 hours because by the time I finshed reading a few more pieces and doing some other research that extended to about 3 hours if you entered Aaron Carter Michael Jackson in your search bar you could have in excess of 3 million repeats of the article. We were not responsible for that. We did not cause that. It was the media yearning for yet another confirmation that Michael was just what they had turned him into years ago.
LikeLike
@Dialdancer
I do not believe the fans are responsible for this either.
LikeLike
Ares, sad and bad news.Drug use glorified.
LikeLike
On this we agree:
“One thing I do know for sure is fans can NEVER use Aaron Carter’s words in any vindication of Michael Jackson. The argument can always be made that he was telling the truth then, but lying now; or conversely he is telling the truth now but lying then. He is no longer CREDIBLE.”
On this I do not: “The Fans cause this”
I did feel the Fans had rushed things, but that was without knowing the facts. Here is one fact, the fans came to him in peace asking about the interview, because of our observations when it comes to Michael & money we Fans find it difficult to trust those who were around him and any who might profit whether good or bad. Had Aaron spoken up when he was approached and denied this would not be happening and I am not going to blame the Fans for that. Aaron’s response while not conclusive was enough to cast seeds of doubt. There is nothing to hinder him speaking up, still any words are from a Rep and not him.
Again another coincidental opportunity to apply the negative after positive information comes out (May 4, 2011 DCFS Authority interview). Randy & Tina was obviously more important since it too is reported everywhere and the DCFS interview no where.
LikeLike
Oh but here is the best part,
“Fox News Internet Hot List
Jul 1
…As for the big movers of the week, … As for Carter, the “Crazy Little Party Girl” singer skyrocketed from the 274th slot up to 32nd AFTER he admitted that he was provided drugs and alcohol at the age of 15 by… “
LikeLike
@Helena,
“I agree with MJJProject that we should have been more patient with this story. ” Helena
Patient in what way? You heard from Suzy that it was out on 15 June, but it went viral on 30 June that is 2 WEEKS. Who were we giving patience to? Who was going to come out with a statement to the fan community. The fans simply wanted answers and no one had any, and we still won’t have a clearer picture until the entire interview is release.
@Suzy & Ares
I agree in this situation it is not the fans fault (other times yes). Do any of you know where I can find LaToya’s interview?
LikeLike
Back to the Randy Jackson-Tina Turner story, just to show that the media always go for the salacious, no matter if it’s true or not. Because of Randy’s tweets now there articles about the incident – and look at what they are making of it:
SHOCK REPORT: TINA TURNER SHOOTS JANET JACKSON’S BROTHER . . . OVER AN ALLEGED LESBIAN AFFAIR!!!
http://cdn.mediatakeout.com/49566/shock_report_tina_turner_shoots_janet_jacksons_brother____over_an_alleged_lesbian_affair.html
WTF! Tina Turner Allegedly Shot Randy Jackson After He Caught Her Cheating With His GF!
(And they have a pic of Jackie instead of Randy…)
http://globalgrind.com/news-politics/tina-turner-shot-randy-jackson#ixzz1R3tBxgPA
Also in this one: http://rumorfix.com/full-entry/2011/7/3/michael-jacksons-brother-claims-tina-turner-shot-him.html
“Tina and his girlfriend were getting frisky behind his back when he caught them, infuriating Tina.”
Yes, Randy made those insinuations about a “lesbian affair”, but the media know damn well that there’s that version of the story by Tina’s assistant and that is by FAR more likely than Randy’s version, yet they report over a “lesbian affair” because that makes better headlines. Tina Turner is not the kind of person who would get violent just for Randy “catching them”, she obviously had to have a good reason and the story told by her assistant is completely believable to me.
LikeLike
In this whole mess though i think there is something that i can define as positive. We observed yet again how the media work when it comes to Michael Jackson. No facts checking, copy-paste journalism, innuendos and goship that have been debunked, in order to sell. So, yet again it proven that Michael Jackson fans are not the crazy and deluded ones. On the contrary. They are those who have figured out and realised how the media work.
LikeLike
@ Teva
I don’t think it’s the fans’ fault that it was picked up by the media. It wasn’t picked up by the media when fans started to tweet about it to Carter or started to talk about it on fan forums (which was on June 15th), but when the article appeared in OK! Magazine. So the rest of the media took it from OK!, not from Twitter or fan forums. And once OK! was published I don’t think silence and patience was the way to go just hoping the story would die. Yes, eventually it would, but only after it has done damage. And it needs to be countered.
And we are still waiting for Aaron to say something. Apart from that half-baked denial by his rep on TMZ, he still hasn’t said anything. And I think he needs to come out with a serious statement about the mess in which he clears up where he stands in all this.
LikeLike
@ Shelly
I don’t think either that Aaron and Michael were even close. Not as close as he seems to suggest in some interviews.
(BTW, I have bookmarked your link last week to that article about tabloids. I’m interested and I’m gonna read it, just I didn’t have time yet.)
@ Helena
I agree about Randy. It’s sad and it’s obviously a result of their upbringing and the dysfunctional family they had. Michael was so different from his brothers and sisters, but he too had serious scars from his upbringing that never healed. Only he was the kind of guy who rather took it out on himself than to hurt others. (He was aware of this too. Actually he says this to Glenda: “I wasn’t like my brothers. People, they’re angry and they take it out on others. I was angry, but I took it out on myself.” Although he doesn’t say but I personally think he means his plastic surgery here. Glenda seemed to think so as well, because not long after this he asks him if he is happy with his face.)
LikeLike
Teva, Aaron Carter is indeed no longer credible though what he was saying for some 10 years or so is still more valid than what he said in one “interview” – which was also made in a very strange way (we don’t even know whom Carter is talking about in part 2).
Unfortunately I am terribly handicapped by my faulty computer at the moment and can’t do proper research in the Internet. But I agree with MJJJusticeProject that we should have been more patient with this story. Daphne is teasing us and we swallowed it giving her much more publicity than we should.
LikeLike
Yes, Teva you are right, Carter’s word can’t be used as a defence again unless he confesses that he did all this for money and pubblicity, which is my belief that he did and it won’t change . But, since he hasn’t done it until now, he will never do it so i don’t have much faith.
-The story may not have taken wings IF the fan community had been patient and tried to find out if it was a manipulated story or not. If they had just taken a breath and waited to hear LaToya today, this non-story may have died away.-
I somebody should tell this team that it was the media that didn’t have patience, as always, and run to copy and paste some rumours. Their statement seem like they are suggesting that the fans believed the story.Wrong. The non fans believed it, the fans were trying to post facts on the comments sections of all those sites that reproduced the fake story and trying to correct some of the mess. So the problem are not the fans but all those stupid people out there who can’t whait for someone to say something, anything about Mike so they can beggin the hatred campain again.
And are they really saying that we should have waited to hear what Latoya had to say? Are they in their right mind? Who on earth takes Latoya’s words seriously? She is as trustworthy as mr. Carter is right now. Not at all. Those people seem like they are living in their own world and have no idea what is going on.
The only one who can correct this mess is the one that started it. Aaron Carter. But like i said i doubt it. He took the money and the publicity that he wanted. Hope he enjoys them.
LikeLike
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/bfp64l
Above is the link on the full position of the Michael Jackson Justice Project regarding the Aaron Carter fallout. I completely respect their position and they made some very sensible points, but I don’t necessarily agree with everything they said. For example:
“This is our MJJJusticeProject expressed opinion on the Aaron Carter debacle and it will be the last thing we post on this issue that frankly as had way too much attention brought to it. We won’t engage in any more arguments over him, the family responses or Daphne Barak.” – MJJJusticeProject
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but how is this any different from taking on Gutierrez, Grace, Andrew Breitbart, Dimond and others? Isn’t that the purpose of a vindication team? If Aaron Carter is out there giving interviews that contradict fact, and are highly inflammatory isn’t it the purpose of a fansite that focuses on exactly these types of allegations to address it, and provide the truth. Yes, we shouldn’t rush to judgment, but ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.
“Our stance is simple. The story may not have taken wings IF the fan community had been patient and tried to find out if it was a manipulated story or not. If they had just taken a breath and waited to hear LaToya today, this non-story may have died away. Michael always said, “Don’t read it, Don’t feed it”” – MJJJusticeProject
. . . . but patient with whom? The fan community doesn’t have a governing body, or Public Relations Office to provide information, so when the “beep” hit the fan – fans are going to do their own investigations to get answers. This whole thing exploded on 30 June, but the OK! Australian website had the write up from 23 June, so that was a week before the internet blowup. In addition persons here associated with MJJJusticeProject please direct me to the link with Latoya speaking because I can’t find it anywhere. Of course this was all said before DB introduced us to more clips, which I believe was always her intention. Please note I am not being critical of MJJJusticeProject who I believe does incredible work.
One thing I do know for sure is fans can NEVER use Aaron Carter’s words in any vindication of Michael Jackson. The argument can always be made that he was telling the truth then, but lying now; or conversely he is telling the truth now but lying then. He is no longer CREDIBLE.
LikeLike
Here is a review of the book Daphne Barak wrote about singer Amy Whinehouse called “Saving Amy”. Despite the title it seems that Daphne doesn’t “save” anyone but drowns people in mud instead. The author of this article calls Daphne ‘the devil of celebrity gossip”:
Saving Amy by Daphne Barak
This account of the Winehouses’ woes is illuminating but shallow
Kitty Empire
The Observer, Sunday 28 February 2010
It has, no doubt, been hell being Mitch Winehouse over the past four years. For those who don’t take the noisier papers, his daughter – singer Amy Winehouse – followed the success of her 2003 debut album Frank by drinking to excess, developing bulimia, refusing rehab, reuniting with Blake Fielder-Civil (the subject of her tortured second album, Back to Black), getting hooked on crack and heroin, self-harming and developing emphysema. Mitch and Amy’s mother, Janis, have danced with the devil of celebrity gossip, seeking to counteract lurid headlines about the state of Amy with their own input.
Hell, then, has had strange recompenses for Mitch, who, thanks to his daughter, has become a star of sorts. This former London cabbie has a debut album out this spring and has also spearheaded two documentaries about his daughter: My Daughter Amy, which aired on C4 last month, and Saving Amy, scheduled for broadcast later this year.
While her film awaits transmission, the maker ofSaving Amy – Israeli-American celebrity interviewer Daphne Barak – has transposed her materials into paperback form. In truth, this is less a seamless narrative than a series of transcripts of her interviews with the Winehouse family, a blow-by-blow account of her encounters with Amy in St Lucia last year and the diary entries Barak recorded while filming.
Barak is a prolific networker – at least, that’s the polite term. She appears to be cosy with the Clintons, has done Mugabe and Mandela, and was tight with Benazir Bhutto. She knows little about London cabbies, however, and does not contextualise Amy’s self-destructive behaviour in the jazz tradition. Even more damningly, she fails to interview anyone of Amy’s generation – her brother Alex, or her best friend Juliette, to name two – who might shed better light on Amy’s demons than, say, Jane Winehouse, Mitch’s current wife.
Barak’s access is impressive, though. She has a ringside seat throughout 2008-9, when legal troubles compounded Amy’s health problems. Barak’s modus operandi is to befriend her subjects. She takes Mitch 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.”
Everyone eventually decamps to St Lucia to keep tabs on Amy when the singer is dispatched there to try to record some new music. 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.
This chronology is laced together by Barak’s own impressions of the business of saving Amy. She dwells on Mitch’s divorce from Janis as a possible root cause of Amy’s acting out and accurately locates Mitch in an impossible position between three women – his daughter, a black hole into which his time and emotions are poured, Jane, who cannot compete, and the forsaken Janis.
Janis, who has MS, emerges as a stoic, if ambivalent, figure. While Mitch is an interventionist helicopter parent, charging to his daughter’s rescue with every fresh calamity, Janis holds back, concluding that her addicted daughter has to want to give up drugs and drink.
Perhaps the most trenchant insight of all comes in St Lucia. There is a tussle over a dress that Amy wants to borrow from Daphne. As the fallout clears, Winehouse admits she is terrified she won’t be able to live up to people’s expectations as a performer. 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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/28/saving-amy-book-review
P.S. The only comment made by a reader on Daphne’s book is this:
“Wowww We should arrest people who is writing book like this one. Did she waste her time? The answer is yes!!!!!”
LikeLike
Suzy, that story on Randy Jackson is mind-boggling. It explains a lot about the family. This is what their father’s brutality and rough methods of raising children did to all of them. Some of them assumed the same methods, some got mad like LaToya – but what is clear is that cruelty and total lack of love had a heavy toll on ALL of them making them emotionally unbalanced.
Michael was right. Now I fully understand why he cried when he saw parents scolding their children and being hard on them. He saw all the consequences of what his father had done to the family and was overcautious never to be rough to children. This is why he allowed his guests to do whatever they like in Neverland. He just couldn’t raise himself to restrain them.
He fell into another extreme, which is an absolutely natural reaction of anyone who went through so much suffering himself. “He beat me, so I will never, under no circumstances beat my children”, “He humiliated me, so I will never, never in my life humiliate a child”, “He never listened to me, so I will always listen and let them have their say”.
It was Michael’s way of reacting to his father’s ruthlessness. Now it is evident that Randy reacted differently.
LikeLike
@Sara, it is me, vindicatemj (some problems with my computer again).
You say:”poor Carter Needs money to pay for your rehab bill? I would have given you the benefit of the doubt if you’d faced him while he was alive and said all of this infront of Michael’s face you disgusting sly. However, I think you’re a twisted druggy out to make a buck. Go clean yourself up and go away. Your POP career is done.”
I understand your anger towards Aaron. But the more we are into this story the more it seems that they arranged a huge provocation where Aaron is only a means to their ends. He is vulnerable because he is fresh from a rehab and is on the verge of breaking down again. No one will feel sorry for him but everyone will listen to the lies which are attributed to him.
But he is the one who knows the TRUTH. We shouldn’t alienate him and should give him a chance to tell it (once he is over this shock). I hope he doesn’t break down and summons up all his strength to stand up to smear campaign. It was evidently initiated by Murray’s PR team (I wonder who pays for it?) and its idea is to paint Michael as someone who introduced Aaron to drugs and Aaron being a “victim” of his. Now they are adding a touch of “molestation” to it too.
ALL THIS IS A HUGE PROVOCATION. They used Bashir, Gutierrez and Dimond before, but as few are listening to them now, they are considered wasted material. Hence comes in a new personality – an “internationally renowned journalist” whose job is to do what Gutierrez, Bashir and Dimond started and finish up with MJ.
Now there is a new turn to their story – they see that we have noticed that their tapes are edited and claim that it was Carter who edited the tape!
This new bright idea is expressed here: http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00041806.html
LikeLike
I I don’t even think Aaron and MJ were close friends. He said in 2003, when he was telling everyone that MJ gave him a Bentley, that he only met MJ twice.
LikeLike
@ Shelly
I don’t think he went to Toronto, if that’s what you are asking. A fan who was there wrote this:
““He´s [Aaron] been lying a lot about that party. I´m not a famous person and what I say have no meaning, but those who were on that party too and who are famous should really speak about what went on there. Karen can also do that, but she only sounds angry.
I saw Michael leave for just a few minutes to wash of 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. when talking to Michael he 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. He left for his bedroom and din´t ask us to leave, it was more like “enjoy yourself, I trust you”. And there were no Aaron Carter anywhere to be found in that house during that night. he´s taken care off 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.”
Anyway, Aaron never slept in Michael’s bedroom! I bet there are a lot of people who can testify to that fact, starting with Chris Tucker and those who also slept in the theater. Aaron too said these earlier: he never slept in Michael’s bedroom, he slept in the theater along with people like Tucker.
LikeLike
Does someone have an article which said MJ left that party? I remember reading that somewhere, but I cannot find it.
LikeLike
@ David
No wonder Randy didn’t reveal details! If you guys are curious, here it is from that book by Tina’s assistant. Sorry, it’s long and off topic but the subject has been raised so here it is:
‘I’ve been dating Michael Jackson’s brother Randy.
Tina cut her off by saying, ‘Bernadette, why do you keep messing with Randy Jackson? And why didn’t you phone me and tell me all this stuff before ?’
I haven’t called you because Randy is insanely jealous. I mean crazy.
Because you and me are so close, he kept accusing me of having an affair with you and said he’d kill me if he found out I saw or spoke to you. I told him you and me are like family and that his accusations were totally untrue. I dunno, he just has thing in his head’.
Bernadette sipped some water and continued,
‘As long as he was still living with his girlfriend things were fine, but as soon as his girlfriend left him and moved out, Randy became more possessive than ever. Once we started being together on a full-time basis, I saw the other side of him. He started grabbing me by the arm and shaking me.
He never beat me, but I sensed it might happen soon and he really scared me. Anyway, we got into a big argument today and he went all wild-eyed. He walked towards me, looking like he was going to kill me. I got shit scared and ran for my life. And… uhm… here I am.’
Bernadette’s eyes were now red from crying, and she asked Tina if she could use the phone.
Tina replied, ‘Don’t call him! Don’t! You poor girl. All I see is me. This is the way I used to be. Why do you want the phone, to ring Randy?”
”Nooo. I won’t call him.” She fidgeted for a moment and asked,” Tina,can I go to the kitchen and get something to eat?”
” Sure, Bernadette, you know where everything is. Make yourself at home.”
As soon as Bernadette stepped out of the room, Tina whispered to Lejeune and me, ”She’s not getting anything from the kitchen, she’s going to phone Randy. Mark my words. I know… I know because I used to do the same thing with Ike.”
”Just watch the phone, you’ll see. The light will go on.” We all stared at the phone and five seconds later, the button illuminated. Tina slapped her thigh, exclaiming ”What did I tell you? I knew she’d phone him. I knew it. Poor girl, I used to do the same thing with Ike.”
When the light went off, we scampered back to what we were doing so Bernadette wouldn’t know we were any the wiser. She walked into the bedroom and everyone started talking, with Tina proudly telling Lejeune and Bernadette about Craig’s Naval graduation ceremony the day before. Bernadette, who was still very fond of Craig, held on to Tina’s every word of the event.
Finally, a little shamedfaced, Bernadette looked down at her slim fingers and admitted, ”I.. I phoned Randy when I went to the kitchen.”
None of us said a word and her eyes darted at each one of us before she continued, ”Randy’s got a lot of emotional problems. His family is crumbling fast. They’re all at each others throats since Michael split from the family.
And there’s some things about Randy that are weird. He’s uhm, a little sick.. sexually” I fled out of the bathroom with a towel under some dripping strands of hair and Lejeune froze mid-braid while Tina’s eyes widened.
Bernadette had our undivided attention as she told us of her sex life with Randy. When she told us what he made her do, sexually, we all paled. I actually had to sit down for a moment because the details made me feel ill. I could practically see Tina’s skin crawling. Her voice hoarse with distress, she said to Bernadette, ”Why? Girl, why do you do it?” Tina took a few moments to recompose herself but she still sounded a little shocked as she added, ”Bernadette, you have to get rid of that man. You’ve just got to”
We were all snapped out of our state of shock by the ringing of the
phone.
I answered the call to find Randy Jackson on the line and Tina flipped. ”Damn it, Bernadette,why did you give that sick bastard my phone number?” Bernadette ran to the kitchen to take the call in privacy while Tina twitched with anger and nerves.
Suddenly we could hear Bernadette screaming, ”Randy, I’m not coming back. You lied and lied and lied to me…” Tina, Lejeune and I tiptoed towards the kitchen, hididng around a corner so we could eavesdrop on every word. Bernadette ranted on then slammed the phone down, leaving us scampering back to the bedroom to retake our positions as if we had been there all along
Bernadette returned to the bedroom shaking, her face twitching with fear. Her voice shaking, she said, ”I can’t go back to him. He knows my every movement, he follows and stalks me. I mean, I can come out of a food store or the gym and he’ll be there, hiding behind something just watching. ‘
She rubbed the goosebumps on her arms and said ‘He phones around and checks up on me to see if I’m where I said I was going…and he picks and choose who I’m allowed to see…’
The phone rang again and Tina grabbed it, calmly but firmly stating ”Do not phone my house again. She does not want to speak to you tonight and I’m sure you two can sort things out tomorrow. Meantime you are not welcome to phone my home.”
She slammed the receiver down. An hour and half passed. Suddenly the doorbell rang.
We all glanced at each other, I pressed the buzzer, asking who was there. The uninvited visitor replied, ‘This is Randy Jackson. Is Bernadette there? I replied, ‘She’s left.’ Randy frantically replied ‘I know she’s there. I know she is! I’ve got to see her. I’ve got to come in.
‘ She pounced on the intercom button and barked, ”You ring my buzzer one more time and I call the police. You are to leave my property immediately.” Tina slowly paced her bedroom with her arms folded across her chest. I knew she was silently chanting to herself to calm her anger.
She let out a few deep breaths and paused in front of the vast sliding glass doors, the light from her bedroom casting her shadow onto the garden of her dream home. She paused for a moment, enjoying the stunning moonlit view of the tree- filled terracotta pot garden in bloom.
Tina glared disapprovingly at Bernadette, chastising her with her angry eyes as she repositioned herself in front of her large make-up mirror. She was fed up with Bernadette and made no effort to hide her disappointment while making her feelings clear to the girl who was once her son’s fiancée.
To make her point, Tina lifted her index finger and wagged it furiously her trademark red nails glistening as she spoke.
” Bernadette, I don’t know why you keep messing with these guys. And after all the things you’ve seen and all the things I’ve told you.” As soon as we saw Tina wag her finger, we knew she meant business and knew to stay silent. Bernadette quietly wept and mopped the tears from the corners of her eyes while Tina delivered a stern lecture.
”So why did you bother with him in the first place? Because he’s Michael Jackson’s brother? That doesn’t mean anything. That Randy Jackson’s no good! He’s like any other man getting their kicks scaring their women. And you put up with him running his mouth all over town saying you and me are lesbian lovers. Who does he think he is?
Tina’s hand reached for a glass of white wine. She took a large sip and pursed her angry lips. ”And you gave him my phone number and address. How dare he keep pressing my intercom. If he presses that intercom one more time, I’ll call the police. He’d better get off my property.”
(…) Alone, I listened to Tina as she continued delivering the motherly lecture to Bernadette, nodding my head in agreement. ‘Bernadette, let me tell you something, you’ve got yourself an Ike Turner, You better get rid of him. I know you’re scared Aaagh.’ Tina was furious, and she threw her hands up in disgust. ”I know what it’s like, Bernadette, It’s best for you if you stay here tonight. Just make sure you get rid of that Randy Jackson first thing tomorrow.”
But no sooner had Tina spoken, than the noisy shuffling of footsteps could be heard outside. I paused and watched her from accross the bedroom. The worry on her face was unmistakable. Bernadette had already scared the daylights out of us with horrifying stories of Randy’s violence. Lejeune and Tina remained still and silent as the intrusive sounds outside continued. There was a momentary eeriness, and then, without warning, one of Tina’s huge, treasured terracotta pots burst through the glass doors, exploding on impact.
Shards of razor-sharp glass sprayed like darts throughout the bedroom. There was soil and terra cotta everywhere. Everything else that followed seemed to happen so quickly.
Randy Jackson leapt through the broken window and paused for a moment breathing and sweating heavily. Then, as he moved, glass fragments on Tina’s plush cream carpet could be heard crunching beneath his hard determined steps. He seemed possessed, and his wild eyes rapidly scanned the bedroom. It only took a split second to focus on what he had come for. Like an animal stalking prey, he walked towards Bernadette muttering like a crazy man about how much he loved and needed her.
In all the years I had spent with Tina, she had drilled me over and over on certain safety procedures should an intruder gain entry into her home. We always thought if it happened, it would be her ex-husband Ike. On this particular day, we were wrong. Worse still, everyone froze in shock, forgetting Tina’s meticulous safety drill.
The only one to spring to action was Tina herself.
She calmly and purposefully walked into the bedroom, where her eyes immediately darted to the framed pictures on her bedside table where she hid her loaded handgun. Without looking away from the table, her hand whipped out with shocking speed and grabbed a second gun-a shotgun- from behind the freestanding oval antique mirror just next to her.
She cocked the weapon, then turned and aimed the loaded barrel at Randy Jackson’s head. Her body stiff and her aim steady, she said with true determination ‘Freeze or I’ll blow your brains out.’
Randy did stop, but only for a split second. Locking eyes with Tina, he ignored her warning, and lunged for Bernadette.
Tina, still several feet away from Randy, raised the gun a blew a hole in the ceiling. Randy, his face a mask of brutality, charged straight at Tina like a raging bull.
Still in total control, Tina moved the barrel slighlty to the side and fired towards the doorway. She pointed the gun at Randy.
Randy, suddenly terrified, leapt through the broken windows, fleeing for his life.
There was a silence as we all stood, shocked by the scene we had just witnessed. Then Bernadette snapped out of her trance and raced in hot pursuit of her lover.
Tina, Lejeune and I stood in stark amazement listening to the voices in the distance. Bernadette’s voice was breathless and tearful as she professed her love and loyalty to Randy. Only then did Tina’s body start shaking, and although in shock, she had the presence of mind to press the panic button beside her bed. Like a robot, I handed Tina a white towel which she numbly wrapped her half-finished head of hair. Lejeune, whom I had rarely seen touch any form of alcohol over the many years I had known her uncharacteristically swigged straight from the bottle of wine.
Over the next few minutes none of our eyes met. We couldn’t believe what had just happened. Like zombies, we stepped over the debris of the elegant bedroom which now looked as if a bomb had hit it.
Barely able to breathe, we all sat on the bed, completely stunned. It wasn’t until we heard the police sirens in the distance that we snapped back to reality. Tina, still slightly dazed, nervously ran her sweating palms down her thighs, smoothing the fabric of her designer knit sweat suit. She glanced at herself in the mirror and took several deep breaths, calming herself. Then she held her head high and adjusted the towel tightly wrapped over her hair in readiness to deal with uniformed officers.
After the police took their report and asked Tina if she would press charges, they left us to get on with the task of clearing away debris not to mention the fact that we still had a long way to go in finishing Tina’s hair.
Randy phoned to apologise to Tina but she said, ”I have nothing to say to you. Don’t ever use my number again. I have given the police all the details they need to contact you.” Then she put the phone down.
Bernadette phoned too, and apologized over and over, begging Tina not to press charges on Randy. While an emergency service busied themselves boarding up and temporarily making safe the door area of Tina’s bedroom, Tina coldly told Bernadette on the phone, ”Bernadette, I can no longer have you around me.
(…)
The following day, a man arrived with an envelope with several thousand dollars sent from Randy Jackson to cover expenses due to the damage caused by his breaking and entering. Tina refused the cash, firmly saying, ‘I don’t do things this way ‘.
Tina, after discussing things with Roger, decided not to press charges. Roger very rightly felt that Tina’s reputation would be damaged and people might think she was like Ike Turner. By not pressing charges, it did not make the newspapers and the incident became a matter of police record.
LikeLike
While we’re on the topic of cut and paste tabloid journalism, take a look at this! Today, Randy Jackson had a Q&A session with fans on Twitter, and in it he mentioned getting shot by Tina Turner in the 80’s (although he didn’t discuss the incident in-depth.)
Some so-called “journalist” then posted an article about this (as if this was worthy of an article), and included a photo of American Idol judge Randy Jackson! How PATHETIC is the state of journalism that she would do this? Randy’s photo is included on his Twitter account! The journalist did absolutely no fact-checking whatsoever! http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2011/07/02/randy-jackson-reveals-he-was-once-shot-by-tina-turner/#comment-26637
Here is a summary of Randy’s Twitter session, followed by MuzikFactory 2’s analysis:
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=237807666246662
http://muzikfactorytwo.blogspot.com/2011/07/randy-jackson-recent-tweets-what-joke.html
LikeLike
Helena & Lynette,
Check mail.
LikeLike
Daphne is what sometimes (in medical malpractice jargon) are called ambulance chasers.She hounds the world for famous people in trouble or sorrow, but also for personal gain.Happened on a pic. of her with Qaddafi.Probably before his present trouble.She really goes for big fish weather good or bad.Good to forge a relationship in time, you never know when disaster will strike.This made me think that Aaron Carter
only & no Michael Jackson wouldn´t be enough. Murray has run out of defence theories, but not so the mysterious funding for expenses.He has a PR firm that seems very creative.They are now into drug abuse,and ofcourse to smear Michaels name as much as possible.
LikeLike
poor Carter Needs money to pay for your rehab bill? I would have given you the benefit of the doubt if you’d faced him while he was alive and said all of this infront of Michael’s face you disgusting sly.
However, I think you’re a twisted druggy out to make a buck. Go clean yourself up and go away. Your POP career is done.
LikeLike
She also did an “interview” with Michael in 1999. Unfortunately I only found it in German now: http://www.jackson.ch/daphnebarak.htm
I have heard it wasn’t really an “interview” either. There was some secret recording involved there as well, but I don’t know the details, so I’m not sure what happened there.
Also this: http://movies.ndtv.com/Ndtv-Show-Special-Story.aspx?page=16&ID=107&StoryID=ENTEN20100141045&
LikeLike
Here is some more information about Daphne Barak. She made an interview with Mohammed Al Fayed about Princess Diana and (notwithstanding what he said) broke an agreement with him. He sued her, but she didn’t appear in court. When an attempt was made to serve papers on her she was nowhere to be found. She didn’t disclose her whereabouts for some 4 months after that:
US TV reporter ‘on the run’?
Monday, October 15 2007, 4:10am EDT
By Dave West, Media Correspondent
A US television reporter has missed court hearings in relation to an interview that Mohammed Al Fayed gave concerning Princess Diana’s death.
Al Fayed gave the interview, in which he claimed the Princess was pregnant when she died, to Daphne Barak but then decided he did not want it broadcast. He says the journalist breached an agreement by showing it anyway.
Barak was due in court over the accusation in June but has not appeared. A judge has now ruled her in contempt of court for being evasive about her whereabouts when attempts were made to serve papers on her. It apparently means she could go to prison.
One report, in the Sunday Mirror, says she has been “on the run” for four months.
http://www.digitalspy.com/british-tv/news/a77678/us-tv-reporter-on-the-run.html
LikeLike
“Why did he meet with her?Were they only chatting as friends or aqaintances and she taped him covertly as suggested? If they had arraigned a meeting ,in Marbella of all places ,what was there for him?”
I think he met her as she promised she would cover his new album and would speak of his career, biography, friends, who influenced him and his music, etc. in the “OK!” magazine – in short, bring him back into entertainment business. After the rehab he was hoping to turn over a new leaf, you know.
The photos accompanying part 2 show that there was much rehearsal activity there and she took photos of it. They probably spent several days together as they wear different clothes and are photographed at different times of the day.
By the way, if she didn’t sell the story to the “OK” later but promised Aaron an article about him in this magazine from the start it also means that the magazine was most probably at one with her.
LikeLike
Both part 1 and 2 of the tape are pretty poor for qualifying as interviews.There is too little marerial to decide one way or the other. This Daphne Barak woman seems to be the dirt of the earth,and
should be shunned as an interviewer. Only a clear statemebt from A.C.
can shed some light on the situation.Why do you think he remains silent? Why did he meet with her?Were they only chatting as friends or aqaintances and she taped him covertly as suggested? If they had arraigned a meeting ,in Marbella of all places ,what was there for him?
LikeLike
In fact he didn’t left the party for Toronto, he was in Toronto 3 days before.
LikeLike
Some info about Daphne Barak: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/03/24/712377/-Daphne-BarakA-meddling-tabloid-vulture-masquerading-as-a-journalist
Suzy, thank you for information about Daphne Barak. Things are becoming clearer when you read that Daphne is a replica of Bashir and Gutierrez! The words which describe her in this article are NEAR FICTION, COMPLETE FICTION and BLATANT FABRICATION OF HURTFUL LIES:
TUE MAR 24, 2009 AT 06:41 AM PDT
Daphne Barak – A meddling tabloid vulture masquerading as a journalist
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 notariety. Her drive for fame, and her need to feed off of those in crisis has cause her to inject herself into international politics, associating herself with some thuggish rulers, and has run her afoul with the law. 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 . While merely chasing after celebrity scandal is bad enough, Daphne Barak also interviews and ingratiates herself to some of the worst dictators, mass-murderers, and autocratic thugs to ever hold their own nations hostage: Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, right-wing Austrian legislator Jorg Haider. One wonders if she is trying to line up an interview with Osama Bin Laden?
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.
LikeLike
@ Shelly
The party we are talking about was in September.
LikeLike
He is lying he was in Oregon on the 30th of August 2003, so he wasn’t in California on the 29th or 30th of august.
“The Pick Teen idol to play state fair tonight
Statesman Journal – Salem, Or.
Date: Aug 30, 2003
Start Page: D.4
Section: Life
Text Word Count: 584
Abstract (Document Summary)
[…] it’s teen pop sensation Aaron Carter who will grace the stage of the L.B. Day Amphitheatre at 7 tonight, not the Statesman Journal copy editor. Aaron has millions of teenage girls who scream in adoration and hang his poster on their bedroom wall.”
LikeLike
“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.”
Suzy, I’ve managed to log in as the administrator of the blog at last – so there are some good things in life after all. As to Aaron’s mom I highly doubt her credibility though all I know about her is the hysteria she fell into when she heard ‘the awful news’ of Aaron spending the night at Neverland. She called the police or some security forces though the boy was not a five-year old but was 15 in fact. An overprotective woman with little brains and too big a tendency for making up stories and selling them to the press.
This is what Aaron said about his mother and sister http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,784076,00.html:
“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.”
As to the mother’s and sister’s credibility how do you like this glorious statement from Aaron’s sister which was allegedly made to Daphne Barak (in that totally absurd article you’ve mentioned http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2004/11/08/2004-11-08_a_nite_with_jacko.html ):
“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.
What an incredible way of saying it – “I think I remember him saying”! They don’t remember anything and nevertheless go to TV to tell something of which they don’t know the first thing! Aaron was reminded of his sister’s statement in that 2003 video to which he replied: “My sister said that? Why would my sister say that?”
Look at how this family turned a mere nothing into a “story” about a “wild” night about which they don’t know anything at all – it is simply ridiculous what trash entertainment TV is ready to pay money for:
“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. “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.
“. . . Even if nothing happened, which probably nothing happened, that I know of, it just doesn’t look good,” she said.
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.
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. [Aaron said on TV several times that there was no car, so why should we believe Daphne or Aaron’s mom then?]
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.”
Despite everything said about Aaron now I’m inclined to think that it is a joint project of Daphne Barak and his family — with him just being used and manipulated here. I still remember those several videos Aaron made earlier, so he should be completely out of his mind to say now something which goes contrary to everything he said before. If he is contradicting himself that much it means that he should either be a complete imbecile or is seriously ill.
LikeLike
I found that
“The Pick Teen idol to play state fair tonight
Statesman Journal – Salem, Or.
Date: Aug 30, 2003
Start Page: D.4
Section: Life
Text Word Count: 584
Abstract (Document Summary)
[…] it’s teen pop sensation Aaron Carter who will grace the stage of the L.B. Day Amphitheatre at 7 tonight, not the Statesman Journal copy editor. Aaron has millions of teenage girls who scream in adoration and hang his poster on their bedroom wall.”
LikeLike
@ Helena
After the initial outrage I’m really starting to have this feeling that Daphne Barak is manipulating all of us and the second snippet is probably not about Michael.
I’m not saying it to defend Aaron. I couldn’t care less for him and what he said in the first snippet was not totally innocent.
However he clearly is taped secretly on both occasions. He might have thought it was just a friendly conversation, so he could go into speculations about if it’s possible that Michael took drugs in the bathroom etc. He might have not gone into such speculations in a public interview, however in a friendly chat we sometimes do speculate.
The second one too is secretly recorded. He might as well as talk about a totally different person! Daphne Barak also promised a third part in that allegedly the cocaine thing will be said. But again, I’m starting to suspect that might have been said about someone else, not Michael. Otherwise Aaron would be contradicting what he said in the first snippet about never seeing drug addiction issues with Michael!
LikeLike
@ Lynette
Yes. Here is that interview that Daphne Barak did with Aaron’s mom and sister in 2004: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2004/11/08/2004-11-08_a_nite_with_jacko.html
This is an interesting sentence:
“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.”
LikeLike
I am sorry for posting the comment twice (my co-eds, please erase it, as I cannot do it by myself). The idea about Aaron speaking about someone else is good – it might very well be the case. And if Aaron did indeed spend only one night in Neverland than the matter is more than clear – he is either telling a blatant lie which is very easy to disprove by his own earlier video or speaking about someone else.
I remember that in that 2 parts video of 2003 where Aaron was with his brother Nick he also spoke about Bruce Willis and his family. If the editor of that video had cut the name from the video, the text would have referred to Michael. This could be the same situation.
LikeLike
The Carter family has a long history of talking about MJ in the press especially to Daphne Barak. Their mother Jane and his older sister Leslie were once interviewed by Daphne Barak on Access Hollywood in 2004 in regard to a phone call either to security or the police the night of the party when Aaron did not come “home”. It turned out that he was out on the ranch on a 4 wheeler with Chris Tucker. Michael had a private birthday party with just his friends and family at Neverland on the 29th of August. The next day there was a large fan and friends 45th Birthday Gallery at the Orpheum Theater in LA hosted by Steve Harvey . Aaron Carter was not there. The event was covered by Access Hollywood and showed Michael sitting in the box in the balcony the entire time with Aldo Cascio sitting next to him.
There was another party planned that Marc Shaffle and Frank Cascio were throwing. It was a Celebrity Charity bash that ended up costing Michael $50,000. Tickets were sold to the event and the cost was $750 dollars. Nick and Aaron Carter were there. That is when they presented Michael with a belated birthday cake and they started a food fight. Michael attended the event for about five minutes and left for Toronto (see MJ Timeline in blogroll).
Aaron Carter never ever had the opportunity that he is fabricating in that video. Aaron Carter’s three year “friendship” started with the taping of What More Can I Give the Michael Jackson song and video that somehow belongs now to F.Marc Shaffle. There is nothing more to say. This person Aaron Carter knows he was interviewed by police and by Michael’s investigators. He was on the Defense witness list not the Prosecutions’. That family has been fighting in the press about an incident that happened in 2003 and Michael was not even present for more than a few minutes.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,784076,00.html
LikeLike
@ Helena
“His reply is not something which he ventured on his own – it is a refection on one episode which might have indeed taken place at some (unknown) point in time. “
I don’t think we should go even there, because it simply did not happen! Aaron never spent the night in Michael’s bedroom. There was only one night he spent at Neverland and that was the birthday night. He slept in the theater with Chris Tucker and others and Michael slept in his own bedroom, alone. There wasn’t any other occasion! Aaron never mentioned any other occasion in his previous interviews, nor did his mom in that 2004 interview with Daphne Barak. We are talking about this one night. And Aaron didn’t spend that with Michael.
LikeLike
Some fans raised the question: what if he is not talking about Michael here at all? It’s a good point that Michael is not named in this conversation. It can be about anybody. This woman, Daphne Barak is shady as hell, so I wouldn’t put that past her. I’m not defending Aaron, since in that first convo he clearly was in it and said things he shouldn’t have. But I want to know the truth about who does what in this whole story. I don’t trust Barak at all, of course.
LikeLike
I finally managed to see the latest video. There is a sound of some cutlery so they are at a table and this is part of their breakfast (or whatever meal) talk. The tape is of poor quality and is surely made in a covert way.
This painted b*tch cannot use the actual video of their conversation and has to substitute photos as the video for the tape is missing. The number of photos she uses shows that they did spend a lot of time together. Most probably she presented this photo session to him as a publicity campaign for his upcoming album. Many of the photos indeed show him rehearsing and some girls screaming in delight. These photos were most probably supposed to accompany a story about Aaron’s album.
His account of Michael sitting on his bed is nothing all by itself. It is the context into which it is placed which matters. To force some revelations from him she most probably started with something like – “Let us talk frankly between the two of us while no one hears. You know of the allegations against him. Didn’t you ever, ever see anything suspicious in his behavior? Something that might have surprised you? Took you unawares? Any incidents you remember?”
His reply is not something which he ventured on his own – it is a refection on one episode which might have indeed taken place at some (unknown) point in time. To me as an insomniac it means nothing as I remember myself pacing the flat the whole night unable to fall asleep – eating, watching TV, coming up to my child’s bed and adjusting the blanket, going to bed again, getting up again half an hour later unable to sleep, etc.
Michael had a much bigger problem with sleep – Mesereau said that during the trial Michael would walk in the garden at night and at 3 in the morning (when Mesereau woke up to get ready for the day in court) Michael would call him on the phone. To some this type of behavior is of course bizarre and totally unacceptable, but for Michael’s situation it was okay.
The whole thing with Aaron seems to be a provocation. A very well prepared provocation on the part of Daphne Barak and the media. Now I am wary to say that Aaron was simply fooled as I don’t know what other drug-induced hallucinations he shared with this woman, but the methods this Daphne is using is placing her far ahead of Bashir and Gutierrez.
However her face says it all, I think.
LikeLike
Suzy,thank you for the link to Daphne Barak´s resume 7/2 at 12;09 pm.
It was said “why did MJ not do a background check on M.B.” Now you get all on Daphne Barak through that link.Maybe Aaron did and that is what he wanted.Speculation ofcourse. Aaron should come clean about himself,he has a history of problems wirh drug abuse and his career is not in good shape.This second piece of tape is centering on BED.
He is contradicting himself to staments made in the past.Also circumstances around the bedthing are nebulous.You also hear noises like the clatter of tableware,forks platters etc.Next to the clip you see ads for the next part of the tape.So are drugs and bed now done with? He attended Michaels birtday party but did not know his age!His own age has been fluctuating 14-15 y. from tape to tape.
Some memory problems maybe? Like part 1 this 2.nd part is uncleaer as to what hapened or not.He makes a sudden jump to talk about the children and thus leaves bed in the air.
LikeLike
Due to some malfunction I cannot enter my own blog, so I registered as a guest – but it is nevertheless me, vindicatemj. First of all guys, thank you for the transcripts – the videos don’t play on my computer either at the moment.
If Aaron is indeed lying about sleeping in a bed in Michael’s room (and MJ sitting at the foot of it) while earlier he said he had slept in the theater – this is very upsetting. It is always upsetting to find out that people are worse than you think them to be. But this tape and the whole situation around it still seem very fishy to me.
If Aaron was in it, why did they make such an incomprehensible tape that even people with a more trained ear than mine cannot make out what is being said there? Is it possible that Aaron was waggling his tongue with various (drug-induced) fantasies and Daphne was recording him with a secret tape-recorder? Aaron shouldn’t have allowed himself such irresponsible talk in any case of course – but when you have to do with a drug-addict (if he is one) what else can you expect?
Now again, even if MJ did indeed sit at the foot of the bed (at some unknown point in time) – so what? He was an insomniac so walking about the house at night and sitting here and there or tucking in someone’s blanket was probably nothing unusual for him.
This Daphne knows what she is doing. Instead of releasing the whole tape where everything will probably fit in its place and look completely innocent she is dividing this “hours long” interview into a hundred pieces building up suspension and interest for her blog. Each of the pieces may look sinister when taken out of context – but may paint a completely different picture when listened to as a whole.
However if it is a big lie – from Aaron this time – then it is the last drop in his fall as a human being. Please, don’t send him to hell or wish him dead – if he really did it he is already dead and in hell. Fortunately he left us numerous interviews when he was still alive and telling the truth.
LikeLike
More videos are on the way:
“You can follow the video clip in our outlets worldwide in the next few weeks.
In the meanwhile – here is a link for the first 2. More are coming soon.” – Linda Green,
DB’s office.
LikeLike
Yeah, so he said and people should stop make excuses for him and accept the fact that he backstabbed, betrayed, sold out – i can’t find any other synonyms- MJ in the worst possible way.Dafnie Barak didn’t make him say it, she didn’t put a gun in his head, he was very much into this from the and the fact that he kept deleting those messages from the beginning and he refused to give the slightest answer for this, well that tells it all.
I was reading the comments yesterday and people were actually sad that Carter denied the drug story. They were hopping so much that that story would be true so they would keep hating on MJ. This is the amount of hatred and bias regarding Mike out there. They wish there are stories like this so they can keep hate him, insult him and diminish his everything. Hurey for “poor” “poor” Aaron that he gave people additional reasons to hate and spit on MJ’s grave again and again. I hope he enjoys the money that he took. Now, let us see who will be the next one on the betrayal list that Aaron Carter just inaugurated.
As for me, I am still gutted for what he did and don’t want to see what those “news” sites will write this time about MJ.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Some info about Daphne Barak: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/03/24/712377/-Daphne-BarakA-meddling-tabloid-vulture-masquerading-as-a-journalist
LikeLike
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 sleep overs with Michael Jackson?
Aaron: No, never. You know what, actually, Chris Tucker was there too and Rodney Jerkins, he was producing his album.
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…
: 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 –
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…
Howard: I do.
Aaron: Well, you’re wrong. You’re wrong, Howard. You’re wrong, Howard!
Howard: How old are you now?
Aaron: Eighteen.
Howard: How old were you at the time Michael Jackson was hanging out with you?
Aaron: Fifteen.
Howard: Okay, you were fifteen. How old was he, in his forties?
Aaron: I don’t know, fifty or something?
Howard: Why is he buying you a car?
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?
Aaron: Yeah.
Does he want to hang out with you now?
Aaron: No, I haven’t spoken to him for…
You’re too old, you’re too old. You’re getting a beard.
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.
Oh you left him there?
Nick: No, let me explain. What happened was we went there, we hung out, we literally hung 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.
Aaron: Automatically, automatically already in your head –
Howard: Did you smoke weed with Michael Jackson?
Aaron: No, never, nu-uh.
Howard: Tell the truth, raise your right hand.
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?
Aaron: Not a damned thing.
Nick: It was fine, he hung out, Chris Tucker was there. 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: I saw Michael take a girl home from his own party too.
Howard: Really?
Aaron: Yeah. And I stayed in the movie theatre…
Where there any girls there?
Aaron: Chris Tucker was staying in the movie theatre and I stayed on the other side of the movie theatre.
Howard: Did he put his arms around you, did he touch you?
Aaron: Never, never.
Howard: Did he ever suggest you have a sleep over?
Aaron: No, never, never heard anything like that.
LikeLike
On one hand I hope she will release the tape with him saying MJ gave him drugs (he will look like a coward and a liar) and on the other hand I hope she does”t have the tape (because of his agent who probably never wanted that story).
LikeLike
@vindicatemj
Thank you so much for your response. As always, you make a lot of sense and your opinion is the one I was looking for because you seem to think a lot like Michael. You’re all about love, understanding and giving people the benefit of a doubt. You don’t automatically judge. I think the site I was on was called “Let’s call a spade a spade”. Nothing sounded right there.
Anyway, as far as the discussion going on here right now? Sounds like a lot of disagreeing and confusions, and it sounds to me like the media, is winning a major battle, by dividing the fans. We can’t be fighting among ourselves. We can’t allow division among the ranks, and we can NOT be distracted from our goal, which is to vindicate Michael. We cannot allow anger and bitterness to rule us no matter how bad we’re hurting for Michael. That was never Michael’s way and we do represent HIM.
I don’t understand those fans that curse any and everybody who doesn’t love and admire him. Michael was all about Love and forgiveness, even for his enemies. If we are truly his fans, then we should be like minded. I wouldn’t want my worst enemy to burn in hell, but I hear fans all over the net telling people to go or burn in hell. I think that is so sad. Haters just try to stir up strife by stupid hateful comments, and sadly so many fans fall into their trap and get into endless arguments that is only wasting time and energy and they lose their focus. They also lose respect by raging hate and anger, because they go against everything that Michael stood for.
We cannot be a house divided that cannot stand!!! We must stand together in love and kindness, or else we’re defeated, and I don’t plan on being defeated, or seeing Michael defeated. Let’s all come together over him, and love as he loved the world over, even loving and forgiving his enemies.
Love you vindicatemj
LikeLike
@ Shelly
” She also forwarded me a text Aaron sent to Daphne on June 15th. He seemed very nervous about the repercussions of his interview.”
June 15th was the day when fans found out and started to ask Aaron about his interview on Twitter.
LikeLike
There are so many lies in it I lost count! Aaron never slept in MJ’s room and MJ certainly did not “want him to sleep in his bedroom”! Aaron said it before and he slept in the theater with Chris Tucker. Also he says Michael allowed him to spend a lot of time with his kids. Well, a couple of days ago someone asked Paris on her Twitter what she thinks of the Aaron Carter situation and she said: “I don’t know who that is”.
LikeLike
The transcript of the latest:
Aaron- He wanted me to stay in his room. so he got a cot a bed) and ah I stayed on the cot in his room.
and it must of been like 5 oclock
(Daphne – well thats a story from you nobody knows ? )
and 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)
I know and I *Gasps* what are you doing.? like you know Im 15 yrs old .. you know. What are you doing? and he says Oh my god i didnt .. I didnt know. he went to his bed and Im like
(Daphne – if your scared what are you goign to do?)
yeah
(Daphne – what about his kids where were thay)
They were in the room right text door..
the room right nexr door. and usually he didnt want anyone hanging out with his kids no one. but me, I spent
hour with his children. He allowed me to spennd time with his children which he didnt really do.
(Daphne -when you werent stay there how often would you talk to him)
All the time .. all the time.
(Daphne – unintelligable ?)
I mean it was .. I mean THE END
LikeLike
If AC doesn’t admit he lied I hope Chris Tucker will speak out. He was there and as far as I heard he slept with Aaron in the theater and Aaron never slept in MJ’s room with MJ!
LikeLike
So Aaaron Carter implied Michael was trying to molest him – or at least made innuendo in that direction? I totally agree with Ares! This is inexcusable! Aaron was in it just as much as Daphne Barak! I’m sure he was paid for it and now, realizing the consequences, he is trying to back out from it, but unfortunately for him Barak has the videos.
Aaron needs to man up and admit he lied for money. Otherwise, like Lynette said, he has just made it to the list of the people who betrayed Michael. Preserving his legacy. Yeah, right.
LikeLike
Well hooray for Aaron Carter, who says in one part that the things he wants to do are a lot like Michael’s, and how he wants to preserve his legacy, only to turn around and add to that “legacy” that liars like him have perpetuated throughout the years. He has just made it on to the list of liars like Gavin Arvizo, Jordan Chandler, Dr. Klein and Jason Pfieffer. He should be so proud. Well we know without a doubt that interview will garner him at least 2-3 fans. The rest of the world belings to Michael Jackson. Regardless of what they might think this young man made a tragic mistake, he thinks, like so many others, that people will just shrug off the flip flop of “I said it , no I didn’t, well ok maybe I did”. This guy needs to go back to rehab and get the meth out of his system it is coming out all over his face. I recognize that skin breakout anywhere.
LikeLike
Hey Shelley. I just listened to it, I’ll try to paraphrase what I could make out. He said one night he was sleeping in a bed and Michael was sleeping in a cot in the same room. Then at 5:00 o’clock in the morning he woke up and Michael was (I think he said) sitting at the foot of his bed. Aaron in the interview makes an expression of shock and he asked him “what are you doing?” (because Aaron was only 15 Aaron says) I can’t understand his response of what Michael said. Then he says Michael’s kids were in the room next door and he spent a lot of time with Michael’s kids even though Michael didn’t let many people spend time with his kids.
It is hard to understand verbatim what he was saying but it sounds like he was telling Daphne the story as some sort of shocking secret like Daphne was trying to get dirt out of him. Obviously there are people who will hear this audio and make all kinds of suppositions about what the story really means, I’m getting pretty used to that by now.
LikeLike
@ares,
Could you tell me exactly what he said?
LikeLike
I told in one of my previous comments that i thought that he would take the story further. Indeed he did. What a pathetic, pathetic individual.
LikeLike
She just released that. Can someone made a transcript of it, it’s hard to understand
http://daphnebarak.homestead.com/AaronCarterMichaelJacksonTributeVideoClip.html
LikeLike
The youtube video would never have been uploaded if it wasn’t for a friend of mine who went scouting around on Daphne’s actual website to find out about her.
I don’t know when she actually uploaded it though, but it wasn’t yesterday, so she didn’t post it in response. But she certainly wasn’t posting it on twitter or telling anyone about it and neither was Aaron or OK. It was hidden away.
If it hadn’t been for her then who knows how long it might’ve taken for someone else to check there and find it and clear things up?
It’s just incredible how this all played out – so easy for them to spread something like this as fact without a single one of them validating it themselves. Not a single story mentioned how Aaron had denied this repeatedly in the past and so much so had even been placed on Michael’s defence list. Remember that sinister underscore they did with that “Boys” documentary? Yet again they did the same thing with news reports. Just incredible.
LikeLike
“they will release two more clips onto their website in a “matter of days.”
Why don’t they release the interview the way it is? Why do they need several days to release small pieces of it? Because they need to redact them? Cut this and combine it with that to be able to produce the right impression?
LikeLike
I am one of those fans Helena. I strongly believe that this was a publicity stant and Aaron Carter was into this as much as that Barak woman was. I believe that they planned this together and they did a wonderful job. Cartes spoke out eventually, when his name paraded all over internet and when he made it even in CNN and all those “trustworthy” websites, making the first version of his story even more serious. He got the publicity that he wanted but i wonder about one thing. How many of those 180 sites that picked up the drug-wine story, will pick this new one? Am guessing only a few couple? Am so dissapointed by all this. This will probably sound very melodramatic but i geniunly feel very sad about MJ. Like he was a part of my family or something.
LikeLike
“But, can someone tell me what’s going on with Frank Dileo? Last I heard he was in a coma from, somehow a double dose of anesthesia? It seemed to be big BREAKING NEWS , then I hear nothing else that was going on with him.”
Linda, I would also want to know what’s going on with Frank Dileo. The fact that he was given double anesthesia though he probably needed a quarter of it as he was unconscious anyway, was extremely strange and was indeed breaking news. However our good media guys are not interested in real sensations – they prefer to replace them with artificial ones.
“Tonight I was on a site that says he was a really bad guy in Michaels life. I thought he showed up at Michael’s 2005 trial to support him even though he had been fired long ago, and then Michael had rehired him just before his death. I would appreciate any or all of your opinions, as to whether he was a good guy, friend or foe.’
I think you have answered your own question. A person who was fired but comes to support his former employer (for whom he should theoretically have hard feelings) because he knows for sure that this person is innocent, cannot be a foe even if all the media in the world tells you otherwise.
“There is so much smearing of Michael from the press that you can’t believe anything they write, so I would like to hear what you know what you think about him.”
If we look at people’s deeds and not words we will know immediately who is who. And we don’t need any press in guiding us what to think. A person is known by his deeds in the same way as the tree is known by its fruit – as simple as that.
LikeLike
“*****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.”
http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/60705693.html?page=1#comments#ixzz1QtRVONtt
LikeLike
“I see a lot of fans on twitter complaining that Aaron took to long to make a statement about this lie. Really? I don’t see that way because until a day or so ago it was only in OK magazine. It’s only been a day or two that the copy/paste media got a hold of it and posted it everywhere. I’m just glad Aaron cleared it up.”
The fans’ anger is misdirected. Whatever is the case with Aaron it was clear from the start that he was a victim of journalistic manipulation – and it was only the degree of this manipulation which could be disputed here. Before that interview he had proved lots of times that he was a staunch Michael’s supporter. He stood by Michael in the worst of times – so why would that all of a sudden change now? Things just don’t happen that way with those who have ethical values – values are very hard to earn and are not given up that easily!
And why would fans believe Daphne Barak with her shady past and dubious credibility and disbelieve Michael’s friend who up till now never gave them any reason for doubting him? Guys, this giving up Michael’s friends so easily is no good at all, no good at all…. Media can slander anyone and if we believe the first dirty thing they say about Michael’s true friends we are no better than the rest of the public.
“My bigger quarrel is with Daphne Barak since this is not the first time she’s done this. I’m amazed that this woman still calls herself a journalist, she had not journalistic integrity whatsoever!’
Absolutely! Daphne and those who repeated her words without checking (or checked and didn’t mind her lying) are the real culprits here! The guilt of these people and the “guilt” of Aaron are incomparable!
LikeLike
“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.”
Great news. I never doubted Aaron and knew that after the initial shock that knocked him down he would speak out again. A person who consistently stood for Michael in so many videos and for so many years could not let him down.
Of course this Daphne ‘Bashir’ completely fabricated the story – only she did it in cooperation with others as the speed with which they spread the story is absolutely unnatural. All those media outlets behaved like hungry vultures falling for the first dirty piece that came their way. It is disgusting but satisfying to see them covered with their own lies like dirt now.
LikeLike
Petition: Michael Jackson Legacy Defamation Law
http://www.petitiononline.com/MJJ2010/
I’ve gladly joined the petitioners and signed.
LikeLike
Even though Aaron never said the cocaine part and he cleared THAT up, he clearly made some other suggestions in that video which weren’t innocent at all. And he knew what he was doing.
LikeLike
I agree Julie! Although I have to say it’s all or nothing with some fans which is sad. I see a lot of fans on twitter complaining that Aaron took to long to make a statement about this lie. Really? I don’t see that way because until a day or so ago it was only in OK magazine. It’s only been a day or two that the copy/paste media got a hold of it and posted it everywhere. I’m just glad Aaron cleared it up. My bigger quarrel is with Daphne Barak since this is not the first time she’s done this. I’m amazed that this woman still calls herself a journalist, she had not journalistic integrity whatsoever!
LikeLike
For once I have to give credit to TMZ — they, unlike ABC, CBS and NBC as well as the other tacky tabloids, did not post the original story. I’m glad they have posted this response. I will venture to bet that the other news outlets will not retract their stories.
LikeLike
From TMZ:
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
http://www.tmz.com/2011/07/01/aaron-carter-michael-jackson-cocaine-daphne-barak-denial-no-drugs-fabrication-liar-lies-report-ok-magazine-australia/
LikeLike
Petition: Michael Jackson Legacy Defamation Law
http://www.petitiononline.com/MJJ2010/
LikeLike
This is from a fan who was there at that party in September, 2003:
“He´s [Aaron] been lying a lot about that party. I´m not a famous person and what I say have no meaning, but those who were on that party too and who are famous should really speak about what went on there. Karen can also do that, but she only sounds angry.
I saw Michael leave for just a few minutes to wash of 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. when talking to Michael he 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. He left for his bedroom and din´t ask us to leave, it was more like “enjoy yourself, I trust you”. And there were no Aaron Carter anywhere to be found in that house during that night. he´s taken care off 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.
Sorry for ranting, I never tell people about things like this, but right now I feel so mad. He must come forward and say he didn´t say these things, but I can´t stand that he and Grace talked to this woman, even if she trapped Grace.. she said other things and have done a lot of questionable things when it comes to Michael so I can´t defend her, but in this case..”
LikeLike
Lynette, I am so awed by your comment that will repeat practically the whole of it:
– “You know in the grand scheme of things the whole fiasco is in the hands of the media once again”.
– If I understood you right this may indeed turn into one grand fiasco for the media – which they never expected – as they may be held accountable for telling a blatant lie. The very least the general public will be able to see is the grand scale on which the media is lying when it comes to Michael Jackson.
– “The article will probably appear with a by line of “staff writer” which is the same as anonymous.However let’s not forget that each article in any magazine has a writer that gets paid for that article no matter what”
– The article is also approved by the editor. And over there lies were so thick that you could cut them with a knife.
– “it is also a perfect opportunity to hold the media responsible for this because it is a blatant lie. It was at one time posted on each of the 3 major networks websites here in the US and they should be brought to task on this. It doesn’t get on their websites by osmosis, someone puts it there. The someone that puts it there has to have it approved by a publisher or news producer in the cases of ABC, NBC, and CBS. They were fully aware of the content prior to posting it on their websites”
That ladies and gentlemen is where the news is at these days. Not even a major network bothers anymore to verify the sources nor do they print or announce a retraction anymore, they just remove the article and act like it never happened. That is what I want to see. I want to see an announced, printed and posted retraction of the article. When that happens we are on the right track toward a more responsible media. Something this country and all others around the globe sorely need. It is time for the end to the tabloid journalist ruling the world of news.
– Absolutely right!
– “I would also like to say something about the misconception of not being able to slander a dead person”.
– In many countries slandering the deceased is considered even worse and more despicable than slandering the alive. The dead person cannot answer back and defend himself, therefore telling lies about the dead is the highest form of betrayal and malice. It also greatly damages the person’s siblings as it aggravates their suffering at losing the loved one even more.
– “While that may very well be true about Joe Blow from Cocomo it is not true of Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson lives on in his estate and his body of work. The success of that posthumous work is dependent largely on the excellence of it’s content and also on the reputation of Michael Jackson. He is not dead.Through his music his legacy lives on. Anything deliberately falsified to damage the reputation of the man damages his legacy, his estate, which is a living thing evidenced by the growth it has assumed since his passing. I think that the Michael Jackson Estate executors need to help us stop some of the nonsense. With this story they have real ammunition to stop what has been going on. They have witnesses to the events that transpired with Aaron Carter(Chris Tucker, Frank Cascio) and can prove that the quotes in the article never happened. Frank is already on record.”
– Let us pray that justice and truth prevail.
LikeLike
“I think we should wait because it’s only the first part of the interview on video”
Shelly, if you come across the rest please post it asap.
LikeLike
You know in the grand scheme of things the whole fiasco is in the hands of the media once again. It is true that, now knowing what was being said, Aaron Carter owes an apology at the least to Michael’s family, friends and fans for not speaking out sooner.
The article will probably appear with a by line of “staff writer” which is the same as anonymous.However let’s not forget that each article in any magazine has a writer that gets paid for that article no matter what. A contributor is paid by the word for the article that is what makes them a professional writer or journalist. That would be Daphne Barak, the third one injured by this article, she is a journalist whether we like it or not. Someone used her interview with Aaron and names her as the source for the words not spoken. That is never the case in an article in any type of print or electronic “news source”. They may hide their sources but they can’t hide their authorship because someone has to be held accountable for it for the magazines liability to remain untouched.
I know that it seems like it is left up to the family friends and fans of Michael to once again clear this up but it is also a perfect opportunity to hold the media responsible for this because it is a blatant lie. It was at one time posted on each of the 3 major networks websites here in the US and they should be brought to task on this. It doesn’t get on their websites by osmosis, someone puts it there. The someone that puts it there has to have it appoved by a publisher or news producer in the cases of ABC, NBC, and CBS. They were fully aware of the content prior to posting it on their websites.
That ladies and gentelmen is where the news is at these days. Not even a major network bothers anymore to verify the sources nor do they print or announce a retraction anymore, they just remove the article and act like it never happened. That is what I want to see. I want to see an announced, printed and posted retraction of the article. When that happens we are on the right track toward a more responsible media. Something this country and all others around the globe sorely need. It is time for the end to the tabloid journalist ruling the world of news.It is time to put them on notice. No more! Not one more slanderous article or statement about Michael Jackson without being able to back it up with rock solid proof not some non entities ospinion (new word: definition; a spin of the writers opinion placed on a fact to twist the meaning of said fact to the point of abscence of the fact itself. origin; created by Diane Dimond in the 1993 and 2005 Michael Jackson cases).
I would also like to say something about the misconception of not being able to slander a dead person. While that may very well be true about Joe Blow from Cocomo it is not true of Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson lives on in his estate and his body of work. The success of that posthumous work is dependent largely on the excellence of it’s content and also on the reputation of Michael Jackson. He is not dead.Through his music his legacy lives on. Anything deliberately falsified to damage the reputation of the man damages his legacy, his estate, which is a living thing evidenced by the growth it has assumed since his passing.I think that the Michael Jackson Estate executors need to help us stop some of the nonsense. With this story they have real ammunition to stop what has been going on. They have witnesses to the events that transpired with Aaron Carter(Chris Tucker, Frank Cascio) and can prove that the quotes in the article never happened. Frank is already on record.
LikeLike
I think we should wait because it’s only the first part of the interview on video.
LikeLike
“The whole thing was supposed to be released on the actual OK magazine. Was the actual article on the magazine also anonymous?”
I don’t know as I haven’t seen it and have no intention to. If someone reads it (I don’t suggest it!) please tell us what these beasts are saying there and in whose name it is written.
“Free publicity.”
Possibly.
“I feel powerless right now. The media has shown us their power and their intention regarding MJ yet again. He is not going to have a fair representation from them, ever”.
Certainly he is not – in their essence they have not changed. And they are not satisfied with having stoned a human being to death – now they want to cover his legacy and name with dirt. So let us be realistic here – we cannot change the media, and the only way out for us is to reach for the truth ourselves and show to the general public how the media lies about Jackson and how ti see through their lies. Frankly, I am not that upset by Aaron’s words but by the fact that many believed what the “OK!” magazine said.
LikeLike
Ι have seen that article Helena, i know that it is anonymous but that is only a preview of the article. The whole thing was supposed to be release on the actual OK magazine. Was the actual acticle on the magazine also anonymous?
@Suzy
He absolutelly did. His silence speaks volumes and to me he is milking the story to the highest degree. Free publicity.
This whole thing reminds me the day MJ was arrested and his trial. All that avalanche of missinformation and halftruths that you felt powerless. I feel powerless right now. The media has shown us their power and their intention regarding MJ yet again. He is not going to have a fair representation from them, ever.
LikeLike
@ Ares
I agree with you. Reading the transcript again, although it’s not as bad as how Daphne Barak interpreted it, but it is still bad as it is deliberately tabloidish, deliberately full of innuendo – also on Aaron’s side. For example Aaron bringing up the drinking and calling it weird. What’s so freaking weird in an adult man drinking at his birthday party?
And why does Aaron have to go into speculations about what MJ could have, might have done in his bathroom when there’s no basis to it that he indeed did all those? What’s the point? I might as well as start to speculate about what is possible for Barack Obama to do in his bathroom. “Is it possible that Barack Obama snorts coke in his bathroom every morning?” “Oh, yeah, absolutely. That is of course possible. Although I wasn’t there, so I don’t know. But it is possible as everything is possible.”
Don’t tell me Aaron doesn’t know what he is doing with it!
Nobody is really interested in Aaron Carter and his music any more, so “OK” wouldn’t write an article about him before his upcoming album. So the price for him to get some publicity was to go along with Daphne Barak’s plan. And he did.
LikeLike
OK Lied: Aaron Carter NEVER Said Michael Jackson Gave Him Cocaine, Alcohol
http://www.reddit.com/tb/ie3dh
Thetis, good!
However we should not leave it at that and should follow the beast into its lair.
LikeLike
“How is it possible for me to believe that that woman posted on her website the interview that basically shows that she lied on that OK article?”
The ultimate trick here is that the “OK” article was not even written by Daphne Barak. They referred to her and she referred to Aaran. It is a triple lie where no one answers for anything and which can be later explained by some “misunderstanding” on everyone’s part. It is a classical BIG LIE which shocks to such an extent that people lose the ability to think or check anything for themselves.
You can read the article again to see that the author of it is anonymous: http://www.okmagazine.com.au/insider/michael-gave-me-drugs.htm
LikeLike
06/30/2011
OK Lied: Aaron Carter NEVER Said Michael Jackson Gave Him Cocaine, Alcohol
Over night, the internet exploded with the news that former teen idol Aaron Carter said (in a new interview with OK Magazine) that Michael Jackson had once given him cocaine and booze — all when he was only fifteen years old.
Yet today, the audio of Daphne Barak’s interview with Carter was posted online — revealing that Carter said no such thing.
From a transcript of the audio, Carter instead told tabloid-journalist Daphne Barak that he once attended a party at Neverland 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. And no adult purposefully supplying a minor with alcohol. So how did this massive twisting-of-words come about? The answer may lie with the article’s author. . . .
Tabloid-contributor Daphne Barak, you 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), even 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.
Is this what happened with Aaron Carter’s comments about Michael Jackson, then? 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!!!!”
http://www.reddit.com/tb/ie3dh
LikeLike
My thoughts on this, i have made them very clear. Having seen the video i have to say this.
I strongly believe that he was into this thing knowingly. I believe that he and that journalist, who knew his mother and his family quite well i may say, are into this together, they planted this thing together. This video is edited to death. Who knows what version they presented to the OK magazine and edited this video in order to calm the MJ fan community. Why was this video released only now that the damage is done, that all the sites have printed the cocaine and wine story? Yeah, because he did it for pubblicity and money, having an album coming along and those financial problems. How is it possible for me to believe that that woman posted on her website the interview that basically shows that she lied on that OK article? And the fact that this Carter dude hasn’t spoken yet speaks volumes now, doesn’t it? He let things escalated this much, he got the publicity that he wanted, and now he’s releasing this video to calm the fan community but he is not admiting to the public that this whole interview was a lie and that his word were twisted. In the era of internet, twitter and facebook how come mr. Carter can’t writte two simple words but he can release a video which no one by the way is going to pick up? Those goship sites are still printing the “He gave me cocain” thing. Where is Aaron, where is he two days now, where is he one week now? Yes, he is hiding form the bad Michael Jackson fans.
As for the media it was obvious that they would pick and circulate this story without a hesitation. Two years and they han’t released a MJ scandal. It was too much time , they had given Jackson and his fans too much break. It was time for Jackson’s reputation to return to the gutter and his fans learn a lesson and realise that the peace period was over. And we have to thank for this mr. Carter.
Thank you Aaron for opening the post death Michael Jackson slander and defamation era. Am shure many will follow you footsteps. You have been a great friend
PS: Am going to believe that Carter was tricked into this and eat my words , if he publicly admits that his words were twisted by the journalist – He had two weeks time for in order to do it but whatever- If i see him saying that he was fooled, on the same goship sites that printed the wine story. Until then, i will believe that he used Michael in the worst possible way and i will continue to sound like a maniac, like i do now. But i believe that i am justified.
LikeLike
“I am confused, I know he is broke”
Let us not be confused and see what it (most probably) was really like.
– Judging by the timing of this interview Aaron was asked to make a sort of a tribute to Michael by the 2nd anniversary of his death
– They probably even promised some payment for it
– He prepared himself to play the piano and say a few warm words about Michael and how he misses him
– But since on the eve of the trial the media focuses all pubic attention not on Murray’s criminal negligence but on various factors distracting the public Daphne asked loaded questions about a possibility of Michael taking drugs
– Aaron says he never saw any drug-taking
– She still insisted whether it was possible
– He says it was, because now, in hindsight, he thinks that at times he looked “weird”
– And the explanation he gives for it is the only one he himself can think of
– Then he plays the piano as he wanted to and thinks that his whole interview will be published
– But his whole interview is not published. Instead all tabloids come out the next day with headlines “Aaron said MJ gave cocaine to him”
– He probably demands that the whole video is shown or some disclaimer is made by the journalist as he never said anything like that
– She retaliates with a redacted version of his video where he speaks only about drugs
– No one yet knows what he actually said – as there is no transcript of the conversation – but the world is already agog with agitation, with new accusations of Michael (from the public) and new accusations of Aaron (from the fans)
– And Aaron is probably in such a condition now that the only move he can make is delete someone’s comments.
They knew whom to approach with an important mission like that.
LikeLike
“Would it be really so hard for him to tweet: “I didn’t say that! My words got twisted”? It’s not like people were asking him to sue Daphne Barak or anything that would take a lot of time and effort from him. They just asked him a simple question about whether he really said this or not.”
It wouldn’t really be so hard for him to tweet that his words were twisted. Only we don’t know what state Aaron is in now.
LikeLike
“Am sorry but this is Aaron fault. He has to step forward and clean this mess, not the fans again. Not always the fans. This can’t be always the case.Someone is doing wrong and then the fans run to clean the mess. Moreover, no one is going to believe us, trust me. This is something that Carter has to do.”
Of course it is partially Aaron’s fault. When a person explains another person’s behavior he projects his own personality onto him – and Aaron is projecting himself here. He explains Michael’s “weirdness” by a possibility of him going to the bathroom and sniffing something there. He thinks so because he himself is probably doing this. And that is why he is not refuting it. He assumes that it was possible though he doesn’t know anything for sure.
If I were asked questions about why Michael looked weird – distant, distracted, forgetful, lacking concentration on things – I would also project my own personality and my own life experience on Michael and will say that all of the above may be the result of insomnia. I’m a victim of it too and when you have very little sleep you behave in exactly this way. Only Aaron is probably not suffering from insomnia and, when forced to think back about the minute details in Michael’s behavior, gives the only explanation he himself knows.
LikeLike
All hell is about to break loose in the Michael Jackson community. I read the article and went ballistic, then the YouTube and interview video was found and I saw the discrepancies. This thing has so far been aired on at least one US TV cable Gossip Show.
Quite honestly I am confused, I know he is broke doesn’t have the handlers he use to, but by now he knows what is going on and it needs to be addressed, unless his silence is about a civil suit. (see confused) I’ve seen that statement about not owing MJ’s Fans nothing on several MJ sites, but I’ve yet to see it in print from him. Considering Aaron is talking about a time when Michael was under intense scrutiny by the Cops, Media and anyone at the party I have to agree with Friedman, it wasn’t even possible let alone probable. I’ve made so many missteps with this situation I just don’t know anymore what is true and what is not with Aaron.
Questions being asked, was the article tweaked for salacious content or the video edited to protect the guilty?
LikeLike
Rockforeveron, thanks for posting the video. Things are becoming clearer when you see it.
The first thing that catches attention is that he speaks solely about drugs (or the episodes are selected that way). Daphne most probably approached Aaron with outwardly sympathetic questions like ” No one is telling us the truth about MJ. What is your view on a possibility of him taking drugs? Your personal view?”. Aaron is seen reflecting here, trying to remember things – whether some “weirdness” could be explained by such a possibility. He is just trying to be HONEST – only he doesn’t know that he is talking to a totally dishonest journalist who will let him down really BAD.
You see that the interview is absolutely non-formal – he is playing the piano in memory of Michael and all those questions about drugs are taking him somewhat unawares. This is most probably part of a very big interview where she 1) first had a good and friendly conversation with Aaron thus establishing a certain friendly contact with him and then 2) she started asking questions about Aaron’s intimate thoughts about this and that.
Actually this is an absolutely the same situation as between Bashir and Michael! The same method – first winning someone’s trust, then asking questions about a person’s most intimate thoughts, suppositions, explanations of someone else’s behavior – and then turning those indefinite suppositions into THE MAIN SUBJECT of the discussion, though it was not!
Of course it would help if Aaron told us how the whole thing happened but it seems to me that in a twitter format he won’t be able to say all that. This is too complex a thing to express in one sentence.
Could anyone send me his twitter account or his email or whatever?
LikeLike
Friends, I love, admire and respect your website. Actually this is my favorite site for factual info and you’ve helped me so much in understanding what really happened to Michael. Thank you for all your articles and all the links you provide.
But, can someone tell me what’s going on with Frank Dileo? Last I heard he was in a coma from, somehow a double dose of anesthesia? It seemed to be big BREAKING NEWS , then I hear nothing else that was going on with him. Tonight I was on a site that says he was a really bad guy in Michaels life. I thought he showed up at Michael’s 2005 trial to support him even though he had been fired long ago, and then Michael had rehired him just before his death. Sorry if I’m posting this question in the wrong place, but I would appreciate any or all of your opinions, as to whether he was a good guy, friend or foe.
There is so much smearing of Michael from the press that you can’t believe anything they write, so I would like to hear what you know what you think about him.
Thank’s, Linda
LikeLike
And BTW, celebrity news websites are monitoring celebrity’s twitter accounts, so it would have helped if Aaron had denied it through his Twitter.
LikeLike
Frank Cascio tweet:
I knew Michael for over 25 year and NEVER once did he use cocaine or suggest to anyone else to use cocaine. Never!!!!
LikeLike
@Suzy
His silence is loud.
LikeLike
The interview (if that’s all) is not that bad and Aaron clearly did NOT say the things Daphne Barak wrote in her article.
She is clearly to get some controversial statements out of Aaron. It’s full of loaded questions and calls for speculation.
Having said that:
@ Helena
“I am sorry, but I really don’t understand what poor Aaron was supposed to say about that interview. “
Would it be really so hard for him to tweet: “I didn’t say that! My words got twisted”?
It’s not like people were asking him to sue Daphne Barak or anything that would take a lot of time and effort from him. They just asked him a simple question about whether he really said this or not. It would have taken him about half a minute to answer it. Much less than the time he spent with blocking and threatening fans.
LikeLike
@lynette,
“It could be that the reason the video was posted is because Aaron Carter contacted her and told her to put up the video.” – Lynette
I doubt, I contacted her last night after reading Ares’ post of the story before it went viral. I was very upset, could not sleep and wanted to get some answers, so I sent her an email asking her if she did interview Aaron Carter, provided the link to OK!, and asked about the cocaine confession. I was very polite and peaceful in my tone.
Similarly the Jackson family whom she has also interviewed could have done the same, hell they could have place a phone call. The fans can try to undo this, but we will just sound like a broken record. Aaron needs to man up.
LikeLike
Has anyone ever wondered about the whole Aaron Carter Neverland story? I do because if Nick was supposed to bring Aaron home that night where was he supposed to bring him home to? The Carter family home is a 17 acre compound in the Florida Keys. Was the whole family at Neverland at the time?
LikeLike
Thanks Rockon, there does seem to be a little problem though. The 3 major networks ( ABC, NBC and CBS) have posted the story as well without checking their sources or asking for confirmation. Maybe we need to get the family involved is someone in contact with Jermaine because he seems to be the guy that speaks up in the family.
Ha Ha a quick look at Jermaines Twitter account says he is already on top of it, and Perez Hilton has already removed the story.It could be that the reason the video was posted is because Aaron Carter contacted her and told her to put up the video.
LikeLike
Here it is
LikeLike
-First someone download that video so we have it and copy the URL so we can just post it to every site that is repeating this nonsense.-
Am sorry but this is Aaron fault. He has to step forward and clean this mess, not the fans again. Not always the fans. This can’t be always the case.Someone is doing wrong and then the fans run to clean the mess. Moreover, no one is going to believe us, trust me.I spend the whole day posting videos and trial transcpipts and trying to inform people that Jordan’s decription didn’t much the photos. This is something that Carter has to do. If he doesn’t do it, if he doesn’t come forward and say that his words were twisted, to me proves that he was very much aware of the whole thing. The video doesn’t work for me because the fans already know that MJ didn’t do anything. It’s the pubblic that read all those crap and they believed it. To those should Carter adress his statement, if he ever makes one.The video won’t get any attention at all.
Carter should be a man and if he really want to protect MJ’s legacy,as he said, he should tell everywere that he didn’t make those statements because frankly up until now he is ruining Jackson’s legacy. I bet there are other magazines to which he could clarify his position. I will be waiting although i believe that the worst is done.
@Teva
Thank you. I understand completely what you are saying. I feel disgusted by all this.
LikeLike
Trust me if there was more it would have gone viral by now. The video of the interview is hidden why don’t we make it viral but of course that won’t get as much attention. First someone download that video so we have it and copy the URL so we can just post it to every site that is repeating this nonsense.
LikeLike
Who will Carter’s confession release now to tell the truth?
I can’t think of any wild cards… Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, Wade Robson, Jimmy Safechuck, James Spence, Damion Stein, Anton Schleiter, Agajanians, Omer Bhatti, Cascio’s, his nephews and cousins… who is there to come forward that MJ even spent that much time with? Some random kid who was at Neverland once and can’t show any proof of anything he’d say?
Personally I think there is more to the video, and he did say it.
But it contradicts the video…
AC: I personally didn’t see any drug addiction issues.
You know, I never saw any injections, nothing like that.
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.,
How would that fit in with being given cocaine? He saw no other drug issues other than coke? She even says to him that he wouldn’t have a clue if he was doing drugs, she doesn’t say “Well you know he was doing cocaine…”
It’s just too incongruent. I can’t see how it would work.
And this interview was given at the start of June, if she had him on tape saying he was on cocaine, they would’ve tied it into his anniversary, surely? Or tried to sell it as quick as possible.
It just doesn’t make any sense to me…
LikeLike
The Chris they are talking about is Chris Tucker, Michaels friend and former boyfriend of Azja Pryor.So if Chris Tucker was with them wouldn’t he be equally as guilty for anything that went on with AC when he was there? Maybe Chris Tucker would like to weigh in on it.
LikeLike
@Ares,
I was not going to comment on this, but the fustration in your post made me. I guess we see this the same way, Aaron Carter is not a friend of Michael Jackson. IF he never said Michael gave him cocaine then step right up,ask for a retraction and clear it up the way Margaret Maldonodo did when VG said her son was on a tape being mole*ted by MJ. Michael Jackson’s public image is not PRISTINE, this is not an isolated incident, but more a culmination of PR disasters. So if “poor” Mr. Carter’s word were mis-represented as a “friend” and someone who wants to preserve MJ’s legacy he should CLEAR this whole **** up already, but he is quiet just like Jordan Chandler & Gavin Arvizo.
Well Jordan’s confession triggered a suppress memory in Francia, George, . . .Who will Carter’s confession release now to tell the truth?
It does not matter whether Carter said Michael gave him cocaine or not; what matters is the public’s perception, and my perception is my reality. They now have a new freakier perception of Michael and “poor” Aaron bonding while doing lines together. Personally I think there is more to the video, and he did say it.
Michael Jackson in his own words:
“As a response to very mean journalists who just lie,
your response is not “I hate you for what you wrote,” but
rather, I don’t understand why you did this to me and I
will leave it like that.” It hurts very much because they
think you are made out of some strong kind of substance”
WELL HE IS NOW DEAD – FOREVER.
LikeLike
Aaron didn´t look so good on the interview tape.True he did not say any
of those things directly,but he was not confident,meandered into things
that he did not see( is this not a classic tabloid plot, but that could be so ,like the body gets used to ..and a second in the bathroom.ie enough for a sniff). Still he did not say. Only the wine, but thats nothing, many parents let their 15-16 yo have a sip on special family occasions. Then that unnecessary pianoplay.He should have strangled her when he saw it printed.Maybe it was some sort of compromize between two liars.
LikeLike
“He had plenty of time to say that he was tricked by this reporter, if he was indeed. Why the silence?”
I am sorry, but I really don’t understand what poor Aaron was supposed to say about that interview. What can a person say if those who listen to it don’t see the point themselves? What is there to discuss??? Why blame Aaron for the lies told about him by the media and not blame the media for twisting his words instead?
“And when he saw how that interview turn out to be, he should have said something in order to defend his position”
But at that moment it was not clear how the interview would be presented by the press. Please compare the interview and the article about it – they are like day and night with those “intimate moments together” which never existed!
“Who is going to correct this mess now?”
Only the public. Aaron alone is unable to correct anything (same as he was unable to foresee what would come out of this interview). This mess can be corrected only by the people in general who see for themselves the PROCESS of making those lies – the media takes a “simple nothing” and turns it into a “huge everything” presenting it as the final truth. We are actually fortunate to see THIS LIE IN THE MAKING as we can compare the transcript and see what Daphne Barak and Co. made of it.
“I thought that people had come to realise how media work but i was wrong. When it comes to MJ, they will believe anything.”
I’ve always said that Michael’s problem is not actually his problem – it is the problem of the society in general and of each of us as individuals.
“The fact that he remained so passive during all this thing, to me indicates that he knew exactly what was going to happen”.
He most probably remained so passive as he realized that it was impossible to explain anything to people who cannot see on their own the difference between what he said and what they wrote about him.
LikeLike
Is this much ado about nothing?It cannot be as everything attached to
the name Michael Jackson becomes explosive. 2 certified liars, one of them an admitted druguser, are involved.And they meet at Costa delCrime
as the southern playas of Spain are known in Europe.THE place for drugdealers.( Please Michelle O.,there was some surprise of your choice
for vacation, but we love you!).-And if drugs were involved who supplied them?The timing for these relevations are suspect.If all Carters are on the witness list they should scrap evertbody who has given interviews of late.And was this Aaron that deep in debt? It would not surprise me if Aaron at age 15 had brought a joint with him to the party.Then suggesting rhat he could not have known what Michael did during a 1-2 minute visit to the bathroom.Making this somehow suspect.
Aaron should speak out,and he should not have sold his friend for a mln $$$.
LikeLike
“Aaron could have come out and said hey, that is not what I told this woman”.
Yes, he could have come out and said that this is not what he told that woman – but now that we have the video can’t we see it ourselves? Why do we need someone to ‘come out’ and say it to us? Don’t we see that there is nothing in this interview to prove what the terrible article said?
Let me repeat what they said – lies on top of other lies and the whole structure of them standing on another foundation of lies:
“Opening up for the first time [as if Aaron is not talking about Michael on every occasion possible] about his controversial relationship [nothing controversial about it] with Michael Jackson, fellow child star Aaron Carter shares some shocking truths [“shocking” is the best-selling word for any magazine] with OK!
On the second anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death, his former friend and confidant [why former? Why confidant?], Aaron Carter, 23, has come clean [what an expression!] about his close [it wasn’t closer than with anyone else] – and controversial – relationship [relationship!] with the pop singer, revealing all to internationally renowned [!] interviewer Daphne Barak during a charity visit to Marbella, Spain. [was it our good Daphne Barak on a charity visit or Aaron Carter?]
Exposing their most intimate moments together [“exposing”, “most intimate” “moments together” – I feel like vomiting at so many open, flat and primitive lies], Aaron tells OK! how MJ gave him drugs and alcohol [DID YOU SEE IT IN THAT INTERVEW?] when he was just 15.
‘I never talked about it… This is the first time. [never talked about what?] I do…I miss Michael… [we all miss him] I have spent such incredible times with him.[ everyone else in his surrounding too] I did things with him that nobody else did…[aha, a hint at something sinister, though it was only smashing a pie in Michael’s face on his 45th birthday]. But I was also troubled about what he did to me,’ Aaron says. [NOTHING about any trouble in that interview].
When asked whether Michael gave him alcohol, Aaron tells Daphne, ‘Yes, he gave me wine. [He gave him wine? Or wine was served at dinner table and the fifteen year old drank a little as he said his parents allowed him to?] I mean, I could have refused, but I was 15.’ [Of course he asked for it!]. As for drugs? ‘He gave me cocaine. [This must be that part of the transcript when he said HE NEVER SAW IT, however it is easy for anyone to go to the bathroom to sniff – OMG, and this is called “he gave me cocaine”????]. I felt weird about that and other stuff…[No, he just said that Michael did look weird sometimes, which could be attributed to anything – even many days of insomnia].
We spoke afterwards, hours and hours, on the phone [so what?]. I admired Michael, but his behaviour bothered me a lot [What a piece of garbage. It NEVER bothered him, let alone “a lot”]. Then my mother called the police [no information about that, though this kind of a woman very well could – she was hysterical at the mere idea that Aaron spent the night in Neverland. She must be a terribly brainwashed woman].
For the full story, pick up a copy of this week’s OK! magazine, on sale now!
THE LAST POINT IS ACTUALLY THE CRUCIAL ONE HERE.
BUY, BUY, BUY US – or otherwise what’s the use of telling all these lies?
LikeLike
@Shelly
-There is nothing more in that video. Maybe he said other things but I doubt it, he clearly said he wanted to protect MJ’s legacy and never saw any sign of drug addiction.-
Then shouldn’t have he said anything before the things go out of control and “journalist” all over internet even accusing MJ for Carter’s and Macaulay Culkin’s drug addiction? I repeat, this things was known for over a week now. He had plenty of time to say that he was tricked by this reporter,if he was indeed. Why the silence? Why did he let the situetion escalate this much?
– I think we should be more careful before claiming he is a backstabber.-
Since i was the only one who made that claim i say that he should have been more carefoul in where he gave his interview.And when he saw how that interview turn out to be, he should have said something in order to defend his possition and subsequently Michael. I am sick on defending MJ and trying to post facts about this whole thing. Who is going to correct this mess now? Can somebody tell me? Who is going to undo all those articles that are on internet today? How many people read it and believed it? I thought that people had come to realise how media work but i was wrong. When it comes to MJ, they will believe anything.
Am out of here. This thing thing has made me very sad . I hope this situations clears up and i really hope someone prints the truth, which i doubt but anyway.For me, though, the damage is done, whether Carter said those things or not. The fact that he remained so passive during all this thing, to me indicates that he knew exactly what was going to happen.
LikeLike
“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.”
You thought it was something sinister? It was not! To see what it was please watch a video of Michael’s birthday and the pie fight he and Aaron had there:
LikeLike
@vindicate,
There is nothing more in that video. Maybe he said other things but I doubt it, he clearly said he wanted to protect MJ’s legacy and never saw any sign of drug addiction. I think we should be more careful before claiming he is a backstabber.
LikeLike
This is my thing. Whether Aaron Carter said it or not, he could have cleared up this nonsense from the jump. If he did speak with Daphne Barak and she twisted/embellished what he said. Aaron could have come out and said hey, that is not what I told this woman.
The issue that’s been mentioned is that a trial is coming up and the media is playing into this thing. Well, you know this is something that shouldn’t be played with and left to play on the public’s mind without being checked. Now, I have seen certain people come all hard at Aaron which I don’t agree with cause there will never be a response from Aaron. On the flipside a lot of people that want Aaron to clarify this situation as well have approached him with respect.
As for as MJ’s kids not asking Aaron for an explanation. Well, they don’t even know who Aaron Carter is. Helena if you want to know the details on how I would know MJ’s kids doesn’t know who Aaron is think back to the ‘heads up’ email I sent you on Father’s Day.
LikeLike
Shelly, and all this fuss is about this video??? I’ve read only the transcript as Realplayer is not playing on my computer, but the transcript is next to innocent!
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 fliter 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. [HE DOESN’T SAY THAT MJ DID IT!]
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 a piano song)
AND THAT IS ALL???
LikeLike
I think it’s important to understand that Aaron never said what is in the article. He clearly said he never saw sign of drug addiction.
The video is edited but I doubt she would cut the worst part of it.
LikeLike
“The story is everywhere.”
The story is everywhere? Another proof that it is something BIG and absolutely no accidental – it was planned specifically for the trial to paint MJ as a drug-addict, affect the jury and acquit Murray at least in the public eye.
Why doesn’t good news about Michael spread like fire and is hushed up instead? Why did we learn, for example, what JC Agajanian had to say about Michael only two years after the event? Because the media have an agenda of their own and are “working” at forming a certain public opinion about MJ. This public opinion may very well affect the outcome of the trial and will smear Michael even more which has never ceased to be one of the media’s priorities.
“I just wish he’d say something about it”.
He will if only they hadn’t paid millions to him and he accepted. But even in this deplorable case we still know that the story is a LIE, as for many years before that Aaron said the opposite of what is being attributed to him now.
LikeLike
This is a transcript of that video
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 fliter 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 a piano song)
LikeLike
Well if I could add something to this as horrible a rumour this is and whether he said it or not; I think the real beef people have is this is not good timing whether true or not.
We know people won’t research this, we know this could effect a possible jury member and this is the major concern.
Dr treacy cannot say “MJ refused benzo” but the media can run this all over the world with no qualms what so ever. Because this doesn’t effect peoples mind set ahead of the trial does it?
Thats where most peoples anger is coming from.
Yes MJ being possibly betrayed AGAIN is frustrating (yet not really surprising anymore) but it’s the concequences of the lie is why people should want Mr Carter to speak not because he must or owe.
1 thing is for sure attacking him on twitter isn’t gunna solve anything… and also the crazy fan label will be thrown upon jackson fans again.
If we are Michael’s voice we MUST control our anger. I feel it, I can understand your point of view and feelings but personally I don’t care about this guy 1 way or another to be honest it doesn’t matter who says it somene needs to set the record straight. Enter stage Chris Tucker please.
LikeLike
This is the video of the interview. I don’t know if there is another part
http://daphnebarak.homestead.com/AaronCarterMichaelJacksonTributeVideoClip.html
LikeLike
“The whole thing got legs and ran.They don’t care if they tell the truth or not or how they get information if they even get information. The proof is in the pudding as they say when you realize that every story that has come out after Michaels death has a direct correlation to one that has been written about a thousand times before.”
Lynette, I agree and I am very much distressed that Michael’s fans allow themselves to be fooled so easily by some Daphne Bashir or whatever-her-name-is. The rule for learning the truth here is actually very simple – first we learn the true worth of the person who tells the story and if he/she let you down by spreading lies (at least once) there should be no power on earth which should make us believe these people again (unless they fully repent).
In the 19th century they called it REPUTATION and it was sometimes the reputation alone which was the best guarantee of a person’s word. A person didn’t even have to make a written contract because his partners just believed his word. However our Daphne Bashir seems to be having such a reputation (see the article by Mallika Chopra posted by Suzy here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mallika-chopra/bloodsuckers-and-the-worl_b_222023.html) that believing her is simply out of the question!
“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 tell 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 wellbeing 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.”
LikeLike
@ Helena
I hope he didn’t say this. I just wish he’d say something about it. The story is everywhere.
LikeLike
“From the Daily News article I linked in below. His own mother calls him a liar!”
Suzy, Aaron’s mother is the crux of the matter here. It is she who was hysterical after a simple party with Michael Jackson – so hysterical (or fame-seeking) that she wanted to go on national TV to speak about it.
“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 absolutely denied it that Michael had given him a Bentley and all of the above is just a piece of cheap garbage. Cheap, vulgar, primitive.
Please look up these videos again and see what Aaron really said about Michael:
LikeLike
That has been my sentiment from the minute that it was written. It’s gotten out of hand with each gossip site adding things to sometihing that was probably never said. The whole thing got legs and ran. I don’t know if you misunderstood but like you I don’t think that Aaron Carter owes me an explaination. I like you agree and say that it should be in calmer circumstances that AC even reply if he ever does. Shelly and I have the same feellings about a tabloid article because as she posted here a few days ago they work in very underhanded ways. They don’t care if they tell the truth or not or how they get information if they even get information. The proof is in the pudding as they say when you realize that every story that has come out after Michaels death has a direct correlation to one that has been written about a thousand times before.
LikeLike
“Doesn’t he understand that what he said, what was written on that tabloid would cause controversy and questions? So, you justify his reaction and his silence?”
Ares, we (or personally I) don’t justify anything here – I JUST DON’T BELIEVE DAPHNE BARAK and that is all there is to it.
I don’t believe her in the same way I don’t believe Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth, Bashir or Gutierrez. Moreover, if they say something negative about Michael’s friends it would be the best recommendation for me that these people are perfectly okay. What I mean is that some “journalists” lie so much that you take their “no” answer for a “yes” answer, and vice versa.
I think that Daphne Barak belongs to this category of people.
LikeLike
Before trashing Aaron, I think we shouldn’t forget that the story comes from Daphne Barak who did the fake Grace interview.
LikeLike
“he wasn’t very amused the first time Aaron lied about him: “ET is now saying Jackson’s people called to say he had never given Carter the car nor promised him one, and that Carter was lying.”
Wait a minute again. Carter never said that Michael had given him a car – it was a tabloid invention. He said Michael had given him a jacket, which was absolutely true.
LikeLike
“the quote comes from me”.
Lynette, I thought Aaron said it himself. If Aaron does not come up with a disclaimer or deletes some comments from fans – let me repeat it – it still doesn’t mean that he said all those things about Michael. The media created a wave of hatred towards him, he is being attacked from every corner now and in such a situation WE CANNOT EXPECT him to say anything positive at all. People tend to get extremely nervous in such circumstances.
If we want to get his reply we need to be calm about it, refrain from attacking him and should be ready to hear that he was fooled by Daphne Barak (who could have easily twisted his words). And even if he doesn’t refute her words after that – we will still know that he is lying (possibly for money) – because ALL his previous interviews were completely the opposite of what is being said now.
As to me I refuse to believe Daphne Barak’s words. She showed her worth several times by now – writing that sentimental BS about Aaron’s mother, attributing lies to Grace Rwaramba and now, most probably telling lies about Aaron.
If somebody deceives you once shame on him/her, but if somebody deceives you twice, shame on you.
Daphne Barak has deceived us several times, so how can we expect her to tell us the truth now???
LikeLike
@ Helena
“I don’t think that Michael would have fallen for this story that easily.”
I don’t know what Michael would think of it but he wasn’t very amused the first time Aaron lied about him: “ET is now saying Jackson’s people called to say he had never given Carter the car nor promised him one, and that Carter was lying.”
http://popdirt.com/michael-jackson-denies-giving-aaron-carter-a-bentley/23974/
And that was right after his arrest! What a “friend”!
From the Daily News article I linked in below. His own mother calls him a liar!
“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!”
OK, he later defended him, but he’s a drug addict and he’s unpredictable. When drug addicts are in need of money they will do anything for it! And he’s in desperate need of money now, he’s in huge debts.
LikeLike
@lynande51
Ιf he hasn’t say anything wrong agains MJ why not answer?Doesn’t he understand that what he said, what was written on that tabloid would cause controvercy and questions? So, you justify his reaction and his silence? He said that MJ gave him cocaine and wine.Surelly he would know that when you make claims of this kind, expecially for someone like MJ, lots of people will ask you if those claims are true. So again, why hasn’t he said anything one week now if he didn’t say those things or hiw words were twisted by that journalist. Am sorry Lynette but i won’t make excuses for the guy.Am not his fan i don’t care about him. I care about what he said regarding MJ, i care about all those people out there calling MJ all kind of names because of this dude right here, i care about all those articles out there who copy and paste his claims without making a simple fact checking. But i guess the damage is done. He got the publicity and the money that he wanted. MJ is again the one that loses.
LikeLike
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2004/11/08/2004-11-08_a_nite_with_jacko.html
What an INCREDIBLE PIECE OF BS the above article is! It is so full of lies – flat, primitive, open lies – that it is sickening to read it! And again this Daphne Barak is involved! No, the more I read about this whole Aaron’s business the more crazy soap opera I see.
LikeLike
But it is not Michael’s children that are asking him about it is it?
Elena the quote comes from me.
LikeLike
” He does not owe anyone from the fan community an explanation.”
Suzy, where does this quote come from?
LikeLike
” He does not owe anyone from the fan community an explaination.” – Lynette
No, he doesn’t. He owns Michael Jackson’s, his former friend as he called him,children an appology and an explanation why the whole internet today is filled up with articles that basically call their father a cocain provider and a pedophile.This is a week old story. He had plenty of time to give an answer on if he said it or not. His silence speaks volumes. We have to agree to disagree on this but to tell you the truth i think that he will take this story further.
LikeLike
“So glad, my friend Aaron Carter is joining me for a gala in Marbella. What a perfect place to kick off his upcoming record?”
You mean Aaron sold his friend for the promotion of his record? Possible too, but the interpretations of this betrayal can be made only if the fact of the betrayal is substantiated. It seems to me that the media is doing to Aaron what they did to Michael – only involving Michael’s fans into this campaign and using their hands for the purpose. Something makes me extremely wary here – I don’t think that Michael would have fallen for this story that easily. He knew what the media was like and was always ready to give a person the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
@ Lynette
He WAS interviewed by Daphne Barak. It was in Spain a couple of weeks ago where Aaron had a concert.
” He does not owe anyone from the fan community an explaination.”
He does not owe us anything, however he owes it to Michael to defend him if he didn’t say this. If he’s a friend he should shoot it down.
LikeLike
BTW, here is the story with Aaron’s mother in 2004 that Aaron denied later: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2004/11/08/2004-11-08_a_nite_with_jacko.html
Look who made this interview too!
“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.”
This was Aaron’s reaction to it at the time: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,784076,00.html
LikeLike
If you look on Daphne Barack’s twitter page, here is her last entry: May 29 – So glad, my friend Aaron Carter is joining me for a gala in Marbella. What a perfect place to kick off his upcoming record?
Starpulse is now running the story with the title: Aaron Carter – Michael Jackson tried to touch me.
This is making me sick!
LikeLike
Someone on his twitter page tweeted: “Tip of the day don’t believe everything you read.” It may be that his followers all 22 of them know more about it than we do. One more question: why does anyone think that Aaron Carter should respond to any Michael Jackson fan about anything , let alone a tabloid article? He does not owe anyone from the fan community an explaination. As I said before they took information from a name that was once tied to MJ and used that name for another purpose. Of course it would be nice if he were to come out and say that he was not interviewed or did not say what was written but maybe he just needs more time to grow up. You know don’t you that when you say it is all over the internet that you are just as responsible for spreading it as the haters are.
LikeLike
@ Helena
I hoped that Aaron didn’t say this, but it would be pretty simple for him to make it clear if he didn’t. He knows about the story! If Daphne Barak deceived him he could say so. Instead he blocks and threatens people who ask him about it.
LikeLike
“unfortunately he did say it. People have contacted him, have asked him to say them if the said it and he has either blocked them, delete their messages or threatened to sue them”.
Wait a minute please! The fact that he blocked someone, deleted their messages or threatened to sue them DOES NOT mean he said anything to this poor excuse of a journalist. He could have talked to her (so he cannot deny it) and she could have deceived him the way Bashir deceived Michael. Now the whole fans’ community is turning against him though they do not really know what he said and whether he said it at all! Fans may be saying vile things to him and he is naturally defending himself from them.
Please do not pass judgment on Aaron until you know for sure that he did say something bad about Michael.
Given the reputation of this journalist you can very well expect her to have set up Aaron in the same way she tried to do it with Grace.
The story is spreading all over internet now because people are not immune to lies. Haters have thrown another of their stones to probe the public gullibility and the public has easily swallowed it again.
What a shame.
LikeLike
Helena, unfortunatelly he did say it. People have contacted him, have asked him to say them if the said it and he has either blocked them, delete their messages or threatened to sue them. This story is all over internet right now – spreading with every minute that passes- without anyone trying to make the smallest factcheck. The old hate agains MJ has returned and some of the comments that i have read are really very cold and insensitive. People are ready to believe anything about him and the fact that this Carter dude is so famous makes things even worse.
There’s no exsuce for him. No one made him say anything,no conspiracy at all. He said it, he sold his friend without any guilt for money and now he is trying to hide. He is a bloody coward and he is responsible for dragging MJ name though the mud even now that he is dead. When i learned the story yesterday i reacted like you, i didn’t want to believe it. But no, Carter is no better than the Arvizos and the Chandlers.
LikeLike
“I feel sick on how easy those people can betray MJ for money.”
Ares, it seems to me that this is just another of the media lies and Aaron is not betraying anyone. There are numerous videos and articles where Aaron vehemently defends Michael from various accusations vs. one tabloid story allegedly “reproducing” Aaron’s words. No proof, no tape, no nothing – only an allegation that he said it accompanied by a picture of him. And a statement made by a journalist who previously slandered Grace Rwaramba in the same manner.
By publishing a thing like that haters kill two (or three, or more) birds with one stone:
– turn Michael’s fans against a person who has been a big supporter of Michael until now
– make him look like a liar to neutralize his possible words of support for Michael at the trial or in the media (“previously he said that, now he says this, so he is a liar”)
– cover Michael with more dirt by telling stories about “him taking drugs”
– make the public sympathize with Dr. Murray and prepare the people for his acquittal,
– etc.
It is a typical slander campaign starting with nothing – absolutely nothing!
I personally will look at this story more or less seriously only if I hear or see the tape of him saying those words. Without that tape – NO WAY!
LikeLike
i think i saw this on sevens page about carter owing the i.r.s a million dollars..,so i put this article on diane dimonds pagehttp://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Singer-Aaron-Carter-Owes-IRS-52503-1.html
if you look at perrez hilton or even, dianes page, no body is buying it.the funny thing to me is that on dimonds fb page people are saying he is lying for tabloid money., and she never comes back and tells people she paid for stories herself….perhaps some of them are not familiar with how she makes her living..
LikeLike
The entire Carter family were all on the witness list and had been interviewed by both the police and the defense. According to the MJ Timeline found in the blog role you can see the descrepencies in Daphne Baraks story. There was a party at Neverland and according to Aaron back then Chris Tucker was with them all evening. Then the next day there is the 45th birthday party with the fans and emcee’d by Steve Harvey with Access Hollywood there the whole time. On September 13th there was a Celebrity Charity Bash at Neverland. That was the night that supposedly Jane Carter was upset about because Aaron did not come home. Note in the timeline that Michael shows up for about five minutes and then leaves after a food fight with the Carter boys when they presented him with a belated birthday cake. None of it makes any sense if you know his timeline. If they want to show me the Bently that Michael bought them and the bill of sale that would go a long way to proving what that tabloid says but of course there is no Bently is there. For once just show me the proof.
Now suddenly, 2 years after his death Aaron decides, with the help of his mother, that Michael was the one that introduced him to drugs? The story is bogus and if people would research it a little more then we wouldn’t need to discuss it here. It is all very old information that has just been recycled again and again. Just Google the Michael Jackson Aaron Carter food fight. I for one have no faith that Aaron Carter even said any of this considering that the interview was supposed to have taken place in Spain and then suddenly shows up in an Australian rag tabloid.what a way to ressurect a dead career.Haven’t the Carter’s heard of Justin Beiber? They can’t get over that fact that their day is over.Maybe they should just try singing again instead of using Michael Jackson for a free spokesman.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/81884/access-hollywood-backstage-michael-jacksons-45th-birthday-celebration
LikeLike
From what i read people contacted with that Aaron douchebag and he either deleted their messages or threatened to sue them. What a stupid coward. I hope his guilts, if the meth has left him any sence, eat him alive. Parasite.
LikeLike
Rodney Jerkins (who was also there at that birthday party) tweeted this:
ONLY1DARKCHILD Rodney Jerkins
People need to chill out and let MJ rest in peace.
8 minutes ago
Rodney Jerkins
ONLY1DARKCHILD Rodney Jerkins
Reading this interview that @iamaaroncarter did about MJ. Im so tired of people trying to make a name for them self on the count of MJ.
LikeLike
@julie
Yes, it was during the Arvizo investigation. There are no police reports, it was not in the media. His mom never call the police and we don’t even know if he really said that.
LikeLike
I watched The Wiz the other day and when Michael is up on the pole singing “You Can’t Win” with the crows, it just made me realize how true that was for him in life. It doesn’t matter what good he did, he couldn’t win once the media pounced full force on him. That poor man! That is why I continue to cry over his death and his life. I have never felt so completely sorry for one man in my entire life.
The other thing that just utterly makes me sick is the fact that Aaron Carter would say that now of all times knowing the man has 3 children left behind. Does no one care about those children?
LikeLike
Wouldn’t that also be around the same time that Michael was being investigated due to the Arvizo mess?
LikeLike
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.”
On single life after dating Lindsay Lohan and Hilary Duff: “My career is my girlfriend. I don’t consider myself with anybody, but I’ve been seeing a couple of people. There was a Hawaiian Tropic model I was seeing named Monique. She’s really cool. We’re just friends now.”
On women he’s attracted to: “I’m not going to tell you, ‘Oh, looks don’t matter.’ If you don’t look good, get away from me!”
On his next career move: “My sound is definitely changing (for an upcoming album). It is going to have more of an R&B vibe with some rock. It’s influenced by Craig David, Usher and Justin Timberlake.”
Meanwhile, Carter’s mother Jane stands by her decision to go on television and question the night her son spent with Jackson.
“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.”
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,784076,00.html
LikeLike
From what I could find the mom was mad at Nick because he left Aaron at Michaels house with Chris Tucker and Rodney Jerkins and when Howard Stern (gag) was interviewing the brothers and implying all kinds of stuff Aaron and Nick both defended Michael. Howard even stated that Aaron and Nick’s sister claimed Michael and Aaron smoked pot together which Aaron vehemently denied.
It wasn’t picked up by TMZ as far as I can tell and they love to post anything negative about MJ.
LikeLike
Fans say they tried to ask him through his Twitter but he doesn’t answer and blocks everybody who asks him about it, even threatens them to sue them for “harassment”. His refusal to say anything about the story to me suggests he indeed did say it to Daphne Barak (who probably paid him well for it), but he’s not man enough to either admit he said it or to deny it. Instead he blocks and threatens people who question him about it. What a little cowardly rat!
He’s a drug addict so he was probably in desperate need of cash.
LikeLike
@shelly
Yeah, i don’t care where he said it and yes, he really said it. For money. Yesterday there were 3 articles with this story. Now, i don’t even count. No one is going to fact check this, no one is going to question his motives, they are just going to copy and paste it and ones more MJ’s name will be drag on mud. I feel disgusted and sick at how people keep backstabing Michael for money. Parasites all of them, they should be ashamed of themselfs.
LikeLike
LikeLike
this is the article with aaron carter..http://www.okmagazine.com.au/insider/michael-gave-me-drugs.htm
diane dimond had it on her fb page.most comments on her fb page were pro mj and said this kid is full of it..that michael was innocent and this kids career is in the toilet etc..
of course she eats this stuff up but if his mother called the police , sneddon would have had him as a witness, but he and his brother were prepared to testify for the defense…..diane dimond woudld realize this ..she is just so blinded by hate and bigotry imo,she will never change….his mother accused his brothers manager of some kind of weird stuff too
here he is on howard stern specifically saying he never had wine..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtURiWjGM8o
LikeLike
And yes, like Shelly said, had Aaron’s mother really called the police there would be police records about that and Sneddon could have used them in the trial. There aren’t such records.
Aaron is rumoured to have a long time problem with drugs but those predate this 2003 birthday party at Neverland and have nothing to do with Michael. See these pictures:
If he did drugs at Neverland or elsewhere it’s not because Michael gave it to him! Like Aaron said Chris Tucker and Rodney Jerkins were with them that day, so they surely can testify to what happened.
BTW, Aaron is in $1.1 m debt now and as we know tabloids tend to pay for what they want to hear. But of course, we first have to establish if Aaron really said this which is not sure at all, the article coming from Daphne Barak.
LikeLike
I’m sceptical about whether Aaron really said this. The journalist is Daphne Barak. Do you know who she is? If not, then please read this article by Mallika Chopra:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mallika-chopra/bloodsuckers-and-the-worl_b_222023.html
“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 tell 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 wellbeing 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.”
LikeLike
From what I could find the mom was mad at Nick because he left Aaron at Michaels house with Chris Tucker and Rodney Jerkins and when Howard Stern (gag) was interviewing the brothers and implying all kinds of stuff Aaron and Nick both defended Michael. Howard even stated that Aaron and Nick’s sister claimed Michael and Aaron smoked pot together which Aaron vehemently denied.
LikeLike
It’s a tabloid story, we don’t know what he really said and by the way go on google news or highbeam, his mother never called the police in 2004 or 2005.
LikeLike
It’s OK mag Australia
http://www.okmagazine.com.au/insider/michael-gave-me-drugs.htm
Previous comments from Aaron:
http://popdirt.com/michael-jackson-denies-giving-aaron-carter-a-bentley/23974/
December 24, 2003
Michael Jackson Denies Giving Aaron Carter A Bentley
Aaron Carter claimed in a recent interview with Entertainment Tonight that Michael Jackson bought him a $325,000 Bentley “even though I had only met him twice. It was weird.” ET is now saying Jackson’s people called to say he had never given Carter the car nor promised him one, and that Carter was lying. But a rep for Carter tells The New York Post: “I don’t know why Michael would deny his generosity. Aaron is very grateful for the car [which has yet to arrive], and, by the way, Aaron did not attend the concert for Michael over the weekend at Neverland.”
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.”
Wednesday November 17, 2004 04:40 PM EST
een 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.”
On single life after dating Lindsay Lohan and Hilary Duff: “My career is my girlfriend. I don’t consider myself with anybody, but I’ve been seeing a couple of people. There was a Hawaiian Tropic model I was seeing named Monique. She’s really cool. We’re just friends now.”
On women he’s attracted to: “I’m not going to tell you, ‘Oh, looks don’t matter.’ If you don’t look good, get away from me!”
On his next career move: “My sound is definitely changing (for an upcoming album). It is going to have more of an R&B vibe with some rock. It’s influenced by Craig David, Usher and Justin Timberlake.”
Meanwhile, Carter’s mother Jane stands by her decision to go on television and question the night her son spent with Jackson.
“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.”
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.”
7/18/10
http://www.sandy-lo.com/aaron-carter-talks-new-music-michael-jackson-struggles-in-new-interview/
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.
LikeLike
Does anyone know where the Aaron Carter story originated? I mean it’s all over the Internet but I can’t find it on OK magazine’s website or Daphne Barack’s website.
LikeLike
Sorry Ares, I accidentally added an I to your name…..
LikeLike
Aries
Yeah, that’s basically what’s he’s doing is stabbing his friend in the back now that Michael can’t defend himself to get attention. This obviously will get more media attention than if he would have said something positive. I wish I could say I’m surprised by this but I’m not. He’s just another so-called friend to add to the list of sell-outs. We’re all finding out who Michael’s real friends were and Aaron Carter was clearly not one of them.
LikeLike
I didn’t know where to post this so i decided to put it here. Look what Aaron Carter has to say about MJ now,
“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 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…’”
So Aaron has changed his tune because apparently he is in desperate need for money and his releasing a new album. So what best way than by stabing your friend in the back?
Here what he had said about MJ before.
Am realy disgusted to tell the truth. I feel sick on how easy those people can betray MJ for money.
LikeLike
The comment below is an answer to Pete King´s barrage against Michael.
See tape Oct.31 2010.
LikeLike
So,who was it? Michael Jackson arraigned and re-wrote his ” What more
can I give” following the 9/11 attacks.It was for all the people, the fire men and police and all others.
LikeLike
@ Shelly
Rebbie Jackson has a “cordial” relationship with Mr. Stacy Brown, author of “The Man Behind The Mask”. In April 2010, she performed at a concert that he emceed, and that is the equivalent to letting Bashir, Grace, or Dimond emcee her concert! On the day MJ died, he posted an article stating that Rebbie’s husband called him to let him know about his death, so that tells me that they’re obviously on very good terms. In February, the National Association of Social Workers published a article about Rebbie’s “Pick Up The Phone” tour, and initially stated that “Stacy Brown”, her manager, initiated the story. I called Greg Wright, the author of that article, and he said that it was neither Mr. Stacy Brown, or Rebbie’s daughter Stacey, but nevertheless Mr. Stacy Brown has some sort of relationshp with her; otherwise there is no way on Earth Rebbie would be anywhere near him at her concert. On his Linked In account, he stated that he was Rebbie’s “manager” but when Ana and I asked Yashi (Rebbie’s other daughter) about it on Facebook, he immediately deleted that entry (although I saved a cached version).
Shelly, you can do a google search to see his Twitter account, and all of the trashy things he said about MJ. To me, this is a NON-ISSUE. Rebbie doesn’t owe anyone an explanation or apology, and I couldn’t care less who she’s friends with. It’s disappointing, but I’m not losing sleep over this, and I don’t want to talk too much because we have more important things to research right now
LikeLike
@suzy
Yes it means she isn’t shady after all.
LikeLike
That’s good to hear Shelly.
LikeLike
Ana Piszczek
Update:
Rebbie Jackson’s daughter, Yashi Brown, confirmed for me that Mr. Stacy Brown is NOT her mother, Rebbie’s manager: http://www.facebook.com/yashibrown/posts/10150168460668885?notif_t=feed_comment
Cap’n Ana PiszczekCap’n Yashi Brown
Yashi: Is your sister, Stacy Ann Brown Salas, your mother, Rebbie Jackson’s manager? The rumor on the MJ fan boards is that Rebbie’s manager is the same Mr. Stacy Brown who wrote: “Michael Jackson, The Man Behind the Mask.” Will you please help us clear up the confusion? TIA 🙂
Yashi Brown No..Lol. “Michael Jackson, The Man Behind the Mask” Stacy Brown is not my mother’s manager nor is my sister!! OMG that would be a trainwreck.. Love ya Stace.
’bout 9 turn o’ yer hourglass ago · No longer agreein’Arr! · 1 scallywag
25 mars, 16:31.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=205023347221&v=wall
LikeLike
I don’t know where to post it, it’s about Rebbie Jackson. We were speaking about Stacy Brown being his manager but apparently it’s not the same Stacy Brown
“Actually its not its not the same Stacy Brown who manages Rebbie
Nothing is wrong with Rebbie.
Greg Wright, who runs the NASW blog, called Rebbie to verify which
Stacy Brown had called them about her tour, & he was told that
there are 3 Stacy Browns:
1) Rebbie’s daughter, Stacy Brown, who works for Rebbie
2) a publicist for Rebbie named Stacy Brown,
3) the author of “Man Behind the Mask,” Stacy Brown who does NOT work for Rebbie
The NASW article was corrected
And Stacy Brown himself deny’s it on his twitter
@StacyBrown11405 Great (angry) email at work today. Someone
thought I was a music manager. Wow! smh. Never ever pretended
to be one either. ”
http://www.lipstickalley.com/f227/rebbie-jackson-answers-call-283087/index6.html
LikeLike
@ Helena,
I remember the prequal to this topic, because I came to you about the article under discussion. Just to refresh your memory:
A see-through-lies MANUAL Lesson 1
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 or some kind of TRAINING SESSION 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”.
In the above you outlined what the article really was about, what needed to be paid attention to and what was the real message to the reader and the message possible purpose.
I brought this back up because I have been going through some of Dimond’s Blogs and found one which on reading again realized I had missed something very important in the introduction to her article.
Dimond’s opening narrative to: “The Feds Whitewash Jackson”
“The FBI’s “explosive” Michael Jackson files only reveal one thing, says the saga’s chronicler, Diane Dimond: The feds had no real interest in actually prosecuting the King of Pop.”
1) This is to explain away the accusations she has and will make which aren’t found in the FBI File.
2) The FBI does not “PROSECUTE” They are Fed Cops. Their job is to investigate, collect, analyze and arrest persons suspected of violating Fed Laws. The DOJ is the Fed Prosecutors.
3) Whitewash: To cover up…….or……. To acquit/vindicate
Now here is a word that has been striped of all but its’ negative Synonyms .
4) saga’s chronicler: she is obliquely giving herself the title of Michael’s biographer.
Talk about “self proclaim”.
5) “had no real interest”: At the time most focused in on this phrase and discussed the number of Agents and Fed Agencies involved not knowing this was addressing the FBI’s initial refusal to help the DA’s Office create a case or that there appears to have been at least one Senior Agent who had reservations about some of the requests.
I suspect Dimond was surprised to see all her informer “tips” removed. Which only goes to show you how dumb she is. That she would want FBI/Police exposed extortionist’s plots attributed to her is nuts. However, there is the fact that without all her “helpful” tips display in the file it makes it hard to continue to talk about “all” those other victims that only she and the Cops knew.of.
Once again it is someone else fault that she cannot verify her and her “best source” information. She is saying: “I know what was in there, but they removed it to protect Jackson”
Yes I can see that happening because it was in the FBI’s best interest, did wonders for their image to have it known the number of years wasted on this case coming away looking like a group desperate to make the shoe fit when it did not.
(I am updating my rebuttal dialog and want to ensure I haven’t missed anything or reading too much into the sentence.)
LikeLike
Duh dormant. Not dominant.
LikeLike
David,
Here is one of my favorites. I always get a warm feeling towards Dimond whenever I come across this particular stunt. There are so many inconsistencies and outright lies in this story it is unbelievable. These types of stories are like viruses. They adapt, mutate and survive well within their environment. You never quite kill it. It is dominant lying in wait for the non-inoculated.
http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/story/police-pick-up-jackson.s-dirty-underpants
The more of this garbage I ran across which is still readily available and read the more I am amazed that there are any who believe in Michael. The sheer volume and repetition alone is historic in a news event.
LikeLike
@ Visitor
I’m currently writing a report that will refute the things that she has said in her articles. It will be ready in a few weeks. In the meantime, this article should make you feel better! Orth has been known to use unconfirmed, unnamed, and unreliable second-hand sources for her articles, and nearly all of it can be thoroughly debunked with some research (especially in regards to the allegations.)
She was caught plagiarizing stories from the National Enquirer, and here is an excerpt from the article:
It turns out that writer Maureen Orth, whom I have cited before as lifting material from this column, and other places, in her recent Jackson reporting, got her latest scoops from the National Enquirer.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109820,00.html
LikeLike
We must do something about that Maureen Orth’s articles. I tried to read some of them and they really made my blood freeze. Is there any truth in what she is writting?Has anyone written any article or blog where they debunke her? Man i can not believe that a respectable jurnalist like her could writte those things.And she is not trying to hide her hate.UNBELIEVABLE. Did Michael or his family ever try to sue her?
LikeLike
“Whenever you’re dealing with haters, be on the lookout for these 2 types of reasoning, in addition to loaded questions!”
Just my final comment today about the haters’ reasoning – fortunately I feel their tricks without knowing the right word for them and can tell you of a couple of other tricks they use.
For example, they like making a false statement and then arrange a hoopla over it and this hoopla is so big that it actually replaces the fact itself and the need to prove it. People feel that when there is so much noise about something the existence of the fact cannot be questioned – it simply doesn’t dawn on them that the ‘fact’ may be missing altogether if so many ‘experts’, talking heads, etc. are discussing it.
Another trick is to present something which is utterly humiliating to a person just to throw some dirt at him though this ‘something’ does not provide any evidence of any ‘crime’ whatsoever. The example of the trick is Diane Dimond demonstrating somebody’s dirty underwear on TV well after the 2005 trial and claiming it was MJ’s and sending it to the DA for checking if it was his.
What is the big idea except humiliating the person and turning him into a clown at whom everyone laughs? Even if the lab proves that it is his, SO WHAT? Is it proof of any molestation? What is it supposed to say to anyone except that DD is playing cruel jokes on people live on TV? What if someone goes on TV, shows some woman’s dirty pants, says it is Diane Dimond’s and sends it to the lab to prove it is hers? What other meaning will it have except her utter humiliation?
I don’t know the correct name for the trick but it should be something like misdirection of people’s attention from important clean evidence to some unimportant dirt, the mere dirtiness of which is meant to replace the evidence itself.
LikeLike
Helena, here are two other methods of attack that the media uses to bash MJ. I’ve referenced them before in m previous posts.
1. Ad hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem- means to “appeal to one’s biases and prejudices instead of their ability to think”. Haters use this fallacious argument all of the time! For example, when Congressman Peter King rhetorically asks “would you let your kids be around Michael Jackson?” He’s implying that because MJ is a “freak”, you should automatically be concerned for your kids’ safety when they are around him. We all know that this line of reasoning is fallacious because one’s looks has no effect on their desire to abuse children.
Another type of ad hominem attack used against MJ is this: “MJ is guilty because he has his own miniature Disney Land in his backyard! Neverland is a p.’s paradise!!”
2. Ad populum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_populum – This is another fallacious argument that haters, primarily the media, love to use as well. An ad populum argument is one that “asserts that a proposition must be true because the majority of people believe it to be true”. Before Christopher Columbus circumnavigated the globe and found North America, everyone believed that the earth was flat, but obviously that’s not true! Similarly, the majority of people believed that MJ was guilty, and obviously that’s not true either! Charles Thomson quoted some statistics in his recent article:
A poll conducted by Gallup in the hours after the verdict showed that 54% of White Americans and 48% of the overall population disagreed with the jury’s decision of ‘not guilty’. The poll also found that 62% of people felt Jackson’s celebrity status was instrumental in the verdicts. 34% said they were ‘saddened’ by the verdict and 24% said they were ‘outraged’. In a Fox News poll 37% of voters said the verdict was ‘wrong’ while an additional 25% said ‘celebrities buy justice’. A poll by People Weekly found that a staggering 88% of readers disagreed with the jury’s decision.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html
Whenever you’re dealing with haters, be on the lookout for these 2 types of reasoning, in addition to loaded questions!
LikeLike
Dialdancer, thanks for the link. The full version of the link taking you directly to the article is this: http://www.laweekly.com/2010-05-20/la-life/paul-abramson-the-sexpert/
At first I thought Paul Abramson had something to do with it and almost put him on my waiting-list for further research but then realized that it was just a journalist’s trick – he is habitually and shamelessly lying about Michael as if these lies were an established fact. Just slandering Michael from force of habit or out of malice – a usual and very deplorable thing. I hope it will backfire on him one day – everyone reaps what he sows.
However all the readers were outraged by the journalist’s irresponsibility and this is a great change from what things were like in the past – the truth IS taking over! It is our job and duty to leave our comment to all such lies to show them that hate has a limit in time and space while the power of love is eternal and infinite.
LikeLike
I’m glad you wrote about this Helena. People have poor or nonexistent reading comprehension skills. Nowhere in the agreement does it state Jordan Chandler cannot speak about the allegations. The only restrictions he and his parents have is that they can’t participate in any “commercial exploitation” of the allegations. In other words they can’t get paid. [IMG]http://i51.tinypic.com/2uf8ua9.jpg[/IMG]
MJ can’t make money off of the allegations either. [IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/2h4jgd2.jpg[/IMG]
In the United States, an agreement or any other legal document cannot prevent or penalize monetarily or in any other way someone who wants to speak about an allege crime. That would be illegal.
LikeLike
Helena,
I know you are taking a well earned break, but I ran across this article in a MJJC Forum discussion thread. At that time they were soliciting for MJ responders to the article. There are others like this using well known persons and the trial to keep the taint on Michael.
I thought you might like to take a look at this. Once I know exactly what is really being said the matter of addressing it is easier.
From LA Weekly: Paul Abramson: The Sexpert
“Maybe you are a Catholic priest who strung young boys up on a cross, naked except for a loincloth. Or maybe you are Michael Jackson, accused of molesting a 13-year-old. Or maybe you are a policewoman who let her boyfriend repeatedly rape her 6-year-old daughter. If you are caught doing something sexual and illegal, as in the aforementioned true-life situations, chances are that Professor Paul Abramson will be there to testify at your court case.”
http://www.laweekly.com/2010-05-20/l…n-the-sexpert/
LikeLike
Helena,
Thank you. I welcome any help in developing investigating and rebuttal skills. If I gave the impression I believed that or most articles on Michael are written by the misinformed or placed because there is nothing else to write about……I don’t. It was refreshing and uplifting to see such an article addressed in a non-verbally abuse manner, backed by facts from MJ’s Supporters.
After reading your narrative I realize the article was so insidious that I missed critical points. I am looking forward to this and hope there will be many more to join me. I’ve gathered my school supplies, let the learning begin.
Again Thanks,
Dialdancer
LikeLike