Paul Anka vindicates Diane Dimond story on Jackson

Paul Anka (Photo: Evert-Jan Hielema)
Paul Anka (Photo: Evert-Jan Hielema)

Recently I had the opportunity to check out Paul Anka’s autobiography. Paul Anka worked with Jackson in 1981, co-writing several songs (one of which went on to become Jackson’s first posthumous ‘hit’, This Is It). There is a short, but succinct entry on Jackson. Paul starts by explaining how he saw Jackson’s dark, ruthless side early on.

Everyone has a dark side, but in those days no one guessed that there could be a dark side to Michael Jackson. However, I saw it early on, and it wasn’t pretty. I had a cool run of stuff in the early 70s, but at some point I decided to get back to writing with other people. I love collaboration and the diversity it brings to a song.

When I first met Michael Jackson I knew he was immensely talented—this was before Thriller and his huge hits—and I began to think about collaborating with him. I’d known the Jackson family for a while. They used to bring their kids to Caesars to see my shows when they were young. They were a theatrically driven family. You could see that. I knew of Michael’s talents, saw him growing up—everyone knew it was going to happen. Later on I met Michael again, through a guy named David Gest, a real go-getter who eventually married Liza Minnelli.

I first sat down with Michael Jackson and talked about collaborating in 1980. We started working together at my house in Carmel. It was a fun place to be—he was using my guesthouse, playing with my girls in the Jacuzzi. He clearly had a real fondness for kids—he was very childlike himself and related to them on their own level. When Michael and I talked, we were rapping. Even then he had this fascination with plastic surgery, a major obsession, obviously.

There’s that recurring theme that we seem to be reading a lot of lately – Jackson with children in a jacuzzi. Paul Anka’s daughters (he had 5), Soleil Moon Fry, Wade Robson, Brett Barnes, Jimmy Safechuck and Macauley Culkin (to name a few) have been coerced into joining Jackson in the bubble and toil that he enjoyed so much.

Paul continues…

Anyway, Michael and I start messing around with the songs we were working on. I was very impressed with the way he went about the writing process. He knew how to make his way around a song, not only because he had an incredible vocal quality, but he also had a capacity to make complicated singing licks from an initial one-finger tune played for him on the piano. He didn’t seem at all like a disturbed character when he was working. He was just very tenacious, very focused on what he needed to do. But you could tell he was also wildly ambitious and capable of anything; I sensed an absolutely ruthless streak.

The concept of the album I was working on for Sony, Walk a Fine Line, was collaborations with other artists: Kenny Loggins, Michael McDonald, David Foster, and Chicago, plus the two tracks I was doing with Michael. But the thing is, while we were doing Walk a Fine Line, Michael was also doing tracks for his album Thriller. Well, Thriller comes out and is an absolute smash, and of course I can’t get Michael in the studio to finish what we are doing. But I had tapes sitting in the studio in L.A., at Sunset Sound I think it was—all the tapes from when we were working together. It was right around then I started to see Michael’s true colors. It happens.

I’m trying to finish my album, and suddenly I couldn’t get him on the phone. Then he sent one of his people over to the studio and they actually stole the tapes we’d been working on.

Yes, these were Paul Anka’s tapes for his own project – yet Jackson saw fit to steal them. Perhaps Jackson saw how much money he could realize from his music after the success of Thriller and decided he wasn’t keen on sharing the wealth with someone else.

When I heard about this, I went, “What? Michael went in and just took them? Holy shit!”

Then Michael disappears, and only after weeks of threatening did I get the tapes back—finally. But I knew then that this kid was headed for trouble.

I just thought it was a terrible thing to do. How do people become ruthless? What mania takes them over is always a mystery. What happened? This boy was a child when I first met him. Who knew what went on in that family?

While fans insist that Jackson was always kind and gentle, we have here someone who worked closely with him and actually knew him and shows another side of his personality. Fans tend to present  Jackson as one dimensional, a person without depth. They portray him as someone who was perenially nice to everyone he met but, like all humans, he had many facets – from dark to light, from greedy to altruistic, from hateful to loving, and so on. It’s a shame fans dehumanize him the way they do.

Check out  Michael Jackson Unveiled

Paul knew, even back then, that Jackson would end up in a very bad way. There were already signals that Jackson was going to always have difficulty keeping friends.

Some time after the stolen-tape incident, Michael called and asked to meet me. I could tell he was disturbed and sorry, but I mean, what could you say? This was a major talent who got derailed too early in his life. It was never a good situation, and see where he wound up. You could almost sense it coming.

For example, between the Jacksons and the Osmonds, there was always a certain rivalry despite the fact that they were two family groups supposedly competing with each other in a friendly way. But Michael could be scathing about the Osmonds. He thought they were a kitsch exploitation group compared to the Jackson Five.

While we were working together he’d call the Osmonds and talk them up in a nice, chatty manner, and as soon as he’d hung up he’d rip them apart behind their backs.

Once again, Paul gives us the unvarnished truth.

However, it’s this last part that made me draw breath. Paul recounts a disturbing and sordid story from late 2003.

Anyway, on this one occasion, Michael Jackson in his fashion floated to Vegas and was staying at a villa next door to us at the Mirage. I saw the parade of kids going in and out—scary. He was at the end of the stay but they were trying to get him out of there anyway. They swore never to let him return.

Earlier, Steve Wynn and Michael had been all buddy-buddy. Steve even called one of his suites the Michael Jackson Suite—but he didn’t know then what was about to erupt. And when it did erupt, Michael was ensconced at the villa next door to me. The maids and other hotel staff would come to me and say, “We can’t even go in that room; if we have room service we gotta leave it outside.” When they finally get Michael out, after weeks of trying, they go in and there’s broken glass, perfume bottles, food—the place is an unholy mess, the Jacuzzi has bubble bath pouring out of it, there’s rotting food everywhere.

Now, where had I seen this story before? It didn’t take me long to find it. The story also appeared in Diane Dimond’s 2009 book on Jackson Be Careful Who You Love. Diane describes Jackson’s stay at the Mirage. The prelude for the story is the raid on Neverland on the 18th of November 2003.

As dozens of law enforcement swarmed the Neverland Valley Ranch that day, Michael Jackson was hundreds of miles away, in Las Vegas, holed up at a luxurious villa at the Mirage Hotel – the same hotel at which he and Jordie Chandler had watched The Exorcist and shared a bed back in 1993. Jackson had been in Vegas for weeks, ostensibly finishing work on a new video that would accompany his new box-set release, Number Ones. But Jackson was preoccupied and the work was never finished.

Jackson was engrossed in a weeks-long, closed-door party with a group of young boys. All the hotel’s maids and butlers had been shooed away. Jackson wanted no housekeeping service; when food or drink was delivered to his room, the standing order to the butler was to wheel the cart up to the door, knock, and walk away. This went on for nearly three weeks.

The boys, many of whom were German speaking, were spotted outside Jackson’s room in the secluded breezeway that leads to the villas section of the hotel. They smoked cigarettes and shouted into cell phones and generally disturbed the lavish peace the Mirage creates for it’s most wealthy clientele. This revolving group of boys got noticed on a daily basis. But Jackson himself was rarely seen. When passersby did spot him through the open villa door, he was said to have looked “zonked out”and wearing a long, purple dashiki-type robe.

The top brass at the Mirage were becoming ever more frantic to figure out what to do with the growing number of complaints from other influential occupants of the other villas. One resident reported to security that boys, seemingly fresh from the streets, had joined the Jackson party. This confidential source told me, “It looked to me as though those boys were coming in for the food.”

However, relief was in store for Steve Wynn and the Mirage management – Jackson was about to leave, though the mess he left behind was reportedly the final straw in his and Wynn’s formerly close friendship. Remember all this is happening right next to Paul Anka’s room.

Upon hearing the news that Neverland was the subject of another criminal investigation, Jackson quickly decamped the Mirage Hotel. Though I never discovered where he went next, I know he remained in the Las Vegas area.

When the maids finally were allowed to enter Jackson’s villa, they found a scene of devastation. Food trays with rotting leftovers hadn’t been removed in weeks. There were mounds of cigarette butts resting on dinner plates and stuffed in drinking glasses, and burns on the expensive couches and chairs, as if someone had deliberately stubbed out their cigarettes there. Empty and broken liquor bottles were strewn about. In the end, there was an estimated $30,000 of damage to the villa. Through back channels, Michael Jackson was told he was longer welcome as a guest at the Mirage.

Let’s put to one side for the moment the disturbing revelations of Jackson being surrounded by boys for weeks on end and his total failure as a mentor, his poor example of how to behave, or the total lack of his supposed concern for children – the point here is that once again Jackson Realists have been vindicated. Paul Anka’s corroboration of Diane Dimond’s story shows that fans’ assertions that she “made it all up” is based on their own blinkered views.

Check out  Death of Tom Sneddon Unleashes Outpouring of Hate from Michael Jackson Fans

To date, it has been each of Jackson’s public relations embellishments that have been slowly but surely debunked as lies, and the seemingly sensationalist stories, from those who doggedly covered his unruly life, that have been shown one by one to be the truth. How much longer can people pretend that all was sugar and light in Jackson’s world? It boggles the mind to think that any intelligent person would still be making excuses for his excesses and wrongs – unless they are in the grip of celebrity.

Written by a guest contributor.

  • Pea Arthur

    I admit to having been a tad skeptical of Diane Dimond’s account in BCWYL about the Mirage Hotel incident. Specifically, it was the aspect of there being “German boys” in his suite. I’ve lived in Vegas, and the Mirage Hotel is in the tourist center of the city, true, but I found it hard to imagine there were enough German boys around for several weeks of “Neverland-style playtime”.

    But I gave Dimond the benefit of the doubt. A lot of us have been so brainwashed by the constant onslaught of Jacko fanatic bias against her that one always is timid to believe some of her more shocking and colorful stories. I was cautiously optimistic.

    However, Paul Anka’s confirmation is so appreciated — frankly, it’s a bombshell. In fact, in that Jacques Peretti documentary “Michael Jackson What Really Happened”, when Peretti broached the Mirage incident with Bob Jones, Jones got really uncomfortable and told him to “cut the camera and the sound off”. (That was another checkmark for Diane — Jones has no reason to lie in his reaction to the question about the Mirage incident.)

    Wow, it happened. Unfortunately, we only know the aftermath of the stay. With boys and bubble bath-filled jacuzzis, one wonders what the hell Wacko Jacko was up to. Sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll, as Bob Jones said.

    • mjfacts

      My understanding has always been that Michael Jackson brought those boys over from Germany, paying their airfares and accommodation costs because by that stage most US based parents were wary about letting their sons spend time with a suspected pedophile.

      • JessicaSideways

        While that does make sense considering that it was so many that both Dimond and Anka had to mention that they weren’t just boys but German boys, I’ll have to admit to being a bit skeptical that Wacko flew them out there. I mean, with the exception of Terry George, weren’t all of MJ’s victims who have come forward thus far from the LA area when they met MJ?

        • mjfacts

          No, Wade Robson is from Australia (as is Brett Barnes), Jackson flew both of them first class to LA so he could share a bed with them. I never heard of him doing that for a woman.

          Ray Chandler’s book also had details of a woman from Germany who rang Evan Chandler in tears and described the molestation her son suffered at the hands of Jackson and apologizing because she was unable to come forward because she was frightened.

          Omer Bhatti was picked up by Jackson in Tunisia and brought back to Neverland to live.

          Of course there were also the “Los Olivos Boys”, who lived locally and were frequently spotted at NL.

          • JessicaSideways

            Whoops. Welp, you learn something new every day.

            As for that, I haven’t had the opportunity to read the Chandler book yet but it’s in my reading queue along with Dimond’s book. 🙂

  • Andreas Moss

    Wasn’t there also this weird detail about there was words written on furniture or walls in the hotel with feces? That was definitely the strangest thing Dimond reported about it.

    • Pea Arthur

      Strangely, Diane Dimond didn’t report that detail in her book but did say it to Jacques Peretti (I recall it being a sheet with feces words on it?). I think it may have been because Atria Books, the publisher, didn’t want to risk a lawsuit. They’d be shielded under journalistic laws, I’m sure, but in the presence of a big celebrity like Michael Jackson, a judge may have made an exception. Exposing the source — no doubt a lowly hotel maid who had to clean (or dispose of) those the feces — or getting him/her to cooperate in the lawsuit could’ve been a hassle.

      Essentially, it wasn’t worth it, so she told of everything else without that salacious detail. I believe feces was involved in the Mirage story; Bob Jones talked about Frank Dileo finding that feces sheet in Nice, France, during the Bad Tour. (Dileo was still alive when Jones’s book came out so he could testify about it if a lawsuit was brought against Jones & the publisher. Jacko seemed to have an acute interest in “bodily functions” — its been mentioned too many times over the years.)

      Stacy Brown’s book with Jermaine Jackson faced the same problem; publishers were terrified of being sued by Jacko. It’s sad he was able to intimidate so many people into keeping silent, so Anka telling this story is really gratifying. He totally vindicates Diane. And how do we know Anka wasn’t her source? He may have been…

  • Cveti Dimitrova

    Well, it’s another stupid and not well researched story you made up. I must say that i”m amazed by the shits you are offering. Diane Dimond’s source was Paul Anka. Paul was angry with Michael they didn’t finished his tracks. And Paul was really angry, because Michael then had a huge success, and if these tracks was on his album, he would sell millions of copies. Isn’t this obvious reason to be angry with Michael? And isn’t that the reason why he insult him. Michael can’t defend himself, because he’s dead! This story is another loser try to attack Michael, and it’s a way to win the money he think he lost when Michael didn’t finish their songs together.
    And one more thing – yes Michael was like other people – he felt, he shared, he blamed, he was into success. He wanted to be the biggest star in the world – and that happened. And the needed of talent is the first thing, but the other thing is to be smart! And he was smart, he wasn’t a fool. He wasn’t child in his career. Because as a child he learned it from the best artists back then. He was smart enough to take all he nedeed from his teachers. And knew how to use all the things he learned. He was also a buisness mind. And i think this he taked from his father. If you read HIS book, you’ll know it. And you’ll learn how his mind works. Because he was genius and unseened talent, that’s why some artist are still envy and gelaous.His mind was clear until 1993. And that’s when he lost his faith in people.
    And for his heart – i think that he has the purest heart. Everybody has good and bad emotions and feelings. He had it too. But the good is what he had more than so many people. The kindness was right from his heart. And about the comments in the back of other people – well, everyone is doing it. You, me, Paul Anka, Diane Dimond, everyone. So what is so strange about it. You make it look strange and bad, because it’s Michael Jackson. Why do you think that we, the fans, don’t know that? We know and we accept his human sides. ‘”Tell them it was human nature” – he told also.
    i know you won’t publish my post, because this is what you do. You’ve done it with so many other posts. But i know you’ll read it. And that’s enough for me.
    I’m sorry again for my bad english.

    • mjfacts

      Paul Anka didn’t sound angry to me. Have you spoken with him? If not, how do you know what he is thinking? Do you have psychic abilities?

      And if Michael Jackson is so smart, why did he pay off Jordie Chandler rather than clear his name? If he was so smart, why did he continue to take boys to bed after paying out $25 million to the Chandlers and $2.5 million to the Francias?

      Either he wasn’t smart, or he couldn’t resist his compulsion to be with young boys. Which is it?

      These are all rhetorical questions, no need to reply.

      • JessicaSideways

        I wonder why the Francias got a tenth of the payment that the Chandlers did… I mean, it’s suspicious as hell that MJ was just shovelling money at these families to buy silence (because after all, what could he possibly not want to get out) but I’m curious about what determined the value of the settlements.

        • Pea

          The Francias’ payment was smaller most likely because Jason’s claims were so mild by comparison — all Jason claimed was that he’d been inappropriately touched during tickling sessions. Jordie, alternately, was willing and able to describe details of Jacko’s penis and testicles — strong circumstantial evidence that validated the boy’s allegations of sex abuse.

          I believe Jason was something of a ‘nuisance’ payoff: Jacko knew he had it within him to touch a cute, dark-haired, prepubescent boy like Jason, but perhaps he forgot about those events or the grooming never went anywhere, and he was reflexively papering over his indiscretions with a check. But Jordie was a payoff by necessity; if that went to court Jacko was screwed, civilly, criminally, and professionally (as Carl Douglas admitted). Ten times as much money was required to make it disappear…

    • Andreas Moss

      “And for his heart – i think that he has the purest heart. Everybody has good and bad emotions and feelings. He had it too. But the good is what he had more than so many people. The kindness was right from his heart. […] You make it look strange and bad, because it’s Michael Jackson. Why do you think that we, the fans, don’t know that? We know and we accept his human sides. ‘”Tell them it was human nature” – he told also.”

      If it is so that you are an actual fan, and you claim you see Michael as a three dimensional person with faults, thats refreshing to hear.

      But please prove that. It should be easy. Say some negative things about Michael. You know, just to prove you are not just another starstruck follower.

      And if you go with the usual cliché fan-trumpet. “Oh, he was too trusting and too kind, he let people use him too often” and so on, please keep in mind you utterly failed the test.

      • JessicaSideways

        Yeah, that’s bullshit you say in an interview when you’re asked what your greatest weakness is (which is one of the stupidest interview questions ever, I might add). I would say something like I get too attached to my work (which is sorta true, I mean in my line of work – that’s what you do) but in an honest conversation, I would say something like I feel that I haven’t catalyzed enough change in my life in the last couple of years and I’ve gotten lazy.

  • Cveti Dimitrova

    I don’t see posts from fans – only the haters. Why’s that? I know you are filtering what is good for you. And it’s not fair. Think about it!

    • ShawntayUStay

      Why do you think you and other fans should be allowed — with zero restrictions — to scream your talking points wherever you want, when you people practice an astonishing level of censorship? Stop being so myopic!

      Comments by critics of Michael Jackson’s behavior are deleted, blocked, edited; critics are banned from participating in MJ forums, and if they are allowed in, they are shouted down until there is no point to even continue participating. Major fan websites, social media pages and forums go as far as not even allowing articles written by MJ critics to even be LINKED on their pages, and actively discourage their readers from even reading anything that doesn’t kiss Jackson’s behind and say he’s the Second Coming of Jesus Christ Himself!

      So stop whining about fairness because it cuts both ways, but more than that, critics have a right to discuss Jackson in a place without having to hear all the “Jackson was an innocent angel” yammering from delusional fans.

  • mjfacts

    Actually that is part of it but the repetitiveness is what’s hard to take. The fans come here with claims they’ve read on fan sites and just regurgitate them all over the blog, so rather than clean up after them it’s easier just to let the ones with (slightly) fresher ideas through.

    Having said that, some of the comments that have been deleted would make your hair curl – threatening rape, threatening violence, what they would do to us if they ever found out who we were, abusive and crude language, it goes on and on. All because we have a different opinion!

    And I can understand people liking his music (sort of), but what do they get out of defending his activities with boys? I honestly don’t get it. What is their reward?

    • kat543

      Me too, I don’t understand why people continue to defend this man. He was an example for how not to live your life.

      It’s true that in his youth, at the height of his career, he was an unassailable superstar in a league of his own. But then he gave in to his many demons and became a drug addict, plastic surgery freak show, and a criminal due to his inappropriate relationships with young boys. I wish he would have gotten help and battled his issues. But, as far as I know, Jackson never admitted that there was anything wrong with his way of living.

      It’s odd that people are still showing so much devotion to this man. I don’t think his supporters are able to see things clearly. I just don’t know the reason for that.

      • ShawntayUStay

        I think they keep defending him for three reasons:

        1. In general, research has suggested that people who are prone to celebrity worship have poorer mental health outlooks than the general population. In other words, it’s because they are at least sub-clinically mentally ill. And the common symptoms of many mental illnesses that would probably be most likely found among Jackson’s most vocal defenders include delusional thinking, psychosis (the detachment from reality), paranoia, poor/unhealthy defense and coping mechanisms, and low impulse control.

        2. Most of these people have devoted so much time, resources (both monetary and bodily), and energy being a fan. They have enveloped their entire lives with Michael Jackson’s music, his persona; the “rhythm” of their complete existence is to a Jackson tune. So much of themselves and, most likely, important events of their lives are intertwined with Jackson’s. In other words, these people are IN TOO DEEP. And because of that, there is a particularly nasty form of resistance that we see, and are subjected to, when these individuals are confronted with pieces of information that do not validate their strongly held beliefs about Jackson being a demigod.

        (To be fair, not all fans are completely far gone. Many have jumped ship with the revelations of Wade Robson and James Safechuck and can know see the illogic of their previous stance on Jackson. The fan community seems to now be composed of the more fanatical Jackson supporters.)

        3. I believe there is an element of “guilt by association” that many fans are trying to avoid, and coupled with Reasons 1 & 2, it brings out the defender in them. Think about it: who would want to be an admirer of a pedophile? No one would, so rather than evaluating the strong circumstantial evidence that all but proves with a 100% certainty that Michael Jackson had sexually inappropriate thoughts about, and relationships with, young boys, these fans run the opposite direction, trying to convince themselves (firstly) and get others to validate their beliefs (secondly but importantly) that Jackson was totally innocent.

        The cognitive dissonance felt by fans when “bad news” comes in about their idol immediately causes them to come up with bizarre conspiracies and illogical rationalizations (an oxymoron for a reason lol) that still manage to thrive in some of the ambiguities of the Jackson molestation saga (for example, the whole circumcision [non]issue, the Chandlers accepting a settlement, Jackson being found not guilty in 2005…things that to rational people are not the least bothersome in terms of the Big Picture, but for fans they somehow “prove” his innocence).

        For most people these talking points are garbage and are unsatisfying and unconvincing, but they are enough to sustain the fandom of someone with poorer-than-average mental health who has been a longtime (or short duration but intense) Jackson devotee.

        • I like that expression, “in too deep”. Some fans have dismissed so many convincing individual tidbits of information as “lies”, “tabloid garbage” etc over the years that to accept any reliable facts now would invalidate everything they’ve been saying for years. They would rather look morally corrupt to outsiders rather than look foolish or misinformed to their followers on social media, so called “friends”.

          To normal people like us this is quite a bizarre stance to take, but as you say their self esteem is so wrapped up in Jackson’s image they cannot move forward and accept that Jackson was a pedophile. They would rather defend his obviously pedophile behavior as “normal” in his circumstances and put his reputation above anybody else’s – victims, judges, friends, family, respected members of the community, lawyers… in fact anybody who has even mildly criticized him.

          I’ll ask again, what do they get out of defending the reputation of a dead man? He is dead so it doesn’t matter what people think of him, his children are more than adequately taken care of for life, he certainly never cared about his reputation while he was alive with his boy sleepovers and drug abuse – what is the fan payoff?

          • ShawntayUStay

            What do they get out of it? That is the $65,000 question, but if I was to guess, I think they like feeling special, like they are a part of an exclusive club. Of course, the feelings of being “special” are dependent on the idea that Jackson was completely innocent, because without that they may (finally) understand that they are just a bunch of kooks. So if Jackson was innocent they feel like they are single handedly tending to this “wounded bird”/ Quasimodo-type individual whose been ridiculed and maligned, and through their exclusive efforts this man (a Jesus Christ figure in disguise) will be redeemed and they may receive some sort of recognition for their time spent.

            I guess you could say that it’s a pseudo-religious thing, at least for some of them. Maybe they think that if they defend him long enough, someone close to Jackson — his kids, family, etc — will specifically thank them and bring them into that inner sanctum that is the “Jackoverse”.

            But really, maybe the simplest explanation is that they are, in the very least sub clinically, mentally ill. You gotta be if you are defending a dead man you’ve never met AND go apeshit when people criticize said dead man you’ve never met. And don’t believe the lie that they do it because they want to protect his kids…this dog-and-pony show is for THEM, not for Paris, Prince, or Blanket.

          • kat543

            I know, Jackson’s fans (more like fanatics) are out of control. I wasn’t even aware of it until recently, when I started reading the comments to Jackson’s videos and articles about him. I was like – what is the matter with these people, why are they spending so much time and energy on defending a dead celebrity? And not just any dead celebrity, but a highly controversial figure who made many choices that people disapproved of. And yet they’re demonizing and spewing poison at everyone who dares to say anything negative about him. They’re ready to destroy everyone who goes against him, including possible victims of sexual abuse. All while claiming that he was a saint, he was sent from above, that the world is worse now that he’s gone.

            I agree that it’s difficult to admit that someone you’ve admired for so long is guilty of something as horrible as abusing children. But people should have realized twenty years ago, when the first allegations surfaced, that MJ may not be who they thought he was. That his relationships with kids may not be innocent. So many years and many more allegations later they should kind of be able to deal with it.

            I think it’s generally hard to be Michael Jackson’s fan. Here was a man who endangered his child by dangling him from a balcony, had so many plastic surgeries he no longer looked human, went from being one of the richest people in the world to being millions of dollars in debt, and so on. Although his supporters like to pretend that it never happened or that these reports were grossly exaggerated. Or that all of that can be forgiven, because he was such a musical genius. Which is something I disagree with anyway, he wasn’t even that talented, at least not in my opinion.

            So yes, this whole phenomenon is beyond my understanding. I think his fans should come to terms with who Jackson really was and move on. He’s not alive anymore and their support doesn’t mean anything to him anyway.

          • Andreas Moss

            Yes, but to be fair, I don’t see much of a difference of defending his reputation while he was alive, to now, when he is dead?

            If he really was innocent(quite a hypotethical scenario by this point, to put it mildly, hehe) I get they’d like to see his memory and legacy be vindicated, just as we would like to have the public opinion swayed the other way. So I kind of get that part.

            And the public opinion is pretty split isn’t it? Not sure what your impression is, but to me it seems that way.

          • Pea

            I actually don’t think the public opinion is ‘split’. A few years back when Randall Sullivan’s “Untouchable” came out, Tom Mesereau admonished the fan community for bashing the book a priori — the fans didn’t like that Sullivan, who claimed (admittedly without any especial knowledge in support) that Jacko was innocent, had also insisted Jacko was a virgin asexual.

            Mesereau told them there are 3 camps with regard to Jacko:
            (1) Fans who believe him to be innocent;
            (2) Detractors who believe he was a pedophile; &
            (3) People who like his music but believe he was probably a pedophile.

            Mesereau said Group 1 has NO EFFECT, in spite of their efforts, in changing the opinions of Groups 2 & 3. I found what he said totally amusing, and he is correct. No one cares about what fans have to say about their idol because they are completely biased and, as I’ve been told, totally unconvincing unless you are completely ignorant of the totality of Jacko’s story. Members of Group 1 run websites devoted to ‘vindication’ but some of their conclusions are just absurd. (For example, I have seen them pontificate about Jordie’s suicide picture and believe that it showed Evan pushing Jacko off a building — with Jordie screaming, “No!” — when the more simple explanation is that Jordie was the one jumping and the multiple stick-figures in the drawing were the boy’s representation of motion. Anything to vindicate Wacko to the point of ridiculousness has been observed on these sites. Don’t get me started on their conspiracies about planted evidence when reality fails to suit their narrative!)

            Members of Group 2 were often fans themselves but were not psychologically predisposed to cultish behavior and allowed themselves to be swayed by facts.

            Jacko’s ardent defenders seem to believe that Group 2 is made up of people who just hate Jacko and for no reason, which is totally bizarre to me. From my experience that just isn’t the case. Most people in Group 2 are very conflicted about how to feel; some hate him, some are idiotic trolls, but most don’t and aren’t, respectively.

            The point I’m trying to make is that I strongly believe that people who believe Jacko was a pedophile are the SILENT MAJORITY. It’s just that most people who believe that about Jacko have zero interest in him. Group 1 consistent of cultish, vocal admirers — but they aren’t that large. I’ve observed forums shrinking dramatically in size since 2009… The truth is often too hard to deny, and the only ones left are his professional fans/spammers who are too arrogant to admit they were wrong.

  • Yes he had quite a few young German friends.

  • silverspirit

    That lie was debunked a million times alredy. Can you post something credible?

  • Easily. That “news article” is fake. Don’t believe it. Jordan can never speak about his relationship with MJ ever again, even positively, according to the settlement agreement they signed http://www.mjfacts.com/the-settlement-document/

  • Mory

    Lol. Many of his fans comment as if they know facts and actually knew Michael or the situations. Who knows what went on with him. However the mess he made of his face, the obvious anorexia and his odd behavior towards the end of his live and obvious substance abuse does pretty much indicate a seriously disturbed individual. Certainly not a a floating on air saint. There was something seriously wrong with MJ, end of.