1,385 Viewers The Whitest Boy Alive - Burning Listen to 'Burning' by The Whitest Boy Alive on indiego blue - your daily dose of indie / alternative music.

Great article. I never really understood the fuzz why everybody speculated that he was MJs son, and why there was such a blown-up confusion. In Norway, where Bhatti lives, as do I, there was a huge media thing.

I never really understood why Omer Bhatti wouldn’t just come out and dismiss it. Was it so difficult to say he wasn’t his son? And he didn’t seem to enjoy the attention around it all. He seemed almost touchy about it. And since he didn’t flat out deny it, and slightly evaded answering it for a long time, a lot of people seemed to think there must be something to it. Why didn’t he want to answer if he was related? Could he be his son?

Many speculated. A lot was written. This article makes a whole lot of sense though. The whole daddy/son-thing was an elaborate cover-up for their relationship initially. Jackson simply set out the rumor to make it look less suspicious for the public and people around him, and Bhatti was in on the cover-up as a kid. Unfortunately for Omer, it left him in a tricky situation later, when everybody was asking. Why was he sitting in the front row with the family at the funeral?

Omer was nervous that him living 6 years with Jackson as a kid, sleeping in his bed, without them being related after all, was going to make people suspicious, and the secret in the box he still shares with the ghost of Michael was going to be revealed. No wonder he was so touchy about the question when journalists asked him. ______________ I’ll re-post what I wrote in the other Bhatti-thread, since it kind of drowned in all the posts.

In case new readers shows up. This was said in context with the molestation allegations, when he was asked in an interview. “I don’t wish to say too much about it, but I will say Michael in many ways was very innocent. But you can’t expect everybody to have the same view on everything. [] To him certain things was natural and completely innocent, things that not necessarily all people would view the same way.” •. Omer and his family have been notoriously silent about Jackson and what went down.

While they have given interviews, they mainly spoke in platitudes or only gave generalized information. They never really spoke about Jackson at all although we do know that every visitor to Neverland had to sign a non disclosure agreement. Lots of people are afraid of being sued – which they can be even if the reveal fairly innocuous details of their time at Neverland. Thanks for posting that quote from Omer again about the molestation. Not exactly a denial, is it? I’ve added it to the article nevertheless Andreas. I have argued with a Youtube fan who insisted Omer Bhatti was Jacko’s son.

She had even created those ridiculous side-by-side pictures of Omer & distant Jackson relatives to “prove” Omer was a Jackson. Frank Cascio spells out Jacko’s claim of paternity in his book “My Friend Michael”: (use your browser search for “Omer”) Then Jacko comes clean (search “Omer”): Funny is that Frank claims that Jacko could have lied about Omer Bhatti being his son to appease some Arab Sheiks who stressed the importance of family.

Jun 15, 2015. Here was a man who had, according to his own statements, suffered greatly as a result of his close relationships with boys. He had been accused of child molestation, been forced into a humiliating strip search where his genitals were photographed, and eventually had to pay multi millions of dollars to two.

I don’t know if that’s Frank’s genuine speculation, however; it sounds like B.S. — I think he knew Jacko was up to something with Omer (being a loved boy himself). He also said, interestingly, that the Bhattis coming into his life represented the “yes people” with whom he liked to surround himself. I personally believe Frank was jealous of Omer — his claim of liking “Little Monkey” rang false to me. He probably was jealous, too, that Jacko & Omer had a little “father-son” scam going.

Being a boy aging out of Jacko’s favor, it couldn’t have felt good. This is pure comic gold, Pea. From Frank Cascio’s book about Michael, in his own words: “So in Paris I stayed in my own room and didn’t see Michael for a whole day. The next day he called me to his room. “I’d like to introduce you to someone,” Michael said.

“You can call him ‘Little Michael.’” At some point during the night, Michael pulled me aside and revealed that Little Michael was his son. I’d never heard of this child, never seen him, didn’t recall a single reference to him in the ten years I’d known Michael. But in Michael’s world I knew to expect the unexpected.

This was just another unpredictable turn. I started laughing, saying, “Are you serious?” Michael told me that once, on an earlier tour, he’d met a blond Norwegian girl and that he’d had an affair with a fan for the first time. This girl had gotten pregnant, but when she had the baby, she literally went mad, overwhelmed by the notion that she was having Michael Jackson’s baby. Now, his story went, the mother was in a mental institution. The baby supposedly was adopted by a Norwegian woman named Pia, who was a nurse in the psychiatric hospital, or something like that. He’d been raised by Pia and her husband, Riz Bhatti. So Michael was in Tunisia, and he heard about a kid who had won some kind of Michael Jackson look-alike dance competition— possibly one of the kids in the crowd outside the hotel.

Michael wanted to meet him, so the winner, Omer, was brought up to the hotel room. When Michael saw him, he noticed the similarities in their appearance and wondered if this could be his child from the affair in 1984.

Indeed, as fate would have it, he was that very child, or at least, so Michael said.” (Later in the book) “Not long after Michael had introduced me to Omer, he’d told me the truth—that Omer wasn’t really his son. His parents were Pia and Riz—the couple who, in Michael’s original story, were his adoptive parents. I didn’t even pretend to be surprised. Omer looked just like Pia and Riz. By way of an explanation, Michael gave me the same reason he’d given for his marriages to Lisa Marie and Debbie Rowe.

He needed to show the Saudi prince and the rest of the Arab business world that he had a family. I wasn’t sure how discovering a long-lost illegitimate son boosted Michael’s image with bin Talal, but that was his story” ________ I don’t know which version I find the funniest. The one where a norwegian girl, he was supposedly having an affair with, was put into a mental institution as she went mad for having MJs son because she was so overwhelmed, and that later this son magically won a MJ dance contest in Tunisa and met him Or that he somehow needed to give the impression that he had a son, to please the Arab Business world and some arabian prince, sheik or whatever? Anyway, I especially enjoy the megalomanic touch of his cover-up stories. He was a true entertainer. Thanks for posting them completely, Andreas.

I was too lazy. 🙂 When I read Frank’s book, I also thought it was amusing that he pretty much said that he was informed by Jacko himself that Jacko’s marriages were fake — this tends to explain why they were so brief.

But I’m not seeing why Jacko would need to procure a random boy from a far away land to be his “son”, to appease a family oriented Sheik, when he had a new baby on the way? This Paris meeting would’ve been June 1997, according to the HIStory tour schedule, so he had the baby & the wife Why tell Frank about a secret son? I think Jacko was just covering his own hide — he got Omer, crafting an elaborate story, and didn’t want anyone to know about what he was up to. Poor bin Talal getting the blame for Jacko’s pedo-sneakiness!

I recently read Raymond Chandlers “All That Glitters”, and if you’re interested in what really went on with the Chandlers, and everything leading up to the settlement, the myths about it being an extortion and so on, its recommendable. Its written from Evan Chandlers point of view, but you get to know Jordy and June too. I got answered most questions I had about that case. I actually also learnt a lot about Michael Jackson with this book, how he thinks, how he mixed that innocent childlike sweetheart persona with a hidden and almost disturbingly calculated mind. Nothing Michael did was a coincidence, even if he perhaps seemed to act like otherwise. He was always thinking many many many steps ahead all the time, wether it was business related, or “otherwise”, like with these boys. It was for example Michael that orchestrated the ideas that Evan was only after money, and it only being extortion, when he was trying to protect his son.

He played Evan against the mother brilliantly, according to later reflections of Evan. But most of all I learnt about Evan Chandler, who I must say, was a quite fascinating person himself. Yes, all the books thats not pro-Jackson usually has very low ratings on Amazon. Many of the reviews don’t even try to pretend they’ve even read the books.

The book I am most curious about is the Victor Gutierrez book. For those who didn’t know it was pulled off the market quite quick, so its incredibly rare, but its possible to get a used copy for around 100$. Does anyone have this book? And what is it about? Guiterrez seems like a very strange person to me, because on one hand, he allegedly was the main source of Diane Dimond’s work as a reporter, and was seemingly often the very first to dig up exclusive stuff on Michael, things known today, and supposedly he was highly credible, at least according to Dimond. But on the other hand he also talked about a strange secret diary by Jordy, that I am not sure if exists, and the diary supposedly claims he was deeply in love with Jackson(which is definitely not the story Raymond Chandlers tell, where Jordy never wanted to visit his mothers house because of the bad memories of the molestations there), which all sounds very weird to me There’s also supposedly another quite shocking story where Guitierez claimed he had a sex tape with Jackson and a boy, and he was prepared to show it to the public.

I have only read about this story on the Pro-Jackson vindication sites though, so I don’t know how much of it that is true, if any, but they claim Dimond reported about this tape briefly, but it somehow never appeared, and the story was left hanging mysteriously. If anybody knows anything about this, I’d love to know more. The only sites online that talks about him is the Jackson fan sites, which is a shame. (Dang, this post was meant as a reply to Kat’s book question, not to you Pea, sorry.) •. The secret diary angle was just that — an angle used to sell books. And it worked, because his book was flying off the shelves at gay bookstores in West Hollywood, according to reports. His secret diary was nothing more than a shitload of research, including conversations with the actual Chandlers (who likely had zero idea that this dude was going to spend the tale that it was a man-boy love story and that evil Daddy Evan broke it up for money:-P).

VG is a very strange gay man who very clearly has no real problem with inter-generational relationships between males, and so was/is sympathetic to MJ’s pedophilia affliction. He claims he’s been looking into MJ’s “boy issues” since the 1980s, but I don’t know if that is true or not. And he has credibility problems because of the secret tape he couldn’t produce. Fans make a big deal about MJ (rightfully) suing VG for the tape, but they conveniently ignore the fact that he specifically did not sue over the book.

Unlike the tape — which any judge would demand to be produced even thought the law in America against slander/libel puts the onus of proving slander/libel on the shoulders of the plaintiff — the book was mass produced and readily available, so Jackson would have had to prove that VG had maliciously made up everything in that book. And he’d have to prove that by demonstrating that he was innocent, and we all know that MJ paid a HUGE amount of money to never ever having to do that in a court of law, and he still plead the 5th when asked about his relationship with boys. So suing over the book’s most libelous contents was never going to happen. Fans have really “poisoned the well” when it comes to Victor Gutierrez, to the point that even people who think MJ was guilty give him the side-eye glance.

But smart, objective people realize it is the height of folly to summarily dismiss the work of a person because of what someone else says about them without ever evaluating the work’s merit on your own. But many people aren’t smart or objective or both, and have thus discredited VG a priori. Many fans are dumb and lazy, LOL. Thanks so much for the input Shawntay!

So the secret diary part is revealed in the book to not exist? Or does he portray that it does exist in his book? I thought MJ did sue him for the book, and that it was pulled from the market?

If thats not true, why is it so rare? I also heard MJ had all the copies bought and trashed? My impression is that its an incredible well researched book, and that he was extremely skilled as researcher and detective, and probably did a lot of the dirty work of what Dimond got credited for reporting about MJ over the years, but the book gives a very strange flavor, even to MJ realists, as he seems to be quite pro-pedophilia, or at least pro man-boy relationships. If the fan sites are reporting somewhat honest, and they might be in this case, he was also seen in the back of many conferences on several NAMBLA meetings. (It seems however he was there more as a reporting fly on the wall. He was probably everywhere.) Victor also could tell that NAMBLA, who interestingly had no problems seeing that MJ was “one of them”, planned to use MJs relationship to garner public acceptance for man/boy-relationships.

🙂 Oh, and what part of Stacy Browns writing do you consider to be tabloid BS or lazy? No, he was never sued for the book. He was sued only for the type, and the books were later confiscated only to satisfy the debt he owed to MJ for losing the lawsuit. And they only were able to confiscate the books that Gutierrez owned, NOT any books that were in bookstores, because those books are purchased by merchants and become their property.

MJ may have had his people go and buy up those books; it’s a common practice for celebrities to by up “bad press” at the newsstands. And VG pretends in the book that there was a diary, but we know there isn’t one. At best, the diary was really Evan’s chronology because it was dated like a diary, but again that was a 40 page doc prepared for his lawyers in 1993. You are very astute, Andreas, and I’ve believed the same thing: VG’s research was the first, but since he has been discredited because of the video tape, people use his research without proper attribution, which is fucked up, IMO.

But credibility is lifeblood for journalists, so he was radioactive and once “friends” now kept their distance (do you see Di Dimond ever talking about Gutierrez?? J Randy Taraborrelli is an egregious example of flagrant plagiarism of VG’s work. He didn’t write anything about the Chandler scandal until 2003, but having previously read Victor’s book, I knew which parts were ripped off. Gutierrez brought to the people that Michael Jackson had those perverted “wishes” he said to Jordie: 1)No wenches, bitches, heifers, or hos; 2)Never give up your bliss; 3)Live with me at Neverland forever; 4)No conditioning; 5)Never grow up; 6)Be better than best friends (GOD MJ was pervert, LOL). Taraborrelli straight up copied this and a lot of other things as MJWML was the most thorough book written about 1993 at the time. And all Taraborrelli said about Gutierrez was that he was a little known journalist that had to file bankruptcy over the tape and fled to Chile never to be seen again. My thinking is that he got all of this from Dimond.

I don’t know if VG is a NAMBLA member, there is no proof and he has never claimed he was one, just that he went undercover at meetings (this can’t be verified as well), which is when he heard them allegedly talking about Jackson. That’s fan mumbo-jumbo IMO, because they claim that since NAMBLA is secretive, only members can go to meetings but cops have went undercover before — all VG had to do was pretend.

As I said, Gutierrez is just a weird gay guy that doesn’t think man-boy love is that bad — he’s really no different from Allen Ginsberg, famed gay Beat poet that attended and performed boylove poems at a 1989 NAMBLA convention because he thought pedos should have rights and was sympathetic (add to that William S. Burroughs, famed Beat/Post-modernist author of “Naked Lunch”, who lived in Morocco for a time at a brothel and paid two 8 yr old boys to have sex with each other while he watched). But neither him nor Gutierrez (nor Burroughs) are pedophiles.(And for any dumbasses reading this, I’m not equating gays with pedophiles so STFU:-P) Fans always talk about VG/NAMBLA trying to normalize pedophilia by “targeting” MJ, but that is BS. As was said in the Cult post on this site, fans are so delusional to think that MJ’s celebrity status is so huge that he could single-handedly get people to be okay with sleeping with kidsit boggles the mind!

About Stacy Brown, I mean he is a tabloid journalist so his research leaves much to be desired. I know he was close to Rebbie Jackson and her husband Nate Brown, and Jermaine Jackson as well, so he he is an insider. But the stuff he doesn’t know he fills in with rumor and innuendo.

In the book, which I haven’t read in a while, I just remember him copying stuff from the Smoking Gun website, some ABC articles, etc, word for word almost. That’s lazy IMO. I watched the documentary a while ago and thought it was trashy and tabloid-like, but that it simultaneously contained a lot of accurate information, hehe.

The accuracy can be confirmed, because several other sources have attested to the same information – I’ve heard many times that MJ himself planted those wacko stories in the press and Paul Anka wrote that he was indeed in The Mirage Hotel partying with boys, while back in Neverland his property was being searched in connection to new molestation charges. I appreciated the exclusive interviews with Bob Jones and Victor Guiterrez that are part of the documentary; it’s pretty clear from what Jones says that he knows about Jackson’s sexual proclivities and what went on with him and Jordie Chandler, even if he refuses to admit it openly.

Bob Jones knows, totally. He was a witness for the prosecution at the 2005 trial but severely flubbed it. Later he said that he got on the stand, saw Jackson (The King) and suddenly felt sorry for him. He felt he didn’t want to hurt poor Michael. That gives us an insight into Jackson and the feelings he engendered in those around him.

His aura wasn’t green or blue, it was “pity party”, where he was the ever suffering victim that all these bad things happened to not because of his own actions (which it really was) but because those big mean baddies around him made his life hell. Frank’s book was crap anyway. I found it to be highly suspect and implausible in many places.

Especially by the end of the book where he seems to be either only telling half of what happened or straight out fabricating things. For someone who knew MJ better than anyone as Frank himself said you would expect him to reveal exclusive insider knowledge and tell us who the real Michael was, but he doesn’t do that.

Instead he recycles the old stories about how he had no relationships with women because he was ‘shy’ and that he used drugs to help with his ‘back pain and sleeping problems’, and that half of what we heard about his was media spin anyway. He also refuses to address pressing questions, such as the 2005 trial where he was named as one of the co-conspirators and a person to who’s name Jackson’s drugs were prescribed to. He simply blames everything on those dastardly scammers Arvizos! They held themselves hostage in Neverland! But the book is peppered with indicators that he was a victim of MJs boy-loving ways. He reveals he has spent more than a hundred nights in Jackson’s bedroom and that he, like other boys, were in the Applehead Club. Maybe one day Frank will come clean about the true nature of his relationship with Jackson and then tell a more honest story.

Actually, I wanted to ask you (and, in fact, all of you) – what is the best book written about Michael Jackson? Like, the one that gives a real insight into his life and who he was as a person? Two books one Amazon stand out – one written by Christopher Andersen and the other by Bob Jones. Those two have low rankings and are dismissed as ‘tabloid junk’.

And you can immediately tell that they’re good books when fans call them that, lol. Everyone knows they’re in denial about who he really was. Kat, I haven’t read Frank’s book yet, apart from a few excerpts.

Those excerpts I did read seemed like an ode to a lover – the scene where Frank is driving through France (?) and hears about Jackson’s death and starts to tear up, remembering all the good times he had with Mike, seemed like he had some kind of yearning. An odd thing too, he seems to minimise the role Omer played in Jackson’s life, as if Omer was but a brief part of it. We know this isn’t true, because Omer was at Neverland for 6 years, but we do know that Frank was at the end of his useful life with Jackson when Omer appeared.

As one of his staff said about Jimmy when he hit puberty – “Too old, too old”. The likely explanation is that Frank didn’t really know that much about Omer. We know from the testimony at the trial of Jackson’s other special friends Mac, Wade and Brett that each boy was deliberately kept apart from the other boys in Jackson’s life. He kept them all compartmentalized for some reason and there was very little contact between them all. It was as if Jackson was the sun and his boys were all the little planet in his orbit – and it was Jackson, like the sun, who decided which orbit they would take and when they could be close to, or further away from, him depending in how he wanted to manipulate them. Did Frank say he spent over 100 nights in Jackson’s bedroom, or in Jackson’s bed?

As far as the best book to read, I would suggest reading as many as you can – yes, even the one by Aphrodite Jones – and get what you can out of them. Some books are better than others, but the more you read the more you can appreciate who is telling the truth and who is making up lies (or making excuses).

I enjoyed Man Behind The Mask by Bob Jones and Stacy Brown, Be Careful Who You Love by Diane Dimond and All That Glitters by Ray Chandler. I’d like to read Christopher Andersen’s book next. Frank (or his ghostwriter) conveniently wrote the whole bed-sharing thing as if it was just he and Eddie staying in MJ’s room, on the floor. He very carefully steered away from saying he was in Jackson’s bed. Interesting, right, especially given the narrative that sleeping in bed with boys is no big deal, that it’s about milk and cookies and soft music, or rekindling lost childhood.

Also funny was how Frank talks about all of this and in the next paragraph is juxtaposing it with MJ being lovers with some of his female fans and “Emily” and another “long time friend”. Again, very curious! Why mention MJ’s purported heterosexuality if it wasn’t for the simple fact you are trying to defuse the situation of MJ always having young boys in his room? Frank’s book is enraging in its pathetic lies, LOL. And he only minimized Omer because he was jealous.

Remember how James Safechuck said he was feeling jealous over Brett Barnes’ encroachment; same thing Frank was feeling because he knew that MJ bestows attention on his current fave, to the exclusion of all others (although, MJ probably needed to maintain his boy harem after all the scandals would make it hard for him to get new ones). To quote Will Smith in “Men In Black”, Frank was “old and busted” while Omer was the “new hotness”crude, but it goes so well how narcissistic and objectifying this fetish, pedophilia, is. He repeatedly says how the Cascios were MJ’s one-and-only adopted family, but MJ didn’t move the Cascios into Neverland, did he? Frank is a sad co-dependent. The specific quote from the book would be this: ‘The bottom line: Michael’s interest in young boys had absolutely nothing to do with sex.

I say this with the unassailable confidence of firsthand experience, the confidence of a young boy who slept in the same room as Michael hundreds of times, and with the absolute conviction of a man who was Michael interact with thousands of kids. In all the years that I was close to him, I saw nothing that raised any red flags.’ It’s an interesting passage, you have to agree, because Frank claims that MJ had no sexual interest in kids virtually in the same sentence in which he reveals that he spent more than a hundred nights in his room as a child! Well, that’s something! 😀 There are other curious places in the book where Frank seems to contradict himself as well as to give out indications that he too was Michael’s special friend for some time. He writes that Jackson was definitely into women, and then later openly admits that his marriages to Lisa Marie and Debbie were shams and everyone knew it. The part where he mentions Omer didn’t stand out as remarkable to me, but he does say at one point that when MJ married Lisa, it changed the dynamic between him and Michael.

‘By this point, Lisa and I had gotten to know each other. She was more comfortable around all of us. Having her around shifted my relationship with Michael – how could it not? I no longer stayed in his room with him at Neverland.

But I was fine with that. I liked staying in the bungalows, and I was open to whatever Michael wanted. I never had the sense that I was losing him in any way.’ Frank also implies that Lisa was jealous of the Cascio family and that Jackson much rather preferred to be with the Cascio boys than with her, and that it added to them divorcing. Like I said, Frank keeps a lot of what really happened to himself, but he can’t help to give out clues about the true nature of his and MJs relationship. It makes you think: why would Frank mention jealousy surrounding Lisa Marie? It’s like he’s boasting that he and MJ are closer, which is true, butIt’s very strange.

Clearly the grooming got in the way of logic when he wrote the book; if I was to make MJ look normal, I’d keep the possessiveness at bay and not try to make it known that MJ’s relationship with a boy was anything that would make his wife jealous, or that he preferred the boy over the wife (which is obvious but still, keep it a secret!). But with Michael Jackson, it’s pretty difficult to keep his bizarre-o world underwraps, it’s integral to who he was. So Frank says “in the same room” rather than “in the same bed”.

How interesting that he minimized it like that. A stronger repudiation would have been if he said that he slept in bed with Jackson and nothing happened, wouldn’t you agree? That’s what Wade and Brett said in 1993 in interviews. Brett did say however that it was “a really big bed” 🙂 Also interesting that he said he didn’t feel like he was “losing” MJ.

I know you can lose a friend after they get married, but Frank was still on the property and presumably interacting with Jackson very frequently, so why would he need to make such a defensive remark? Curious, and a bit of a giveaway. And why would LMP be jealous of the Cascio boys if Jackson wasn’t giving them an inordinate amount of attention? It’s obvious their marriage was a sham. Hi Neely, I have Aphrodite Jones’s book and have read and analyzed it ().

I found it gushing, and Aphrodite skimmed over or ignored most of MJ’s behavior with boys. When you do that, it’s easy to say “Michael Jackson was innocent”.

She also worked with Tom Mesereau on the book, and just as he did with Randall Sullivan, he convinced her that the 2005 trial was about some grifters trying to get money out of MJ and not the culmination of MJ’s decades long obsession with young boys. During the trial she was adamant Jackson was guilty, yet changed her mind not immediately after the announcement of the not guilty verdicts but after traveling to Neverland and talking to fans at the gate. This suggests she saw some money to be made in writing a positive book about MJ.

She must have doubts though. When asked about the 1993 case in a radio interview year before last, she said Do I have doubts about the innocence in 1993? Why.because I watched the testimony of June Chandler in the court in Santa Maria, Jordy Chandler’s mother, and was, how shall I put it? Ummmmmunnerved by what she was saying. She was talking about Michael staying in the hotel room with Jordy, Michael sleeping over at her house with Jordy, about Michael crying if he couldn’t stay in the same room with Jordy. This is all part of testimony at the trial. It was very unnerving and I felt like he was in love with that boy and whether or not there was any more to it, obviously we’ll never know, but everything that his mother was testifying to, when I was reading between the lines, made me very uneasy.” Nevertheless, I suggest reading everything you can out there and then make up your own mind.

I second what MJFacts said — you have to read a lot of books in order to understand MJ. If you just stick with “fan approved” books, you’ll just think that MJ was this flowery idealist who was just too good for this world. But skeptic books only focus on his pedophile behavior and his manipulation. I think one can have both dark and light sides so the goal is balance when researching him. A good place to start is the Jetzi website; they have uploaded a lot of magazines and books, both good and bad. I’m biased (obviously) but the best books written about Jackson are: 1) “Michael Jackson Unauthorized”, by Christopher Andersen, in large part because he was the editor at People magazine and has written legitimate biographies on many celebs, so he has credibility in his research. What I liked most about it was that he found a lot of stuff regarding his “proclivities” before anyone else — even so-called “official” unofficial biographer J.

Randy Taraborrelli. He had information about the settlement talks, how the Jackson defense team had tried to strong-arm Transamerica (MJ’s insurance carrier) to foot the bill for the settlement, and pointed out that it was precluded by law for insurance carriers to be obligated to pay for criminal acts. So after reading that part you realize that the whole “MJ was forced to settle by his insurance company” argument is IMPOSSIBLE. I read this book when I was in the hinterland between fan and skeptic, so the truths in it made me have to put the book down because I was getting sad, LOL. But this is, legit, one of the best. Get the first edition hardcover if you can. 2) Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler, by Victor Gutierrez.

Fans hate, hate HATE VG but he researched the hell out of his book. It’s one of the rarest but it’s also one of the best, particularly due to its laser focus on the 1993 allegations. He definitely talked to the Chandlers because there are exclusive docs in the book that are private and confidential, including bank statements and letters from the Chandler lawyers. (I think VG was disarming; he was an unknown Chilean journalist so the Chandlers probably felt he was “safe” to talk to.) Fans have launched an all out war against VG, saying that he’s a N A M B L A member and a pedo, and one of these masterminds behind pinning MJ as a pedophile along with Di Dimond and Sneddon, et al (All of this, BTW, is based upon the yarns of a currently imprisoned pedophile/pathological liar named Rodney Allen google if you want to read fan conspiracy theories, LOL). The beauty of VG is that he just didn’t give a flying fig who he offended, he was going to tell the story the way it was, warts and all.

He didn’t make Evan Chandler out to be a guileless father in over his head trying to protect Jordie from an evil predator, but rather a savvy and shrewd parent who figured MJ’s sexual attraction to his son could pay off big, if he played his cards right (he didn’t, LOL). I’m not saying that VG’s account of Evan is 100% the way he was, but I do think there is an element of smarminess with regard to how the whole thing was handled, even looking at the affair from an objective standpoint. But one thing about VG: he does present it as a “love affair” that was broken up by cruel Daddy Evan. It’s rather ridiculous and a little off-putting; example the “Privacy in Monaco” chapter, where he alleges this was in a “diary” (FYI there is no diary; a lot of the info is from a chronology prepared by Evan Chandler for his attorneys), and proceeds to describe a sex act between MJ and Jordie.

Again, you have to take these attempts at “pedo romance writing” with a grain of salt (and a bit of Pepto-Bismol, LOL). All in all, really really worth getting, IMO. 3) “All That Glitters: The Crime and the Coverup”, by Ray Chandler. This is the “peas” to VG’s “carrots”; the two books tell the same story from slightly different vantage points. Obviously Ray is going to portray Evan in a sympathetic light, but the real goodness is that he fills us in with all the stuff that happened before the raid on Neverland and the story broke in the media — basically the important information that helps us understand the grooming done by MJ on Jordie and his parents. Personally, I find Ray Chandler a bit on the slick side, with some of his comments he’s made as the Chandler spokesman, but this is one of the only books about 1993. So it must be read.

4) “Be Careful Who You Love”, by Diane Dimond. She was strangely very fair to MJ is this book which gives it legitimacy.

She’s a veteran MJ detective, LOL, so this is a “must read” book. She reprints a lot of sections from Evan Chandler’s chronology, so that alone makes it worth a look. I love when she honestly says that if Jordie was molested, Evan Chandler sure made a muck of things, with is important because it shows objectivity. You can also read Bob Jones’s book, but remember Stacy Brown, his co-author, is a very lazy researcher so he rehashes a lot of tabloid BS as filler. But it’s a good one, definitely.

Also “Dangerous Liaisons” by boy-lover Carl Toms is a good one too because as the old adage says, “It takes one (a pedo) to know one (another pedo)” — Toms suffers from pedophilia so he’d recognize the traits in MJ. This book has been denigrated by fans (obviously) and some so-called “realists”/people-that-get-off-trolling-fans-and-don’t-care-about-MJ, for the same reason: they’ve never read the book. Even though Toms is a pedo, he is actually highly skeptical about the allegations and thinks that the Arvizo case was bollocks. The good thing about the book is the end notes because he sites his sources and where to find them; the bad thing about the book is that it does contain a smattering of repugnant pedo talking pointsluckily not enough to ruin the quality of his research and analysis, and it can be easily skipped over. I wouldn’t say it’s a “must read” but still very interesting.

Thanks for the list, Shawntay, I agree with all books you named – definitely obligatory reading for those who want to understand both the allegations against Jackson and the man himself. I also agree that you should read as much as you can to have all information that is out there and to decipher the fact from fiction the best you can. However, I have read certain books that have been written with the agenda to prove that MJ was 100% Peter Pan and 0% pedo (such as Emily Herbert’s ‘King of Pop’), and been fooled by them. Only recently, when I became more interested in learning the truth about the pedophilia allegations, I discovered that Jackson was very much the opposite of the charitable, loving, friend to all children, victim of extortionists persona that is pushed by those books. I would love to get my hands on the Victor Gutierrez book!

But I know it’s very rare and expensive, and I don’t feel like spending a hundred dollars on a book. I know that the book is inflammatory in many respects, and that the premise of the book in itself is provocative. After all, it’s written as a sexy love story between a child and an adult, sort of like Nabokov’s ‘Lolita’. With Jordie being Lolita and Michael Jackson being Humbert Humbert up until Jordie’s evil father breaks them up I don’t know why Gutierrez is sympathetic toward pedophiles, maybe because he’s gay and not that long ago gay men were put into prisons and thought to be mentally ill?

Gutierrez probably thinks that after fifty, hundred years, people will have changed their minds about pedophilia and will be accepting toward is as they are now accepting homosexuality. The ‘super secret diary’ that Jordie was supposedly writing I’m sure never existed. It was just a ploy to sell the book. If Jordie would have been keeping records of his relationship with MJ they would have landed in law enforcement’s possession, I am certain. The videotape of Jackson molesting his nephew and the drawing of MJs penis that Jordie allegedly drew and that was in the book were also fabrications, in my opinion. Nothing more than added salaciousness to increase already salacious accounts. The drawing in “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” is real — it just isn’t by Jordie Chandler but by his father.

The drawing also contains some notes about Jacko’s skin and Brett Barnes. It was made October 24th. Jordie Chandler gave a description and made a drawing September 1st when they were still under the helm of Gloria Allred. Then, sometime in December, according to Ray Chandler, Larry Feldman requested that Jordie give another drawing because the Los Angeles DA’s office was making a big ado about Jacko’s supposed skin disease, and that vitiligo spots could change in appearance, thus rendering any drawing Jordie made possibly moot, even if was accurate at some point in time. Crucially, Jordie would be making any drawing — in Sept. — based purely on memory, as he’d likely not seen Jacko’s penis since early July.

Evan’s drawing in MJWML recorded Jacko as “circumcised” — well, supposedly Jacko is “uncircumcised”, according to the autopsy report but I’m skeptical because the coroner stated: “The penis appears uncircumcised.” That indicates to me that Jacko probably didn’t have the typical foreskin that one associates with uncircumcised penises, but the variety where the glans are exposed when the penis is flaccid. Because there are scientifically classifiable varieties (as I’d seen in some study — I can’t find the link but I wrote the descriptions down): – short: foreskin opening between the corona & corona sulcus (or just below the head but not quite at the shaft) – medium: foreskin opening located somewhere between the urethral opening and corona – long: completely covering the head & possibly extending beyond it. So, it’s possible Jacko had short foreskin, which would explain the coroner’s seemingly ambivalent “appears”. I’ve read Carl Toms’ book as well. I found it quite a mixed bag. It is divided up into chapters, with a few chapters about Michael Jackson, then a chapter in support of pedophilia, then a few more chapters about Jackson, then another chapter in support of pedophilia. While at first it’s a bit jarring, it does serve a purpose.

While I could never agree with Toms’ views on pedophilia and his support for sexual relationships between men and boys, it did open my eyes as to why Jackson would have thought his activities with boys was OK. For instance, Toms argues that boys get loving, mentoring and encouragement from pedophiles that they would never get from their parents. Note how Jackson wanted to mentor Jimmy, Wade, Jordan and Omer in the art of film making. We can also assume Jackson did the same with Jonathan Spence as he is also involved in film. So Jackson felt he had a positive effect on his special friends and that’s how he rationalized using them for his own sexual gratification.

Toms correctly identifies Jackson as a caring pedophile, one who “loves” boys and would never hurt them physically. As Shawntay said, it takes one to know one.

So that’s the main takeaway I got from Dangerous Liaisons. Omer Bhatti was a “kept boy”, plain and simple. He bewitched MJ (knowingly or unknowinglythe jury’s still out) and MJ took the bait, skirting all notions of reason and morality to bring this kid and his family to Neverland. How can it not be the work of a boy-desperate pedophile? But I wonder how much of this relationship was 1) known to Omer’s parents and 2) if known, how active were they in the arrangement. Because one would hope that parents would be aware of the possible risks they are putting their son in with a man that paid so much money to sweep molestation accusations under the rug! It’s an ugly thought but the Bhattis could have “greased the wheel” in this relationship; I doubt any parents that have previously put their son in the entertainment business would be so naive.

Fact is stranger than fiction, so the notion of “parental pimps” is not out of left field in the slightest (sadly). I don’t think anyone can truly imagine the types of rewards and opportunities being presented to the Bhatti family in exchange for friendship with the King of Pop it’s pure seduction at its finest. Remember how hard it still is to imagine, for many people, that the talented young black boy from Gary, Indiana — who became one of the most famous entertainers in music history, with access to every beautiful person he could dream of — was a pedophile.

So one shouldn’t immediately discredit the idea of Omer’s parents using MJ’s attraction to their son for their own benefit. This is Hollyweird after all.

Case in point, I remember Riz Bhatti saying that he was Omer’s stepdad and not dispelling outright the “Omer is MJ’s secret son” lie. He played alongwhy, if not for his own benefit??

If the descriptions of how Jacko and Omer met are true, it’s not a stretch of the imagination at all that the Bhattis were ‘seeking out’ Jacko. It’s a bit too serendipitous and almost like the magical story of lovers ‘fated’ to be together: Omer misses his scheduled dance performance to jet off to Tunisia where Jacko is; the boy is in the crowd hoping to capture Jacko’s attention by dressing like him; he’s almost trampled by the sea of fangirls with vaginas that Jacko of course has zero interest in; and Omer, like a damsel, is saved by Jacko’s people before he’s crushed, all the while capturing the heart of Jacko. And the rest is HIStory. (Did Riz & Pia tell this story to reporters?

It reads like a tongue-in-cheek description of Jacko and their son falling in love.) The other version is even more suspect: Omer, dressed in his Jacko-clothes, loitering around in Jacko’s hotel lobby waiting to see him, and upon viewing Omer, Jacko is apparently immediately smitten and then never lets the boy out of his sight for the next few years, covering up his little lapse in self-control by claiming Omer was his ‘son’. It almost seems like the Bhattis had a plan, doing all that they could to get Jacko to notice Omer during Jacko’s crucial Tunisian concerts. Then so eagerly allowing their boy to travel with Jacko, and eventually moving into Neverland? Very fishy, especially after Jordie Chandler. Parental pimps, indeed. As you said, Shawntay, it’s Hollywood — the lures of fame and fortune are greater than most of us regular people can imagine.

Why would we think that the “casting couch” only applies when people hit 18? Why do we think it always involves some starlet alone in the big city? If the rumors are true, there are lots of pedophiles in Hollywood (and tons of concomitant former child star drug abusers), so we can’t really exclude that the parents never know. Because I’m sure it was pretty obvious in that Tunisian hotel room where Jacko & Omer played for ‘hours’ that Jacko was a boy lover. I believe it’s likely “Riz” & “Pia” were cynically playing on Jacko’s attraction to boys and Omer’s fanboy infatuation with Jacko; “naivety” is not a legitimate excuse. This was one of the most f–ked up arrangements in Jacko’s world.

Omer was another victim in MJ’s scheme to have power over boys, not love as he so claimed. MJ, instead of seeking fame, should’ve seek help and steered away from young boys, especially after what happened in 1993-1994, but like a stubborn child, he continued to pursue these inappropriate relationships and determined to fool anyone he came across. Even when I was still a fan, I didn’t buy into that son story.

MJ was always fishy with details anyway so he can’t really convince me (even in death) that there wasn’t nothing sinister going on in his relationship with Omer. Pia unnecessarily left her job cleaning teeth to become a nanny in a foreign country, only to be ousted by a “secretary” approximately one year later? Sure Pia was a “mother “– but how good was she if, by comparison, Grace raised Prince, Paris, and Blanket to be normal children, and she raised Omer to become some megastar’s lovetoy and future coattails rider. I do take your point, though I’m skeptical if it actually applies to Pia Bhatti. She should’ve stuck to looking after pearly whites, not children. She’s not very good at the latter apparently.

I doubt that Omer and Blanket are related in any way. Blanket is rumored to have been ‘made’ using an anonymous Latino surrogate mother and the semen of one of MJs bodyguard’s. Not an entirely unbelievable explanation, considering that his two eldest children are biologically the children of his dermatologist and the paid womb that was Debbie Rowe. But ultimately, I don’t know for sure. I don’t think anyone does, not even Blanket. I feel bad for him, because he has to grow up knowing he never had normal parents who conceived him like two regular people, but a freak of a father who only wanted kids who looked nothing like him On an amusing note, in the Bashir documentary, Jackson says that Blanket is his biological son and that his mother is also black!

I bet that even those who soak up everything MJ said as the truth find it hard to believe that Blanket Jackson has two black parents. When Bashir confronts him about Blanket looking white, MJ responds by saying that black people where called colored because they come in all colors *facepalm* •.

I really feel sorry for those kids. Maybe Jackson did try to be a good parent, maybe as best as he could, but there is no way to erase the fact that their father paid their mothers to go away and never come back; their own mothers accepted cash to give them up, rejecting them utterly; their father chose drugs over his children (remembering he was zonked out sometimes for days on end rather than spending time with his children) and ultimately did so many drugs he died, leaving them essentially as orphans. There’s also the legacy he left them – his intense relationships with boys, the molestation allegations, the money problems, his hatred of being black, the plagiarism. As they get older, if they haven’t already, they will remember events from their childhood where they will realize that their father wasn’t innocent at all. That is going to hurt. And they will be asked about it in interviews etc.

So sad that Jackson put them in that position. I think that after leaving Neverland and only having his children’s company he couldn’t escape being a parent and facing the fact that he wouldn’t want his own children hurt.

“Remember the Time: Protecting Michael Jackson In His Final Days” leads me to believe this. The one thing he did right was try to protect his own children and their identities.

I can’t imagine how they will ever see or accept the truth when the world collectively denies it. MJ himself couldn’t let his fans down. I honestly don’t know how this massive cover-up will ever see the day of light when the tributes and glorification of him as an artist continue. Take away the music and it becomes obvious. While I agree that it’s a good idea for celebrity parents to protect their children’s identities, Jackson went the entirely wrong way about it. Press – The traditional symbiosis between the press and established celebrities has been “Lay off my kids and I’ll give you an opportunity to photograph/talk to me informally/interview me at another time”. This works effectively still.

Jackson ignored established protocols to preserve his “mystique”, only making the press more and more intrusive. Kidnappers – Jackson said he forced his children to wear masks to keep them safe from kidnappers.

Supposing someone wanted to kidnap those kids, how would they recognize them? They were the ones wearing masks 🙁 •. If fans are to be believed, Jackson was a passionate reader and researcher so you would assume he studied lots of parenting books and asked experts for advice. The reality is that he was selfish and narcissistic, and thought he was the best Dad in the world. I’m sure he didn’t do a bad job, no better and no worse than any other average parent.

His hectoring tone in this video really jarred, for instance. Then you have a story like this, which is a touch sycophantic (and it’s a tabloid) – but it makes it appear the kids are fine.

Very Interesting! I’ve always avoided personal videos about him and I now see why. That is indeed “brainwashing” and I’m baffled by the fact that it was intended to show a positive side of him. The comments saying the same are ridiculous! That’s rehearsal. Thank you for sharing it.

There is nothing positive to be found yet it should be of no surprise. Everything he did is so blatantly obvious. His own lyrics reflect himself, his love/lust for boys, disregard of morals and acknowledgement of Right Or Wrong (Black or White), and open threats. Is his music of such importance that the world can’t survive without it? It’s a damn lie that MJ was trying to protect his kids from kidnappershe was trying to disguise the fact that his Black ass had two white kids calling him daddy, LOL. In fact, he was “protecting” himself from the likely inevitable — and righteous — indignation of the public when they realized the ordained birth of 3 nonblack children was the “icing on the cake” of his racial transformation from black kid to Eurasian transvestite, LOL.

Nothing MJ did wasn’t without a Lewis Carroll-esque “logical” explanation. Funny video (looks like sometime in 1997 or 1998) because you can see MJ trying to pretend that he’s somehow bothered by all the attention that he’s getting. It was all a stunt, and meanwhile Jackson fans think the man had humility.

Reminds me of that trip to the Berlin Zoo as seen in the Bashir documentary. He could have easily had his be-masked children go with nannies to see the animals, but instead he just had to be there. The fans, as did Daddy MJ, had zero regard for Paris and Prince’s safety and swarmed him, all the while MJ greedily lapped it up.

Those kids could have been crushed. Same goes for him dangling his masked baby out of an 8 story window. Yes, the masks and veils “protected” the children from kidnappers, but they did nothing to protect them from Daddy’s rash, attention-seeking antics.

That is what nannies are for. Did everything have to be a freak show with this guy? How do you know that they never shared the same bed? Jacko only said that about the Arvizo boys, a very inconvenient fact for most of Jacko’s diehards. Yes, I know it’s hard to accept that Jacko continued to sleep in bed with boys following the Jordie Chandler scandal, as it reeks of compulsion. But that was the reality. Jacko told Martin Bashir that he’s slept in the bed with “many children” and said the same thing to Ed Bradley; years earlier he told Diane Sawyer that he would continue to sleep in bed with children — recall that a little more than a year had passed following that interview that he acquired Omer Bhatti.

I doubt he’d had an about-face on bed-sharing. Omer looks “exactly” like Jacko? I didn’t know he, too, had a detachable nose.

Omer called Jacko “Daddy” and Jacko referred to him as his son. He also had Brett Barnes refer to himself as “Brett Jackson” and introduced the boy to the press and others as his “cousin”.

What’s the reason for that? The fact remains that Omer had his own parents and Jacko had his own children. He didn’t need a “son”, and since they didn’t look alike (did Jordie, Brett, and Jimmy look like Jacko, too?

They also dressed like mini-Michaels), there needs to be a better explanation as to why a grown ass, just-divorced man needed a small 13YO, non-English speaking boy from a far away land to live with him at Neverland (like that 3rd “wish” Jacko told Jordie about: “Live with me at Neverland forever”). Omer is not referring to just hanging around boys all day. He’s talking about more than that. Bed-sharing (which you deny he did)? Kissing boys (like he referred to in a poem he wrote)?

It’s something that clearly Omer didn’t want to say too much about, so it’s probably something really, really hard to defend. What I see with Omer especially looking at the professional pictures taken with MJ and his children it seems Michael Jackson wanted a perverse sense of nuclear family.

Again MJ is looking at Omer as a significant other. Omer is looking after MJ’S children and there is one picture in which Michael Jackson is with his children and Omer has his hand on MJ’S shoulder looking lovingly down like a doting parent.

I believe like James and Jordan he wanted to be married to Omer and by moving him In this bizarre fantasy became reality. Michael Jackson was one of the most dangerous types of pedophiles because he was in my opinion actively trying to mainstream adult/child sexual relationships. I don’t think he molested his own sons. There is pedophiles that control themselves and Mj is one of them. He didn’t molest every child he came in contact with. He choses them.

After choosing them he groms them and then he wants them out of his life, that’s the most important thing. With all of his special friends he had a relationship only the ages he was interested with them physically. The thew them out when they reached that age. With his ” sons ” he coud have not done this simply because he can’t throw them away whan he wants to. Thaat is completely different from his special friends. So no, it is not because he was a pedophile that he automatically molested his own children. Its a difficult question.

If they had been his own biologically kids, I’d say definitely no. I think even to a pedophile there’s some difference there when incest is involved. But since they’re most likely not his real kids, and therefore no more related to him than his other victims, it opens the possibility a bit more, I suppose, but I still thinks thats a bit too fucked up, even for him. There’s nothing that indicates it, as far as I know. I really hope not.

Building And Engineering Contracts By B S Patil Pdf Merge there. However, Jerry Sandusky molested his adopted son, so who knows.. Alright, so I read almost every article on this site. You make a very strong case.

I knew he was disturbed individual, but as a fan, I guess I didn’t want to believe the worst of him. But he really was that bad Being a multi millionaire pop god really does help to get away with anythingh.

Only for so long though. I do feel really sorry for his victims, his kids and even himself. Not to mention the fans. He truly was a master manipulator. He manipulated the kids, his family, even the media.

His death was the best thing that ever happened to him, regarding the allegations. After his death many people came forward saying he was innocent and I read and wanted to believe many of those things said in his defence. But the truth seems to be much uglier. I must say all the articles here are really well written and in-debth.

Will there ever be an article about Michael’s childhood and what kind of abuse he went through? Because isn’t it safe to say Michael most likely was also molested as a child?

It wouldn’t make the things he did okay, but at least would make you understand better why he became this manipulative creep. Thank you for your support Joni.

Jackson was indeed a master manipulator and he not only groomed boys and their parents, he also groomed his fans and many in the general public. His stories are legion here at MJ Facts for not only their audaciousness but how they are a total contradiction of his true inner self – venal, narcissistic, selfish, cynical and lazy. To be honest, there has been some discussion about publishing a story on the extent of the abuse Michael Jackson suffered as a boy. Most of the stories about his physical abuse seem to come only from him, and stories about the alleged sexual abuse he suffered aren’t verified.

So we are collecting more sources and one day hope to have enough information to make a decision either way. So are you saying that because he didn’t molest his sons, he couldn’t have been a serial pedophile? LOL, typical fan reasoning.

That line of thinking is what propelled the whole argument “MJ must have been the worst pedophile in history because he only had two victims!!!11!!”. Most pedophiles have a well-defined preference, whilst situational molesters (ie, molesters who aren’t pedophiles) are ones that are more likely to molest indiscriminately.

Some pedophiles will commit crimes of incest while others don’t, and motivations for why this is true vary. I don’t think MJ molested his sons but I will say something was definitely up regarding his years-long obsession with having Prince be dyed blond. I chalk it up to either narcissistic idolization of blond children or sexual kink (ie, Jackson is sexually attracted to blond haired boys/what blond represents on a child).

And Blanket was pretty emphatic that Prince was MJ’s favorite/got whatever he wanted when they were first interviewed by Oprah. I agree, the tape could have certainly existed (although without a doubt it has been destroyed now. Victor Guiterrez claimed that it was Jermaine’s son Jeremy who was molested and that Jeremy’s mother Margaret Moldanado had seen it. She wrote in her book “Jackson Family Values: Memories of Madness” flatly denying that she had ever seen such a tape. Interestingly, she told the National Enquirer she would sue them if they ever ran that story yet was silent when Hard Copy did.

Margaret also wrote “Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy.

As an aside, and without wanting to break any confidences, that is not what another family member, someone who would know, characterized Jeremy and Jackson’s relationship. However something else that Victor Guiterrez wrote about in his book was the removal of items from Neverland before the 1993 search. Included in his report was professional video equipment and video tapes. Why would Jackson need to get rid of the equipment? It’s totally innocuous, unless it could have incriminated him in some way. So yes, perhaps he did videotape boys. It’s a stretch though, remember that none of Jackson’s special friends have ever said that they were videotaped in compromising positions by Jackson, and that would be something which would be irrefutable proof of Jackson’s molestations so they wouldn’t hide it.

Perhaps Jackson did videotape them in an erotic (for him) way – just in their underwear, or shorts, or draped in sheets, for his own viewing pleasure (he did have photographs like these). So no, I don’t think there is strong evidence of Jackson filming molestations. Then again, I’m always ready for surprises when it comes to the weirld world of Michael Jackson! I always thought that the “far worse” comment had to do with him having actual intercourse with young boys, because molestation, the way Pellicano is wording it, seems to refer to fondling or touching. And then Wade Robson comes out and admits that he engaged in a single act of sodomy with MJ when he was 14 and acts of analingus, and both he and James Safechuck alleged multiple violations of California penal code section on sexual penetration (which for males would involve some sort of anal penetration using fingers or objects, etc). So for a heterosexual father of nine, Pellicano probably thought man-boy “butt stuff” was probably worse than just touching a kid.

So I read the book by his bodyguards, the “Remember the times”. It was insightful and seemed very honest. Apparently Michael had two women he was seeing in a motel rooms, although he dumped the other. So the bodyguards are saying he had a relationship of some sort with this female “friend”.

She was also at his funeral. Or so they say. I have also read J. Randy Taraborrelli’s book long time ago, and that said Michael did have sexual relationship with Lisa Marie Presley, as she herself has said so.

So this would indicate he was heterosexual, or at least bi. But at the same time he was with Lisa Marie, he must have juggled with the boys too? It’s all very confusing. Oh, and by the bodyguards account, Michael seemed to be geniunly this nice and polite person you saw on the documentaries and what not. Like he truly was friendly and warm just for the sake of it.

And that there wasn’t that many mean bones in his body. And yet at the same time he was a pedophile. Like he had all this love for everybody and then he would take it over the top with children. “And that there wasn’t that many mean bones in his body. And yet at the same time he was a pedophile.” This part used to really confuse me too, and reportedly confuses a lot of people still. They just don’t see how MJ could have this “darker side” and how he could harm kids, as he seems so mellow/nice/soft. How could that make sense?

Well, MJ is dead, he never admitted his acts, and we’ll never know how he really actually thought about these things, except for what his victims confides us in, but it’s quite enlightening reading how other pedophiles that acts on their urges thinks. Like members of NAMBLA can give you some insight and a-ha moments.

Its evident many pedophiles don’t really think there’s anything wrong about what they do. Its a common human mistake to think it can’t ever be harmful if it feels good. For pedophiles especially this must seem terribly confusing. I also think part of MJs wrongdoings comes from religious/superstitious ideas, personally. Like when he met Jordy Chandler, it was quite concidental the way they met, as it happened twice and a bit outside the usual odds, and to Jackson mind it supposedly seemed like it was meant to be. They were brought together by mysterious forces, in his mind.

He even said something like that the “cosmos brought them together” according to Jordy. If you truly truly truly believe something like that, and that the cosmos itself is actually knighting your obsessive pedophiliac urges, and magically bringing a little boy on a plate, how can there be anything wrong with it? So what if the ‘ignorant’ society tries to say its wrong? You can’t argue with the will of the cosmos. You can also see the same theme going on in the quote from this article, when he talks about discovering Omer Bhatti. “And every time I felt like I’m at the end of my rope, some kind of way, a kid would show up somewhere.

That’s the truth. Just when I can’t take it anymore. And I really want to die.

When I wanted to die, boom, it hits me. Digital Electronics Malvino Leach Ebook Free Download there. And I get on my knees, and I thank God whenever it happens. I do, Shmuley. And so, I believe in it. I really do.” It quite disturbingly sounds like MJ is implying God actually sent Omer down to him, and that its not the first time he have granted him ‘young blood’ either.

You can also sense that there’s some cashable karma points in there because of his personal sufferings equalled in a brand spanking new ‘special friend’ once again. I’m one hundred percent sure that those mysterious ‘secret girlfriends’ that Michael supposedly had never existed in real life. If he would have had a relationship with someone, the public would have known about it. Also, in his last years Jackson was mostly travelling between Bahrain, Ireland, and other places, and increasingly suffering from health issues due to a lengthy habit of drug abuse. I don’t think that dating or hooking up with women was even on his mind. Whether MJ and Lisa Marie Presley ever had a sexual relationship is debatable. Diane Dimond and Ron Zonen claim they didn’t; Zonen said that Lisa never once spent the night at Neverland and Dimond said that she had sources close to Lisa that say that the marriage was never consummated.

But then Lisa Marie herself said that Michael was ‘a freak in bed’ It’s possible that she made such a statement to make people think they actually had a sex life. MJ did not like women, nor did he respect them. He thought that all women were ‘bitches, wenches, heifers, and hoes’. The exception was his mother, and maybe also older friends and mother figures in his life, like Liz Taylor and Diana Ross. The bodyguards book doesn’t sound at all accurate to me. It’s likely that it’s just another attempt to whitewash his tarnished reputation.

I recommend reading the books that ShawntayUstay named in the post of must-read Michael Jackson books. They reveal him as he really was. Kat, when did Lisa Marie Presley say that MJ was a freak in bed?

Did that come from her own lips? Was she serious, or did she mean that MJ was a literal freak laying on a bed? LOL And I agree with you, if he was with anyone, we not only would’ve known, but he’d have no problem showing her off.

It’s just natural to be proud of your lover and want to show him/her offAnd he always said that he didn’t want the press in his business, but did he not so obviously flaunt this fake relationships with Brooke Shields, Madonna, and Lisa in front of the paparazzi? He also had no problem — seemed to relish it, actually — flaunting his special friends, holding their hands, nuzzling them, having the sit on his lap. So where’s the girlfriends? Nowhere because it’s all BS. I had seen that quote several times and just I tried to find what the source of it was, but couldn’t find anything definite.

Anyhow, this Yahoo Answers post mentions that she did say it at some point regarding their intimate relationship. J Randy Taraborelli also claimed that they had a very passionate sex life. I don’t know, I think it’s not true at all! Lisa Marie probably was simply protecting Michael’s and her own reputation by continuing to state that theirs was a real marriage, not a false union orchestrated by a person accused of being a pedophile and in dire need to save his public image.

Jackson sucked at pretending to be hetero, lol. Some closeted gay men and pedophiles do a good job of marrying women and creating an outward appearance of being straight. But nobody bought his supposed romance with Brooke Shields or his fake marriage to Lisa, not even with all the naked frolicking in the You Are Not Alone video. Still, at least you can give him credit for trying. 🙂 I have sympathy for Lisa, to be honest, in relation to their short-lived marriage. I think Jackson used her rather cruelly.

Granted, she was probably in on it; I don’t think she deluded herself by believing that he actually loved her or that they were compatible for each other. He used Debbie Rowe too, but at least Debbie was willing to give him white children as ‘gifts’ and was handsomely paid for her services. I’ve never heard Lisa Marie ever physically say he was a freak in bed, and none of the fans on Yahoo had any proof. All of that jive about sexual chemistry, etc, is from Taraborrelli’s book, and I think it was either made up by him, or maybe MJ paid people to say stuff about him that made him look virile. He’s done it before. In interviews, Lisa is always very nonchalant about it, saying it was normal, or she doesn’t remember.

My opinion is that she is covering up for him. Perhaps they made a deal that whatever happens let’s never tell the world that MJ is impotent with women; let’s never tell the world about that aspect of the relationship, everything else is fair game. She always said she was trying to “save him”, and women are known to do a lot to support a man they love. I think she keeps that secret to this day. MJ was a cynical bastard and we must remember what James Safechuck alleged in his lawsuit: “Decedent frequently told Plaintiff that he would need to get married to protect his public perception,” the Complaint says. His marriage with Lisa Marie seems to follow this, yes?

And according to Lisa, they were dating four months prior to their engagement and marriage, which was in May. Do the math, that says that it started around the time of the settlement with the Chandlers. That’s actually not true, and the idea that pedos are heterosexual probably comes from a political argument and the fact that pedophiles tend to hide their true sexual preference by getting married, having kids, etc. Most preferential child molesters molest boys, while most situational molesters molest girls.

Victims of extrafamilial sexual abuse are usually predated upon by pedophiles, whilst intrafamilial sexual abuse victims tend to be victimized by individuals who do not suffer from pedophilic disorder (ie, they do not have a sexual preference for children). The majority of child pornography, which is usually intended for consumption by pedophiles, features male victims, although girls are victims of child porn as well. From my research, there is even a difference between the psychiatric scoring and brain scans between different types of pedophiles (homosexual — those attracted to victims of their same sex; heterosexual — those attracted to victims of the opposite sex.bisexual pedophiles tend to be rarer). Even pedophiles who have never molested have different brain responses in the regions which control emotional states and impulses than those pedophiles that have committed child abuse! These offenders cannot be lumped into one category because, like most else in life, there is much individual variation within pedophilia. But what is abundantly clear is that normal gay and straight people, i.e.

Individuals attracted to age appropriate partners, DO NOT have the same brain responses as the pedos have, regardless of whether the pedophile has homosexual or heterosexual victim preference. There is no nexus between gays and homosexual pedophiles, because clinically they’re extremely different (this applies to straights and heterosexual pedophiles as well), even though the descriptors/nomenclature is entirely appropriate for both groups, which is usually assigned by the Kinsey scale, 0 being exclusively opposite sex oriented and 6 being exclusively same sex oriented. Seeing that Michael Jackson had numerous special friends, all of whom were boys of a particular age; slept in the bed with young boys for hundreds of nights; been accused of molestation now five separate times, and accused of inappropriate behavior by at least three different men; and paid multimillion dollar settlements to end lawsuits for child molestation; we should take Michael’s declarations of innocence and that he’d “never harm a child” with a grain of salt as well. I suggest you also consider the source of your information, too. Some of the things Star and Gavin said wasn’t lies.

They mixed up some things. According to Jim Clemente, who has studied cases like this all his career, molested children often do that in cases that still shows to be evident they’ve been molested. Kids just don’t memorize things the same way as adults do. They don’t always think in timelines, by dates and by clock, and when you’re also cross-examined by a quite hostile lawyer like Tom Meserau was, someone who just carefully preying on any mistake you do, its not that difficult to understand how they could mix up a few things. I’ve never read the bodyguards’ book completely, but the whole girlfriend stuff is completely fabricated. They couldn’t even keep their stories straight about location, who he liked better, etc. First, when they were interviewed in the media, years before the book, they said that the 2 women would visit him in Las Vegas and they’d drive up and down Las Vegas Boulevard — the Strip — with MJ and the woman du jour.

Then, in the book, they said the women came out to meet him when they were in Virginia. So which is it? Las Vegas or Virginia? I suspect the locations changed because they realized that there were other people in LV at the time when they worked as bodyguards, and these people could have blew the whole lie apart. Because it is pretty obvious that they were writing that stuff to get people to buy the book, i.e. Fans are very desperate to prove that MJ wasn’t gay or a pedo, so they are gullible.

It seems almost obligatory to write that MJ was a good father, wasn’t a pedophile, and liked the ladies. Mike Garcia very pointedly said that the book was filled with “lies”, but he wasn’t specific on that front. I think he was/is still pissed that he didn’t get a cut of the profits. I suspect Bobby Taylor may have molested Michael, or at the very least, been inappropriate with him.

He learned the “no boundaries between kids and adults” from somewhere; Bobby Taylor is just a piece of the puzzle though. Brice Taylor is a pathological liar, LOL. Her book “Thanks For The Memories” about her being a sex slave for powerful, Illuminati men since she was MK-Ultra’d as a kid, is infuriating in its stupidity.

She clearly gets off on the idea of ritual child abuse, and according to the introduction, she had little to no relationship with her kids because she was a psychotic attention seeker. She knows zero about MJ and the Jackson 5.

She should be in a padded cell. No Joni you are not a bigot, I thought the same thing about his nails! When I saw he had long nails, I immediately thought he might be gay because a lot of gay black men grown their nails long, even if they aren’t effeminate. So I was suspicious about his claim he slept with Michael and it being innocent, (not that him being gay means he’d molest, of course). Also, I couldn’t find anything about Bobby Taylor being married or having a girlfriend, so that was also a red flag. You know, Bobby Taylor said that he and MJ would tell each other they lived one another, with Bobby saying “Who loves you?”, little Michael answering “You do.”, and Bobby replying “And don’t you forget it or I’ll kill you.

” That is really creepy and possessive for a grown man to say that to an unrelated boy. But it sounds familiar because MJ also made some of his special friends declare their live for him and vice versa. Bobby Taylor seems so proud of it too, which is also weird IMO. It’s also curious that Prince also wants to be involved in the movie business.

In an interview he said he wanted to be a movie producer or something. Like most of Michael “mentored” kids seemingly wanted to pursue a film career.

Did you notice that too Joni? I wonder if it was some persuasion technique that Jackson found that worked well, so he used it every time? Acquaintance molesters usually have habits and methods they use time and time again, and this looks just like that.

We know he definitely used this “movie business” tactic on Jordan, James and Wade, and quite possibly on Jonathan Spence. Okay, not to act skeptical, Pauline, but you say you believe some accusers, but not Gavin?

Who do you believe then? As for the Arvizos being “trained liars”, it doesn’t make that much sense to me. If they truly were lying, and lets say the brothers and the mother(and he sister) planned this story, and lets even put into an optional third party conspiracy into the mix, wouldn’t their story be MORE airtight?

Do you think they’d enter a courtroom not having practices their story to even the smallest detail? That they were going by fuzzy memory and contradicted eachother, themselves, had forgotten a few things, and so on, to me, just shows that they did NOT practice a trained lie. It was not trained.

They were trying to tell it like they remembered it, and it had been a little while. And none of the mixing ups really was all that important in the bigger picture. Mesereau simply pointed them out like holes and presented it like that.

These were kids, and not grown ups, and yes 13 year old boys are still kids. The ironic thing is that if Wade Robson tells the truth then he actually was trained to lie. MJ called him every day before the trial to train him for potential questions and scenarios, in a role playing scenario. And if Robson was trained, then Brett Barnes and probably Macalauy Culkin was as well.

That story about there being 20 victims and $200 million in payoffs is highly unlikely. Could there have been more boys MJ could molested?

Absolutely, but to be honest, the Stacy Brown story is tabloid garbage; it’s sounds more like “everything but the kitchen sink” thrown in to make the story seem legit but anyone who has researched MJ extensively knows of its glaring errors and factual inaccuracies. That story was just for clicks, piggy backing off of Wade and James’s lawsuits being in the news. See, this is why I think Stacy Brown is kind of a lazy journalist. He still pens this article knowing (or maybe not knowing?) that most of it is false. Pea is right, Gavin is questionable.

I do think MJ have them alcohol/allowed them to drink alcohol, and I think he showed them pornography, especially on the first visit to Neverland when Gavin was 11. But nevertheless, the case shouldn’t have been brought because once the prosecution discovered that the kids had been coached to lie under oath before, their credibility was DOA, and no one was going to put Michael Jackson behind bars with those witnesses. Then you have the fact of the timeline — MJ didn’t molest Gavin during the time the world saw them holding hands in the Bashir documentary, but it only started when MJ was using PR strategies to not be labeled a pedophile? Doesn’t make sense.

I think the prosecution, especially Sneddon, and the SBSD knew Jackson was guilty of being a pedophile and getting away with it on 1994 with the Chandler settlement, so they were too eager to believe Gavin, and they shouldn’t have been. That family was messed up! How ironic is it for a child molester to be (potentially) falsely accused of child molestation. I won’t argue with you Shawntay. You usually seem to know what you are talking about. I don’t know. Stacy’s article was re-posted on quite a few newsites though.

It could be argued it got even more coverage than both Wade and James case. (Although none of them really went superviral for whatever reason!). Brown claimed there was lawyers and DA detectives in Santa Barbara who claimed they have papers that prove this, and that this was quite recent(and not to be confused with the old Pellicano/FBI-story). I suspect there is more to this story, even if its an exaggeration or what have you. I’m not convinced he just made it up from scratch. Well, not yet at least! Laziness and complete fabrication is not the same thing after all.

About Gavin I’m not sure. I personally still thinks its a case where a family not 100% credible actually tells the truth. Its a smaller case than the others though, as Gavin only claimed to have been masturbated two times, as well as being groped. This type of behavior suits how how most witnesses has explained how MJ approached his victims. He started by touching them all the time, then move to their private places, show them pornography, and then he would masturbate them, talking about how “natural” and “okay” it is. This is what Star and Gavin tesfied, and as Jim Clemente commented, its very similar to like how Jordy described it.

To me it sounds a lot like our friend Michael. I’m with you, Andreas – I too think that Gavin was a victim. But the case was weak and the family’s troubled background compromised their credibility, and the claim about the conspiracy to kidnap them was rather shaky, especially since they were leaving Neverland while supposedly being held captive in there But I do believe that the molestation claim was legitimate. And Janet Arvizo said several times that she would never file a civil lawsuit for money. She wanted to put the person that had molested her son in prison.

MJ deserved to go to prison – if not for what he did to Gavin, then for what he did to all the previous boys that he had abused. As for Stacy Brown’s claim – I don’t know what to think about it. I’d like to see a development on the initial story of 20 families and 200 million payoffs to judge its veracity. I also think that it could be an exaggeration rather than a complete fabrication. After all, we already know that he paid people to keep silent. In 1993 La Toya said that a check for one million was written to a garbage collector father.

Now we know that it was James Safechuck Sr, the newest accuser’s dad. It would be good to see the details of Stacy Brown’s story; names, dates, amounts of money paid.

Then we could adequately judge if it’s true or just media sensationalism. Yes, Kat, and you have a good point about molesters often choosing unstable and poor families because its easier to call them liars and extortionists later on. (Even if Michael was more of a first class molester that could pick boys more freely, even he, at this point, had to be more catious in his selections.) I think both Star and Gavin seemed like two very restless ADHD-type lads. They probably ran around Neverland, full of sugar, being very boy-ish and weren’t really noting when things happened and when it happened.

They didn’t seem like the types to go around writing down dates in filofaxes and so on, so I don’t see why it should be used against them. And considering Michael Jacksons idea of cosmos bringing him and Jordy together, and God sending Omer down to him when he was in dire need, and as he took credit for magically curing Gavin from cancer, I have no problems imagining that Jackson thought Gavin also was another ‘gift from above’. It seemed like he was thinking that way. I think that as a society we tend to imagine that child molesters are these loathsome creeps who have zero good qualities because they engage in such nasty conduct with kids.

At the same time, we like to think that their victims are these pure angelic creatures who have their innocence taken away by these horrible people. But often, things aren’t exactly like that. Acquaintance child molesters are often likable, hard-working, married, charitable, with stable lives. And their victims are poor, troubled, with an array of behavioral problems resulting from abuse – aggressiveness, acting out, truancy, propensity toward breaking the law and promiscuous behavior. And I believe that if we learn to have a more realistic understanding of these things about abusers and those abused, then we can fight it better than we do now. Yes, true – how can anyone blame Gavin and Star for acting like kids when they were kids? Tom Mesereau especially addressed them as ‘young men’ to make them seem older and therefore more responsible for their actions.

BTW, Ron Zonen argued that the reason why the Arvizo boys were so unruly while in Neverland was Neverland itself. It was a place where hedonism ruled, and children were allowed to do whatever they wanted – even if it included looking at porn and drinking alcohol. Zonen said that the place spoiled them, and several people attested that they were normal, well-behaved kids when they first visited.

Why do people believe that the Arvizo kids were coached to lie under oath before? I’ve read that many times before, but I don’t know where it comes from. Is it about the JC Penney case? Because I personally think that they were telling the truth. Ron Zonen argued that Janet and her children had been harmed in that altercation. He said that the guards beat them up and consequently Janet had bruises on her body and Gavin’s arm was broken.

Black and blue marks don’t show up on the same day when an attack is inflicted, but only after a few days. Zonen said that it was the reason why on the day when the incident happened and the family was taken into police booking the police said that she had no physical signs of an attack on her body. I don’t think that JC Penny would have paid them compensatory money, if it wasn’t true. I think that Tom Mesereau tried to make them look like a family of opportunists, but all celebrities that testified denied that they had tried to get money from them. And Mesereau was horrible to Janet Arvizo.

Even now he still continues to insult her, he recently did an interview with King Jordan’s blog radio and he continued to speak about what a disaster Janet was on the stand and that the whole family was a bunch of con artists. He was also slighting to Gavin in the courtroom. He referred to him as ‘young man’ so to minimize the fact that he only twelve or thirteen when the alleged molestation had occurred. I think it’s important to note that the Arvizos were exactly the kind of family that an acquaintance child molester will go after. Single mother or divorced/arguing parents, disadvantaged and sick children, violence, cheating, substance abuse in the family.

Imagine being a child in such a family – you’d be overjoyed if someone would start paying attention to you, taking you places, treating you kindly, fulfilling the role of a father figure in your life. It’s much easier to seduce and groom a kid like that and keep them quiet about molestation. It’s also easy for a child molester to protect himself, if such a family comes out with accusations. I mean – look at the mother, she’s a liar and a welfare fraud! Look at the father – he’s violent and a scammer! And they’re poor too, they’re probably just doing it, because they want my money! It’s what prevented many of Jerry Sandusky’s victims to come forward timely.

Almost all of the boys he had victimized came from disadvantaged backgrounds. And they had behavioral problems and probably juvenile delinquency too. That, however, doesn’t mean that the sex abuse hadn’t happened. Experts will say that those are indicators that it had.

After all, it was when Larry Feldman discovered that Gavin was acting out in school he suspected that sexual abuse had occurred. I’m still on the fence as to the Arvizos, and the thing that sticks in my head is this, if they were people that were brilliant at grifting, why did they make the abuse so minimal, why didn’t the mother or sister pretend to witness molestation (they had the opportunity to do so), and why oh why if they were so skilled didn’t they all get their story straight? All those things pop into my brain whenever I read fan comments about the Arvizos. As for their claim that they went to visit civil lawyers before going to the police about molestation, that is a complete fabrication.

The Arvizo’s went to a civil lawyer to facilitate the return of their personal belongings which Jackson had removed from their apartment and put into storage when he invited them to stay at Neverland. There is some links to read on this page (see Larry Feldman, Bill Dickerman and Dr.

Stanley Katz’s testimonies). Another thing that sticks out to me – like any other celebrity, Jackson would have anybody he spent any significant amount of time with (certainly people he invited into his home) carefully screened by his security team, so he was satisfied with their character to allow them in after he was presented with their background checks. Was his security team deficient (really?), or did Jackson invite them in knowing that with their background they would be easy to discredit later? They are the things I consider. Its an interesting theory that they were actual liars, and I have to admit I’ve never even thought about that being an option. Their case was always more shaky than the others, but I always saw it like they were probably telling the truth in the light about the other cases. They seemed a bit shaky, but if you have paid professional lawyers working day and night to find dirt on you, and magnifies that dirt to be everything you are, most people could be made to look bad.

Yes, they had some credibility issues though. Now, I am not an expert on them but it seems to me like Janet Arvizo came out with a story about the guards of JC Penny touching her sexually, twisting her nipples for quite a few seconds, and that was a very late add on to the overall story? It seems a bit strange. Even her own lawyer was supposedly shocked when she added that part to the story so late in the process. And if she lied about about being sexually molested by the guards in a law suit, then it of course looks suspicious when her son is accusing another person of molesting him in another law suit.

I think thats one of the things that seemed more damning about their story. Still, I think Gavins testimony sounds believable, and it sounds a lot like Michael to me, and thats a big one for me. There’s some nuances there that seems a bit difficult to imagine a little boy would just be able to make up, or even coached. Like the part about him feeling “a bit weird” and a little ashamed after being masturbated by Jackson, the first time, and how he went very silent for a while, and that Jackson was trying to explain, comfort him and assure how its nothing to ashamed of, and how MJ continuously insisted it was okay and “natural” before and during the act. Little tidbits like that goes deep into the psychology of a child molester, and I wouldn’t expect a restless 13 year old boy like Gavin to have knowledge on that, since not even most grownups seem to understand how child molesters think, let alone ‘nice guy molesters’. Its not intuitive! To me at least, it sounds unnecessary subtle for a houx.

If one is going to accuse someone of molesting then I’d expect something more on a ‘grander’and perhaps shocking scale, at least, not so. He also at one point said that he was so drunk when he thought he was masturbated, and how it seemed so distant that he wasn’t even sure if it actually happened or not. If you are falsely accusing someone, and with so much at risk, who would choose a story like that? He compared it to looking back to “kindergarten”, because it seemed so blurry to him.

He did explain that he rememebered two times quite clearly though. The other times was too blurry, because he was drunk, so he claimed he couldn’t be sure about them, although they MIGHT have happened, according to Gavin. Neither him or his brother did follow the time at all when they were at Neverland, and that was a problem too, because they probably had to do a forced guess at one point, as the prosecution needed it, which didn’t seem to add up later on, and then they had to change their story, and all that looked bad. Yes, the ‘Arvizos went to the same lawyer that Chandlers had to get a million dollar settlement’ is a shameless lie. I know that MJ vindicators love to popularize erroneous information; I think it’s the only way for them to defend their idol. If they would really look at the facts as they are they would see that defending his innocence is sort of a losing battle at this point. The family only went to lawyers to get their furniture and their passports back.

Here’s how I feel about Gavin’s accusations – I don’t think that the boy could be persuaded to say it if it wasn’t true. After all, if you take away the sexual abuse, then Michael only did good things for Gavin. He helped him to rehabilitate after chemo and other cancer-related procedures. He brought him and his family to Neverland and let them use all amenities as much as they wanted. He was like a father to Gavin, while his actual father was violent and abuse. I can’t speak for everyone, but even as a thirteen year old kid I couldn’t be convinced to make up such a malicious lie about someone who had been good to me, knowing that this lie would destroy their reputation and possibly lock them up in a prison for twenty years!

If you are kind to other people, they respond back with kindness, not with fake allegations of criminal conduct on your part. I think Gavin was a victim.

People may choose to believe or disbelieve the family, but they were the only ones who didn’t ask for money and tried to put him behind bars, and so they have my respect. Andreas It appears “Pauline” is a morphing troll attempting to merely disrupt the site rather than seek any serious answers to her questions, although she may get back to us on that. Stacy Brown bases his $200 million claim on the total amounts paid to boys, their families, grooming, lawyers, private detectives, costs related to suppressing information on his boy chasing etc – not just settlements. I don’t know how accurate that figure is, but it can’t be denied that Jackson spent a lot of money on boys and boy related costs over the years. It would have cost him $10,000 each time he flew Brett Barnes over first class from Australia for their sleepovers. Strange that Jackson would bring Brett over for sleepovers when his nieces and nephews lived a short car ride away? But Jordan Chandler named James Safechuck Jr., Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, and a local neighborhood boy, as all being among Jackson’s “special friends” (read: victims) in his interview with a psychiatrist.

I believe Jason Francia (Jackson gave him a $2.4 Million settlement; Wouldn’t he embellish more if he was fabricating) and Wade Robson. Multiple witnesses have allege they saw Jackson abuse Wade Robson, as have multiple witnesses allege they saw Jackson abuse Macaulay Culkin and there was at least one or two witnesses for Jackson’s alleged abuse of Brett Barnes. Gavin Arvizo may have indeed been a victim afterall (James Safechuck Jr. Claimed in his 2014 complaint, and Aaron Carter stated in a 2011 interview, that MJ gave them alchohal; James Safechuck Jr.

Claimed in his complaint Jackson showed him both Adult-Pornography & Child-Exploitation Films; Wade Robson claimed in his 2013 complaint Jackson showed him Adult-Pornography in the form of magazines, books, and movies; All of these back up Gavin’s 2005 claims), but I understand you not believing the Arvizos’ allegations. The idea that a huge celebrity could normalize pedophilia and make it acceptable is something that can be debated, surely, especially if this celebrity has a truly global following, like Michael Jackson did in his prime – 80s and 90s. But I still think it’s highly unlikely, considering the degree of loathing that society has for pedophiles. Besides, the rabid MJ fans still vehemently deny his pedophilia, all while supporting his pedophile-like, highly suspicious behavior. There’s no end to their excuses I’ve seen them try to minimize his habit of putting children in ambiguous situations many times. For example, when it comes to the whole sleeping in one bed with children, they refuse to acknowledge that he deliberately sought out opportunities to have a specific attractive young boy spend the night with him alone.

They’ll say that his bedroom was open to all people, adults and kids, and that sometimes it happened that Michael and a child would fall asleep in the same bed, but that was only because the child was tired and Michael was too polite to tell them to go to another room. But that’s fine anyway, because he had a king-size bed and everybody knows how child-like and asexual MJ was – naughty thoughts wouldn’t even enter his mind They have all sorts of justifications. Thankfully, their blindness extends only to their idol, if any non-famous man of their acquaintance started acting that way, they would (hopefully) be alarmed. If these people would accept his pedophilia and child molestation, and still think that there’s nothing wrong with it, then we could be speaking about a celebrity normalizing something that before was taboo. Fortunately, that isn’t happening. This is such a wrong blog on so many levels.

Little to no facts are presented on here. This blog can honestly be described no greater than a make-up things on the spot and paste things here and there to persuade what ever you are trying to get. Tai, feel free to refute any facts presented on this site. Your blanket statements just make you look foolish. Dissect every case. If you had actually done that you would be alarmed at Michael Jackson’s behavior and activities with boys. It doesn’t disturb you that Michael Jackson called up to have Wade Robson brought to his bed after midnight?

That one thing alone is enough to condemn Jackson (and that applies whether yo believe Wade was molested or not. What good man engages in such selfish behavior?) I’ve slept with my dad’s friend countless of times while he was out on a trip. He was a good friend. Nothing sexual happened. So your experience is one we should base Jackson’s on? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Oh, and by the way, I don’t believe you.

I am sick and disgusted that you have not moved on, and decide to lead uninformed people astray on Michael’s character. If Michael Jackson’s character were pure and innocent, he would never had any accusations against him. He would have kept his relationships with children transparent and unambiguous instead of putting children in the compromising positions he did.

He was a narcissist who didn’t care about whether people like Brett Barnes and Macauley Culkin were viewed as potential victims because of the situation Jackson put them in because of his selfish needs and desires. “I’ve slept with my dad’s friend countless of times while he was out on a trip.

He was a good friend. Nothing sexual happened.” Can you elaborate, Tai? Are you saying you actually slept in the same bed of your fathers friends? How old were you when this happened? How frequent was this?

Was these friends of your dad male? And what gender are you? (Not that genders matters immensly, but still.) And what was the explanation for not staying in seperate beds?

It does sound weird, but I’d like to hear more. Michael wasn’t babysitting these boys though. They were usually invited over.

Their families slept in guest houses and the little boy had one-on-one sleepovers with Michael. That was the deal molestations or not. Once they were over(usually meaning when the mother finally allowed it), they never went back to the guest houses. His immense succession of little boys sleeping over is well documented, and even his defenders seem to acknowledge these sleepovers. I’m all for being open about other motivations, if there was any others that made sense, but you have to admit there’s a lack of options why you have someone over at your bed for days, weeks I mean, if I had various little boys not related to me, constantly sleep over in my bed, and it was a frequent thing year after year.

And people started questioning my motivations, why would all these little boys sleep over all the time and I would explain, oh, oh, oh, nothing sexual, I’m just giving them milk and cookies and we watch Disney movies, and then I sometimes tell them little stories from books, and then I’d tuck them in, I wouldn’t expected people to just be like “Oooh, that makes sense!”. (and I wouldn’t expect it to make more sense if I was the one that wrote Earthsong.) •. Thanks for those pictures, Joni. With this type of evidence, why do fans and friends of Michael keep saying he’s had vitiligo since he was little? Clearly that is a straight up lie, his skin was smooth and uniform in color. And I don’t see the infamous “hand splotches” that the sequined glove supposedly covered up during the Thriller eraanother lie. I think Bobby Taylor was absolutely full of crap.

He was probably just covering up for MJ. I think many of MJ’s friends did that, lie for himeither out of loyalty, for money, or both. His longtime makeup artist, Karen Faye, claims she was covering up his spots since he was brown, and only started to use light makeup when the vitiligo got worse. She’s either lying or that’s what MJ told her and she didn’t know the real truth. I strongly believe Michael didn’t have vitiligo but his Doctor Arnie Klein DOES have vitiligo. I seen it on his hands/arms when he was on TMZ live being interviewed.

Prince Michael has vitiligo under his arm pits in which he inherited from A.K. In my theory Michael noticed A.K. Skin condition and asked about it and decided to use it for his own skin changing so people won’t accuse him of bleaching. I’ve seen pictures of Michael in swim trunks from a kid to young adult (showing front and back) and I definitely didn’t see any pigmentation loss, nothing but beautiful brown skin that he destroyed with some pigmentation removal treatment (that may caused a vitiligo affect on his skin) that his sister Latoya mentioned; seeing a big box of skin lighting treatment coming to their Havenhurst house.

Michael took too many pictures and videos with his shirt off or out swimming, It would have been noticeable and everyone, including the media, would have talked about it back then. I don’t think someone’s attractions are learned from somebody else. I think that MJ was born this way. I don’t think that his bed sharing habits were learned from this Bobby dude or because he slept in a bed with a grown man as a child that he thought this was Ok to do so when he becomes an adult. Although I find this very creppy too that this man thought it was normal to see MJ undressed as a child and sleep in the same bed. Like MJ said once about his father beating him: When something happens to you and that it traumatized you you will never do the same thing because you know how bad it feels. And like ShawntayUStay said I doubt this ever happenened, this dude is probably lying to excuse MJ’s actions.

Thanks, I’m not questioning his attraction just the very similar pattern with sleeping arrangements and time Michael spent with his special friends. Bobby put it out there the amount time he was with Michael (I’m wondering if he’s exaggerating with the 20hrs a day), other questionable things he mentioned and sharing a bed with Michael as a child. I know Michael shared beds with his brothers but Bobby is a unrelated stranger and grown man and asking Michael “who loves you, if you don’t say it, i’ll kill you. ” the way it appears, Michael behavioral pattern may have come from Bobby- don’t know, jmho.

I am interested in Bobby Taylor insofar as what he may have done to Jacko to cause him to, as someone else pointed out, sexualize the mentor/protege relationship. He also sexualized the father/son relationship, which, beyond rumors that he’d been sexually molested by Joe Jackson, indicate to me he was a victim of incest. Bobby Taylor’s attractive, smooth appearance probably impressed Jacko: As far as “trauma” goes, I was more noting that just because Jacko loved Bobby and Bobby loved him — and for what seemed to be decades until Jacko’s death — doesn’t mean Jacko wasn’t victimized by Bobby Taylor. People seem to think that because a victim still loves their abuser, the abuse could never have happened — countless child molesters have escaped proper censure because of that “love”. So, in that way, when Jacko repeated the pattern on his ‘special friends’ like Omer Bhatti, his most obvious Mini Me, abusing them and calling it “love”, it shows that his earlier abuse was so confused with affection that he never thought he was “harmed”. If we think back to Jacko’s life as a child, he was exposed to too much disordered sex.

The strip clubs, his brothers having sex with groupies in bed next to him, being locked in a room with a prostitute, his father’s philandering While this is not politically correct, he seemed more traumatized by all of that than what he may have experienced with his mentor Bobby. Why do I say that? Because of what Omer said about some things that Jacko saw as natural and innocent. To Jacko, perhaps sex with boys represented a psychological safe haven from all of the “ugly sex” he saw with women. It was a revisiting of the “love” he felt when he was with Bobby or any other mentor/father-figure who may have sexually abused him without violence. (None of Jacko’s victims accused him of violence.) Poor Jacko.

It’s sad he never got therapy for his confusion. I know some wonder, since Jacko was so open about being physically, verbally, and emotionally abused by his father, why would he not also be open about being sexually abused. I suspect it’s because Jacko didn’t want anyone to look at him strange when he hung around young boys, since it’s known that many abusers have been abused. It could also be as I’d just described: he didn’t view the sex abuse as abuse but as “love”. To illustrate that latter point with a real life example, I once read a pretty disturbing narrative by a man who recounted his abuse at the hands of his grandfather (I won’t link the narrative for obvious reasons, among them being that the narrative is written like a Penthouse letter). He was sexually abused for years — from a young boy to an older teenager — by his grandfather whenever he visited his grandfather’s farm during the summer.

(This all took place in the 50s and 60s.) The man stated that he enjoyed it, that he loved his grandfather, and that he never did — and still didn’t — see it as abuse, when it clearly was! Interestingly, the man said that his grandfather was sexually abused in the same way by his own grandfather when he was a boy. The man added that if his daughter had a grandson (his own grandfather actually wanted a grandson to repeat the abuse he experienced; he got that opportunity, apparently), he would do the same thing because it was “loving” and there was nothing wrong with “loving” one’s grandson in that way.

So, maybe Jacko was doing the same thing as that man (and that man’s grandfather). It’s just when you read about things like that, they make you sad. How do you help people who think something bad is good and want to perpetuate the “cycle”, so to speak? I wonder if any of Jacko’s confidantes met a similar resistance.

Maybe Bill Bray or Frank Dileo? I’ve had my eye on Bobby Taylor for a while since I learned of him claiming that he and Jacko shared a bed — Bobby Taylor being in his 30s at the time while Jacko was 10 or so. Merely sharing a bed with Bobby Taylor is not going to cause Jacko to start favoring sleeping in bed with young boys. But if Bobby molested him, or did something else inappropriate (such as masturbating in bed next to Jacko) and it excited Jacko, and then that imprinted itself onto his memory as something very titillating, he could absolutely want to repeat that kind of thing with young boys. No one is “born” a pedophile; that’s absurd.

Many people notice their attractions quite early but to even be clinically defined as a pedophile, one would have to be at least 16 attracted to children at least 5 years younger than them. That distinction easily precludes a “born that way” etiology. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation — it’s a paraphilia, which means it’s compulsive and required for the individual to experience orgasm. No one is any more born being sexually attracted to children than they are to being an exhibitionist or frotteur.

Also, Jacko’s claim that he would never repeat anything that he experienced as a child as an adult may only refer to physical, verbal, and emotional abuse. It’s true he’s never beaten a child, but he has molested them, according to five alleged victims. The simplest explanation for the incongruity between his words and alleged actions is that he doesn’t view sex abuse as abuse. We may have Bobby Taylor, with whom Jacko apparently shared a mutual love, to blame for his confusion.

Yes, in one of the clips BathingApe posted Bobby says in a praising way that Michael Jackson is “has all of these people in him”, like Sammy Davis Jr, Fred Estaire, etc and (pause. Drumroll.) Bobby Taylor. I think/hope means he’s talking in term of talent, and not, um, literally, but yes, he seems to believe he was his mentor or something. In another context he adamantly defends spanking kids, which is kind of curious. I find him a bit creepy. It seems like they were talking on the telephone well into Michaels later years, so I have no problem believing he was in on MJs secrets.

After having read a bit more about MJ now, it seems like many of the closest people around him probably knew about MJ and a lot of his personal issues, and his tendency to lie to the public about almost everything, including most potentially damaging of course, his compulsive behavior with little boys. It seems like most of the people working with him on Neverland knew something wasn’t right. But they seemed to like him, as he seemed kind and vulnerable, and wanted to protect him, as they knew everything could and probably would crash down on him like a bomb some day, and they knew he would be too fragile to handle it. Blanca Francia says something like this in her unedited interview on Hard Hopy with Diane Dimond. People working with him thought they were protecting him, but obviously somebody should have pushed him to seek help. Somebody should have confronted him about all the lying.

I don’t know if you can “inherit” pedophilia from your victimizer. But interestingly, depending on how you read Wade Robson’s claims he seems to talks about feeling disturbing pedophilic “urges” when he got his son, and that was part of what got him out of his denial about how fucked up his relation to Michael was, so who knows. I don’t know how that stuff works.

It’s like Bobby Taylor was a proud papa; he feels he was perhaps an integral part of Michael Jackson’s legacy. Whether that is true or not, I don’t know.

You’re right, so many people protected MJ. Do you think it was because they wanted to keep the “gravy train” going, or was it out of genuine love for Jackson? Enabling toxic behavior is common among close friends and relatives, and we already know that MJ’s drug use was enabled by his inner circle and even though they wanted him to stop, they seemed more concerned with maintaining their connection/friendship to/with a celebrity. As Bob Jones and MJ’s sister Janet Jackson both said, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. But drug addiction, though harmful, still only primarily affects the user. Pedophilia affects other people — the children. So why did no one tell?

According to Di Dimond’s book, Michael’s chief of security Bill Bray allegedly told MJ over the phone that he was sick of lying for him, like he did at the grand jury in 93/94, and he knew that MJ was molesting little boys. But those scruples never extended beyond that phone call. Another of Michael’s close aides, Norma Stakos, was called the “madam at Neverland” because she was responsible for bringing families and arranging get togethers with boys MJ took interest in. And in Wade Robson’s most recent legal papers, he quotes a police interview where Norma allegedly told another worker “the kid [MJ] is lucky I understand his ‘problem'”. These people knew and I also think Michael’s longtime manager Frank Dileo knew as well, because according to JRT’s book, he told MJ that he’d better ice the relationship he had with Jimmy Safechuck because it was starting to look perverted.

But we all know James wasn’t MJ’s last boy by a long shot so clearly that exhortation was a feckless one. It’s true; a lot of people in Jackson’s inner circle knew about his boy problem and even aided it. His one time executive secretary Orietta Murdoch who worked for MJJ Productions said that it was well-known around the office and she never brought her young son to her work, because Norma Staikos had warned her not to. Victor Gutierrez also said that Miko Brando, Marlon’s son who worked for MJ as a bodyguard, if I’m not mistaken, also knew.

I think that Jackson probably knew how to choose people who wouldn’t tell or even help him find new boys It’s similar to how it was with boys and families. Bob Jones said MJ had a knack for sensing which kids and parents could be easily wooed and then kept cooperating in the abuse due to money and extravagant gifts like jewelry and luxurious cars coming from Jackson. It’s likely Jackson also knew how to hire people who would do what he wanted, no questions asked. And they also wanted to keep their jobs. Bob Jones also said that once he had warned MJ about the impropriety of having his current boy everywhere with him and sleeping in one room with him (I think the boys was James Safechuck). MJs answer was simple: ‘I don’t care what they think!’ He wasn’t going to deviate from his suspicious behavior no matter what anyone told him. I wonder how vindicators explain the fact that people like Staikos, Bill Bray, and Murdoch knew about boys and cooperated in them being abused?

Oh well, they probably say that Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez made it all up When it comes to Neverland employees who saw MJ molest boys, MJs supporters often say that none of them went to the police and told what they saw, which supposedly means that it never happened. There are several explanations for why they didn’t go to the authorities.

People like Ralph Chacon, the Quindoys and the Lemarchans said that they thought no one was going to believe them. Someone said – ‘I would have gone to the police and told them that I saw my boss molest an eleven year old boy, but, if I say that my boss is Michael Jackson and the boy was Macaulay Culkin – two of the biggest stars in the world – nobody’s going to believe me’. MJ also threatened Adrian McManus, his personal made for some time. During the Arvizo trial, when she was on the stand, she said that Michael used to tell her: ‘you know Adrian, if you ever tell anyone [about the boys in my bedroom] then I will tell Norma.

She will arrange for something bad to happen to you, and it will happen in a way that no one will know it came from me’. From what I know, she is the only person that MJ had threatened openly like that, so I don’t know how common it was for him to do that. Maybe he made threats to other employees, too. Anyhow, it was chilling to read that when reading the court transcripts. Fans, of course, think that it never happened and label her as yet another disgruntled former employee. I do think that Michael’s ability to choose “wooable” employees played a big role in most of his inner circle nondisclosures to police, but there had to be something more to it, don’t you think? I mean no one said anything throughout the years, even though Wade Robson mentioned in his legal papers that it was well known MJJ Productions/Neverland gossip that Jackson had a thing for boys.

So if the help — people not really close emotionally to MJ — had enough material to work with to continue their behind cupped hands rumor spreading, how much more did his confidantes know? Sometimes I think that MJ may have kept his proclivities a secret from those he thought highly of our wanted to influence. It’s like why would he care what lowly workers think because he could replace them in two seconds. If Blanca saw him in the shower with a boy, or if Quindoy could record in his diary several instances of seeing young boy underwear on the floor near his bed, it was of no consequence. But since MJ was all about image, as a narcissist, he could have very well have hidden his deviant attractions from people who “mattered”, like Lisa Marie Presley, Brooke Shields, Elizabeth Taylor, some of his family all the people who’ve said they couldn’t fathom Michael being a child molester.

They really could be sincere and never seen MJ act weird around kids. Personally, for example, I truly believe that Janet Jackson does not know or think her brother was a pedophile. He loved Janet the best, according to his own words, so I think he wouldn’t have shown that side. I also think there is an element of love for Michael that, bad or good depending on one’s perspective, prevented his close aides from telling on him. How much does longtime Secretary •.

Hmm, I’m afraid I don’t really have a good answer as to why his close, long-term employees chose not to disclose what they knew or suspected was happening to the authorities. It’s probably a mix of reasons. I think that some employees cared about him and were loyal to him. Even Bob Jones, who send Stacy Brown an email mentioning the head licking incident, but seemed to be overcome by a memory fog when he was testifying at the trial and was asked to speak about it. Then he said that he saw Michael sitting there and felt sympathy toward him. He probably still cared about MJ even with everything that he had witnessed during his employment.

People like Norma Staikos and Bill Bray were likely hiding their own involvement in the boy business, after all cooperating and covering up criminal activity counts as a crime, right? Actually, I think that if Wade’s civil case goes to court, then we might hear from Staikos or Orietta Murdoch. He is suing MJJ Productions and other Jackson-related corporations on the grounds that these organisations were supposed to keep him safe. Because instead of that, people working for them contributed to Wade being molested. Murdoch spoke about booking a hotel room for Wade and Joy Robson across his Hideout apartment in Century City, so that Wade would be close to Jackson. She might have to explain her actions Oh yes, it’s very probable that Jackson never let Elizabeth Taylor or Brooke Shields see him in an odd situation with a kid. He probably wanted them to only see his good side, so he kept the boy-loving, manipulative, compulsive lying aspects of his personality himself when around them.

That’s why they still speak glowingly of him. I don’t know if the Jackson family knows. I suspect they do, but will never tell – they’re protecting his legacy.

La Toya was the only one who spoke up and told about the boys who had spent time at Neverland and the checks that were written to their parents. But she was accepted back into the family and told to shut up, and his been on their side every since. I actually suspect that Janet Jackson does know that he abused boys. Not that she has ever seen it with her own eyes, but she’s not stupid and realizes that with this many allegations it is most likely true.

Janet has rarely spoken about the matter; I saw one old interview with her where she said that if the Chandler accusations were true the family would have never taken the money, but would have made sure that Michael would land in prison. But apart from that, she hasn’t really spoken about it. Also, none of the Jacksons have made statements about James Safechuck’s allegations. I wonder why? Do they think it’s becoming ridiculous to deny the claims at this point?

That they’re protecting him I partly base on what Blanca Francia said in the interview with Diane Dimond. According to her, everybody close to Michael knew about the boys sleeping over all the time, and staff was whispering about it. DD: La Toya says she noticed the boys coming and going[while Michael was living at Hayvenhurst, their parents house]. DD: Do you believe her? Everybody noticed it then. (DD ponders) What exactly did Blanca mean when she said “everybody”, I wondered. She had just described the family as private persons who kept to to their own rooms.

Did she mean the cadre of bodyguards, handlers, attorneys, managers, and other servants? If this behavior was occurring on an ongoing basis, why didn’t anyone step forward to tell the authorities? How could that many adults keep such secret? (/DD ponders) BF: They think they are protecting him, helping him But they are not really helping him. You see, he needs help. DD: Psychological help, you mean?

BF: Yeah, and they not helping him by not saying what’s going on. DD: But do you think they really know what’s going on?

BF: Yes, they do. They know what’s going on. DD: Why do you think they don’t come forward and say something? Go to the police? BF: He have the power, I think. He have control over them. DD: The money?

BF: The money, yes. I feel bad for him because, he will feel that he– you know, the money means everything. ___ BF: I think what is going on now– He really needs help.

He really needs help. DD: Do you think he thinks that? Do you think he thinks he needs help?

BF: He thinks its normal. DD: But sleeping with young boys and taking baths with young boys is not normal. BF: Well, not to you and me, but to him.

__ If MJ really thinks this is “normal”, that assumes he might have experienced it himself? Another quite interesting thing I stumbled upon BF: Michaels pajamas were real feminine.

It was like with pearls. Pahjmas and stones and silky pajamas with rhinestones.

DD: He wore those every day or was that just for “special friends” nights? BF: Yeah, special friends nights. Because I noticed he had like the regular ones, but then he had friends over — especially at the hideout, where he had only silky ones.

____ Now, if we look at the Bobby Taylor video again where he talks about “sleeping with Michael”, Taylor also seems to be into silky clothes too. Not sure if its a pajamas he is using there(is it?), but it sure is silky, and there is something arguably “feminine” about it as well. The pajamas with pearls thing always cracks me up, LOL, because that is really feminine. But MJ always said that he liked sparkles and sequins because they captured the light and that’s where people’s eyes were drawn. He was friends with Liberace, maybe he acquired his love of sparkly things from him? About MJ thinking sleeping with boys was normal, you’re right, someone had to teach him that because most people find unrelated kids and adults sharing a bed objectionable. Which reminds me, I was thinking about hire Bobby Taylor describes the relationship with young Michael, the 20 hours slept alone with him, sharing his bed, perhaps even seeing MJ undressed before/after a shower.

And this is supposed to be a career mentorBut with this level of closeness? But think about MJ’s relationship with his special friends. Many of them were billed as Jackson’s proteges, like Wade, James, Omer, and probably some others as well since he basically foisted a desire to do film on all of them.

But as we all know now, he molested these proteges. Could that also demonstrate that he learned this “special” mentor-protege relationship when he was a boy? I mean he had to learn this from somewhere. It reminds me of ancient apprentice relationships between adults and boys, like in Japan with (I think) samurai, and of course in Ancient Greece (pederasty). I’m thinking he was repeating his own trauma he experienced as a kid. Yes, I was thinking about the thing in Greece as well, and how male mentors and often underage male proteges sometimes had a sexual dimension.

Pederastry, I suppose, yes. I think there’s similiar things in certain african tribes, and it is usually something thats ritualistic and tradition.

(Even though paradoxically strong homophobia was still prevelant in the same cultures, which I’ve always found strange.) And you’re right. Michael did often portray himself as some kind of ‘mentor’ to most of his victims, insisting how he always would look out for them. Even with Jordy, his plan with bringing him along on the tour was for him to see the world and have private tutoring, encouraging him about screenwriting, and so on.

Even Evan Chandler thought for a long time that Michael really wanted the best for Jordy, in his own twisted and sick way. Even though we have to admit we are kind of speculating about all this, its quite plausible Michael had similiar “mentors” when he was young, like Bobby Taylor, and perhaps others. It would make sense at least.

I haven’t been able to dig up too much about Bobby Taylor, but there seem to be talk about Motown Records for some reason not featuring him on historical records and so on, even though he supposedly he should have been big enough, and some people wondering why. Love that episode of TZ, LOL! I think that is true from Jackson’s perspective. But it doesn’t explain the actions of the enablers. Why did they choose to ignore or (maybe even) accept his pedophilia?

It had to be a result of a psychological change or something. There’s a famous Stanford University experiment form the 1970s that had ordinary people be assigned to two groups: prisoners or guards. Those that became guards experienced a mental change that made them act cruel to the “prisoners”, so much so they had to stop the study for ethical reasons!

And again, all of these participants were normal with no history of violence. So it makes me think: what about the situation made these normal people turn a blind eye to the abuse of these special friends? What justifications did they employ to protect themselves from feeling enough guilt that could make them speak up? Was it love for MJ?

Since MJ wasn’t a violent pedophile and groomed these boys into compliant victimization, did the enablers feel no harm was being done to them so why tell? Quindoy said, I think, he didn’t tell because he wasn’t the victim. Maybe they all felt like that •. I’ve thought about this a lot. I think there was a combination of factors. Some lower order employees were undoubtedly in awe of Jackson. Some enjoyed the cachet of being able to say they worked for him.

There would have been peer group pressure from other employees, perhaps subtly, not to “make waves” or alternately the knowledge that going to the police would drag all your fellow employees into a mess. There was that element of not being believed by the police if they did tell. There was the security of their job (and their prospects of getting another job should they “tell on their boss”). In later years, after the OSS was formed to protect Jackson, there were threats – for some employees overt, for others covert, and yet others veiled or implied. And for those closer to Jackson there was his manipulation and his projection of vulnerability that made them feel sorry for him as we saw from Bob Jones on the stand.

I’m sure others can come up with more resons/excuses. Imagine being placed in that situation. It would be hard to know what to do, even though it’s evident what needed to be done.

For some people it would have been too hard to do the right thing. Good reasons, most of which I have already figured were at play. Imagine being in that situation. That’s like the Kitty Genovese case, where she was being raped and stabbed and screaming for help, with many people looking out their windows, watching the scene unfold, but no one did a thing to help, all because it was not my problem or they believed someone else would step in in the nick of time. A psych professor of mind once said never be those people, always speak upbut it’s easier said than done, especially if the person being victimized isn’t as close to you as the person doing the victimizing. I’d like to think I would have threw the door opened to the shower room and pummeled MJ to the floor, whisked Brett Barnes to safety and detained MJ until to cops came, if I had been Ralph Chacon that night in spring 1992.

But perhaps in Bill Bray’s shoes, I could have acted as (outwardly) nonchalant to the goings on as he did. Michael had bestowed the honor of looking up to Bill as a surrogate father, which probably made Bill feel protective of his “son”. Those feelings are powerful.

I’ve seen it so many times, friends and family convinced the obvious isn’t true, and if it is true, it isn’t that bad. Interesting discussion here!

That video BathingApe posted is probably one reason why people don’t come clean and want to protect Michael. That was epic! He sang so well and in the end, to fight the emotions, he does that dance move. That was really great performance! What I’m saying is Michael made himself this really unique performer, this amazing talent.

He is so good! And same time so nice and heartwarming person. How could anyone be mean to that kind of person? It would be hard, because he is an idol. And oh so fragile when threatened. You saw how unwell he seemed to be during the 2005 trial. You can’t hurt a man who seems so hurt.

I don’t know how much of it was real, real fear of prison and/or hurt for what was being done to him, and how much pretend to make it seem like he is really hurt by the allegations. Tai, you petulantly demanded that your comments be approved quickly, yet when we did approve your comments, you disappeared.

That’s disappointing. You are what is known as a “hit-and-run” commenter, not particularly interested in discussing ideas or exploring options, but only interested in pushing your point onto other people and not returning to support your argument when challenged. This almost troll like behavior is only meant to disrupt the site, unless you want to come back and discuss the points you’ve raised? Hope you come back soon. • Pingback: () •. Pedophelia can’t turn the victims into pedophiles when they grow up.

It’s something that just goes wrong with you. Jackson would’ve had lots of porn on his hardrive(why didn’t they check that?).

What is weird is the employees who quit in disgust & sold “what they saw” to the tabloids never went tothe police. You’d think they’d care about the child’s saftey a little bit.

The tabloids and paper didn’t use much facts but they used a lot to make Micheal look bad. Another thing is wasn’t Michael sharing his bed with his older brothers at first? The oldest had to be atleast 15-17 at the time. I’m sure Micheal wasn’t molested by them. So it’s slightly possible Micheal’s relationship with the boys was innocent, atleast no seriouls molestation. Michael could’ve been that innocent & naive, he just wanted to have an older sibling relationship with the boys. But he didn’t think how wrong it would look or maybe he did cross some limits.

But he wasn’t actually a pedophile. What is this I just read? I am from Sweden and I can clearly see how you twist things as most fans say you do. Your translation of Omer Bhatti’s interview is so wrong. This is how it is; “I wish not to say so much about it, but what I want to say is that Michael in many ways was very innocent. I can ofcourse not expect that everyone will see things in the same view as I did (that the sleepovers was innocent) Michael was too naive and took damage of being too kind-hearted (letting kids sleep in his bed and trust the wrong people). For him (sharing a bed with kids) things was natural and completely innocent.

But ofcourse not everyone will necessarily see things in the same way I did (that the sleepovers where innocent). Please learn to read behind the lines the right way.

You guys are making a victim of someone who abesolutely aren’t a victim that is in everyway disgusting. The original article was written in Norwegian, so we’ll defer to the translation suggested by our Norwegian reader Andreas. However, what you’ve “translated” is not that much different from what was provided to us; what’s different are your annotations. You want to direct people to believe that, in spite of the reasonable suspicion that Omer Bhatti was yet another Jordie Chandler, Wade Robson, and James Safechuck (a young boy Jacko “befriended” and slept in bed with alone and on numerous occasions), Omer’s “defense” of Jacko is some kind of trump card against any suggestion that he was molested. Well, it isn’t. As Omer said (via your translation), “For him things was natural and completely innocent. But ofcourse not everyone will necessarily see things in the same way I did.” We’ll let people interpret those words in light of evidence laid bare in the above article.

The sentence “For han var visse ting helt naturlig og helt uskyldig” does translate quite directly to “To him certain things was natural and completely innocent” You seem to assume he’s talking about sharing bed with kids, but “certain things” could mean anything really, as he’s not being specific here. And there’s never any refering to Jackson sleeping with kids in the article, so you’re obviously just guessing that is what Omer is refering to. And as people have pointed out earlier, Omer also says “certain things”, as its more than one thing. The direct question Omer got was never revealed in the article, and while that would be helpful, you can grasp from the context its clearly about the molestation allegations, and that is what Omer is replying to here. I personally think Omer was being vague on purpose.

Its matches how he answers most things about MJ. He just don’t want to go too much into it. Very touchy about his relationship to Jackson. So we finally get the truth that has been obvious to anyone not knee deep in Michael Jackson’s PR spin — albeit in a rather “pseudo-cryptic proverbian” language that most fans will surely miss. The whole “blood is thicker than water” malapropism comes to mind but that has zero to do with what Prince has said. As you’ve already said, Pea, Prince is saying that the covenant between his father Michael, himself, and his two siblings to become one as a family is more important and binding than whatever genetics can say.

This is the same idea in the Bible when it speaks of the everlasting covenant made between a believer and God where He becomes their Father; that relationship transcends any earthly bonds a person may have, including the ones with their own flesh-and-blood (and the laws of the land; actually explains the recent spat of some Christians not obeying the US Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. Some may think it’s stupid but this covenant is very real to a believer). What is more interesting to me is that I believe these kids are not stupid and have known the truth for a long time — at least since the oldest were teens, but perhaps even before MJ died(!) — but you saw after MJ’s death LaToya Jackson trying to say that Prince had vitiligo, Tito Jackson saying Blanket has MJ’s eyes, etc. The family either didn’t know the truth or they went along with a lie. But that’s typical Jackson family BS Also, it begs the question: Why? Why have non-black children, MJ?

I suspect that since MJ dealt with feelings of self-hatred, he couldn’t truly love a child that was genetically his, either because of his (obvious) racial self-hatred or his more general self-loathing, as evidenced by his addictions, plastic surgery, BDD, etc. There is also what Dr. Conrad Murray said in a post-incarceration interview with the Daily Mail: he said that MJ didn’t want a genetic link between his children and his family, which let’s us know that there was no love lost when MJ separated himself professionally from his family in the mid 80s. I watched a program on BET yesterday about OJ Simpson, and OJ and MJ have a lot of similarities — beyond the most glaring, that being two rich, powerful, obviously guilty, celebrities whose guilt was hidden behind the real tangible ineptitude/mistakes of law enforcement, the District Attorney’s Office, and/or witnesses (this, to me, applies to both MJ’s 1993 and 2005 cases). Both are similar in that they both seemed to have had fantasies of leaving humble, more “black” beginnings and part of the fantasies included holding up whiteness as an attainable virtue. Both OJ and MJ pretty much rejected their blackness once they achieved fame, marrying white women and associating with white people to a degree that looks like black abandonment. The only difference between OJ and MJ is that OJ actually liked women so he had no problem having mulatto children; MJ self-hatred was complicated by his fear of vajay-jay of all colors so he naturally would just prefer to use white gametes sans the natural process of conception, LOL.

Oh and all this proves that there is no nexus between Prince’s de-pigmented birthmarks and MJ’s Benoquin-induced “vilitigo”, much to fans’ disappointment. So if MJ lied about his kids’ origins (twice about Blanket to Martin Bashir in the course of a single interview), and this is a HUGE lie, what other stuff did he lie about? LOL, Andreas. That picture is not a legit comparison of MJ and Prince; the morph works on the power of suggestion because since you are being told to look if these two individuals are “related” or “similar”, you are already priming your brain to see similarities. The fans say “Look at this picture, how can’t you see he’s MJ’s son!” and you will force yourself to see something. It happens quicker than reason/logic can cancel it out. And fans in particular want to see the relatedness; I was the same way and I convinced myself that all those kids were MJ’s.

At any rate, I think it’s important to remember what he said and the context in which he said it: “the blood of covenant is thicker than the water of the womb”. It’s a juxtaposition between his genetically shared relationship with Debbie Rowe and his relationship with MJ. He had zero relationship with his mother because she was just a brood mare, but MJ was the one who was there from day one, so Prince is reiterating the fact that genetic relatedness has no bearing on what, and who, he considers his real family — the “water of the womb” doesn’t make her more of a parent than MJ because he values the mutual and “spiritual” agreement between his siblings and MJ to become one as a family. Besides the obvious language of the proverb, there is more evidence than Prince’s own words that reasonably show that MJ was never anyone’s bio dad. Wow, hella desperate fans. I see Arnold Klein more than Michael Jackson. Those weren’t his.

And no amount of mental gymnastics, standing on my head covering one eye while looking at their pictures, will make me ever think there is a possibility that a black man can have three children in succession that look nothing like him. And MJ wasn’t even multiracial enough to have that happen three times in a row. He was probably at least 75% black on a genetic level, so his kids wouldn’t look like that. Look at the other Jackson grandkids. They’re all mixed and they still look like Jacksons! Fans need to accept it; MJ lied.

I don’t understand how anyone can believe just one second that these 3 children are Michael’s. This is just impossible. Look at them. Prince and Paris are obviously from white parents ( different fathers since they don’t look alike at all) and Blanket has some latino looks; certainly not black. Just look at their hair; they all have straight hair.

They don’t look mixed and especially not black. The most obvious one is Paris. She has blue eyes, light hair and skin. I always see some montages made by fans trying to show a false similarity between Mj and his kids, I personnaly never saw anything similar.

I think it all boils down to that the fans want to believe what Michael said they were his in those interviews, especially since he was so insisting. If he could lie with such sincerity about that, it kind of opens up the possibilities that other things could have been a lie as well. There’s this youtuber, Fiona3000, who makes a lot of texty videos about Jackson’s relationship with LMP and Debbie, and about the kids and so on. She claims MJ had a problem with infertility. I think he somehow got a sperm donation from Arnold Klein. At least Paris and Prince.

Blanket’s father could be someone else. The sad thing is that even after Prince Jackson wrote that cryptic or maybe not so cryptic tweet there will still be people who will continue to insist that Michael is the biological father of those kids. They’ve spent so much time and effort making those photo montages, they can’t give up now!

Never mind what Prince Jackson says! 😀 Those poor misguided people; I would maybe even have sympathy for them if they weren’t so insufferable, the vast majority of them.

I have a suspicion that Michael’s kids also know that he was a child molester, at least Paris and Prince do, since they are old enough to remember what was going on. They likely remember him inviting boys like Omer Bhatti, Juju Elatab, and Gavin Arvizo to spend a night (or many) in his bedroom. The default phenotype for Sub-saharan Africans is dark skin and dark eyes, which is necessary in that climate.

Black people in America are descendants of these people. Any deviation from the typical phenotype is a result of random mutation (rare) or admixture from other ethnic groups (much more common). So a black person with light eyes and/or less kinky hair texture is because they are mixed race on a genetic level. Seeing that MJ was a fairly “Black” black man, it’s not likely his biological kids would not demonstrate codominantly expressed black features. It’s very rare for a black person to have light hair and light eyes.

But you said your hair is curly and your skin is tan — both indicators of black genes in the mix. Paris and Prince and Blanket don’t have any of those traits. Have you seen other Jackson grandkids and great grandkids? They still look like Jacksons, regardless of racial mixture!

P, P, & B don’t look like Jacksons. Besides, Prince looks like his (now deceased) father Arnold Klein. I guess the real question is: why do you need them to be MJ’s kids, genetically? I always repeat the kids question hoping one day I will get an answerstill waiting, LOL.

I really want to know what they think. I, myself, can say that when I was a fan, I had to believe they were his because I thought only a crazy person would lie about something this huge (huge to me anyway) but like many things, I’ve seen fans nonchalantly say “of course they’re not his” without thinking of the implications of that being true — namely, he’s a hardcore liar. To fans I think his lies about plastic surgery and paternity are probably rationalized away as benign if they are found out.

They’d be devastated if the ones about vitiligo, his heterosexuality, and of course his “innocent love” for kids were exposed because these are the “holy trinity”of Michael Jackson myths fans spend years researching and defending. The poor dears.

Michal, your pictures don’t prove he had vitiligo. Michael Jackson didn’t have vitiligo, according to his autopsy file. It contained a section, starting on page 38, called “Microscopic Report”: With the help of a doctor at a medical school who specialized in skin pathology, they came to the conclusion that Jacko had “vitiligo” because they found, histologically, that his skin had “no melanocytic pigment”. They noted, however, that he did have melanocytes, the cells that make the skin pigment, although they were “reduced in number”. That last part is interesting because it confirms that Jacko’s white skin was the result of skin bleaching, not vitiligo. Histologically, vitiligo is characterized by no melanocytes, much like in albinism: Microscopic examination of involved skin shows a complete absence of melanocytes in association with a total loss of epidermal pigmentation. It’s important to note, too, that Benoquin — a cream Jacko was allegedly given by the now deceased Dr.

Arnold Klein — also presents a histological finding similar to vitiligo, as it can irreversibly destroy melanocytes. But Jacko did have melanocytes — just a reduced number of them. If he had vitiligo, he’d have none. Skin bleaching creams act as transcription factors to induce changes to the DNA “code”, essentially telling melanocytes to stop making black pigment. You may then see a reduction in melanocytes concomitantly because the typical amount seen in black skin is no longer “needed” due to the heavy and repeated doses of bleaching creams.

Additionally, Dr. Klein allegedly gave Jacko Solaquin Forte (a standard hydroquinone), Retin-A (a Retinoid that induces skin peeling), and Benoquin. My theory is that Jacko used Benoquin to whiten his skin completely (as it is the most heavy duty skin bleach), used Retin-A to increase the rate of loss of black skin by literally having it peel off, and maintained his complexion with standard prescription hydroquinone. After he died, they found several boxes of hydroquinone + kojic acid bleaching cream in his Holmby Hills mansion.

There’s no proof — histologically and photographically — that he had vitiligo; his autopsy report proves he lied. He hated his black skin so he bleached it away •. Hmmm, let’s see. Even if MJ had what could be called vitiligo, was it chemically induced or was it idiopathic, i.e.

Spontaneous with no discernible cause? Because I can’t get over all the deflection he did when asked about his changing skin tone. When Oprah asked him about it in 1993, after years of the public seeing him get lighter and lighter, he was defensive, saying you can’t bleach your skin, I don’t bleach my skin, and then adding a non sequitur about Michelangelo. Was was he so shocked that we’d want to know what was up with him?

And then in his interview with Diane Sawyer, he was still defensive about it again, saying that he was jealous that Lisa Marie could tan but he couldn’t, Lisa also saying — and MJ agreeing — that his changing appearance is because “he’s an artist”. Don’t forget the white children and white wives, and adopting of (mostly) white families like the Cascios. So my thing is this: what came first — the vitiligo, making him desire to be a weird facsimile of a white(?) man in manner of appearance and action, or the wanting to be a white(?) man made him get “vitiligo” via creams and peels? All of it seems too serendipitous to be a legitimate illness, LOL. The autopsy does state a diagnosis of vitiligo. Where the dark patches of skin are still present, there are melanocytes.

In the light parts of the skin, there are no melanocytes. I’m struggling to figure out what you mean by your statement that he didn’t have vitiligo?? The bleach found in his home was reportedly used to lighten the unaffected parts of his skin so he would at least be one solid color.

Karen Faye did state he had vitiligo, and the progression was such that he couldn’t cover it with dark makeup anymore due to sweating it off. When there was more white skin than dark, he he reportedly began bleaching away the remaining dark spots. I’m no expert on MJ, but I don’t understand your logic on the subject of vitiligo. Neely, yes, the autopsy stated Jacko had vitiligo. However, people who suffer from vitiligo lack melanocytes in the affected skin, meaning the skin that is white.

Jacko’s autopsy stated the affected skin lacked pigment but had melanocytes. I am questioning the conclusion there: if vitiligo sufferers lack melanocytes in vitiliginous regions, why did Jacko have melanocytes in his supposedly “vitiliginous” skin? The alternate explanation would be that Jacko was using skin bleach, which blocks melanin production but does not destroy melanocytes, rather than actually having vitiligo. (Note: monobenzyl ether of hydroquinone, or Benoquin, allegedly makes the skin, upon histological examination, appear similar to vitiligo, i.e.

No melanocytes. But Jacko did have melanocytes; again, that’s why I’m questioning the legitimacy of the autopsy report.) Is it possible that the segment of Jacko’s white skin was from a region that did not have vitiligo but was bleached to match the vitiliginous skin? Certainly it is possible. But Michael’s fans claim his purely white appearance was due to universal vitiligo, which supposedly affects over 80% of the body: If that is true — if Jacko had been afflicted by “universal vitiligo” — then there would be at least an 80% chance a cutting from his skin would reflect vitiligo (i.e. Where no melanocytes are present). Yet the cutting showed melanocytes, a finding more consistent with what Conrad Murray said about Jacko telling him he wanted “flawless porcelain skin”. In other words, Jacko was bleaching.

Are you following me, Neely? I don’t care what Karen Faye said about seeing patches of white skin or trying to “even him out” with makeup. All she would know was what Jacko would’ve told her.

To be honest, it is a great shock that people haven’t connected the dots and noted how his changing skin tone coincided with his rapidly “whitening” facial features, which he then followed with white children he claimed were his biologically. There are many black people with vitiligo.

There aren’t many black people who get nose jobs and wear silky wigs to match their “new white skin”. Obviously, the facts posted go on ignored only to claim again he had it. You can only explain it so many times.LOL Even Murray knew Jacko was bleaching himself beyond recognition so much so he tried to hide those bleaching agents from the authorities. Klein scolded Jacko for trying to bleach his penis Seems someone is so desperate for him to have this vitiligo they know claim Prince has it. Which is not true. How would he have it when it’s not Jacko’s kid and no one has diagnosed him as having it? That’s the new lie to convince lord knows who that those kids are MJs.

That’s what his fans are saying. “Well MJ had vitilgo and Prince does, so that means that his kid”. You don’t need a degree to know Jacko had some serious issues with himself & his looks. Who butchers themselves to the point where you have no nose?

He should have been committed a long time ago. Up until his death on drugs. He was still getting work done to get drugs. Ummm, no I’m not ‘following’ you, lol. I am intrigued by many discussions here, which I just discovered recently. I actually posted another reply on a different thread, but having to sign up caused the comment to disappear.

It was a good one too dang it!! I am admittedly a confused person with regard to MJ.

I have concluded one thing for sure.no matter how close a person is to MJ, with enough money from either camp, they will say what they’re paid to say. Thanks for explaining your viewpoint respectfully! I just realized when you said “following me”, you meant, do I understand, and yes I do.

I wonder where you read about bleached skin still containing melanocytes, while vitiliginous skin is absent them. Along the comment of his white children.I did notice something disturbing in some clips of Prince when he was a small child. The kid had stark blonde hair and nearly black eyebrows. How disgusting to bleach a toddlers hair so as to have a blonde headed child. In another clip, I actually saw dark roots on the child. I will never understand why someone would do that.

To create the image of the child you WISH you had? Disgusting really. My sources of information about bleached skin having melanocytes and vitiligo skin lacking them are various medical studies and journal articles over the years. I am a former Michael Jackson fan, and one of the big issues in fandom is trusting his word that he had vitiligo; naturally, a fan would then try to research into vitiligo as much as feasible. Skin bleach (e.g. Hydroquinone) works by blocking melanin production — in other words, the process whereby a functional melanocyte makes skin pigment is interrupted and no pigment is made. People who use skin bleaching products are advised to avoid sunlight because the sun stimulates melanin production and makes moot the work done by the hydroquinone, a phenol compound that’s light sensitive anyway.

So basically if a healthy melanocyte is around, it will make melanin unless impeded by something like skin bleach. Alternately, vitiligo sufferers are told to keep out of the sun because they can’t produce melanin as they have no melanocytes (the absence of which is verified by testing); they burn easily. Perhaps that answered your question? It’s a mystery what Jacko’s motive had been when he bleached Prince Jackson’s hair.

All I can chalk it up to is self hatred and, frankly, sour grapes that Prince was dark haired and eyed — not a surprise since his real father, Arnold Klein, was Jewish. With Paris, she was born with Debbie’s grey eyes — must’ve been good enough for his high beauty standards. Yes, thank you. Did you say it is mentioned in the autopsy somewhere that melanocytes actually still existed in the alleged ‘affected’ areas? I remember Conrad Murray saying he wished to return to Neverland in the midst of the chaos of MJs death, to retrieve the creams that MJ wouldn’t want the public to know about.

I regarded it as his attempt to get back there and destroy his own damning evidence. I am currently reading the court transcripts from the 2005 trial. That’s a lot of reading!!! I am so interested in what you (or anyone else) have to say about his character and why you (if you do) would regard him as a tried and true pedophile. I consider myself a newb since I only started researching a few months back. Never owned his music, never knew about any philanthropic efforts, etc. I only really knew he had been accused of molestation because, well, how could you not?

I did grow up with him in his glory days, but was largely unmoved by his spectacle, or his music. I’ve never been a voyeur so to speak, into the lives of celebrities. That world is so far away from me and I wasn’t particularly entertained by it. That said, I have been on a pursuit, like millions of people I would guess, to gather information so as to come to my own conclusions. This pursuit has surprised, more than anyone, myself.

I never understood what drove people to chase stories, etc. Now, that has changed. But, I would like to not be getting it, lol. I wish my interest wasn’t so typical of nearly everyone else on the planet. But, alas, I am so damn curious.

In the comment below is where I linked to the autopsy report and provided a photo snippet of the “Microscopic Report” section, detailing the findings of the skin sample they took: I don’t know if Dr. Conrad Murray wanted to go back to destroy evidence — it’s certainly possible. I didn’t follow the Murray trial because it looked like a dead end.

I just disagreed, in principle, with the notion of someone going to jail for giving an addict what they asked for. Propofol is legal to dispense in a non-hospital setting, albeit probably not the smartest decision, and Jacko had done it with other doctors in the past, so Murray going down for doing what Jacko had done before didn’t seem fair. In retrospect, I suppose Conrad deserved what he got. He wasn’t thinking straight had he been a cartoon he’d have dollar signs in his eyes. “I’ve never been a voyeur so to speak, into the lives of celebrities. But, alas, I am so damn curious.:-)” There’s nothing wrong with being curious!

🙂 Michael Jackson is very interesting (and I’m sure there are a number of other fascinating figures who’d sate our desire to explore the strange and unusual). I have been asked by many of his overly-protective fans, “Why are you interested in someone you hate?” They wrongly assume that believing he’d molested some kids means that you hate him; it doesn’t necessarily mean that. In my view, the most annoying commentators on the subject of Jacko are the ones who hate him — their only contributions are name-calling and trolling fans; they need to find other things to do because they aren’t adding anything (they’re probably miserable folks in real life!). I don’t hate Jacko whatsoever; I don’t like what he did, and I was saddened when I realized the truth and couldn’t listen to his music for a long time.

But now, I realize he was an exceedingly sensitive, abused, and broken person, so I am more interested in the question of why he did what he did to the kids for whom he claimed an especial affinity and to his face. I’m also fascinated by the hot mess nature of his family. As you said, the lives of celebs are so removed from our own, and I, too, wonder what goes on out there in Hollyweird, Ca. We all know it’s gilded — people talk about the irony of the ugly HOLLYWOOD sign that is so impressive from a distance but a let down up close, likely a perfect analogy to the celebrity world.

Jacko is a perfect analogy. He is one of the last big great stars, the ones who were very private and whose public persona is all that we know about. Nowadays we have Twitter and Instagram and social media on which celebs have to maintain a presence. Jacko was the last of the great mysterious, smoke-and-mirrors stars, whom I think are the most intriguing. As for Jacko’s character, he’s hard to figure out, and in spite of having been a fan and having researched him for going on seven years now, I still don’t think I’m as close as I’d like to be to “cracking the puzzle” — highly frustrating for a scientist (which is my background)! I know there’s scores more to learn.

But if I were to give an off-the-cuff examination, I’d say I believe he was genuine when he tried to be good — I think he was generous. (Brooke Shields said he seemed to believe he had to give people gifts for people to like him, which is sad.) But he was fiercely competitive, and that drive is what shaped him mostly. It was almost as if he felt he was worthless if he wasn’t on top; I’m assuming that came from the emotional abuse inflicted by Joe Jackson. I think his racial self-hatred was due to a belief — reasonable, given he was a black person of an older generation — that there was a limit to how big he could become. It’s not dissimilar to the theory about feminists basically being angry they aren’t men who could arguably do more in society. To be honest, from having been a fan, many of his white fans prefer the white version of him.

I suppose Jacko, ever sensitive, was right. 🙁 His racial transformation has always been bothersome to me as a person of color.

At any rate, I, too, am just cracking into the 2005 Arvizo case. I’ve read all the testimonies of people associated with the earlier allegations but, to be honest, I avoided the entire scope of the case because I figured the Not Guilty verdict had some weight. So we’ll see; I’m keeping an open mind because, at this juncture from what I’ve read, the accusers are kind of “suspect”. It’s difficult: I don’t like to imagine someone would lie about being a victim of a sex crime but I also don’t like the idea of jury nullification. Hope to see you here more often.