The Truth About Michael Jackson (feat. Jonathan Spence)

Jonathan Spence, Michael Jackson’s “mystery boy”.

Not much is known about Jonathan Spence, Michael Jackson’s special friend from late 1984 to 1987 – and even while researching this story we found information about him hard to find. Why was this?

Before Jonathan, there was Emmanuel Lewis – Jackson’s previous special friend. If you search, you can find plenty of information available for Lewis: he was already famous; he and Jackson were often photographed together; and many stories were written about their friendship. One example was when Jackson famously double dated Emmanuel and Brooke Shields at the 1984 Grammy Awards, arriving with the young starlet on one arm and the 12 year old boy tucked under the other.

The special friend after Jonathan we also know a lot about. When James Safechuck Jr filed court documents in May 2014, he vividly described how his relationship with Jackson evolved, starting with a seemingly innocent invitation to the pop star’s home.

Jonathan, however, was an enigma. He was written about briefly in several Jackson-related books, but even writers who had delved deeply into Jackson’s life often got the facts about Jonathan incorrect or missed crucial details entirely. This wasn’t through laziness or bad journalism. The simple fact is that nobody apart from Jackson’s inner circle knew much about Jonathan, and among his inner circle, people like Bill Bray simply lied about the boy and his relationship with Jackson.

In Michael Jackson Unauthorized, Christopher Andersen wrote:

Jonathan Spence became the focus of Michael Jackson’s attention for over a year. An Encino neighbor, the ten-year-old blond actor was with Michael nearly every minute on the set of Captain EO.

To some on the set, Michael seemed oblivious of everything but his ten-year-old companion. Without the slightest hint of self-consciousness, he hugged, cuddled and generally displayed a considerable amount of affection toward the boy. Spence fetched Michael water and orange juice and sat on his lap between takes.

Jackson and Spence dueled with water pistols, ambushed crew members with pies, and conducted full-tilt food fights that virtually destroyed the interior of Michael’s luxury appointed trailer. After filming was over, so, for all intents and purposes, was the friendship.

Andersen’s paragraph above contains the kind of errors typical to much of the publicly available information about Jonathan Spence. Spence was actually twelve years old at the time Captain EO was filmed; he wasn’t an actor; he was friends with Jackson for much longer than a year; and their friendship didn’t end after filming was completed.

One thing we can be certain about: Jackson and Spence were physically close at that time. The photo below, taken during the filming of Captain EO, shows Jackson’s hand casually grasping Jonathan’s thigh – quite the intimate gesture.

Where is Michael Jackson’s left hand? (click to enlarge)

The closeness of the pair on the Captain EO set was confirmed by Randall Sullivan in Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson

In 1986, Michael Jackson had starred in Captain EO, a $20 million 3-D film produced by George Lucas and directed by Francis Ford Coppola that was both the most expensive and the most promoted short film in the history of the movies, despite being shown exclusively at Disney theme parks. On the set, only three people were permitted to speak to the star: Coppola, Liz Taylor, and ten-year-old Jonathan Spence, and of these, Michael seemed closest to the boy. They were seen any number of times nuzzling and hugging, and seemed to love playing patty-cake with one another. People thought it was innocent, if a bit odd.

Sullivan also mistakenly identifies Spence as a ten year old, although this was a common theme running through our research – people continuously underestimated Spence’s actual age. He may have been small compared to similarly-aged boys, although in the photos we’ve seen he doesn’t look as young as reports say. One conclusion could be that he was immature, leading people to believe he was younger than he actually was. You don’t often see twelve year old boys playing patty cake, hence the possible confusion.

There was also some misinformation regarding Jonathan’s parents. Jackson needed a plausible excuse as to why he would be spending so much time with a young boy both in his bedroom at Hayvenhurst and also while he was out and about. He needed to allay the suspicions of those who might question the twenty seven year old pop star’s motives.

In Diane Dimond’s book Be Careful Who You Love, realtor Gloria Berlin stated that Jonathan’s father was “a screenwriter of some note who left the boy in the care of the Jackson family at Hayvenhurst so he could work in Europe”. Asked how she came by that story, Berlin said she was a neighbor of the Jacksons in Encino and that “everybody knew that”, however she conceded it may have been Jackson’s head of security Bill Bray that told her.

Other rumors circulated that Jonathan was an orphan. Jackson himself told his personal maid, Blanca Francia, that “…the poor boy was left alone, I just want to take care of him”.

In actual fact both Gloria Berlin and Blanca Francia had been deceived.

This is the true story of Jonathan Spence and how he became one of Michael Jackson’s special friends.

Jonathan’s parents, John Spence-Abrahams and Marion Horton, were married at St Mary’s Church in South Kensington, England, on the 5th January 1964. Marion was a dancer and actress, appearing in various stage and TV shows and movies including Carry on Cabby. John, who went by the name Johnnie Spence, was a respected musical director and arranger. On the 2nd of April 1965 their daughter Sarah Jane arrived, and eight years later, on the 15th of February 1973, they were blessed with a son, Jonathan.

Johnnie Spence and Marion Horton's wedding. Singer Matt Munro (at right) was best man
Johnnie Spence and Marion Horton’s wedding. Singer Matt Munro (at right) was best man
3330297
Marion Spence shows off nine week old daughter Sarah to comedian Frankie Howard.

Johnnie was very talented – he worked closely with major stars of the day including Tom Jones, Matt Monro, Tony Bennett and Ella Fitzgerald, among others – and was in demand on both sides of the Atlantic. In 1976 he made the decision to take the leap and move to the United States full time with his family. They moved into a comfortable home on Lake Encino Drive, and Johnnie was able to secure lucrative work arranging and directing music for both television shows and movies. Spence family life seemed idyllic until August 15th, the tragic day in 1977 when Johnnie died suddenly at home from a heart attack. Marion and daughter Sarah were devastated, Jonathan, who was just four years old, had yet to fully comprehend the death of his father.

A year later, Jonathan started at The Buckley School, an exclusive educational institution twenty minutes drive from his home that catered for students from kindergarten to grade 12. It was here he met and befriended Toriano Adaryll Jackson II (“Taj”), son of Tito Jackson and nephew of Michael Jackson, who was also five years old.

As Jonathan told Victor Guiterrez in 1995;

I met Michael when I was five. I was friends with one of his brother Tito’s sons, with whom I went to the same school in Encino. My friend would invite me to his uncle Michael’s concerts. When we would go to his house, we would play with his uncle Michael.

The “his house” that Jonathan referred to was the Jackson family compound, Hayvenhurst, which was just three miles from Jonathan’s home in Lake Encino Drive. Jonathan’s mother confirmed their meeting, saying;

Jonathan went to the same private school as Tito’s sons. Jonathan played softball and Dee Dee asked if Taj and Tarryll could come along and from then on we were friends with the Jacksons. We even went on holidays together.

When asked if Jonathan spent much time at Hayvenhurst, Marion Spence  added:

No, not really. We would only go together as a family, if we were going for dinner.

This comment will become especially important later, but let’s look at how things took rather a contradictory and radical turn in 1983. From Victor Gutierrez’s book…

As he grew up, Jackson gave him more attention and invited him over more often. When Jonathan was 10 years old, they would play games until late. He would then be invited to spend the night in the family house.

It was not until the fall of 1984, after years of uninterrupted work that started with the release of Thriller in 1982 and as the Victory Tour was nearing it’s end, that Jackson had more time to spare and was able to connect more closely with the golden-haired, blue eyed object of his interest.

Emmanuel Lewis, Jackson’s then current constant prepubescent companion, would be fourteen years of age in the following March – around the age that Jackson would eventually settle on to “retire” his special friends – so would need to be replaced. Jackson’s hand may have been forced though. In J. Randy Taborelli’s book Michael Jackson, The Magic and The Madness it was revealed that Emmanuel’s mother, Margaret, had become concerned about some rather bizarre things had been happening – including Jackson and Lewis booking in to an upmarket LA hotel as father and son. She decided to put some distance between her son and Jackson, forbidding Emmanuel to spend time alone with his adult friend.

Who better to replace Lewis, then, than a boy who was already well within the entertainer’s sphere of influence?

For Jonathan, this time coincided with upheavals at home. His mother had met and fallen in love with George Fox, a sixty one year old Beverly Hills dentist of some note, and they were planning their wedding which was to take place on the 26th of January 1985. Jonathan had up until then been the man of the house, so it must have come as quite a shock to be displaced.

What too, was the attraction in spending time around a man who was old enough to be his grandfather? The lure of spending time with Michael, whose apparent tastes in music, reading and leisure activities were much more in line with an eleven year old boy, must have have been overwhelming – not to mention the extra attention Jackson was willing to spend on the boy compared to his newlywed mother and stepfather. Naturally Jonathan gravitated to someone who he saw as fun, someone who would also lavish attention and gifts on him.

Estela Rodriguez, who worked at Hayvenhurst at the time and was responsible for Jackson’s section of the house, was well placed to witness the fact that the relationship deepened and more frequent sleepovers, in Jackson’s room, occurred.

Jonathan was one of the boys that the singer was most obsessed with. It was 1985. “I remember Jonathan had precious blue eyes that Michael was mad about. Michael loved him a lot, and in his room he had lots of photos of him, even more than of his own family. Jonathan was a serious boy and he was always thinking. Perhaps Jonathan gave him photos of himself to confirm, in a way, his loving desires. I saw them hug and kiss but never saw anything sexual between them, although the boy stayed and slept in the same bed as Michael. I am sure about this because I was the one who changed the sheets.”

The description is a little over the top, and may have been embellished by Gutierrez, but Estela confirms here the sleepovers took place in Jackson’s room.

Mary Coller, Jackson’s personal assistant and MJJ Productions employee at the time, said that Jonathan would spend at least two nights a week sleeping over in Jackson’s bed. Occasionally Mary would call Marion to arrange the sleepover, but more often than not Jackson would call Marion himself.

Marion’s insistence when she talked to us that it was “the entire family” that was friends with Michael, and it was only the “entire family” that visited Hayvenhurst seemed to be an attempt at distraction.

Blanca Francia, who replaced Estela Rodriguez as Jackson’s maid at the end of 1985, said that Jonathan was in Jackson’s room for long periods of time.

I never saw the mother or father. The boy called Michael “Daddy”. He was so close to Michael, he just wanted to rub up against him and stay with him. He wouldn’t talk to anyone else, he would only sweet talk with Michael. Just Michael. Even if I was in the room, he would only talk to Michael, like I wasn’t even there.

They were sleeping together. I would come back to work the next morning and they would still be in the room.

In court documents presented at Jackson’s 2005 trial, Francia reiterated the strong relationship Jackson had with Jonathan. She stated in police interviews that they slept together, and that she had to lie to Jackson’s parents Joe and Katherine, telling them that there was no boy in Michael Jackson’s quarters. She also noted that when cleaning Jackson’s room she had to pick up Jonathan’s underwear.

Marion and Jonathan Spence, and an unidentified couple with Michael on the set of Captain EO.
Marion and Jonathan Spence, and an unidentified couple with Michael on the set of Captain EO.

If there had been any doubt about how close Jackson and Jonathan were, their behavior on the set of Captain EO quelled all uncertainty. Jackson didn’t even attempt to hide his attraction to the boy. By then, he’d become an expert at deflecting suspicion – explaining away his earlier friendship with Emmanuel Lewis had made him adept at telling the right stories to those curious enough to ask questions. Jackson and Jonathan spent every moment they could together on the set,  hugging and nuzzling each other, whispering in each other’s ears and giggling. On the day Jonathan’s mother came to the set it’s presumed they toned things down a little, as Jonathan didn’t look happy at all while posing for photos.

0342On the 31st of July, Jackson sprained his hand while executing a dance sequence during filming and needed to go to a hospital to have it checked. He chose the Brotman Medical Center in Culver City, a place he knew well, having been admitted there in January the previous year after being burned during a Pepsi commercial shoot. Jonathan joined him. This was the first time much of the press knew about Michael’s new friend. If Emmanuel had caused raised eyebrows, Jonathan only made them arch more.

mj-spence-brotmanWhen they asked about this new boy, the press were reassured by Jackson that he was a “longtime family friend”, a clever ruse no doubt intended to deflect suspicion about the boy on his arm. Jackson and Jonathan were photographed together talking to a patient and doctors, and there was another shot where Jonathan had his arm around Michael’s waist and Jackson had a possessive arm around Jonathan’s neck. The photos show that they shared a physical closeness not normally seen between a twenty seven year old man and a twelve year old boy. There is absolutely no doubt their  relationship was an intimate one.

Further reports put Jackson and Jonathan at a visit to Ward Kimball (a retired Disney animator best known for his work on the features Snow White, Alice in Wonderland and Pinocchio), at the railway museum he had set up in his expansive backyard in May 1986; a visit to New York in December 1986 (where they were photographed together after attending a screening of the movie Little Shop of Horrors at the Beekman Theater on the 19th); and several visits to Disneyland.

We can see now that there is a great deal of incongruity between reality and the story Marion Spence painted to us. We have evidence of Jackson and Jonathan’s close and intense relationship from paparazzi photographs and eyewitness accounts of them together. In the alternative, we have that same relationship downplayed by Marion, who makes it more general and inclusive of the entire Spence clan: “We were all friends with the Jacksons, my whole family”. Why would Marion want to make the friendship less than it was? She would have known about Jonathan’s sleepovers at Hayvenhurst, the days spent with Jackson on the set of Captain EO, the visits to Disneyland, the trip to New York.

The most likely explanation is that she knows how all of it must look in hindsight, especially after Jackson was accused multiple times of molesting boys. Rather than be open and honest about how deep her son’s relationship with Jackson had been, she attempts to rewrite history and minimize what actually happened so as to avoid being possibly labelled as a careless parent.

Check out  Items Found in 1993 - Pedophile Books and Naked Photos

It is also possible that Jonathan himself pressed his mother to rebuff questions about his relationship with Jackson in an effort to protect his privacy and avoid more searching questions. In any case, Jonathan has always held the line that he was not molested.

He told Jackson biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli for his book The Magic and the Madness:

‘When we hang out. He’s just like any other guy. He never talks about himself, only about what is going on with others. We never talk about show business. Sometimes he’ll put on a disguise when we’re in public. When we go to Disneyland, we’ll go through the back and take all the alleys and back ways and get in front of the lines. He can’t wait in the line, no way. He would cause a riot. We move fast through Disneyland; if people get a good look at him, that’ll be it for that outing.

‘He’s one of the nicest people I’ve ever known. He’s smart. He knows a lot about everything. He’s a kid. He never really had a childhood, and he’s having it now. The stuff I read in the papers about him, I know it’s all a bunch of B.S. I just ignore it. A couple of times I’ve asked him about girlfriends and stuff, but we never really get into that. We don’t talk about the plastic surgery either, because it’s none of my business. He never brings it up. It’s not like he says, “Well, how do you like my new chin?”

As J. Randy Taraborrelli’s book was published in 1991, Jonathan must have been 17 or 18 when that interview took place. (Jackson had yet to be accused of sex abuse.)

In 1995, when he was 22, Jonathan told Victor Gutierrez:

Nothing sexual ever happened. No amount of money in the world would make me speak of things that didn’t happen between us. I love Michael. We should never talk to other people about personal friendships.

Jonathan also repeatedly insisted he had never been molested when interviewed by law enforcement. He was always adamant that Jackson was innocent.

To put Jonathan’s denials in perspective, and before we take them at face value, let’s look at what Kenneth Lanning wrote about disclosure in his Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis piece:

Most of these victims never disclose their victimization. Younger children may believe they did something “wrong” or “bad” and are afraid of getting into trouble.

Older children may be more ashamed and embarrassed. Many victims not only do not disclose, but they strongly deny it happened when confronted. In one case several boys took the stand and testified concerning the high moral character of the accused molester. When the accused molester changed his plea to guilty, he admitted that the boys who testified for him were also victims. In another case a 16-year-old victim tried to murder the man who had sexually exploited him but still denied he was sexually victimized. He pled guilty rather than use the abuse as a mitigating circumstance and publicly admit he had engaged in sexual activity with a man. He privately admitted his victimization to a prosecutor, but said he would always publicly deny it.

The most common reasons that victims do not disclose are stigma of homosexuality, lack of societal understanding, presence of positive feelings for the offender, embarrassment or fear over their victimization, or do not believe they are victims. Since most of the offenders are male, the stigma of homosexuality is a serious problem for male victims. Although being seduced by a male child molester does not necessarily make a boy a homosexual, the victims do not understand this. If a victim does disclose, he believes that he is risking significant ridicule by his peers and lack of acceptance by his family.


Ask any body language expert you like about what this photo says about the relationship between Jackson and Jonathan Spence

It’s time to take short pause in our story to discuss the friendship so far. Jackson, by his own admission, enjoyed the company of young boys and used them in an attempt to “recapture his childhood”.

Yet we have something odd going on here. Also living at Hayvenhurst were his nephews Taj, Taryll and TJ, whom he could supposedly have “sleepovers” with anytime he wanted, yet Jackson chose to bring in Jonathan to share his bed. Why was that?

There are two explanations and neither are flattering to Jackson. The first is that Tito and DeeDee Jackson forbade their sons to stay in Uncle Michael’s room, suspicious about Jackson’s interest in young boys.

The other explanation is that Jackson preferred to spend his nights with a 12 year old boy he found more attractive than his nephews. We know that over the years, even though Jackson was friends with his prepubescent nephews and cousins, and even shared his bed with them on occasion, he much rather enjoyed sleeping with his “special friends” one-on-one.

By more attractive we mean either in looks – Jonathan’s blond hair and blue eyes must have been a factor for Jackson – something the singer subsequently proved with his choice of boys; or attractive in the sense that Jackson preferred to look outside the family for boys to become intimate enough with to share a bed and all that entailed.

This proves that Jackson was interested in more than just sleepovers and his friendships weren’t as innocent as he made them out to be. It was a deliberate arrangement to get unrelated boys into his bed.


December 19, 1986 Michael Jackson Attends 'Little Shop of Horrors' at Beekman Theater in New York with Jonathan Spence
December 19, 1986 Michael Jackson Attends ‘Little Shop of Horrors’ at Beekman Theater in New York with Jonathan Spence

By the start of 1987 Jackson must have been starting to think about Jonathan getting older. In December 1986, as you can see in the accompanying photo, Jonathan was growing rapidly – and soon Jackson would lose interest. However, as was his pattern for years to come, Jackson never gave up one boy until he was involved with another.

Jackson’s solution was to start grooming Jimmy Safechuck. In early 1987, Jackson took his first step in his plans for a replacement for Jonathan. It’s highly unlikely Jonathan knew anything about Jimmy or that his big friend was planning to move on – Jackson was very good at keeping his boys, as well as other aspects of his life, tightly compartmentalized. On March 10, 1987 Jackson penned a letter to young Jimmy which would put a new “special friendship” in train.

Dear Jimmy,

Thank you for your letter. It was nice hearing from you again! I’ve been busy working on a new video for my album and have been really busy.

It was fun working with you on the Pepsi commercial! Maybe we can work together again. I’d like to have you come and visit me on the set sometime or when I have some free time you can come to my house.

Keep sending me letters! I love to hear from you!

Speak with you soon, [Michael Jackson]

Jonathan’s special time with Jackson was obviously drawing to a close. In later years Jackson became notorious for moving on to a new boy when he thought it necessary, as evidenced by this exchange between then Santa Barbara District Attorney Thomas Sneddon and Wade Robson’s mother, Joy, at Jackson’s 2005 molestation trial. Even though Joy tries to downplay the effect this has on the discarded boy, she confirms Jackson engaged in the practice of dumping and replacing.

Q. Okay. Do you recall a conversation in which you told June Chandler that some day Jordan was going to be replaced by another one of Michael Jackson’s friends?

A. Yes.

Q. And you referred to these people as “special friends,” correct?

A. According to my transcript, yes.

Q. You don’t ever remember using that phrase now?

A. No.

Q. But you did use it in your transcript back in 1993?

A. Yes.

Q. And in a conversation you told June Chandler that with these special friends, that when Mr. Jackson moves on to the next special friend, that it has a tremendous emotional impact on the children when they’re no longer the favorite, correct?

A. As does everybody when they lose a friend.

Q. I’m sorry?

A. As does everyone if you lose a friend or a friend becomes friendly with somebody else.

Q. Did you not, in that conversation, specifically refer to the situation where a young child was a friend of Mr. Jackson’s and is replaced by another young child and that that has — and you were reflecting upon the emotional problems it creates for that child?

A. Yes.

With work starting on his Bad album, the attendant filming of videos and the announcement of the Bad tour scheduled to start in September 1987 – which required planning and rehearsals to take place – Jackson was a busy man. However, much of this took place within close proximity to Hayvenhurst, so Jackson still had time up his sleeve to fulfill a dream he had been thinking of for a while: procuring his own home, far away from prying eyes, where he could indulge his peccadilloes in private.

Jackson spent a lot of time in early 1987 looking for a ranch suitable for his needs, usually traveling with Bill Bray and agent Gloria Berlin, but more often than not also accompanied by Jonathan in an effort to ward off the boredom of the long drives through the countryside going from ranch to ranch. Gloria noted:

They were always laughing and playing – playing patty-cake together.

Jackson settled on Neverland for his new home in August, before he left for the Bad tour. Negotiations took place until December 18 1987, with the sale finalized on February 28 1988 after he returned from his Hawaiian vacation with Jimmy Safechuck.

For Jonathan, Jackson departing on the Bad tour was the end of the intense phase of the relationship. They would never be as close again. Jonathan was approaching fifteen years of age, apparently too old for Jackson (who had by now moved on to Jimmy anyway).

That wasn’t the end of their friendship though, according to Jonathan. Unfortunately for Jonathan, Jackson was notorious for frequent phone number changes that ensured the star could tightly regulate whom got instant access and who would have to be screened – a clever way to “ditch” those low on the totem pole. Jonathan failed to make the new list of “approved” persons and had to take a roundabout route to talk to Jackson: call Jackson’s secretary, make his request to speak to his friend, and then await a call back, which could take a few days, as he told J. Randy Taraborrelli:

‘It’s hard to get in touch with him, though. I usually have to call his secretary, and then a couple of days later, he’ll call me.’

Just as he was with Emmanuel Lewis, Jackson appears to have been careful in his handling of Jonathan after moving on to a new boy. This was one of his earliest “special friends”, so perhaps Jackson couldn’t be confident that his efforts to ensure his don’t tell exhortations would be heeded, and was nervous about whether he could count on Jonathan to remain silent about their relationship. Curiously it appears whatever Jonathan wanted, Jonathan got.

Orietta Murdock, Jackson’s personal assistant at the time, said Jonathan

…would call often and ask for concert tickets. Michael had given us instructions to give him what ever he wanted. I remember when Michael gave him a convertible Mustang.

When Victor Gutierrez spoke with Jonathan again, the young man denied that Jackson had bought him a car. “I bought the Mustang” he said. Orietta Murdoch scoffed when that was put to her.

“A young boy of sixteen isn’t able to buy a brand-new Mustang convertible, and if he had, it would have been with Michael’s money. I was the one who received the call to start processing the purchase of the car.”

While in Victor Gutierrez’s book Murdoch often mixed up Jonathan Spence and Jimmy Safechuck, we can confidently say this anecdote was about Jonathan, because Jimmy never mentioned anything about a brand new Mustang in his court complaint.

Could Jonathan have bought the car himself? Though at fifteen he began working as a sculptor and painter for a special effects company, he was only bringing in about two hundred dollars a week – a sports car with a price tag around $15,000 was likely far too expensive for a sixteen-year-old. Jackson probably funded the purchase just as Murdoch described.

Murdoch also told Diane Dimond that Jonathan would frequently ask for plane tickets to Europe and, as Murdoch stated earlier, whatever Jonathan asked for, he got.

Jackson invited Jonathan to visit Neverland with his family, according to his mother Marion, “half a dozen times”. Marion insisted that they stayed in the guest house “as a family”, Jonathan “never slept alone with Michael”, and they found the ranch “wonderful”.

The biggest visit to Neverland for Jonathan was to come in around June 1997. The date can’t be confirmed at this stage, although we tried. We are relying on Jonathan’s mother who gave us this information, and she has her reasons for being vague about what happened on this occasion at Neverland.

Foremost of the reasons is her non-attendance at her son’s wedding. Marion Spence had such a deep dislike of the bride, Myra, that she stayed away from the nuptials to protest Jonathan’s choice.

However, what better way to impress a new bride, the rest of the family, and friends than to celebrate a party at Neverland? While we could find no evidence of a registered marriage at Neverland in Santa Barbara County records, Marion insisted it took place (and it could possibly have been a confidential wedding). In attendance were Tito’s sons – friends with Jonathan since grade school days – Taj, Tarryl and TJ.

Marion also told us that Michael Jackson did not attend Jonathan and Myra’s wedding.

That Jackson did not attend is no surprise if the wedding was in fact held at that time, Jackson was busy with the European leg of his History tour so would have found it difficult to get back. In any case, did Jackson really need to be there? Jonathan was no longer a “special friend” anyway, he’d proven his steadfast loyalty to Jackson throughout the tribulations of the Chandler allegations, and he certainly didn’t need any more attention from Jackson to keep toeing the Michael never touched me line.

By now you may be thinking if he was abused why would Jonathan choose to get married at at the home of his abuser? That’s a fair question.

Most victims of acquaintance molesters don’t believe they have been abused, they believe that what they experience is love, not because it actually is love but because they have been groomed to believe it. Just like the adult that believes that the whippings they received from their father or mother when they were children were not an act of abuse, but an act of “love”, so too do victims of acquaintance molesters believe their abuse was part of a deep friendship.

The Abuse Watch website explains how the “Secret” is the key ingredient for an acquaintance molester to not only carry out abuse, but to ensure that the victim stays silent.

The ‘Secret’ is the bond established by the abuser with the child victim.  It ensures that nobody knows of the abuse other than the abuser and the abused. It is kept in place by embarrassment, fear, respect; even love.

Respect or love for the abuser – strange as this may seem – is fostered by the attention and concern that the acquaintance molester has shown the child.

For this reason the child will keep the secret intact out of a need for the attention received from the abuser and the fear of losing a friend should the abuser be caught.

Even into adulthood, victims can still have a high regard for their abusers, because they don’t see their erstwhile best friends as abusers but someone to be admired. This isn’t unusual behavior if you study the world of acquaintance molesters. Unfortunately, to understand Michael Jackson, his motivations and his actions you do need to delve into that distasteful milieu.

There are many objectionable sites on the Internet where these subjects are discussed, sites that may get you into trouble with law enforcement should you visit them, so I’ve chosen a discussion from a Google Group to safely illustrate this point.

These pedophiles are discussing aspects of their relationships with boys.

There are several men today, whom I mentored when they were boys, who hold me in much higher esteem than they did their absent/no good/worthless fathers. They still call me for advice, I’ve even stood in as Father or been the Best Man at their weddings. That says a lot of where I stand in their hearts.

Google Groups discussion

(note the similarity in language – Jackson also talked of ‘mentoring’ his special friends)

Check out  Is Michael Jackson a Pedophile?

For reasonable people, this is counter-intuitive. Why would a man want their abuser as their best man? The answer is that the victims are so thoroughly groomed that they accept and even welcome the pedophile into their adult life.

So really, to give his wedding at Neverland* as a reason to prove that Jonathan was not abused is no proof at all – adult victims can and do remain close to the people who took advantage of them as children.

Some people, especially fans, may scoff at this point.

Imagine then, if the counter proof to the argument put forward by Jackson apologists – “Jonathan wasn’t abused because he got married at Neverland”  – was that Jackson owned a nude photo of Jonathan? More of that later.

Life was going well for Jonathan – he was married, and was working in a field he loved, special effects for movies. He had already worked on effects for several movies including Backdraft (when he was just seventeen), Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered CountryThe Santa Clause, and the Travolta/Cage blockbuster Face/Off (Jonathan built the life-like, breathing, stand in bodies for the surgery scene).

Then, in 2004, came the earth shattering Arvizo accusations, and things were to heat up for Jonathan. He didn’t need to be interviewed by law enforcement again, but this time around there was a complication.

Back in November 1993, police searched Jackson’s old quarters at Hayvenhurst. It was left untouched since his relocation to Neverland, and, amid the static junk, police found an incriminating photo of a young boy. Having already interviewed the then young adult, and knowing what he looked like, the police believed the photo depicted a naked Jonathan Spence.

Frustrated, the police could do nothing. It wasn’t illegal to own photographs of children, even of his “special friends”, if they weren’t lewd or suggestive. A reasonable piece of circumstantial evidence, of course, but the matter had to be dropped.

However, in Jackson’s molestation trial in 2005, the prosecution sought to introduce** the photo into evidence to prove he had a sexual interest in young boys; this would cause a problem for Jackson and Jonathan. The prosecution’s description of the photograph in the motion included the phrase “believed to be Jonathan Spence”.

That anybody doubts the photo was real, and existed, is incredible. The prosecution filed the motion in January 2005 seeking to include the compromising picture at trial, I know of no case ever where either side wanted to introduce evidence that had never existed. The photo, and ones like it, were also referenced many times in materials referring to that 1993 search at Hayvenhurst.

Victor Guitterez, who appeared to have excellent contacts in the Los Angeles Police Department, wrote

…the police raided Jackson’s parent’s house in Encino from about 2pm to 9pm. During this raid, the police seized a photo of a blond boy of about 7 years old who was nude and seemed to be holding his penis.

Leroy Thomas, one of the fired “Hayvenhurst Five” security guards, was interviewed by Diane Dimond for Hard Copy on November 23, 1993 following that raid on the Jackson family home. According to Thomas, who worked for the Jacksons from 1987 to 1993, Jackson called him and directed him to retrieve and then destroy a picture of nude young boy that was hidden in his locked bathroom. Thomas described the photo as being a “side view of a totally naked prepubescent blond-haired boy with both his genitals and buttocks showing.”

Thomas said he was instructed by Jackson to destroy the photo, but as it was a Polaroid all he could do was “rip the back off of the picture.” When Thomas appeared on the Maury Povich show, he offered to take a lie detector test over his allegations. Interestingly, he passed the question about finding the picture, but failed the test when questioned about destroying it. Why would Thomas lie about destroying the photo? He probably wanted to deflect criticism when challenged as to why he saw that photo but failed to report it to law enforcement.

Some may say of Thomas, “oh he’s just a disgruntled employee” and dismiss his claims on that basis, but that would be overlooking a very important point. Even if Thomas was a disgruntled employee, and he was making up lies, why would he make up this particular lie about a nude photo of a blond haired boy?

Surely if Thomas wanted to fabricate a salacious story, he could have come up with something better, such as a photo of Jackson and a boy nude together, for instance. Why even a photo at all? Why not a child pornography magazine, which would have served the dual purpose of earning him more money in the tabloid press and incriminating his former employer even further?

In light of the evidence that the the police found the photo later, we have to assume that Thomas’ story about seeing the picture is true.

Jet Magazine - December 6, 1993
Jet Magazine – December 6, 1993

Yet another example is the December 6 1993 edition of Jet, a magazine that was hardly hostile to Jackson. Mention is made of a “nude photo” being seized by the police when they searched the Jackson family home.

Finally, Maureen Orth detailed in her January 1994 article about the 1993 allegations Nightmare in Neverland:

…police searched the Jackson-family home in Encino, looking for evidence in the child-abuse case. Among Michael’s things they reportedly found a nude photo of a little boy.

Blanca Francia told Christopher Andersen for his book Michael Jackson Unauthorised that Jackson enjoyed taking photos of boys for his own pleasure.

With a Polaroid camera he kept in his room, Michael took photos of his special friends. Francia spotted one such snapshot lying on a table in Michael’s room. Francia said it showed a particular favorite of Michael’s sitting on the edge of his bed apparently nude, with only a sheet draped over his genitals. Beneath that photo were more Polaroids – close-ups of the boy’s lips, his open mouth, his face. Francia placed them back where she found them.

Jackson, for his part, publicly refused to admit the nude photo of Jonathan Spence was found in his bedroom, even though he knew the police had it in their possession and knew where it had been found. During his June 1995 Primetime interview with Diane Sawyer, she asked him about nude photos and he point blank denied possessing any pictures of nude boys.

JACKSON: The idea — it just isn’t fair — what they put me through. ‘Cause there wasn’t one piece of information that says I did this. And anyway, they turned my room upside-down, went through all my books, all my videotapes, all my private things, and they found nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing that could say, “Michael Jackson did this.” Nothing!
SAWYER: But let me ask you a couple of questions —
JACKSON: To this day nothing. Still, nothing…
SAWYER: Let me ask you —
JACKSON: — nothing, nothing, nothing!
SAWYER: Nothing. We got nothing. As you may or may not know, we have called everyone we can call. We have checked everything we can check, we have gone and tried to see if what we heard before is, in fact, the case…I want to ask you about two things. These reports that we read over and over again that in your room they found photographs of young boys —
JACKSON: Not of young boys, of children, all kinds of girls and…everything.
SAWYER: And that they found photographs — books — of young boys who were undressed.
JACKSON [voice drops and slowly shakes head]: No…

Maureen Orth wrote about Jackson’s denials of the images of nude children in her September 1995 article The Jackson Jive:

According to District Attorney Tom Sneddon, “The idea that there are not any photos or pictures or anything is pure poppycock. In the search, Jackson said, they didn’t find anything unless it was ‘something somebody sent me.’ The statement there were no books or photos of nude children on his premises is incorrect. That is not truthful.”
Investigation sources say police found a lewd, commercially published hardcover book of black-and-white photos of nude boys aged about 7 to 12 “at play,” and according to one, that book “is often found in the home of pedophiles.” There was also a picture of a nude little boy, scantily draped with a sheet, found in Jackson’s bedroom.

The book referred to is of course Boys Will Be Boys, the kind of book that is popular with pedophiles because it features photographs of naked boys and it is legal to own. Jackson denies knowing about this book, yet had inscribed on the flyleaf:

“Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ.”

It’s quite clear that Jackson was a liar.

These contemporaneous articles and book excerpts, combined with the prosecution motion, show there is no doubt that the Polaroid was found at Hayvenhurst when, and where, the police said it was. What then could be done with a nude photo of a young blond haired boy “believed to be Jonathan Spence”?

The trial did allow for character witnesses, with celebrities such as Elizabeth Taylor, Stevie Wonder and Diana Ross slated to appear, and should Jonathan have offered to testify as a character witness in Jackson’s defense, Judge Melville would no doubt have allowed the photograph to be presented.

One thing the defense wouldn’t want was a naked photo of one of the pop singer’s “special friends” introduced, so they would have warned Jonathan to stay away. Just as the matching photographs and description of Jackson’s genitals weren’t allowed to be entered as evidence in the trial because Jordan Chandler wouldn’t appear, so too the nude boy photograph couldn’t be allowed in because Jonathan Spence wouldn’t appear.

Perhaps though, Jonathan simply refused requests to testify in Jackson’s defense.

Jonathan told Victor Gutierrez in 1995 that he

had not spoken to Jackson in years, but during the time of the [1993] investigation, Jackson called him to see if everything was okay, and if he was being bothered by a lot of people. During the conversation, Jonathan asked Jackson if he had been with other boys such as Sean Lennon and Emmanuel Lewis. Jackson told him that it was all under control and that he shouldn’t worry about it.

We can assume that in 2005 Jackson did approach Jonathan just as he had in 1993, and just as he approached his other special friends such as Wade, Brett, Macauley and Jimmy for the Arvizo trial.

Whatever the case was, Jonathan never appeared, the nude photo wasn’t allowed in, and Jackson and his team could breathe a sigh of relief.

Fast forward a year, and we find out that not even a fairy-tale Neverland wedding could make a marriage endure. In the closing days of 2006, Myra filed for divorce from Jonathan, and in May 2007 it was finalized.

Today, Jonathan is married to a cinematographer and has two daughters.


In conclusion, we’ve learned that even though Jonathan Spence was only the second “special friend” that he was obsessed with, Jackson had already established specific patterns of behavior that lasted for decades.

  • Sharing his bed with unrelated children
    Even though he had nieces, nephews and cousins who were willing to share his bed for sleepovers, Jackson favored bringing unrelated boys into his home and his bed.  This even extended to taking them on tour with him, with Jackson preferring boys from outside his family to accompany him. It wasn’t about having sleepovers with children per se, for Jackson it was some other need that drove him to shun children from his own family so that other people’s sons could take their place.
  • Introducing his special friends as family members
    Jackson introduced his boys to others in various ways, all family related. Jonathan was an “orphan” Jackson was purportedly taking care of, other boys such as Brett Barnes and Wade Robson were introduced as cousins, Omer Bhatti was given the moniker son. Jackson also had most boys call him Daddy. Even Brett Barnes inadvertently revealed Jackson’s penchant for bringing boys closer to him by feigning familial closeness:21 Q. Did he ever tell you that he was like a22 father to you?23 A. He may have, yes.

    24 Q. Did he ever tell you that he considered you

    25 to be like a son to him?

    26 A. Yes.

  • Grooming
    Jackson expended a great deal of time, sometimes years, grooming boys and their families. He also spent a great deal of money on gifts and travel for boys and their parents. He groomed Jonathan from age five, knowing sometime in the future he would like to get closer to the boy.
  • Hiding in plain sight
    Jackson never bothered to hide his affection for young boys, yet cloaked that affection in the illusion of him supposedly loving children, a result of missing out on a childhood. This desensitized people to his touching, hugging and kissing of young boys, dissipating their suspicion of Jackson’s true motives. While many fell for this deception, it was only because they weren’t privy to the sexual games that Jackson persuaded his young friends to take part in behind closed doors. As a result of Jackson’s aura and power as a successful celebrity, there were far too many people willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, even after it became known he was molesting Jordan Chandler. To this day, even after all the evidence of Jackson’s inappropriate activities with young boys, there are still people prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. For what motive we can’t be sure, but incredibly it does still happen.
  • Moving on
    Jackson only remained close and intimate with his “special friends” while they were at his age of attraction, as they got older he began grooming a new boy to take their place. As Jonathan got older, the entertainer started grooming Jimmy to take Jonathan’s place, just as he had groomed Jonathan to take Emmanuel Lewis’s place. Jackson usually stayed friends with the boys he moved on from though, albeit not as close as before.

To us, we saw the pattern that Ken Lanning described for Diane Dimond in Be Careful Who You Love:

At any given time, the pedophile is attempting to do four things; he is recruiting, seducing, molesting, and – to put it very bluntly – dumping. In other words, he recruits the kid, he seduces the kid, he molests the kid, and at some point the kid gets too old so he wants the kid to move on… to get to his next victim.

Jackson exhibited this behavior with Emmanuel, Jonathan and Jimmy – and did the same with boys for decades.

It seems incredible that Jackson was grooming and sleeping with young boys for more than ten years before he was accused of molestation by the Chandlers, with most people blissfully unaware he was sharing his bed on a very regular basis with a succession of young friends. Even more disturbing is that after this fact was disclosed, many of those same people bought his public relations lies as to why he was sleeping with young boys, especially when he had his own nephews he could have shared a bed with if all he wanted was “sleepovers”.

Today, there are still people who deny labeling Jackson’s activities as inappropriate, even though they have supposedly researched carefully. It’s not rocket science folks.


*We are expecting more information on Jonathan’s wedding at Neverland soon, we’ll fill you in on the details when they come to hand.

**Plaintiff’s Request to Admit Seized Evidence of Erotic Materials to Demonstrate Defendant’s Intent, Plan, Scheme and Motive – January 18 2005

  • Pingback: Items Found in 1993 - Pedophile Books and Naked Photos - MJ Facts()

  • Pea

    Oh, so, it was Jonathan Spence who was married at Neverland Ranch? 🙂

    The previous belief was that it was James Safechuck, thanks to Tom Mesereau’s comments at trial — Jacko’s Wackos ran around even after James admitted to abuse still saying he was married at Neverland. Of course, that was well and thoroughly myth-busted back in 2011 by DSSL. (Read early part and first three footnotes of the Jimmy post for discussion of Mez’s 2005 claims: http://www.mjfacts.com/mj-facts-exclusive-jimmy-safechuck-story/ )

    But, to be fair, there wasn’t much information out about either ‘special friend’ back in 2011.

    Some fans have only recently been saying that Mesereau made a mistake, but with Mesereau seemingly mentally blacking out his comments when asked about the Jimmy Safechuck wedding, I was less willing to believe he made a mistake and more willing to believe he was feigning memory loss to disguise the fact he’d made it up. After all, the Defense lied several times throughout the trial*. Since MJ Facts is reporting it, however, and acting a a second independent source, I am more able to accept that Mez may have made a mistake.

    Of course, while that may be the simplest (and most fan-friendly) explanation, there’s alternate theories behind why Mez said “Jimmy Safechuck” when it was really Jonathan Spence:

    1. While questioning Kiki Fournier, Jonathan never came up but Jimmy did. Though Mez knew it was always Jonathan Spence, he got the ‘bright idea’ to say it was Jimmy to deflect Jacko’s creepy pedo-pattern Auchincloss was making everyone notice (Mez figured — and was right to a degree — that most wouldn’t notice).

    2. #1 was actually Jacko’s idea (and lie).

    3. Jacko told Mez that it was Jimmy because, having “been with” so many blondish boys, he could no longer remember who was who and supplied Mez the wrong name.

    4. Jacko did it as an F.U. to James because he’d refused to testify on his behalf.

    5. Jacko, being twisted enough to have “little boyfriends”, as Norma Staikos called them, in the first place, believed Jimmy really had been married at Neverland, and when Tom Mesereau related it to the jury, it wasn’t exactly a lie. It’s just that Jacko didn’t disclose that he’d been Jimmy’s spouse and the boy was a 10 or 11 at the time.

    Admittedly, #5 may be the most unlikely explanation, but there are several alternatives besides Mez making an innocent little typographical boo-boo in his trial notes. Unfortunately, while James Safechuck no longer has to have that wedding claim over his head, Jonathan Spence will now have to fight off Jacko’s Wackos saying, “Well, why would a victim get married at his abuser’s house,” if he ever confesses. But, to me, if Jacko wasn’t even there, as Marion Spence says, how is it really any consolation for Jacko’s admirers? They’ll say Jacko was on tour (with Omer Bhatti sharing his bed, no doubt) and couldn’t get back, but I doubt Jonathan Spence had even talked to Jacko much by that point, as was written above.

    But I can imagine that, after the Jordie allegations and just like he did with James in allowing him to be a production assistant for the HIStory teaser, Jacko would especially give any of those “old” boys whatever they wanted. Just to keep in good standing. (I think Jonathan did use Jacko to get what he wanted, by the way. A kind of “retroactive prostitution”. Jacko did like to be “sold some”, according to James’s documents.)

    A ‘special friend’ married at Neverland only ever meant something to Jacko’s Wackos…

    * – Examples: saying an insurance company paid for Jacko’s settlement, and that the grand juries in ’93-’94 were “indicting”, rather than “investigating”, grand juries. Though it didn’t get into trial, they also wanted to insinuate that the Arvizo boys and Janet were molesters, and that there were romantic feelings behind the Cartier Love bracelet Jacko gave to June Chandler.

    • All interesting thoughts – I’d like to be magnanimous and say that Tom Mesereau simply slipped up and was confused on his boys. Let’s face it, lot’s of people mixed up Jonathan and Jimmy and they did segue from one to the other quite smoothly.

      There is though this nagging thought in my mind about the other lies that were told by the defense during the trial including the ones you listed. (Another one that comes to mind is the defense’s explanation for spots of blood on Jackson’s underwear which were mixed with cocaine – that the spots were due to injections to cure his Vitiligo. Of course, there is no injectable treatment for the disease). I’d like to think more about exactly what T-Mez was up to.

      I’d like to add too that the information about the Neverland wedding came from Marion Spence. There is no reason to doubt her, but like everything it’s best to have at least a couple of sources for any kind of facts you want to rely on even if just one source may be reliable. That’s why we had to find quite a few sources of information regarding that nude photo – to once and for all debunk that silly fan myth that “it just didn’t exist”. We’ll have more information about that Neverland wedding from another source soon (hopefully soon!).

    • ShawntayUStay

      In regards to your first point, I actually don’t think it is that strange to believe Tom Mesereau to have knowingly put forth James instead of Jonathan as the one who was married at Neverland. It’s a running joke that “lawyer” is synonymous with “liar” and Mesereau has done his fair share. To me, his most egregious lie (because the whole debate was very annoying, long drawn out, and yet ultimately moot) was the one with the insurance company paying the Chandler settlement. He had to have know that fans were running around with that memorandum written by Oxman, saying that Jackson was forced since at least 2009 (maybe even since the trial). This, of course, ignoring the fact that Mesereau released a statement during the trial that addressed the settlement — because defense polling of the potential jury pool revealed that the settlement was a huge deal for people to accept if he was so innocent — and he also said Jackson was given “bad legal advice”, code words for “he paid it”. Not to mention the testimony of Larry Feldman. I know Mesereau is not responsible for fanatic willful ignorance of the above facts, but he could have corrected them and didn’t do so until one of his biggest fans from the Midwest called in and asked him directly if MJ foot the bill or not. He was cornered and had to answer, and truthfully did, finally. There are still quite a few fans that still like to insist he was “forced” against his wishes, but they are the ignorant remnant, LOL.

      As for Jonathan Spence, I don’t think it matters at all. I didn’t even think it mattered if James was married at Neverland, either. MJ groomed them into compliance so it’s highly likely they didn’t see themselves as abuse victims, so being around MJ was good rather than bad, from their perspective. Fans, I’ve seen, try to act as if the Neverland wedding thing never mattered, but their response to this will show you just how much they think a special friend’s wedding at MJ’s house is needed to “vindicate” MJ of wrongdoing with that particular special friend…fans always be lying, LOL. And looking at all the info about Jonathan, I always thought that it seemed that he took advantage of MJ’s “interest” in him, with the constant requests for stuff like VIP tickets and cars, etc, after MJ moved onto other boys. He and the first wife were fairly young and I can imagine that he wanted to impress her with the finer things by letting her get married at a superstar’s house on 2500 acres of land. MJ not being there is a given, LOL, even if he wasn’t on tour. I can’t imagine that he’d want to see one of his boys get married off to a woman given all the horrible things he said about women and how he tried to brainwash boys against them.

  • Kat

    A good article, and similar to The Jimmy Safechuck Story, although doesn’t quite pack an emotional punch like the post on James did, since Jonathan hasn’t yet come out as a victim and the psychological effects that the abuse had on him remain undisclosed. But Jonathan’s and James’s stories are similar (and yes, they look a lot alike, too!), only Spence wasn’t as badly thrown away as Safechuck was. I think Jackson and Spence sort of used each other, with Jackson being the bigger user, clearly.

    When I read Victor Gutierrez’s book I also paid attention to how Jonathan spoke about MJ. He said: ‘No amount of money in the world could make me speak of things that didn’t happen between us. I love Michael.’ The fact that he said he loved him is a sign to me that there was a romantic and sexual side to their relationship. Otherwise he would have simply said ‘we are good friends, we used to hang out, he’s a buddy of mine’. At least that’s how I read it, because people usually don’t use the love word when speaking about their friends. Spence’s statements are also similar to those that are still being made by Brett Barnes – Michael and I loved each other, those who are speaking out are traitors out for money, etc.

    Reading this entry reminded me once again how difficult it is for sexual abuse victims to come forward with regards to their abuse. Not only because for male survivors it denotes victim-hood, homosexuality, weakness, and the stigma of possible re-offending, but also because a skilled groomer makes sure the victim feels indebted to them. Jonathan must be thinking – how can I go against this person when he did all these great things for me that no one else did? No, the secret must be kept… It does make me admire Wade Robson and James Safechuck even more, because they have come forward and have separated the good stuff from the unforgivable, realizing that being taken on world trips still doesn’t justify molestation.

    • ShawntayUStay

      I agree about Jonathan’s remarks. He said to Gutierrez that he didn’t think it was appropriate to talk about personal relationships, which normally I agree with but then you think about the context in which he said it, it makes you a little suspicious. Compare that to Mac Culkin, who says anyone can ask him anything about his time with Jackson. I think both of them are on the extremes, with both using their respective explanations to conceal the truth of Jackson’s interests — Jonathan hides while Macaulay is “open”. Also funny to me was Jonathan’s quote to Taraborrelli, that he’d ask MJ about girlfriends on occasion but they never really talked it. More circumstantial evidence of Jackson’s lack of interest in women and yet the fans still act like he was a “poon hound”, lol.

      It’s ridiculous to say that the naked photo of Jonathan was fake. I believe that the judge examined the evidence collected in the 1993 raid, such as the three books with nude children. Judges usually see evidence or at least summaries of evidence. In any event, that photo was discussed so many times prior to the prosecution wanting to have it admitted that it cannot be simply be dismissed as folklore. They only come to these conclusions because they think MJ was set up by unnamed forces. They cannot a accept that the admission of this type of 1101/1108 evidence is solely at the judge’s discretion, and Melville made it clear that only witnesses that actually saw molestation could testify. Since Jonathan, James, and Jordie wouldn’t be testifying, all evidence relating to the first two was excluded, and limited evidence was allowed in about Jordie — the judge would have allowed the photo of Jonathan in if he would have testified, no question about it.

      It’s just easier for fans to disbelieve proof of MJ’s pedophilia because they never have had to confront the actual evidence. I distinctly remember the folks at VMJ saying that those pedophile-edited naked kid books were given to Jackson and looked like they were never read. I laughed because how would they know, number one, what these books looked like if they were never in court to see/examine them, and number two, I have books that I’ve read that are in excellent condition — no dog eared pages, no marks, no worn spine — so it’s stupid to assume that MJ couldn’t have kept his prized possessions (which were kept locked away in closet file cabinet) in good working order? Plus, although both naked boy books are legal and found in several public libraries in the U.S., including the Library of Congress, where anyone off the street can look at them without any restrictions, none of the fans have seen the images. So they just defer to that meaningless inscription Jackson wrote in BWBB to “get an idea” of the “innocent mindset” MJ must have had while looking at naked boys posing and/or doing everyday activities.

      I have seen the books (all three of them, including “In Search of Young Beauty”, which shows the photographer’s obvious interest in nude girls) and yes, none of the photos are sexually explicit or anything like that, it’s very clearly pedo-oriented. Actually the two boy books were specifically created as “high end boy lover materials” by Book Adventures (the publisher) in the 1960s. But again, the fans would know this if they did a little homework instead of wishing away every uncomfortable “MJ fact” to the cornfield, lol (nod to Anthony Fremont from “The Twilight Zone”, for reference).

      • Kat

        Fans are those who are ‘in the cornfield’, since they are confused, deluded, and refuse to acknowledge the reality, lol. By the way, I don’t really know what the cornfield reference means exactly, as I haven’t seen that many episodes of The Twilight Zone. The ones I did watch scared me as a kid, I was a bit too young to be watching that.

        In his book ‘Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson’ Ian Halperin mentions these books being presented at the trial, but dismisses them as being ‘art books’. I found it to be a laughable explanation – does he seriously think that an experienced team of prosecutors is going to bring art books as evidence in a child molestation trial? And the judge is going to allow them in? Furthermore, who’s idea of art are photos of naked children in suggestive poses with their genitals out? Ian Halperin and MJ vindicators want us to believe that a suspected pedophile’s artistic coffee table books of choice just happened to feature erotically photographed nude white boys. It’s a huge coincidence, that’s all! 😀

        For me the reason why fans refuse to acknowledge that things such as the Jonathan Spence nude photo were real is because saying that Sneddon and his team of vindictive prosecutors made it up is the only way to exonerate Michael. Some of the evidence that has come to light is simply too incriminating. Such as that Jackson had a nude photo of a boy he slept with, or semen stains from different males found on his bed which he only shared with young boys, or child-sized underwear with ‘male DNA’ on it which was kept as a treasured possession. There is no innocent way to explain this, so they choose to say that Sneddon lied about these things, even though it’s a crime to lie in court documents.

        I sometimes try to take their alternative explanations seriously and ask myself if they could be true, solely for objectivity’s sake. But the theories that fans put forward are so ridiculous and far-fetched. How would someone have books in their bedroom in a locked cabinet and have never looked at them or known that they were there? How is it possible that for a person to have his own sperm mixed with foreign sperm if not for sexual activity with other males? In Jackson’s case sexual activity with underage males that were too young to consent, but still capable of ejaculating. The fans explanations that these were left by other people are ludicrous, especially since Jackson had a lock on his door and a code that was frequently changed.

        • ShawntayUStay

          Lol, sorry about the reference, but in that episode, the young boy Anthony terrorized his small town because he had the ability to read people’s minds, and create and destroy things by thought alone. So everyone was always thinking positive thoughts because they were scared — he was 6 years old and very, very temperamental and egocentric. If he didn’t like something(one), he’d make it disappear by sending it to the cornfield, which was far away from anything and everything. “Bad” things went to the cornfield in an “out of sight, out of mind” kind of way. It’s on YouTube if you’re interested.

          Therefore, the fans do like little Anthony and send all inconvenient facts, evidence, and revelations to the cornfield so they won’t interfere with their fantasy version of Michael Jackson.

          Ian Halperin is a joke; he just wanted people to buy his book so he put all that MJ was innocent garbage in it even though his selling point was the alleged gay hookups in las Vegas — which ran for about four pages. Yes, the books are technically art books but it’s pedo art and if he’d actually seen them, he should think as much too.

          The funniest fan delusion was that the semen stains were actually saliva and not only that, they were from Blanket and Prince. This, according to the fanatic, also “proved” that MJ’s sons were his biologically. Huh?!? How does that make any sense? That had to be one of the most convoluted attempts to turn bad evidence into good evidence I have ever seen.

          • Kat

            I just watched The Twilight Zone episode about the kid who was sending everyone to the cornfield! It was sort of distressing and reminded me why I was frightened of that show as a kid. I did kind of expect it to have a happy ending where the people in the village would find a way to get rid of Anthony or at least his powers, but in the end everything stayed the same. I also thought they would show the cornfield, but I suppose it wasn’t meant to be a real place, but some plane of existence that no one came back from. By the way, the series I watched were the continuation episodes from 1985, I never saw the original 1960s series. My favorite episode from the eighties one was one about a guy who was an alcoholic, but stopped drinking when he swallowed a pill that made a worm grow in his stomach… Have you seen that one? It’s very good.

            Anyway, yes, I can see now that Jackson’s fanatical worshipers definitely wish everything bad to the cornfield, like it doesn’t exist, hehe.

            When I read Ian Halperin’s book I kept on wondering what the purpose of it was. Do you think he said he believed MJ was innocent just to sell it? Yeah, I guess so. After all it’s what Aphrodite Jones and J. Randy Taraborelli did, at least partially. But in his book Halperin weaves together three separate themes; one is the child sexual abuse allegations, the other is Jackson’s sexuality (he claims he was a closeted gay man), and the last is his death and the reasons why he died prematurely. The book is filled with all sorts of erroneous information that can be easily debunked, but that’s not surprising, since there’s a lot of fallacious info about MJ out there. It has negative reviews on Amazon, because of Halperin’s contentions that Jackson was gay; apparently the fans only accept one version of his sexuality – Michael was a heterosexual who loved and respected women, and kept his many girlfriends secret out of regard for their privacy. 😀

            The ‘semen was saliva from his sons’ version is truly one of the dumbest things I have heard. Not just in relation to the Jackson allegations, but in general, lol. ‘Male DNA’ found on a bed mattress, sheets, and underwear in a child molestation case can only mean semen. Do MJ vindicators seriously think that forensic experts could confuse semen with saliva, and that prosecution would want to enter it as evidence and defense would try to bar it had it been saliva? And how does it prove that Jackson’s bought white children are biologically his? That theory is potentially historic in its stupidity.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Ooh, I’ve never seen that episode! That sounds really scary…it’s a tequila worm I’m guessing. I’ve only seen the 1960s series, played as reruns on the Syfy channel in America every New Year’s Eve, lol.

            As for Halperin’s book, I think he might believe MJ was innocent but at the same time, I think he wanted people to read the book. The majority of the book is the allegations, and then he puts Jordie’s interview at the end of the book (which was where I first read it, go figure :-p) with no context or anything. Funny though, he was “right” about something: he claimed that MJ had alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, which causes COPD-like symptoms, and said that MJ wanted a lung transplant to fix it. Come to find out that MJ actually did have lung problems per his autopsy:

            1. Marked diffuse congestion and patchy hemorrhage of the right and left lung
            2. Marked respiratory broncholitis, histiocytic desquamation, and multifocal chronic interstitial pneumonitis
            3. Multifocal fibrocollagenous scars.
            4. Organizing and recanalizing thromboemboli of two small arteries
            5. Intravascular eosinophilia with occasional interstitital eosinophilic infiltrate
            6. Suggestive focal desquamation of respiratory lining cells with squamous metaplasia

            Even Quincy Jones said that MJ used to talk about having a “blister” on his lung. So I don’t know where Ian Halperin got that info, but there’s some truth in it. However, a lung transplant wouldn’t help with alpha-1 antitrypsin, he’d need a liver transplant since it’s the liver that makes the necessary enzyme.

            I think that the defense was trying to be clever by just saying “male DNA” in their motion. Luckily, the prosecution wasn’t having any of those euphemisms and said exactly what DNA source it was, or else we would have never known. I personally think that the semen was from “special friends”, or boys, but since I don’t know for sure, I just say “males”. Fans have also said it was from other guests, but it was clear from the trial that MJ didn’t want anyone going into his room when he wasn’t there, that he routinely changed the passcode to his room, and that they only seen boys in his room. Also, the DNA in the underwear and bedsheets that was found in the bag with some dirty and clean clothes of MJ’s and his children. Obviously MJ must have brought that bag of laundry home with him from vacation, and had a special “guest” with him. MJ wanted to keep the underwear and the sheets, just like he did back then according to Bob Jones with the “love note to Jimmy” sheet in Nice, France during the Bad Tour.

          • Kat

            I just looked up that episode, it’s called The Hellgramite Method. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734751/

            You should definitely watch it when you get the chance, I’m sure it can be found around the internet. It’s not a very scary one, I mostly liked it because I believed it to have a good moral/message about alcoholism and fighting your demons. (:

            I also read Jordie’s interview for the first time in Halperin’s book. Halpering might have been right about some medical issues that Jackson had, but we all know he was really killed by a propofol intoxication, not skin cancer or lung problems that Halpering wrote about. How long he would have lived had he not overdosed on propofol is debatable; some say it was inevitable for him to die prematurely, and others state that at the AEG trial they estimated how long he would live and concluded that he was generally healthy and would have lasted for many years. Anyhow, Halperin’s assertions that he predicted MJs death are definitely exaggerated, since he didn’t predict the cause correctly.

            Halperin wrote that he used to believe that Jackson was guilty, but when he investigated he couldn’t find a shred of evidence that he had ever molested any child. He said that most, if not all of the accusers, lacked any credibility and were financially motivated. He also claims that Sneddon had a vendetta going and that Diane Dimond is the primary reason why people believe Jackson to be a pedophile. He might have really thought that, but denying the pedophile accusations also enabled him to go ahead with his ‘MJ was secretly gay’ theory. At any rate, it’s a bad book and I don’t know why he wrote it.

            Heh, I think ‘male DNA’ was quite a transparent euphemism, after all what else could it be if it was found on a bed’s mattress, sheets, and underwear and the defense in a child molestation trial wanted to keep it out of the trial? But apparently MJ crazies still have nonsensical theories going about how male DNA was really saliva from his ‘biological sons’. Like you said, the lock codes were frequently changed and only young boys were invited to share MJs bed, so for me this evidence all but proves that he engaged in sexual activity with kids. The speculations that people like Frank Cascio or Omer Bhatti were bringing their girlfriends to Neverland for quickies in MJs bedroom are preposterous, especially since there were about a hundred other bedrooms in the property. Plus, semen deposited on on a bed indicate sexual activity such as masturbation or mutual masturbation, and according to Jordie Chandler, James Safechuck, and Gavin Arvizo, masturbation was MJs favorite activity to do with them and it often happened while they were in a bed together.

            It’s completely understandable why the defense wanted to keep it out of the trial (they claimed that no Arvizo DNA was found, so it was irrelevant), along with information about how much Jackson had paid to the Chandlers (20 + millions) and Francias (2. something millions), but it’s not entirely clear why the defense wanted to bar books written by Raymond Chandler and Victor Gutierrez from being mentioned. I know they dismissed them as being ‘tabloid false information’, but still I’m a bit baffled.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I’m going to watch that episode :-). Thanks, Kat.

            I think the defense wanted to keep it out because it would prove to everyone that the rumors of MJ being a homosexual were in fact true; you can’t get more circumstantial proof of gay sex than another male’s semen on a man’s mattress! At best, it could show that MJ liked to do circle jerks with other guys, which doesn’t make you gay (supposedly, LOL, I have my doubts); at worst it was direct evidence of MJ being “light in the loafers” (this assuming that the DNA was from “males” rather than specifically from young boys). I bet MJ was petrified that it would ruin his career (all those heartbroken fangirls!) so he got the defense to shut it down. Mesereau always says that MJ told him he wasn’t gay, but he always says that it wouldn’t matter if he was because Mesereau knows, as a lawyer, that someone’s word holds less weight than actual tangible evidence.

            The fans make up these explanations for it being there because they cannot fathom the truth. “MJ’s bedroom was a Motel 6” was a favorite but they all know that if it wasn’t MJ but another man who had semen on his bed/sheets, they’d say he must be “co-responsible” for its deposition. Occam’s Razor. I remember the fans went apeshit over this, LOL; pages and pages in forums dedicated to this “explosive proof”. Nothing gets the goat of a fangirl like MJ being gay…

            Halperin’s claim that he thought that MJ was guilty but then could never “find any evidence” is the same tired ploy that Aphrodite Jones used. Both of them then went on to show us the (rotten) fruit of their alleged research that proved to them that he was innocent, Halperin’s being a reshuffled recitation of Mary Fischer’s article (have you read that, BTW?) and Jones’s a skewed rehash of the trial transcripts. Neither is very convincing to those but the most ignorant (same goes for the Wikipedia articles) so my guess is that both were simply marketing ploys, with Jones continuing to milk the Fanatic Cow to this day. Call me cynical but I don’t think any one that has spent any legitimate time objectively looking into Michael Jackson could believe he was innocent; all those boys, something had to be up with those relationships! Only the biased and/or paid-off would think everything was perfectly kosher.

          • Kat

            There are in fact several theories about Jackson’s sexuality. Ian Halperin in his book claims that he was gay and that’s also what people thought in the late eighties/early nineties before the child sex abuse allegations surfaced and he was known as the feminine popstar with no known heterosexual relationships. Randall Sullivan wrote in his book that MJ was an asexual virgin stuck in a state of arrested development. Neither of these books was well-received by the fans, since they only accept one version of him – a completely straight man who had many passionate love affairs with women that he chose to keep secret, because he was such a gentlemen and wanted to protect their privacy. And to this day, these many alleged secret girlfriends of his haven’t come out to tell their stories and there is no proof whatsoever that they exist.

            I sometimes wonder why the fans don’t want to accept the ‘asexual virgin’ theory, since at least it would explain why he didn’t have any real relationships with females without him being a pedophile. One would think they would adopt it as one of the points in their defense. Well, they have partially, because they say that he had such an innocent mind that when he invited kids to sleep in his bed no sexual thoughts ever came to him. Simultaneously, I’ve seen fansites listing all the numerous women in MJs life and perpetuating J Randy Taraborrelli’s tales about his and Lisa’s heated sex life. It’s like they want us to believe that Michael had something like a split personality going on. (:

            I see the semen on his bed and child’s underwear with male DNA on it as nothing if not proof that he molested kids. After all we know that only boys were invited to share his bed, not men. And pedophiles love to keep keepsakes from their victims, so a suspected and accused pedophile having kids’ underwear with semen on it is highly incriminating. Furthermore, these two pieces of evidence strengthened G. Arvizo’s claims, because he said that molestation occurred when they were lying on his bed together and that MJ also kept his dirty underpants afterwards. The lawyers said that the male DNA wasn’t from Arvizo kids, so it had no relation to the trial, but it really did.

            I haven’t read Mary Fischer’s article yet! I’m sort of pressed for time at the moment, but when I’ll be freer I’ll definitely catch up with Michael Jackson related literature; I have quite a few things lined up that I want to read. Halperin wrote that he believes Jackson to be innocent after all, because none of the accusers had credibility and almost everyone who spoke out against MJ had financial motivations. And while the actions of Evan Chandler and Janet Arvizo might be questionable it doesn’t mean that their sons lied about the abuse. He also discredits the former employees who went to tabloids, but I still believe them, because they were actually at Neverland, unlike Ian Halperin who wasn’t.

            I’m still not over how bad Aphrodite’s Jones book was! I’m like offended by its horribleness, lol. All she does is leaves out several key testimonies and completely misrepresents all those which are included. When writing about June Chandler’s time on the stand she says that June admitted that she encouraged her son to have a friendship with Jackson, but conveniently leaves out the fact that the twelve year old boy and thirty five year old man slept in one bed during their time of being friendly. She presents Kiki Fournier’s and Jesus Salas testimonies as if they were favorable to Jackson when they were everything but. Jones also writes that Salas said he wasn’t sure if Gavin was drunk when in Neverland, that perhaps he wasn’t. But I’ve read his examination, and he clearly said that he was certain Gavin was drunk, because you can tell when people are. It kind of makes me angry that such books are out there, because someone can read them and think that Jackson never did anything and was a victim of extortion attempts. It’s wrong, because it’s not the truth and I don’t get why people are so eager to exonerate the guilt of a person who actually did the dirty deeds he was accused of. :/

          • ShawntayUStay

            In my opinion, MJ cultivated that asexuality thing for a couple of reasons: 1) He was uncomfortable with the sexuality he saw his brothers and father engage in back in the day; 2) he was “different” from most men and used the asexuality as a way to hide it; 3) he didn’t want to have to always explain why he was never in a relationship. There are probably other reasons but those are the ones that pop up in my mind first, LOL.

            And some fans have no problem with the idea of him being asexual because it goes with their whole narrative that he was just a misunderstood angel from heaven, too innocent for the evil of this world. Others don’t like it because they want to imagine they had a chance with him. But him being asexual is at least more believable than him being a stud! I think Randall Sullivan’s book was mostly poorly researched and edited garbage and very biased in MJ’s favor because of the Tom Mesereau as major source, but Sullivan — like most MJ researchers who aren’t delusional fangirls — couldn’t find any evidence of him having believable adult relationships. I believe Jason Pfeiffer, but even still I think that MJ was “seducing” him because he wanted to get close to Arnold Klein, probably for drugs (Jason was Klein’s office manager).Since no women have come forward and all anecdotes are farcical at best, I think at this point it’s safe to say that MJ wasn’t a poon-crazed man whore, LOL.

            It’s good to read Mary Fischer’s article only because it has been used so many times to invalidate the Chandlers, and it contains core beliefs used by Jackson defenders. However, I do wonder if it has the same kind of pull it used to have before the core claim by Fischer — that false memories were planted in Jordie’s head using psychoactive drugs — was roundly debunked. Still, I think many of the more ignorant fans belief her tripe. So for holism’s sake, it’s worth a look. 🙂

            Ian Halperin can take several seats, LOL. Going to the tabloids and telling the truth are not mutually exclusive. I think any rational person would sell a story if the offer was big enough, especially if they were as underpaid as many Neverland employees were. Clearly MJ had something he didn’t want getting out if he got all his employees to sign nondisclosure agreements. I remember a security expert who worked with the rich and famous said that he once advised MJ to pay his employees more than minimum wage but MJ disagreed (he’s so sweet, isn’t he!). The guy said you should do this because it keeps them from wanting to spill your secrets; he was basically like “I told you so”. You can easily spot BS in a tabloid story, you just have to know how to “read” them, so I don’t think being in a tabloid means your story is a fake.

            I was convinced by Jones’ book because I didn’t no any better, but it’s still pretty amazing how much she omitted; there’s a lot in the trial that supported his being a pedophile, even if he was innocent of the charging allegations.

          • Kat

            Do you think Jackson deliberately created the asexual man-child persona? Because I sort of tend to think it’s simply how a lot of people perceived him back in eighties and around than time before the allegations. He had had no real romantic relationships with females, and even the women to whom he had been linked to, such as Tatum O’Neil and Brooke Shields, said that it has been more of a case of puppy love and Michael was very afraid of physical intimacy. Furthermore, his constant assertions about how much he loved kids and felt like one of them further strengthened everyone’s judgment that he had a case of arrested development going on. Or as Randall Sullivan said – pre-sexuality.

            What I found to be ironic and curios when I read MJWML was that the events described in the book happened in the early nineties when Oprah did her famous interview and straight out asked MJ if he was still a virgin, because everyone was wondering. But while the world was guessing whether he had no interest in sex whatsoever, he was up to all sorts of sexual things with his below the age of consent boyfriends. That time was also, to my estimation, the period when he had the most boys in his life at one given time; he had Brett Barnes, Wade Robson, Jordie Chandler obviously, and had just recently parted with James Safechuck… So yes, I was reading about all the lurid details of his intimate relationships with these kids, all the using vaseline to masturbate, swallowing Jordie’s ejaculate, and keeping soiled underwear as prized possessions, and thinking – this was what the supposedly asexual overgrown kid was up to when the press wasn’t around? =) But yeah, the asexuality theory does help to exonerate him for those who are still trying. After all even juror Paul Rodriguez said that the jury let him go because they thought he was a child who never got the chance to grow up.

            I definitely believe what the Neverland workers said, once again, because they were actually there. Halperin and others might think it’s easy to discredit them and say that had financial motivation to lie, but at least they knew Jackson personally, worked for him, and spend months or years on his property. I remember when Wade Robson did the one interview he did and called Jackson a pedophile and a child sexual abuser, and everyone was like shocked by it – Wade Robson labels the Kind of Pop a pedophile! But Wade actually knew MJ, spent hundreds of nights with him as a kid, and has been a suspected victim for years. Who better to judge if he was a pedophile or not? Going to tabloids doesn’t mean anything; other celebrities also have disgruntled ex-employees, not just Jackson. How come none of these people randomly offer to sell stories to TMZ about how their former employer was a child molester, an abuser of animals, and too lazy to use the toilet hence they peed on the floor? Maybe Michael Jackson really did these things and other famous people don’t? Also, MJ could have easily sued the people who went to Hard Copy and National Enquirer for defamation if they were lying and he never did. The same people testified under oath without being paid anything and that adds to their credibility.

            I’m not sure what Aphrodite’s Jones deal is, really. First she’s convinced he’s guilty (Di Diamond even wrote that Jones told her every day during the trial how she knows for sure that Jackson is guilty), then when the trial’s over she’s suddenly hit with the realization that he was always innocent and decides to write a book about it. Having written her dumb book in which she claims that the allegations were really about trying to wrestle the Beatles catalog away from MJ (are we supposed to believe that Janet Arvizo conspired with Sony Music to accuse Jackson of child molestation to take his rights to music away?) or racially motivated, she now is back to saying that he might be guilty and she has doubts about the 1993 case. She’s someone who clearly likes speaking from both sides of her mouth. I also don’t find her to be particularly intelligent. I don’t think what she thinks matters. I would have been convinced by her book too if I was just a casual observer who hadn’t studied the allegations more. But there’s a lot of such information out there. A lot of people have been duped by it I’m certain.

    • Thanks Kat, what struck me about Jonathan’s story is that Jackson lied so much about their relationship. From introducing him as a “family friend” (while they were sharing a bed) to telling others he was orphaned, as well as keeping his presence a secret from his parents, he just didn’t want people to know the truth. If it’s all so innocent, why hide it?

      It also struck me about the similarities in language between Jonathan and Brett, which you have pointed out.

      Jonathan
      “No amount of money in the world could make me speak of things that didn’t happen between us. I love Michael”

      Brett
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3370258dd6cc7190099ac7def0981b31aa92ec891e2b063c11ecd9862bf36e80.png

      That suggests to me a level of brainwashing. Jackson told his other special friends that Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo were extortionists and just wanted his money, and it shows how well groomed his boys were when they would consider admitting to being molested is worse than actually being molested.

      Their language highlights your comment “a skilled groomer makes sure the victim feels indebted to them”.

      • Kat

        Brett Barnes definitely acts like a brainwashed person. His social media accounts reveal him as still being strongly emotionally attached to MJ and the relationship that they had when he was a kid, which was around twenty years ago or so. He has a picture of him and Jackson together as is profile pic, identifies himself as still belonging to the Applehead Club, and writes lovelorn messages such as ‘Miss you Applehead — It could have been yesterday — Shooting stars remind me of you — My promise will forever stand’. I think he could benefit from therapy sessions or something of the kind that would help him to finally leave the Applehead Club, as I don’t think it’s OK for a person in his thirties to act this way over something that happened such a long time ago. Wade Robson and James Safechuck have discussed what happened to them with therapists, which gave them the chance to be honest with themselves and others and recognize that what happened was never love, but grooming and manipulation. Brett Barnes hasn’t had that opportunity yet.

        • Andreas Moss

          It should be noted that Brett has two twitter accounts, one private(that nobody but his friends can see) and one “public”. Which is weird, because I am not sure what the public one is for. He’s only “famous” for being one of Michaels friends, and its mostly MJs fans that knows who he is, so I suppose it was made for communicating to fans? Strange thing to dedicate a twitter account to.

          I am not sure what to think about Brett. I see him in the same boat as Omer Bhatti. Its like they’re forcing themselves to think the positive outweighs the negative in the relationship with Jackson. Bhatti has also said everything happens for a reason. I noticed when Bhatti speaks about Jackson its like there’s a hidden sentence in there, that whatever happened, Jackson is the reason he dances and makes music, and so on, so it must be good.

          We also have to remember that whatever is happening in Brett’s life and in his mind its not accurately portrayed on his twitter page.

          And great article, Mjfacts!
          And Spence’s wife was cinematographer on the Open Secret documentary, about child molesting in Hollywood, wasn’t he?

          • ShawntayUStay

            Interesting about Omer. He definitely seems like he’s indebted to MJ and knows that he’d be a nobody if he didn’t keep in contact with Michael’s kids. I suspect there was a bit of parental pimping on the part of the Bhattis, which would explain Omer’s deference.

            I think Brett Barnes loves the attention he gets from the fans; it makes him feel famous by proxy. I believe their admiration of him as a “true friend” of Jackson’s reassures Brett’s commitment to keeping his abuse a secret. He probably also gets satisfaction knowing that Jackson would approve of his loyalty and hold him in high regard compared to the others. Remember what Jordie said, Jackson would compare him to Brett and if Jordie showed any resistance, MJ say he didn’t love him as much as Brett did. I think all of that brainwashing has gone to Brett’s head.

            But Brett is normal and has a longtime girlfriend, so at least his sexuality wasn’t perverted by the abuse.

          • Kat

            While it’s certainly true that a person’s Twitter account isn’t an accurate reflection of what is going on in that person’s life or mind, I do think that Brett Barnes’ public tweets are rather telling, as is his profile pic of him and Jackson together. He tweets irregularly, but when he does it’s almost always about Michael and he sounds sincere when he writes stuff like ‘miss you Applehead’, not like he’s just doing it for the fans, but like he really means those words.

            It makes me believe that he still harbors a deep emotional attachment to Jackson and has a lot of loyalty for him. And that he doesn’t see what happened between them as abuse, but as love. He is where Wade Robson was before he started experiencing mental breakdowns and sought therapy.

            I also put Barnes and Bhatti together, along with Frank Cascio who I believe also was a victim. All three of them are still loyal to Jackson and I’m pretty sure they’re friendly with the Jackson family, which makes it unlikely for them to come out as victims any time soon. When I read Frank’s book (which I know you’ve also read, Andreas) I kept on getting this feeling that Frank wasn’t being honest. Not with himself, not with the readers. The way I see it, Jackson used Frank, first for clandestine sex and then as his right hand man who would do everything that’s necessary, no questions asked. Frank writes about all the good things Jackson did for him, but it’s pretty clear to me that he only did these things to control Frank. The same can be said about Omer and Brett Barnes… Like I said, these people need to be given an opportunity to be honest with themselves, as that is the first step to break the attachment that they still have with the man who used and abused them.

          • Andreas Moss

            Yes, he undoubtly has some attachment to MJ still. I don’t know what to make of Brett and his twitter account. Perhaps he overcompensating the idea it was love, by making it public, so he can hold on to that notion and be accountable to it. I’m pretty sure he might be struggling with it though. It must be very painful to consider that he might have been taken advantage of.

          • Kat

            I think that all of MJs victims, even those still loyal to him like Frank and Brett, know deep down inside, in their hearts, what it was and that it was never an expression of love or anything like that. They just don’t want to acknowledge it for what it was, because, as you said, it is painful to admit the truth of it and that you were victimized and brainwashed.

            Anyway, have you seen the movie Mysterious Skin? I highly suggest watching it. It’s a tale about two teenagers who were both sexually abused by the same person when they were kids. They have opposite reactions to it; one has repressed memories, but knows that something traumatic happened to him, even if he can’t remember what it was. The other remembers everything, but sees it as love and believes that this person loved him like no one else would, because that’s what he was told. The question that’s being put forward for the audience is – who of the two is the bigger victim?

            It is fictional, but even specialists agree that it’s a very accurate portrayal of what happens to boys who are abused. There’s also a novel of the same name, but personally I prefer the movie, and the film adaption is very faithful to what’s written in the book.

          • That’s a good point you’ve highlighted there Kat.

            If these men keep convincing themselves that it was “love”, they don’t have to face the reality that they were merely used by MJ. They want to avoid the prospect that they were just commodities in MJ’s sickening sexual games, interchangeable with any other boy who might have taken his fancy.

            This way they remain relevant and keep some of their power. I can understand that actually, if it’s the case.

  • Pea

    Apropos the nude photo of Jonathan Spence that, using multiple sources, has been shown to exist, it seems Jacko just liked the idea of various degrees of undress, cameras, and boys in the same context. (It will remain unknown who was the boy in the pulled down bikini bottoms holding an umbrella — that picture was also found.)

    Interestingly, when Brett Barnes was questioned on the stand, Ron Zonen showed him some pictures (exhibits #890 – 894) that were either seized in 2003 or earlier in 1993. They were Polaroids, naturally — Jacko’s preferred mode of capturing his ‘special friends’ because they don’t have to be seen by anyone but the photographer and the subject (i.e. no risk of censure). All of the photos were found together, and Brett agreed he was around 10-11 in all of the photos. (Mez objected when Zonen asked Brett, “If I told you these photos were all found together, would you agree they were taken around the same time?” You have to wonder why that question was so problematic!)

    In #890, one Polaroid showed Brett in bed and another Polaroid showed Jacko in just his underwear. Zonen asked Brett twice whether he was the one who snapped the picture of Jacko in his underwear, seeing that in all those Polaroids, Brett and Jacko were together in a room somewhere. Brett, of course, denied that he took the picture, but who else would’ve taken it?

    http://www.mjfacts.com/transcripts/Court_Transcript_5_05_2005.pdf (p. 239-243)

  • mine

    What is this going to do to janet jacksons career if she were to hear about this.Janet has a new album and is going to be hitting road in support of her upcoming album. How is this going to effect janet jackson return to the music seen, will she have to cancel everything that shes been working so hard for and how will this effect the rest of the jackson family.

    • I suspect that this will have zero effect on anything Janet does, just as this entire site would have a zero to niggling effect on Jackson’s legacy – unless more and more people realize it’s not OK to laud a man who took other people’s sons into his bed and subsequently lied about the purpose of the sleepovers, his relationships with boys, his child erotica, and the porn, booze and pills he had within arm’s reach while he hosted those boys.

      Unfortunately there is a lot of resistance to speaking the truth about Jackson – there are far too many people who are making vast sums of money off Jackson’s legacy; there are boys (now men) who were and are afraid to speak out – just look at the stalking, vilification and abuse heaped on those who have disclosed so far – and suffer in private with their pain; there are serious fans who suffer cognitive dissonance and don’t want to (or can’t) face the truth without a great upheaval to their psyche; there are people who have invested huge amounts of time on vindication websites who can’t afford to lose face on the ridiculous theories they’ve concocted for Jackson’s behavior; and there are the casual fans who equate how someone’s music makes them feel with the intrinsic goodness of that person.

      It’s a difficult subject to get points across on too – with complex subjects boiled down to snappy quotes by fans:

      “Why would someone accept money if their child was molested?”

      “Why would a child who was molested go back again and again?”

      “Why would someone defend a man who had molested him?”

      “People didn’t want to see a black man succeed so the invented the allegations.”

      “Michael Jackson donated a lot of money, so he couldn’t have molested children.”

      “Michael Jackson was just a big kid.”

      “Michael Jackson was asexual.”

      All these points have been covered in the appropriate depth on this site, but if someone says these things to a Realist in casual conversation, unfortunately it can take a long explanation to refute. There aren’t going to be any hearts and minds won over in a hurry. Please pass on this site to people you know, there are share buttons on every page for Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc etc. Please share!

  • mine

    lm just wondering did michael jackson ever share his bed with little girls because they only said that he slepted with young boys and hes never been accused of molesting young girl. Did he ever treat young girls the same he ever treated young boys.

    • Andreas Moss

      The short answer is no. He didn’t seem to be interested in little girls.
      There was sleepovers that also involved Wade Robson and Macaulay Culkins sisters, along with them, but those sleepovers didn’t involve anything sexual.

      Depending on how cynically you look at it, he either liked platonic slumberparties with children as well, like he claims, or it was all calculated to normalize the sleepovers, make them seem innocent, so he could seperate himself with the boys later on. (Or perhaps a mix, which would be my guess.)

      And I don’t think Janet’s career is more affected by this than it was already. The first serious allegations started in 93′, and Janet still had huge commercial sucess worldwide. I don’t think they were that close. I remember Janet saying that once, that they very rarely met.

      Michael was closer with his sister La Toya in his youth, as they both lived at Hayvenhurst together a long time. I think she knew him the best in the family, perhaps except for his mother. MJ was already having sleepovers with little boys before moving to Neverland, according to La Toya, maid Blanca Francia and security guards. According to Francia everyone in the family knew.

      • ShawntayUStay

        I think MJ was closer to his sisters in general. I always got the impression that he wanted to look like them. It would explain his affected high pitch voice and (I think) his desire to be lighter skinned.

        MJ claims that he was closest and most similar to Janet Jackson. He was reportedly very upset that she got married to James DeBarge because he always saw “Dunk”, as he called her, as his tomboy equal. They can be seen playing at Neverland in his home movies.

        I always thought that La Toya only claimed they were so close to sell those two memoirs she wrote? I believe they were close once, though. He seemed to keep his family at a distance, and didn’t want them to be successful. I wonder why the venom towards his siblings?

        http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/39352864.html

        • Andreas Moss

          Its interesting if he claimed that they were close. I just remember reading this interview with Janet ages ago, where she said they rarely ever met and lived very seperate lives.

          La Toya was not close with all her life, but I think she said herself that she knew him better than his brothers, because they all got kids and got married and moved out early, while Michael and La Toya lived at Hayvenhurst with their parents for years.

          According To Blanca Francia Michael already then was sneaking little boys in to his bedroom, asking security if the parents had gone to bed, and told them to keep quiet about his visitors. He also, according to La Toya, had them stay there for long amounts of time. If this is correct there was boys before Jontahan Spence and Emmanuel Lewis I suppose?

          • ShawntayUStay

            That’s what MJ said, that he was closest to Janet, or rather, they had the closest bond. He portrayed LaToya add being to prissy, and MJ didn’t care for those types of women (according to the rabbi’s book). But he wasn’t close to any of his family which is why he devoted so much time and energy “adopting” other families, like the Cascios.

            MJ’s earliest boy was, I believe, Rodney Allen Rippy, whom he met in the mid 1970s when he was still a teenager; Rodney was around five years old. Rodney had starred in a very famous Jack in the Box advertisement and he introduced an award with young MJ, along with young Donny Osmond. Actually what’s interesting is that Jackson family (including MJ stuff) memorabilia/personal items was recently put up for auction online and one was the head shot/bio card of Rodney Allen Rippy. Someone — I believe it was Michael — apparently saved this photo of the young boy, so it was still amongst personal affects.

            Rodney Allen Rippy said MJ really wanted to be his friend and he said that MJ wanted his phone number (a five year old’s!) So he could call him. Rodney of course said yes, but his mother seemed concerned about MJ and wondered why didn’t he have friends his own age.

            From the vh1 special Michael Jackson’s Secret Childhood:

            Dave Walsh: Hounded by reporters and tormented by his family, late in 1974 a lonely and confused Michael turned to those who seemed most like him; little boys.

            Rodney Allen Rippy, Michael’s friend: I met Michael back in the early seveinties at the American Music Awards.

            Dave Walsh: The very first in Michael’s long line of young male companions was adorable hamburger spokeskid Rodney Allen Rippy. They met when Michael was sixteen, Rodney was five.

            Rodney Allen Rippy: And I’m like, “Can we be friends?” And it’s like, “sure we can be friends, Mike”. “Can I give you my number?” And like, “Sure you can. You want my number, Mike?” “Yeah!” Michael used to call my house every single Saturday and talk to me on the phone. My mom, wonders; said “You know, I wonder why he doesn’t have many friends his own age, you know”?

            http://www.silentlambs.org/education/transcript1vh1.htm

        • liz_444455

          The link was interesting. I read a theory on a forum recently that Janet was michael’s original “special friend “. But no one thought it was weird because they were related. When good times was on hiatus she would fly to nyc to be with him. When she did good times he would wait all day for her to get home to be with her. They weren’t saying he abused her but that the relationship was very intense.
          Also interesting he said the girls were biased against girls because besides Latoya having no friends at all she would also wait for janet to get home even as an adult, and Reebie we know almost nothing about, all of Janet’s close friends throughout her life were female. Even to this day with the exception of her gay male best friend and chroreographer Gil, all of her friends are women.

          • ShawntayUStay

            liz, I had no idea about his relationship with Janet! That is very interesting, even if it’s just a theory. It would explain why, according to Janet’s first husband, MJ seemed attached to Janet to the point where he allegedly crawled into their bed to sleep with them (I think this is in Christopher Andersen’s “Michael Jackson Unauthorized”).

            I believe MJ was more connected to his sisters than to his brothers. He seemed to be fairly opposite to his brothers and his father, and he was repealed by the actions he witnessed on the tour. He loved his mother and, along with Latoya, he was the only one to pick up the JW religion. He was very sensitive much like his sisters.

            Sometimes I think MJ wanted to be a woman, looking like Diana Ross in the 1980s and Liz Taylor after he whitened his skin. LOL. But MJ preferred male companionship; his inner circle was comprised of men. And as we all know he favored young boys as “special friends” over girl children. so it makes me wonder why he was so close to Janet and his sisters if he didn’t repeat this pattern as he got older?

          • liz_444455

            Yup i remember janet saying in multiple interviews how her mother would ask her what she wanted to do now that the show was on break and she said “i want to visit mike”. Katherine took her to studio 54 to be with him too. Smh

            And he crawled into their bed? What? I know he “accidently “walked in on them having sex but …getting into bed with them? And if he cared so much for her why didn’t he stop James from physically abusing her? they all lived in that house.

            I wonder what changed for him as an adult as well. He was frightened of women but was very close to the women of his family. Maybe he saw them as different breeds than every other woman and girl? We see this w/ a lot with misogynistic men. “Women are bitches, hoes etc. ” but you call his mother out her name and he goes nuts. Janet said in her oprah interview in I believe 1998 that she hadn’t spoken to Michael in two years and she called him multiple times with no answer.she made every excuse for him. It was uncomfortable. You can see it on youtube. She said she started to lose him as a brother after Thriller but she alluded to it being because she moved out. So their closeness ended after her childhood whether that was the real reason or not.

            Btw had you heard of Taraborelli saying he knowingly left out Mj’s 50 relationships with women? A fan said that today, i’d never heard that before.

          • Pea

            So Michael Jackson had 50 different “girlfriends”, yet they are a complete mystery unlike the little white boys he embarrassingly held hands with in public? I think either J. Randy Taraborrelli or that fan is pulling someone’s leg.

            Or perhaps the fan misinterpreted something Taraborrelli said? I think that’s likely.

            Taraborrelli is no doubt a Jacko sympathizer, but even he said back in 1993 that he had spoken to many people who claimed to sleep with Jacko, and he believed none of them:

            Taraborrelli says he researched the biography for 10 years, interviewing hundreds of people both on and off the record. “I was never able to find anyone who had intimate relations with Michael Jackson whom I believed. Fifty claimed to, but I didn’t believe them.”

            As quoted in Maureen Orth’s 1994 article “Nightmare in Neverland”: http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1994/01/orth199401

            I think the fan was mistaken. Jacko wasn’t interested in sex with a woman — even Taraborrelli’s erotic fanfiction between Lisa Marie and Jacko still seemed to be guided by Jacko’s desire to quickly get her pregnant. Assuming that was all true (highly unlikely), he apparently was more interested in the natural consequence of sex with a woman than actual lady parts. He seemed far too fearful of heterosexuality — completely understandable as his earliest & most vivid examples of it were the rutting of his oversexed, cheating father and brothers. In a few of his songs, like “Dirty Diana” and “Supafly Sista” specifically, he always always blamed the women, never the men, and felt it was the woman who was responsible for making his father and brothers (or any man) go astray. Even in his conversations with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, he stated he wasn’t interested in marriage, and he’d seen his brother tearing their hair out over the women they had.

            Jacko could’ve had any woman in the world. Though freakish looking after a while — hideous even — he still had the money and status to get models but he never did. Instead, he preferred to paint himself as a “gentlemen”, “asexual”, and “child like” to buck questions of his nonexistent dating life and sleep in bed with unrelated young boys, the last time being in the Summer of 2003 with Juju Elatab, a 7-year-old at the time (one year older than Prince Jackson). What hetereosexual superstar with millions of willing, screaming fangirls chooses those descriptors and those “bed buddies”? None. 🙂

          • liz_444455

            Yea, maybe it was a misinterpretation or they were just straight up lying. Fans do tend to do that..alot. You know fans absolutely hate Lisa Marie Presley and I have never understood why. As far as I know she has never called him a pedo or child molester. In her Oprah interview she simply said “what was I thinking” in regards to that relationship. What did she do and say wrong? The fans have never actually said why.

            She, Reebie, and Janet are still really good friends which I thought was weird but, it just shows how little we actually know about these people’s lives. They might have a lot in common and her divorce from Michael wasn’t going to stop their bond. But it is really uncommon to stay friends with your family member’s ex. He couldn’t have been happy about it or maybe he didn’t care; he would never answer the phone when Janet called in the late 90’s so how could she have known how he felt.

            Do you think everyone who knew him agrees he was a weirdo including his family even if they will never say it in public? I always got the feeling that the family would give the person who flew the coop a good tongue lashing and possibly disown them which would never let them speak up or apologize for doing so i.e Latoya.

          • ShawntayUStay

            You make a really good point about we really know very little about their lives; Janet and Lisa Marie are very private, been like that their entire careers. But I would think that Janet/Rebbie would have been mad at Lisa Marie for her comments about MJ to Oprah and all those magazines where she insinuated that MJ was very manipulative and couldn’t truly love anyone? Maybe they explained to Lisa why MJ was that way.

            I haven’t heard LMP say anything about the most recent molestation allegations, especially since Wade Robson mentioned seeing them together so she had to have met him, and in Jermaine Jackson’s book, LMP was allegedly mad that MJ decided to sleep over Wade’s house instead of coming home…so she should remember all of this as strange in retrospect. She also never said anything about Jason Pfeiffer when he claimed to have had a brief intimate fling with MJ. Who knows what she really thinks…

            I think the family knows MJ was a pedophile but they keep it underwraps for obvious reasons. There is no way they don’t, MJ never had a problem flaunting his boys and Katherine Jackson has always tried to set him up with girls, like Theresa Gonsalves in the 70s, Tatiana Thumbzten in the late 80s, and even Lisa Marie. I actually saw an interview with Joe and Katherine Jackson, and when the interviewer asked them about the 2005 allegations, Joe has a smirk on his face as Katherine was defending MJ; the look said, IMO, that Joe thought it was funny, his son’s proclivities and also thought it was funny that Katherine was “lying” to cover for him. That was an interesting moment.

          • To’Shari

            Yeah, I remember Theresa Gonsalves. Heard she wrote a book a long time ago and mentioned her relationship with Michael (in her book) when he was 19 or so. Claim to had sex with Michael during the time he was doing the Wiz movie. But heard she wanted approval from Katherine about what to say or not to say in her book, which I find strange. What is more strange is at one point his fans and some members of his inner circle were trying paint Michael in having interest in women or he had some type of intimate relations with them and at the same time, making it taboo to put women and Michael in one sentence, so-to-speak. But you hear so much about his special young male friends and you see pictures of him with them being very close, affectionate and being everywhere on trips etc. I never seen a true photo or heard of him being this way with any other women (i’m excluding Lisa Marie Presley). With Lisa Marie you can see the vibe that he’s not in her; just looked staged and that kiss from the award show definitely wasn’t natural for LISA, like that was the first time he ever kissed her that way. But was there a bit of a rumor that Lisa has not seen Michael for weeks only up until he showed up at the award show to “prove” his marriage was real? and he’s was with his special male friend(s) on some getaway trip prior. If you heard more stories of him with young boys referred to as special friends, never seen any young girls hanging out with them or women (unrelated to the boy), that should tell you something or have you raise an eyebrow, since Michael was suppose to be a ladies-man.The Shanna girl that went on television during Michael 2 accusation that she had “somewhat” dated Michael but couldn’t go into detail about their relationship almost like she was embarrased to talk about it. It just made her look unbelievable. Also, so far on what I’ve seen, 2 men came forward claiming to had sexual relations with Michael; The Pfeiffer guy & Liberace’s former lover and they went into detail about the allege affair with Jackson. And there’s a photo of Michael with Liberace in a horse carriage wearing a fur coat with a big smile of his face, so yeah go figure.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I believe Jason Pfeiffer but I’m unsure of Scott Thorson’s claim. It changed too much over time. In his book “Behind the Candelabra” which was published in the late 1980s, he did talk about MJ. He said that he and MJ were around the same age and that they hung out in the late 70s/early 80s. He said that they hung out when MJ was in London and they spent a lot of time just sightseeing, etc. He said that he was closer to MJ than Lee (Liberace) was, that MJ was more his friend. He claimed that at a dinner with others, the guests were, i guess, joking that he and MJ might be an item and that MJ didn’t want anyone to think that he was gay. That kind of dampened the relationship, even though Thorson made it clear that it was platonic; he never claimed he and MJ were lovers at that point in time.

            Theresa Gonsalves is a liar, IMO. She never even hinted at she and MJ being anything more than friends when he was still alive, despite all the interviews that she did with TV and writers like Taraborrelli. It was only once he was dead and buried and she had a book she wanted to sell that she claims that she and MJ did it and she was his first. I even think she said it happened in the mid/late 80s? Yeah right! She makes money off her connection with the Jacksons so there’s an incentive to lie.
            Look what she said on Facebook in response to fans asking her opinion about Randall Sullivan’s book and him saying MJ died an “asexual virgin” (LOL)

            A few people in boxed me and asked my thoughts about this Sullivan
            book…why because immediately they want to know my opinion because this
            guys says Michael died a virgin. I do not know anything about this man.
            I dont know if he knew Michael or just researched Michael. I choose not
            to read any more books about Michael because I want to remember him how
            I knew him and that is what I chose to share with you in Remember the
            Time. Many people, the fans included know a different Michael Jackson. I
            simply spent time with and loved him as “just Michael”. I also read
            what is stated to be an email from Tom Messereau which is very
            interesting and on point. People feel that because someone says
            something they don’t agree with regarding Michael that it couldn’t
            possibly be true! But I am addressing this simply because my only issue
            is that many try to NEGATE my relationship with Michael and mostly
            because I have shared a bit of our intimacies in Remember the Time. This
            book trys to negate when he says Michael died a virgin. But aside from
            me there were others and he negates their relationships with Michael as
            well. Michael was a man and I am not amazed that everyone is caught up
            in his sexuality. Not too many come forward and have discussed
            intimacies with him. While many say it isnt anyone’s business, they
            clearly want to know. I dont really care if this man believes me, but he
            didnt ask me personally. I didnt read the book and I probably wont.
            There is one book I have read and there is one discussion in it that was
            almost word for word a discussion Michael and I had. Every person has
            an agenda no matter what, good or bad. But to answer those who have
            asked me and so I wont get any more in boxes – I dont think much of his
            stating that Michael was a virgin when he died. Until the day I die, I
            will Remember the Time we ….( dated November 19, 2012)

            https://www.facebook.com/theresa.gonsalves1/posts/4046869405244?pnref=story

            A whole lot of words saying nothing, in my opinion.

            Shana Mangatal is just as unbelievable as the rest and I think she was paid by MJ’s handlers to come forward, just like with that French fan Joanna Thomae. Her story didn’t even make logical or chronological sense, LOL. There is no evidence supporting these women as being nothing but obsessed fans that like to follow MJ around, and in Shana’s case, befriend people close to MJ. She is always so cryptic when questioned and at the same time loves the attention…she’s a psycho, LOL.

            The fact is is that these fans claim that MJ was a gentleman and respects the privacy of his alleged many girlfriends so that is why it’s as if none of them exist and we’ve never seen them. But when MJ said he was a gentleman as an explanation to Oprah back in 1993, he was covering up the fact that he didn’t have anyone and he wasn’t looking! He named Brooke shields and we now know from her own words that she and MJ never had anything but a platonic friendship. He also claimed that he was seeing two girls — one was Brooke and “another one” as he said — but he was “overegging the pudding”, over-embellishing to cover up the lie about not having any one; he made the lie more obvious!

            But as you pointed out, we only saw him time after time after time with a procession of young boys that he was not shy about kissing and hugging and generally being affectionate with in front of everybody. He flaunted these boys around and vacay’d with them. These were his true “girlfriends”. and this isn’t even getting into the naked boy books he had…

          • Pea

            An especially good refutation of one of Jacko’s so-called “secret girlfriends” can be found here: https://debunkingfakes.wordpress.com/michael-jacksons-secret-girlfriend/

            I had always smelled B.S. about this one, especially considering the fact the “Jacko” in the picture had thick fingers and wasn’t as pinkish-pale like an albino. Not to mention there was very, very little paparazzi around.

            The best part about the above post was the detailed analysis of Jacko’s actual height, compared to the height claimed by this purported girlfriend, and that of his bodyguard’s face — the fakers apparently hired a lookalike.

            But, of course, even with all of that good effort put in by the fan, the timeline exposes the sham: it’s totally and completely wrong. When those images of “Jacko” and his secret girlfriend were snapped and recorded, he was actually in Las Vegas, Nevada, not Montreal, Canada. Oops! 🙂

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1033838/Wacko-Jacko-hits-toy-shop-pyjamas-surgeons-mask-wig-wheelchair.html

          • Pea

            This quote from Theresa Gonsalves is particularly telling: “I choose not to read any more books about Michael because I want to remember him how I knew him…”

            So, essentially, T is saying that she chooses not to read anything that would completely invalidate her false stories, presumably because she doesn’t like to feel “guilty” about her lies being challenged.

            She then says that she’s speaking out because Sullivan tried to “negate” her relationship with Jacko, but the only thing she does is say, “Believe me.” Sorry, nope. As you said Shawntay, she only started talking about sex with Jacko once he was dead, which is a huge red flag.

            Alternately, maybe T scared him off women. That’s also reasonable; in that case, she probably shouldn’t be talking much…

          • ShawntayUStay

            I also think she said that because she didn’t want to read/think about the allegations and whether or not they’re true, and the corroborating evidence that these books may contain. Although she is following MJFacts on Twitter ;-), which makes me think that she doesn’t know too much about the real MJ, only the teenage boy she knew in the seventies.

          • Theresa Gonsalves met Michael Jackson again when she was twenty, according to this interview for the show Michael Jackson’s Secret Childhood

            She was his penpal for quite a number of years, then it was organized they would meet.

            Dave Walsh: In 1974 Katherine Jackson arranged a date between Michael and Theresa Gonsalves, a sixteen-year-old fan from Boston, even though Theresa’s presence violated Jehovah’s rules.

            Bill Bowen: Teenagers are only allowed to date if they’re ready to get married. So if a person wants to date someone, and they say “I just want to have fun”, this is strictly forbidden in church literature. Even a telephone conversation was a date, they can find themselves disfellowshiped. So you have this fear, this actual fear, of experiencing death.

            Dave Walsh: The older Jackson boys seemed to sense Michael was afraid of girls. So after a show at the MGM Grand, they playfully pushed him on Theresa.

            Theresa Gonsalves: One holding me, and you know one brother holding him, holding Michael, and just trying to make us kiss. “Here, kiss her, kiss her”. And we’re both you know, putting our heads down, and trying to stop it. And we ended up in a room together and it was just me and him. And that’s when we had our first one-on-one.

            Dave Walsh: But when it came time to make a move, fifteen-year-old Mike resisted temptation.

            Theresa Gonsalves: I’m sitting down about oh, two feet away from him, and I’m shy, he’s shy, and who’s gonna start this conversation. So finally Michael begins the conversation by saying, “Do you believe in the Devil?” And that just kind of scared me, “Like, where’s he going with this?” And that’s how he started witnessing to me, he discussed the Jehovah’s Witness religion with me for about an hour. And he showed me, he had his Jehovah’s Witness books and stuff. The amazing thing to me was, when I got home, the next day, Jehovah’s Witnesss rang my bell.

            So nothing happened, not even a kiss. Four years later, Jackson was in New York to film The Wiz, and it appears he disclosed to Theresa that he had been molested as a child.

            Dave Walsh: In New York, Michael was finally free from his abusive father and suffocating brothers. It was also the first time he’d been away from his beloved mother and the all-seeing eyes of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

            Bill Bowen: When you have that strict environment, it creates a group of kids that lead what Jehovah’s Witnesses call ‘double lives’; the Jehovah’s Witness life, and then the other life when they get away from those within the church–sex, drugs and rock-n-roll, you know. And when you’ve been completely repressed, if you’ve never had a date till you’re eighteen, it’s hard to resist.

            Dave Walsh: The first test of Michael’s faith took place at New York’s version of Sodom and Gomorrah: Studio 54. Mike felt at home among the disco’s star-studded clientele and was fascinated by its vices.

            Vinny Zufante: People doing lots of drugs, I mean lots of drugs. And upstairs was unprotected, promiscuous sex.

            Dave Walsh: Celebrity photographer Vinny Zufante shadowed Micahel during his New York days. But at Studio54, Vinny never saw Mike partake in the partying. Instead, Mike liked to watch, and gossip, with a posse of disco queens.

            Vinny Zufante: He had Andy Warhol on one side, Liza Minelli on the other, Liz Taylor on one side, Betty Ford on the other. But I never saw him upstairs or downstairs. I never saw him with a drink.

            Sam Brown III: Well everybody has a thing. Everybody’s got one. It wasn’t his thing.

            Dave Walsh: Another temptation Michael encountered in Manhatten was his old friend, Theresa Gonsalves. Once she was his shy pen pal, but in 1977, she had come of age.

            Theresa Gonsalves: Forget about the sixteen-year-old in Vegas. He’s a young man, I’m a young woman, I’m no longer the virgin he knew.

            Dave Walsh: Theresa came to visit Michael in New York. But unlike their arranged date in Las Vegas four years earlier, this time twenty-year-old Theresa took control.

            Theresa Gonsalves: We were just in the room alone, and we were just close enough at that point to kiss, just about to kiss, when LaToya came in the room.

            Dave Walsh: When LaToya intercepted Theresa’s pass, Michael seemed relieved. The reason why gave Theresa an unexpected glimpse into Michael’s tortured soul. Michael told Theresa a secret. That a trauma in his past prevented him from sharing himself romantically with anyone.

            Theresa Gonsalves: There was no names, it was just not a good time in his life. He wasn’t interested in anyone, you know, not anyone he was just in his own little world.

            Dave Walsh: Though Theresa suspected Mike has more to admit, she would never learn the details of his despair. Michael may have held back because of his religon’s rules about seeking help.

            Bill Bowen: They would use the ‘Bible Story’ books. In this entire chapter that deals with child sexual abuse in very great detail, describing even the sex organs themselves, not one word is mentioned about going to the police. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that anything outside the organization is part of Satan’s world. So why would you go to Satan’s world to get help?

            Dave Walsh: In New York, Michael had a chance to become a different man. But instead of seeking help, his abused inner child seemed to go deeper underground, determined not to let his pain stand in the way of the twenty-year-old pop star’s success. It was a choice that would haunt Michael’s adulthood.

            Carole Lieberman: A lot of times when children are abused they separate themselves, they disassociate themselves from themselves, as a way of surviving. But later on it can become a more serious problem.

          • To’Shari

            I think all of this, he is asexual, Hetero or gay will always be speculative but him being accuse of being a pedophile or some form of inappropriate relationship with young boys is a lot stronger and sticks harder on MJ than the male or female adults (ex wives included) claiming to have dated him or had sexual relations with him. With all the actual documented facts on this website in particular, speaks louder. I think people claiming to know Michael is just creating a diversion so they can steer everyone away from the pedophile allegations, like they say “this is not the Michael I know” or “he would never harm a child, he is a child himself, etc” ; which is not working. We will never know who the Michael Jackson was because it way to much cover up and just need to stick with the real (mj) facts, it says a lot about who he is/was.

          • liz_444455

            Maybe they were upset with her but they are still friends with her. Janet’s nephew and Reebie’s son Austin is good friends with Lisa Marie too, he’s talked about her and posted pics of her at events they’ve attended together. She was even at Janet’s small surprise party her husband threw this year. So they’re still good friends even if there was a small bump in the road.

            I really can’t imagine that whole family was blind to Michael’s ways. I’m sure they know he was manipulative. So if they were upset with her it was because she said it on television but not that she said it.

            Really, Joe had a smile? Do you think it was a nervous smile or a “I’ve got something to hide smile”? In a way I understand all of the family defending him even if their parents weren’t going to disown them because we’ve all been told that family need to stick together and blood is thicker than water but, I also think about those children and what they went through…I don’t know if I could defend that.

          • ShawntayUStay

            That is really interesting to me! I don’t know why, LOL. Perhaps it’s the Jackson family’s way of keeping tabs on Lisa?

            I don’t think Joe Jackson’s smile was a nervous one because it was a smirk. Personally, I don’t think that Joe Jackson cared whether MJ was a pedophile because he was the one that introduced him to child abuse! I firmly believe that Joe Jackson allowed MJ to be “interfered with” by other adults. Stories like this appeared in Diane Dimond’s book, Christopher Andersen’s book (talking about Johnny Jackson telling Steeltown Records’ Gordon Keith about seeing a young MJ with two adult men, 1 an employee and the other a relative, nude and aroused), and in Bob Jones’ book “The Man Behind the Mask” where MJ hinted at Joe being (one of?) his sexual abuser(s).

            So to me, why would Joe care if MJ was doing this stuff? He just wanted the money to keep rolling in. Even when he was asked about “why Michael never has a partner“, the implication of the word ‘partner” meaning either man or woman, he didn’t get as raging upset like Majestick Magnificant did (or how Katherine gives a visceral reaction when anyone implies MJ could have been gay); he didn’t even care, he was very nonchalant. He never seemed to care deeply about MJ anyways, when MJ was a child or an adult, so it’s no wonder why he spent so many years violating appropriate parent-child boundaries when he had sex/chased women in front of his boys, and when he’d terrorize his kids with masks, lighting matches placed between their toes, getting them to fight each other… he was/is a violent brute with zero empathy.

            Bottom line for the Jacksons is to keep MJ’s demons out of the streets so his image can keep making money.

          • liz_444455

            I guess it could be their way of keeping tabs on her lol. But from all outside appearances it seems like their close friends. Her husband throwing the party was a surprise so she couldn’t tell him who to invite he had to know who the closest ppl to her are. I can’t remember who’s book it was, but the author stated that janet and reebie always loved lisa but Katherine didn’t. She thought she sounded like a man. (I know i keep bringing up janet but I think she’s just as relevant when it comes to what went on it that house of horrors and trying to understand why Michael turned out this way as michael himself.Although she doesn’t seem to do any interviews these days when she did and she felt comfortable she gave lots of insight into her childhood and insecurities. )

            It’s so interesting you bring up Katherine’s homophobia. Joe’s a homophobe too. Who knows what that did to Michael. Being able to accept himself whether he wa gay or not could have helped. If he showed any gay tendencies he would have been ashamed.
            In a early 2000’s interview when Janet did a magazine or radio interview she was asked If she were bisexual and it didn’t matter would she come out and her response was “but it does matter to people and my family…it is a big deal to people”. It’s not an exact quote but that was her point. I think it was that same interview when she admitted she was attracted to a girl once. She tried to brush it off as being in a bad relationship at the time and wanting out of it, which is exactly what happens when people don’t want to come out to themselves. They rationalize their feelings in other ways , especially if they’re religious. She’s an LGBT advocate but she couldn’t openly be any of those even if she actually is. (I’m starting to think she’s one of the hundreds of closeted gay ppl not bisexual, but actually a lesbian who will never come out and continue to date and marry the oppsite sex. Way too many insiders have said she had relationships with women. She fits the closeted profile to a T. ) This link is to one of the interviews. In another interview i can’t seem to find she actually said she loved the girl. http://www.angelfire.com/stars3/jacksonlovers/janet/artint/vibe0105.htm

            Wow I had no idea about Michael being sexually abused. I thought it was possible because of his adult behavior, I didn’t know it was in fact true. That poor little boy. Well actually ,taking young children to strip clubs should be considered sexual abuse IMO anyway even if he wasn’t touched.Joe seems so cold blooded hut patt of me thinks he actually thought he was doing the right thing. His foal was to get them out of Gary and keep them out of jail. Well he succeeded in that area but at what cost? He sold away those kids childhoods.I want to say Michael never had a fighting chance but he did. He had just as much chance as his brothers probably more with the money and influence he had and he chose to abuse children. He could have gotten help but i’m sure his old school upbringing probably frowned upon telling therapists your business.

            Jan said in vibe magazine in 1997, something happened to her at 4 that she won’t talk about and part of why she was so depressed is because she surpressed it. She said she did receieve help for it and her then husbamd was instrumental in that. This is pure speculation here but, it sounds like sexual abuse or she witnessed something traumatic. Do you remember the hypersexual outfits and performances joe had her doing on the jackson variety show when she was six? I’m not saying he abused her but it was disgusting the dance moves that child was doing.

            If joe had not written those blog posts about his children recently, I would think he was a psychopath. Or maybe he is a psycopath and he said what he thought his kids and the public wanted to hear. But, if we can blame joe for michael’s behavior who do we blame for joe’s? What did his parents do to him? It’s can be a harsh cycle. Or maybe joe’s parents has nothing to do with it and he’s just a typical male usurping his tyranical control over anyone he can.

          • ShawntayUStay

            liz, all this stuff about Janet…so interesting! We always hear about MJ or Latoya, but there was 7 other siblings with secrets to tell as well! Highly fascinating because I only know of Janet through her music since my mother has a couple of her albums so I heard them growing up. I only really knew that she was shy off stage and uber-confident on stage — just like her brother Michael. She has always been very likable IMO.

            Thank you for the interview link. Do you really think that Janet is closeted lesbian/bisexual? I didn’t really get that. I think that her explanations for the rumored relationships with her dancer/choreographer friends seem legitimate; I think Janet is one of the many women that love to be around and be friends with other women. There is, after all, a special camaraderie that you get with friends of the same sex. Also, the crush she had on the store-girl seemed innocent. Maybe Janet envied the girl’s carefree nature, in contrast to what she was feeling at the time, being confined and unhappy in a relationship; she may have wanted to be that girl. Most women have/had so-called “girl crushes” but that doesn’t mean they are lesbians. And her being an LGBT advocate could just be the result of being in the industry and seeing different types of people, realizing that they are no different than anyone else and thus shouldn’t have to face discrimination. This seems to be the case of many Hollywood types.

            Another thing that strikes me in the interview is her candid discussion of sexuality. Very different from MJ! He never wanted any of those subjects broached, as he spent many years cultivating and putting forth the idea of asexuality.
            All of the brothers and Janet are clearly “their father’s children”, and unfortunately it seems that MJ was too, albeit he was into young boys instead of age-appropriate peers. Latoya seems to be an exception: she seemed to admit on her TV show that she was still a virgin in her 50s and we all know that she repeatedly said that she and her late ex-husband Jack Gordon never consummated their relationship. She has since back-peddled on her claims that Joe Jackson molested her, but in an interview with Matt Lauer he asked her numerous times if Joe had abused her/if she would repudiate those allegations and all Latoya could say was that Joe was “a wonderful person” over and over. So she simultaneously didn’t want to talk about it and didn’t want to deny what she said before. I think she couldn’t deny to herself that Joe was an abuser, her abuser.

            Interesting about Janet’s mysterious trauma, I will have to look up that Vibe magazine! I think a lot of things happened inside 2300 Jackson Street, and I wouldn’t be surprised if all of the children were abused in some kind of way. I used to think that Janet was spared, but now that you point out the sexualized acting she did on TV as a child, maybe there’s something there? As I said before, Joe Jackson did not showcase any concern for parent-child boundaries. And I read that Joe Jackson’s own father was as cold to him as he is to his own children. It’s alleged that Joe’s father cloistered his family away from outsiders as well, so Joe was simply repeating that when he kept MJ et al from hanging with neighborhood kids. A lot of his method of “discipline” is learned behavior, unfortunately.

          • liz_444455

            Yes I know he always blamed the women. As a teenager I didn’t pay much attention to lyrics but as an adult, I pay very close attention to them. He was a misogynist and most of the world seems to be so it’s not a surprise. I think he was training his audience to take his word as fact no matter how much it didn’t make sense or how disgusting it was. We see that very much with the history album and the bad album. Subliminal messaging. Of course this isn’t unique to him but I think he’s the only person it worked so well for. No matter what his fans will believe everything he said. They believed the world was out to get him.

            I can’t think of a time he ever took responsibility for his adult life. Not ever. We never hear of his equally abused siblings doing that( Though all of the men except I think Marlon cheated on their wives and slept with everything that moved, I never heard them publicly blame their childhood for their infidelity and lack of empathy for women) . Michael had a victim complex. It’s so frustrating that people can’t see through what they have been sold. Even him being called the best musician to ever live,genius, king of pop etc. We were sold that BY HIM along with the media who were again instructed by him and his marketing team. Just take the time to listen to dozens of artists in the same field that came before him, nothing was innovative about his music. HIs dance moves were not new they were just moves that he improved on and he did it well.

            I’ve never understood all the hype, just speaking from a musical and performing standpoint. He was great but not “the greatest”. But we’ve had that beaten into our heads epscially those of us who are young from the moment we knew about him that he was an poor innocent man who the world hated because he was a successful black man and the most talented person to ever live. It’s sickening. And it’s hard to find someone who doesn’t believe all of that BS.

          • Pea

            Liz, have you read this article on MJ Facts? http://www.mjfacts.com/mj-facts-exclusive-jimmy-safechuck-story/

            Although lengthy, this article is a breeze to read. In it, you’ll read about how James Safechuck — Jacko’s Bad Era ‘special friend’ — stated Jacko would denigrate women’s appearances, get jealous of Jimmy’s relationship with a fourth grade girl (yes, Jacko was messing around with elementary school boys, which still blows my f–king mind!), and state that he needed to get married to a woman and have a family to “protect his public image”. Which really meant that he needed a smokescreen to conceal his pedophilia.

            Jacko actually did that with Lisa Marie Presley. In Frank Cascio’s book “My Friend Michael”, he mentioned how jealous Lisa Marie was of the “New Jersey family” who were frequently around because they had several tender sons of the right age. Omer Bhatti accompanied him to South Africa in 1997 whilst with Lisa Marie and family, too. (No doubt O-Bee slept in Jacko’s room, unlike Lisa Marie, whom Jacko was probably glad to dump for his “preferred partners”.)

          • Andreas Moss

            Taraborelli said in an interview he hoped Jackson would be remembered for more than as a childmolester, but he somehow doubted that would happen. Perhaps him making up female phantom relationships would help?

            Has anyone read Taraborelli’s book? I’d like to read it.
            He’s said to the biggest expert on Jackson, isn’t he? Biographer and childhood friend if I’m not mistaken? What is his stance on the child molestation allegations?

          • Pea

            Andreas, there are several editions of Taraborrelli’s book that can be read here at Jetzi (fourth row on the page): http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-04/

          • ShawntayUStay

            JRT is interesting because I think that during MJ’s life he tended to give him the benefit of the doubt and he seemed to believe that MJ was incapable of being a molester because he was so open about his love of children — which is the typical fan reasoning. In the 1994 edition, he basically skewers the 1993 allegations and rips Latoya Jackson a new one, LOL. But in his 2003 edition he seemed to think that MJ may have done it but he wasn’t unequivocal about it (it’s this edition where he clearly plagiarizes Victor Gutierrez’s reporting).

            He doesn’t believe the Arvizo allegations — at all — but in my opinion he seemed to become a little more skeptical about MJ’s innocence in 2005 and after. He thought the Arvizos were terrible witnesses and the case should never been brought but he also thought June Chandler’s testimony left him cold and that the Barnes and Robson families’ testimonies were not helpful to him. I also saw him in a 2007 documentary (Jaques Peretti’s “Michael Jackson What Really Happened”) and he again seemed to acknowledge there might be smoke.

            He oscillates. He was(is?) a Jackson admirer for a very long time and he spoonfed the public a lot of PR bullshit. But now he wants nothing to do with Michael Jackson, saying he moved on (this was after 2009) and the last edition is his final word on MJ.

          • Kat

            I’m not keen on reading Taraborelli’s book ‘The Magic and The Madness’. I know that it contains factual errors and that he borrows and rehashes information first presented by Mary Fischer, Victor Gutierrez and others. And even though he is unofficially considered the official biographer other books written about MJ have more quality (Michael Jackson Was My Lover and Michael Jackson: Unauthorized for instance). I also know that he is the source for those Lisa Marie’s and Michael’s passionate sex life tales, when we know that they most likely had no sex life at all. I do believe though that he was the first one to report that MJ himself created Wacko Jacko persona by planting all those ‘Jackson sleeps in an oxygen chamber and is best friends with a chimpanzee’ stories in National Enquirer and other tabloid press, so I do give him credit for that.

            I sort of put Taraborelli in the same category as Aphrodite Jones, since they both wrote books in favor of his innocence, but often speak from both sides of their mouths when giving interviews. In the Jackson documentaries Taraborelli can be seen making statements such as – ‘if MJ continued befriending young boys it was inevitable that some family [the Chandlers] would bring him down to his knees — when he was accused the first time the world was shocked. When it happened the second time it was almost like no one was surprised, everyone was almost expecting it — some of the evidence presented at the trial was really strong and some was weak. If they would have stuck with the strong evidence, they [Sneddon and co.] could have won!’ He insinuates that he believes Jackson was guilty or could have been guilty. It’s possible he wrote in his book that the allegations were merely extortion attempts, because he didn’t want to fall out of favor with fans. I also haven’t heard him comment on the allegations since Robson and Safechuck came out. It would be interesting to hear what he thinks now.

            Another reason why I’m not eager to read Taraborrelli’s book is because I read his Madonna biography and found it to be godawful! Like, it was a seriously bad biography and book. So I’m cautious to read any of his other work. But, to be fair to Taraborelli, I have yet to read a truly good Madonna biography. 🙂

          • Digga Stigga

            Something just hit me. Michael Jackson was a man obsessed with attention both negative and positive about both,I’ve seen him do the same smile when he hears negative and positive attention. What if Mj wanted to be this confusing guy? I personally don’t think h molested boys but I do think he was a weirdo and had very odd and inappropriate relationships with boys. Maybe Mj wanted the title Wacko Jacko because all these scenarios that are described on this website seem to perfect, as we know Mj was a perfectionist and he liked this attention. I don’t think he molested kids after spending hours of my night last night and today reading these articles. They do make sense though to create this love hate relationship when at the end he’s killed and was done wrong. It makes me think about the MessiYah in the bible. Its kind of like that one side loved him and the other hated him but he continued doing miracles just like Michael continued making music. Its just a thought lol

  • nofan

    Not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I just read an (unrelated) article on Narcissistic Personality Disorder and it reminded me of a lot of the things described on this blog, so I thought others might be interested in reading it too:

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201311/6-signs-narcissism-you-may-not-know-about

    • Pea

      Michael Jackson was certainly narcissistic. He viewed people as objects and discarded them when they were no longer of use in his life; we saw that pattern in his revolving door of “special friends”. We saw that in many of his relationships with the adults who handled his business and personal affairs. Bob Jones had to sue for pay after years of service, and Jacko didn’t even visit Bill Bray in the hospital. In “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” and in a little known book by former security guard Robert Wegner called “My Three Years Working for Michael Jackson”, we read of Jacko’s abuse of the animals he claimed to love, and his disregard for his workers — they often had improper equipment and shabby-looking uniforms. Jacko chose money over his friendship with Paul McCartney, and treated Paul Anka and Quincy Jones like crap when it suited him.

      He was also known to obsessively track the performance of his singles and albums on the charts, making sure they stayed at the top. And when they didn’t do well… we saw how he slandered Tommy Mottola as a “racist” and “devilish” for Invincible flopping.

      What was interesting to me is that Jacko once said to himself, while testing out a new camera in the mirror, “I’m not a narcissist.” It was odd — no one would even think a person was narcissistic for simply making sure a piece of technology worked right. But he prefaced it… I’ve noticed that some narcissists are surprisingly aware of their own narcissism, or at least know it enough about it to be able to “deflect” the accusation and/or “project” their own condition onto someone else.

      Luckily, many narcissists’ “sofa psychology” is so transparent and laden with irony that their own bad behavior and odd obsession with narcissism — as if it’s the only personality disorder someone can have — gives them away each time. (Not a surprise that narcissists would be preoccupied with their own disorder — they are usually neck-deep in belly-button lint anyway.)

      I have a friend who’s still dealing with one of those ironic freaks, and they’ll be very grateful to learn more about the cuckoo bird who ran hot-and-cold, alternating “normal” with abuse, jealousy, deceptive games, and emotional manipulation all in an attempt to isolate, control, and take advantage of my friend’s sweet nature. The cuckoo bird is doing the typical narcissist trope of obsessing over the illness and projecting it onto them (a skewed moral compass makes that easy). My friend is free, thankfully, but it’s at the stalking stage now, where the cuckoo is just randomly sending unsolicited abusive communications. 🙁

      Thanks so much for the link, nofan. What an interesting article! 🙂

      • ShawntayUStay

        LOL at the “This Is It” reference! I never thought of that…good one 🙂

      • liz_444455

        Ya know, i’ve noticed fans have bought into him and his marketing so much it’s a form of psychosis. They believe EVERYONE around him except those who sing his praises including his family were a bunch money sucking leeches out to destroy him and then left him to die simply because michael hinted at it and bodyguards and friends wrote books about it. But they don’t believe Michael could have been everything that everyone else said he was(weird, obsessive, messy, drug addict,pedophile etc) just becuase it won’t fit the narrative. Is everyone of those ppl lying or could it be michael and his loyal followers are lying? How could you know?
        Michael had just as much reason or probably more so to play up his innocence image and lie about ppl being after him, and his family( not including joe) wanting to milk him as an adult and him not being successful because of racism as the others had to call him delusional.

        His entire image depended on this. His bodyguards and friends have as much reason to make up stories about his “girlfriends” and his brother driving through gates to get to him to sell books becuse the books wouldn’t sell much otherwise. These ppl can’t see they’ve been duped and it’s really sad. Obviously i’m biased here because i’m a fan of janet but they attack this woman for telling the truth about his drug use. The guy went to rehab twice. why is it far fetched to think he was addicted later in life?

        Last thing, Janet’s divorce documents revealed she was giving marlon and reebie a monthly allowance. She later payed off marlon’s mortgage, got both her mother and father a home and gave her mother an allowance… Why has no one called her the preverbial teet? How has she managed to get through life without blaming everyone else for what she did to herself?

        • Kat

          True; how likely is it that everyone around Michael is lying about him? Are we really supposed to believe that it just so happened that he was surrounded by multiple people who were so morally bankrupt that they accused him of molesting their children only to get money out of him? And what about all those employees of his who echoed those claims, many of them testifying in court about his inappropriate behavior around male children? Were they really uncharacteristically money hungry and spiteful against their former boss or did these things really happen?

          By the way, there are dozens of people who knew Jackson personally and have attested to him being inappropriate with kids. Some of them long-term employees and business partners, others those who only spent a short time around him, like Darlene Craviotto, for instance. In her book, she recounts an incident when Jackson was being affectionate and cuddling with a young boy at Neverland with his parents nowhere in sight and well past bedtime for young kids. Is she another person out for profit or someone who was disturbed by such behavior as any rational person would be? There are so many accounts like this from so many people it can’t be that all of them are lying. And I believe them because they actually knew Jackson and where there when all of that was happening. Unlike the fans, majority of whom never met him.

          I was surprised to find out that rabid MJ fans have gone after Janet too. It’s not her fault she has been more successful than Michael and has more talent than him! It is my opinion that Janet is really the talented one in the family, not Michael, which is paradoxical, because she never wanted to be in the entertainment industry when she was growing up. But then again, the loony fanatics will target pretty much everyone. Those crazed fans definitely suffer from a disturbing detachment from reality which can indeed be compared to psychosis, lol.

          • liz_444455

            I don’t think Janet had more success than him in terms of sales and touring revenue but in the game of life she definitely won out I think. Obviously she has an eating disorder and self esteem issues but she has never been accused of hurting ppl. I don’t think TMZ claiming she kidnapped her mother and slapped her neice count because they had to retract those stories and Paris herself said it didn’t happen. MJ fans still believe it anyway. I felt terrible for her. No one who knows her has had a bad thing to say about her. NO ONE. Even John Singleton said he is the one who made up the rumor about Janet asking Tupac for an AIDS test . Tupac HEARD she wanted an AIDS test she never asked him that to his face. Ppl still hate her for that and she didn’t even ask him to do that.

            It’s so refreshing that you say she had talent( i don’t think it was more than MJ’s, they’re even to me) because so many ppl even those who aren’t mj fans say she was a no talent hack who can’t sing and only got by on her last name and selling sex. Which is demonstrably untrue. The so called jackson charm didn’t work for anyone else. He was involved in her first two albums and they did poorly. She broke off from her family and boom! The rest is HERstory. She has inspired so many girls especially black girls like me. Rhythm nation is so important.Even Mj wanted to work with her and she said no, she needed to make a name for herself and his fans hate her for that. I thought she was just an independent person they see it as a betrayal, jealousy, and hatred of her brother. He even worked w/ jimmy jam and Terry because of the success they had with her. She finally did scream with him and they don’t mention that. Apparently he was not nice to her or her friends and choreographer during the shooting and rehearsal of the video. If anyone was jealous it was him.

            From michael’s own mouth Marlon got the blunt of Joe’s wrath but where are his child abuse accusations and racists rants? Reebie has such a hard time in that house she moved out at 16. Again, where are her victims? Jackie, Tito??..
            But i really want to know how fans can call his family, his ex staff, and the victims families money sucking leeches but Janet has dished out just as much it seems and to more ppl. Her sister Reebie, her brother Marlon, Her mother, her father, her ex husband and his family when they were together, she let 2 of her backup dancers live with her and eat her food, she payed for one of the dancers college expenses and drove her to and from school and let her live with her becuase she was from an unsafe neighborhood, allegedly paid jermaine dupri’s bills (he wasn’t broke when he was with her but before and after her he was losing his house or filing for bankruptcy )bought another dancer a car and you never hear of her staff going unpaid…why won’t they say the media vendetta against her is for being a rich black female? Why don’t they call her family and friends leeches for taking money from her or claim they’re destroying her life?

            Her music was banned from being played on the radio, mtv and vh1 after the superbowl incident. That never happened to MJ. Where is her defense? Her albums sales suffered from that as well as their being an organic climb down from the top. But his fans mock her for low album sales it’s not her fault nor is it important.
            A tabloid even ran a story in 2012 saying she was cutting off her brothers and that’s why she wanted to get money from the estate and the other said she was broke and that’s why she wanted to kidnap his kids, keep their money and marry her billionare husband. The mj fans eat that stuff up even though it makes no sense. The media has gone after her way more than him but no one is making up conspiracies about it. The media tears down everyone they can’t say they just wanted to get rid of Mj. Look at what they did to britney, whitney, Lohan etc. It’s insane.

          • Stephy.

            WHAT?! I’m a Janet Jackson fan, but she was certainly NOT a better writer, producer or vocalist than MJ. They’re dancing abilities are probably tied, but saying she was more talented is an absolute LIE. But, to each their own, I guess…

          • Kat

            I definitely prefer Janet’s music to Michael’s. Janet has a lot of good stuff, while MJ only had a few decent songs. In my opinion anyway. I realize that many think he was one of the most talented people that has ever lived and that his music will live forever or whatnot. But I disagree with that. He had some good tunes, but his voice wasn’t great and his stolen dance moves never did anything for me. He didn’t really invent the moonwalk, he copied it from someone else and then called it ‘moonwalk’, it had a different name before. All in all, I think he was overrated and there was nothing there to justify his stratospheric level of fame. I think Beatles and Elvis Presley deserve to be the most famous musical icons of all time, but not Michael Jackson.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Why the Beatles? Just curious. I can see that they represent a time when the world was experiencing a cultural reorganization, with the anti war stuff, the various liberation moments, free love — crazy hippie stuff. But I’m always curious as to why they are considered so talented. Sure, Paul wrote the music, John did the lyrics, so there was real musicianship there, but is just pop music, just like Michael Jackson’s was. They defined the 60s, MJ was the man of the 80s (the Jackson 5 a popular 70s band).

            I don’t really see a difference besides the fact that MJ was allegedly a pedo. LOL. Is it just because the Baby Boomers grew up with the Beatles and they dominate the media, so their preferences are more widely dispersed? Or are the Beatles really more talented than MJ? I always see music as subjective so I’m personally wary of “greatest of all time” lists.

            And Elvis. He was ushering in a cultural shift in the 50s, with his pelvic gyrations and rock n roll sound, but he openly admitted he took a lot of his style from watching black artists. Some could even argue that he was a “culture bandit”. Honestly, he’s more of a thief IMO than MJ. But to be fair, his generation of performers were known for cultural appropriation, eg Jerry Lee Lewis fashioned as an “acceptable” white carbon copy of Little Richard. It was more palatable for racist white America at that time to love black music but keep actual black people at a distance.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Why the Beatles? Just curious. I can see that they represent a time when the world was experiencing a cultural reorganization, with the anti war stuff, the various liberation moments, free love — crazy hippie stuff. But I’m always curious as to why they are considered so talented. Sure, Paul wrote the music, John did the lyrics, so there was real musicianship there, but is just pop music, just like Michael Jackson’s was. They defined the 60s, MJ was the man of the 80s (the Jackson 5 a popular 70s band).

            I don’t really see a difference besides the fact that MJ was allegedly a pedo. LOL. Is it just because the Baby Boomers grew up with the Beatles and they dominate the media, so their preferences are more widely dispersed? Or are the Beatles really more talented than MJ? I always see music as subjective so I’m personally wary of “greatest of all time” lists. And I don’t like to devalue artists just because I don’t like their particular genre of art (except clearly manufactured “artists” like Rihanna or Miley Cyrus) because I realize that it takes a lot to be creative, mentally and spiritually.

            And Elvis. Why is he so great in comparison to others? Again, just curious. Is it talent or what he represents culturally?

          • Kat

            Me liking The Beatles isn’t about what they were culturally, I just like their music and I think it’s excellent. I used to listen to it all the time as a teenager. I think they had this thing when they were unable to write a bad tune, almost everything they had was great, IMO anyway. But Beatles also changed popular music drastically, their impact on it is immeasurable, I think. Not that I’m an expert in the field, I’m not really a big music fan. And they were a musical group that achieved both critical acclaim and also immense levels of popularity. They’re an act that was both a winner with the critics and audiences, hence the reason why I think they deserve to be the most famous musical group of all time.

            Elvis had a great singing voice – I even read that he was voted the best singer of all time – and he had some good songs which, even though he didn’t write them, he still made his own. He also had sex appeal and charisma which helped to make him into a cultural icon; there was nothing sexy about Michael Jackson. I can’t really comment on him as a part of the culture to which he belonged as an artist, because that doesn’t interest me much. I just like talented musicians who make good music. I hate to see people who have no talent doing things that they weren’t born to do.

            Me and my friend talked recently about overrated musicians, and she said that she never understood why Madonna is so famous, that she only likes one of her songs and that her image has always been an epic fail. I said that I feel the same way about Michael Jackson where I don’t see why he was as famous as he was. But with Beatles and Elvis I can agree that their fame was justified. I realize though that many will disagree with me.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I personally think the label “overrated” is really more about over saturation than lack of talent. It’s always the case where the most popular individual will also be the one with the most critics. I can guarantee you that some of the lesser known musicians would receive a larger amount of criticism if more people were paying attention because the distribution will always normalize as the amount of data increases. The Beatles, Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, Michael Jackson, Madonna, etc are all seen as overrated in many circles because of their immense cultural presence. As they say, you aren’t doing anything if you don’t have haters, LOL.

            All of these individuals, imo, deserve not only their fame but also their positions as icons. They put in the work, took the risks no one else did or ever thought of, and tapped into a large segment of the public, winning them over again and again. Their cultural significance is actually more key than their artistry. Many people quibble with the notion that their are famous people with “no talent” but I personally don’t think that’s true for those designated as icons. There are many people that may technically have more musical ability than a Madonna, an MJ or an Elvis, but talent is only half the story. You have to have vision. These folks had vision.

            They say “no risk, no reward” and that’s the truth. Elvis Presley (or more likely, his handlers) was like “It’s the 50s, segregation is still common place, people are still sexually conservative, but I’m going to go out here, sing Bluesy and gyrate my hips like I seen in black clubs and introduce white audiences to a new style!” That was one hell of a risk to do on national tv but it paid off. MJ was a visionary too, and took a risk with “Billie Jean” and with the Thriller video, blending music with a visual story… The rest is history. It’s compelling.

            Talent alone will only get you so far, but the ones with longevity are those with talent + vision. I think of Beyonce: the industry is so fickle right now but she is still one of the only artists that consistently pumps out hits. She is very very much influenced by Michael Jackson and I see it. Beyonce, like MJ, is very much in control of her own image and her own sound, and I think she has the rare ability to know what sounds good to a large amount of people. It’s not good to have one’s music so esoteric that only hipsters like it, LOL; you need mass appeal.

            The famous ones know this and that’s why they are still respected. MJ is still respected because he had this gift too, regardless if some may think “it’s just pop”…the Beatles are “just pop” too but they knew what was good even if not everyone will be amazed. I think of MJ’s “Black or White” video; it was so perfect for that time period, just coming out of the 80s, the rise of the “silent majority” with Reagan and the crime waves infecting the inner city, people were looking for a come together message. Not to mention the evil brilliance with the subtext of the song/video coinciding with MJ’s new appearance, and I believe it was his way of defusing the natural horror of his freshly bleached skin! No second rate performer could ever do so much with one song/video! LOL

            I think Madonna is talented, she’s just not as talented in musicianship as other artists; she’s used music as a conduit for her real art: performance art. MJ was a performer and a musician, just like Beyonce. Elvis was a performer. Have you noticed that a lot of “icons” are performance artists? More than a song (or acting chops, Marilyn Monroe’s case)? They got to people’s hearts and minds, and even after decades, we’re still going to talk about these people. No one’s gonna remember Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus, thank god.

          • Pea

            Well said, Shawntay; well said. 🙂

          • Kat

            I get what you’re saying, and being successful is so much more than just natural talent, it’s also working hard, and collaborating with the right people, and having the right timing, making correct choices creatively and professionally, etc. But if people say that an artist is the best ever and their work is genius, but I don’t agree then it makes them overrated in my eyes… you mentioned ‘Black or White’, I think it’s a weak song with a horrible video. Everything about that video is a miss from start to finish. I don’t understand why MJ is considered the best video artist, out of all his videos I only like one. It’s possible that videos like the ones for Thriller and Bad were revolutionary when they first came out, but they haven’t aged well. But whatevs. I’m sure many will disagree with me! LOL I like all other people that you mentioned: Madonna, Marilyn Monroe, Prince, Beyonce – I’d choose them over Michael Jackson every time. I’m pretty certain that MJ was also obsessed with being the biggest, most successful, most famous. His title ‘King of Pop’ was surely inspired by Elvis’s ‘King of Rock n’ Roll’. He also tried to tie himself to Elvis by marrying his daughter, which he also figured could get him the rights to the Elvis song catalog, as he already knew that owning The Beatles songs was lucrative, having obtained the rights through his friendship with Paul McCartney. He was also jealous of his sister Janet when she started becoming as famous as he. Apparently, he called her ‘arrogant diva’ and wanted her to drop the Jackson off her name, because he didn’t want people to know that another Jackson could sing, dance, perform, and write songs as good as he.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I can dig it; personally speaking, I think the Beatles and Elvis are completely overrated and some of the Beatles songs are downright cornball, while I give Elvis an eyeroll because of his obvious cultural appropriation… But I still can see the importance of them culturally speaking even if I’m no fan of their work. I think all “icons” have done enough to warrant an honest evaluation of their artistic/cultural merits by most reasonable people.

            Even if MJ’s songs or videos may not have aged well, most people respect the fact that it was, initially, “trail blazing” — so the reverence maybe on a “respect your elders” sort of way as well. That goes for all the other icons, too.

            You’re right. MJ was obsessed with success. Actually, his nephews, 3T, have said that success and being the best was/is something that all Jacksons strive for, so clearly MJ learned this from an early age. (Actually it seems pretty apparent that the Jackson family believes they are entitled to have fame, regardless of their generation or level of talent!) He also allegedly said that he’d like to emulate Walt Disney, PT Barnum, etc in the way they could captivate the public’s interest. He was a bit of a hot mess; he was neurotic to the extreme with respect to what he did with his own family. According to Jermaine Jackson’s ex, MJ actually did a little sabotage by “stealing” Babyface and LA Reid, who were both slated to work with Jermaine on his album, working with them and then not using any of the songs on his upcoming album!

            Perhaps MJ resented his family for whatever reason. Seems to be the case since he practically divorced himself from them once he moved out of Hayvenhurst.

          • Digga Stigga

            Believe me or don’t Believe me,John Legend is my cousin. He performed at this campaign called the “Be about it” campaign,hosted by his brother(my cousin too). There,I performed too,funny enough it was to Michael Jacksons “Dangerous” I had the entire croud hyped( thousands of people I think). I wanted to play the piano and sing,but apparently John didn’t want me to because he didn’t want the people to know a family member could play piano and sing really well like him. So I believe you that he was Jealous about her popularity.

          • Digga Stigga

            I personally disagree. I do agree his vocals as an older man were not the greatest,his vocals as a child were phenomenal. “Who’s loving you”(by Smokey Robinson) was awesome. “I’ll be there” “I want you back” and many more. I really enjoyed “human nature” along with many others. Regardless if you really believe Janet is more talented it’s obvious Michael had much talent as well. My main question is how did Michael Jackson from age ten to I’d say 22 become this deviant pedophile? Especially because as a child he never was with a boy younger than him,he also wasn’t with many women/girls his age while he was sexually developing. He has stated he really like Diana Ross,which I strongly believe.I also seen/read things that as a child,Michael and his brothers would be with there father and Joe(their father) would take Michael into a room with other men(Berry Gordy included) and once he came out he’d throw up or just act really weird. I don’t have any specific cites because I read that years ago. So just take my word for it so you can explain how and why a 10-14 Black superstar, surrounded by mostly related boys,and a few girls that he had a crush on,who was also molested (let’s just say that was the case) could become a molester? My philosophy on molestation has always been a child molested would understand how it feels and wouldn’t molest as an adult. I obviously learned that isn’t the case and actually the complete opposite in many situations.

  • Pea

    That’s none of your business, Pauline. Shoo fly.

  • Jamal, Brett’s information is private, if he chooses to share it with you he will. We can’t, sorry.

  • Black Widow

    I always found it curious as to why ‘fan’ Rhonda (1983), whom I assume is female, would want to send him a book full of half naked boys.

    • ShawntayUStay

      If it really was a female fan named Rhonda who sent him “The Boy: A Photographic Essay”, she would had to have known that MJ was interested in looking at underdressed young boys. But since the name was in quotes (“Rhonda”), I think the sender was sharing an inside joke with MJ and just pretending to be a fan as a smokescreen. I suspect this “Rhonda” was a male that was aware of MJ’s proclivities and gave the book to him directly. Some fanatics say that it’s just a book of children and MJ loves children so people would send him any type of paraphernalia relating to it, but who’d send an allegedly heterosexual, unmarried, fatherless man a book like this? No one except a person who knows said “heterosexual, unmarried, fatherless man” was really a pedophile in disguise.

      • Melissa

        This “Rhonda fan” story is very strange, indeed. Why would a fan send a book like this to Michael, unless “she” (if it was a female) know about him?

  • NilsH

    I’m thinking now most of the people close to MJ probably knew or had their suspicions something inappropriate was going on with MJ and those boys, but MJ was too important for them as a money-making machine, they would be nobody without him. The boys were basically sacrificed, even by their greedy parents, to get money and fame from mega-rich Jacko.

    • Melissa

      This “Rhonda fan” story is very strange, indeed. Why would a fan send a book like this to Michael, unless “she” (if it was a female) know about him?

  • morginmiyako

    “As J. Randy Taraborrelli’s book was published in 1991, Jonathan must have been 17 or 18 when that interview took place. (Jackson had yet to be accused of sex abuse.)”
    What Spence said doesn’t hint towards molestation claims.

    • Jonathan Spence has always denied that there was any sexual aspect to his relationship with Michael Jackson.

      Is he telling the truth? Look at the evidence, and decide for yourself.

      These facts are indisputable. Jackson took a pre-pubescent Jonathan Spence to his bed twice a week, held him in public like a boy holds his girlfriend (with Jonathan reacting in kind), he owned at least one naked photo of Jonathan, extended his largesse onto the young boy with trips away and gifts, and book-ended the relationship with two different pre-pubescent boys.

      Does that raise red flags in your mind? Would that, if it was someone other than Jackson, alarm you?

      If it doesn’t, I suggest you do more research into acquaintance molesters and their patterns of behavior. If it does disturb you, would you defend that behavior?

      • morginmiyako

        I wasn’t suggesting he wasn’t another one of MJ’s “special friends.” Of course it’s obvious. I was simply stating an observation; your comment following the quote would appear biased to those who still defend MJ and perhaps reinforce their beliefs. I personally found this website very useful because the articles contain and focus on facts, not personal commentary.

  • Brenda

    I love this site so much! My parents are crazy Michael Jackson fans so this website is blocked at my home (go figure!) but whenever I am at the library I check to see what’s new. Keep up the great work! Love how you’ve proved Michael Jackson was a pedophile!

    • Hi Brenda, thanks for your comment.

      Desiree from Desiree Speaks So Listen guest blogged one article on MJFacts, the one on James safechuck found here http://www.mjfacts.com/mj-facts-exclusive-jimmy-safechuck-story/

      One of our main writers wrote this piece on Jonathan Spence.

      Thanks for dropping by and showing your interest in our humble little website. I hope it made you think about whether Michael Jackson’s behavior with boys was appropriate.

      See you again soon 🙂

      • Brenda

        This “main writer” and Desiree write in such a similar style, they could be mistaken as one and the same. They both are decent writers who desperately need an editor if they ever want to be taken seriously. This writer/Desiree did a good job establishing Michael and Jonathan spent a considerable amount of time together. That is something that could be proven. It’s far more difficult to establish Marion Spence misspoke when she said the family spent time with Michael because he tended to invite families along. By some means, the child was separated from the families, particularly at bedtime, but they were invited along. Just because you only see Michael and a child together in a tight shot doesn’t mean you wouldn’t see the family in a wide shot. Cut the part trying to establish Marion misspoke. It’s irrelevant.

        Does anyone believe Victor Gutierrez is a credible source besides you? If you use him, you have to tell the reader why he/she should take Gutierrez seriously. This is another place where you need an editor because why you think he is worth listening to may not hold water.

        You quoted different writers on the same thing but we’re you careful that they each used original source material or were they all just quoting each other?

        This isn’t a personal attack or an attack on your beliefs about Michael. There were a few interesting facts in the piece. For some reason, when it comes to the possibility that Michael may have molested boys, you have a single minded focus and interest that drives you to dig up facts. Your obsession with the idea Michael molested boys creates a blind spot that a editor can fix.

        -There’s an implication that Michael had one special friend at a time. That’s completely untrue. There were always several so called special friends around at the same time. If you believe Michael was a child molester and you are familiar with the entirety of the FBI text, then you would know that the one special child is a delusion of the molester. It’s a lie they tell themselves and the victim. The type of molester Michael was accused of being is a predator constantly seeking and molesting new prey.

        • Pea

          Brenda, please stop obsessing over the identity of the writer of the above piece — or any writer at MJ Facts, for that matter. It’s already been stated that Desiree of DSSL wrote one article for the website, which was linked to you. Your preoccupation is odd.

          As to the substance of your comment, as a study in why most people devalue unsolicited advice, it was saved rather than deleted as “trolling”. To note, if this website and the construction of its articles offends you, save yourself the stress and read elsewhere. Alternately, you can make your own site — MJ Facts’ webhost fees are expensive, and last time the admins checked, you weren’t pitching in…

          Firstly, your criticism of the use of both Andersen’s “Michael Jackson Unauthorized” (1994) and Sullivan’s “Untouchable” (2012) about Jacko’s behavior with Jonathan on the set of Captain EO would be valid if it could be established Sullivan actually quoted Andersen’s book. Sullivan was quite meticulous in mentioning his source material but didn’t note Andersen in his bibliography (though he made note of most known Jacko-related media). Andersen was an editor at Time and People magazines. In his source notes for the chapter in which Jonathan was mentioned, he cites conversations, articles, and case files as the basis for his information. Because it remains uncertain whether Andersen was used or whether his book was simply “forgotten” when Sullivan composed his lengthy appendices about the sources he used when writing his book, there is very little reason not to also cite his comments.

          In fact, if his was a rewrite of someone else’s material, Sullivan’s “laziness” demonstrates very well that Jonathan was so unknown that information about him was hard to come by. Therefore, on that point, it would still have worth.

          “Cut the part trying to establish Marion misspoke. It’s irrelevant.”

          No one stated Marion Spence “misspoke”. What was stated, however, is that when Marion Spence was interviewed on two separate occasions by the article’s author, she overemphasized Jacko’s friendship with the “entire family”, which, when put side-by-side with other sources used in this article, made the writer incredulous. While there is little doubt Jacko swooned whole families, it’s relevant to contrast Marion Spence’s statements de-emphasizing Jacko’s especial interest in her son with claims by other witnesses that Jonathan was staying over with Jacko, alone, more than once a week, and that he was an “orphan”, presumably because his parents were never around when he was with Jacko. That demonstrates Marion may not have been as present as she continued to claim when interviewed. In that way, it becomes hard to trust Marion Spence’s comments when she states the same kinds of things Joy Robson had when she was defending Jacko against allegations he’d molested Wade — that Jacko cared about the “whole family”.

          It’s the typical song-and-dance; there’s proof against it; so, therefore, your point is irrelevant.

          “Does anyone believe Victor Gutierrez is a credible source besides you? … because why you think he is worth listening to may not hold water.”

          Well, for starters, the factuality of Gutierrez’s book has never been at issue. He wasn’t sued over his book’s content but rather his claim of a video that supposedly showed Jacko molesting a boy. He failed to produce the tape he claimed to have seen and had a judgment filed against him. (Another writer wrote about being told of a videotape of Jacko from a producer, the excerpt of which can be read here: https://twitter.com/RealMJFacts/status/633149966370734080.)

          However, Gutierrez’s research was still used repeatedly in other publications (such as the 2004 edition of J. Randy Taraborrelli’s book), and networks and documentarians still considered him a Jacko expert in spite of the case he lost. (Jacko was so threatened by Gutierrez’s book that he didn’t want the prosecution to mention it at trial.)

          You likely haven’t even read Gutierrez’s book. Had you, and if you have also read widely about Jacko, you’ll see that much of his book has been independently corroborated by other reports.

          Yes, he’s been defamed by fans who have trouble refuting his work, which is no where near as salacious as its been claimed to be, but no legitimate outlet has invalidated his findings. That’s enough for any fair-minded person to consider him as a reference.

          “There’s an implication that Michael had one special friend at a time. That’s completely untrue. There were always several so called special friends around at the same time.”

          Jacko had special boys and practiced a staggered rotation, never being without a boy even as he shifted favor to a new one, as also attested to by Blanca Francia in her 1993 interview with Diane Dimond. That pattern, as well as your note about a molester’s “delusion”, was addressed in the article:

          Jackson’s solution was to start grooming Jimmy Safechuck. In early 1987, Jackson took his first step in his plans for a replacement for Jonathan. It’s highly unlikely Jonathan knew anything about Jimmy or that his big friend was planning to move on – Jackson was very good at keeping his boys, as well as other aspects of his life, tightly compartmentalized.

          The same thing was noted in our exclusive guest blog “The Jimmy Safechuck Story” with Brett Barnes replacing James Safechuck as the latter was phased-out. James stated Jacko allegedly told him to not be alarmed if James started to see Jacko with “other people”.

          So, again, your criticism is meritless.

          It’s uncertain why you decided to immediately attack the post with pointless critiques when none of the writers here asked for you to play editor. However, if you feel you can do better, the obvious thing to do would be to conduct your own research, create your version of the post and submit it for a side by side comparison for other readers to judge. Perhaps an alternative would be to submit a guest post on some other subject for the site admins’ consideration. It would be welcomed, and if researched and written to your obvious high standards it would be a shoe in for publication.

        • Pea

          Strange. It seems we’re having a small malfunction with Disqus because it looks as though the mods, myself included, have “up-voted” both of your troll comments. Well, I, at least, would never.

          We’ll get that sorted out soon enough. Not to worry.

          • ShawntayUStay

            OMG, it says I upvoted those 2 comments as well and I never would either; I disagree strongly with the sentiments! I can’t even unlike them! There is clearly either a glitch in Disqus or some voodoo coming from Brenda, LOL.

            Of all the comments to have an upvote glitch, the gods decide fan troll comments on a Michael Jackson skeptic blog! Ironic 🙂

        • ShawntayUStay

          Actually, it’s really MJ fans — such as yourself — that should explain why Victor Gutierrez is an unreliable source. If your contention is that an editor would agree that VG isn’t worth listening to, that would only be true if they were as brainwashed against him as fans are, haven’t read his book, and have swallowed the false narrative that he’s a pedophile. As Pea said, not only has no news outlet debunked his findings but his work is heavily circulated under the guise of original research by journalists that have more standing than he does.

          Michael Jackson fans are so threatened by Gutierrez that they’ve crafted an entire, untenable conspiracy theory that a little known Chilean reporter is one of the key players behind MJ’s fall from grace, regardless if there is no proof of that being true. (Hopefully you’d suggest that they too remove speculative and irrelevant material from their arguments as well? Or do you only proffer unsolicited advice to arguments that you disagree with?)

          If anyone needs an “editor” to help them sort out MJ fact from fiction, it’s the fanatics that run websites like Vindicate MJ, among others. So I think it’s your own blind spot (and seeming hatred of DSSL?) that is making you see “flaws” in this article that aren’t there.

          • Melissa

            For MJ fans, anyone who says anything less positive about MJ isn’t reliable.

  • Melissa

    wow you surely found many information about Jonathan. Interesting.

  • Pea

    “Is like if I want to accuse you of being a bank robber and serch your
    house and find a book about “Bonnie & Clyde” that makes you guilty.”

    That is absolutely not the same thing. While “Boys Will Be Boys” is legal to own (it’s available for public viewing at various libraries across the United States), it becomes a problematic possession when the owner has been accused five times of sexually molesting young boys. On top of that, “Boys Will Be Boys” — again, a “legal” book — was compiled and edited by two convicted pedophiles. One of the authors was accused of peddling child pornography; the other was a founding member of NAMBLA, a preeminent pedophile organization and was jailed for sex with boys. Is it not interesting that Jacko had not one but two books that feature nude young boys the same ages as the ones he’d slept with, spoiled, and was accused of molesting?

    Your “Bonnie and Clyde” analogy would only be relevant if the alleged bank robber’s crimes were copycats.

    As for the rest of your comment, why couldn’t Jacko — an enormous celebrity with enough clout to hobnob with foreign royalty and heads of state — be one of those Hollywood pedophiles who got away with it because of the connections and privileges afforded famous people? Because he “said” he was innocent? The plank in your eye is as big as a Sequoia.

  • Andreas Moss

    I found something that might be interesting. I guess most of you have seen the documentary Michael Jackson’s Boys?

    In it goes through most of the boys Jackson was spending a lot of time with. Jonathan Spence is not mentioned in the documentary. But instead its this boy who is anonymous, “Damien” in the documentary. He talks about Jackson moving in with the family, and so on. Who is this?

    As we we see a very open interview with him and everything, and if he’s telling the truth Jackson was very close to him and his family. It says that the timeline was 1985-1990. This means he was before James Safechuck and after Emmauel Lewis. That’s roughly the same timeline as Jonathan Spence, isn’t it? Could this “Damien” be Jonathan Spence? Or is it someone else?

    https://youtu.be/HuM7TDdh8LU?t=5m55s

    • Pea

      “Damien” is Damien Stein; it’s not a pseudonym for Jonathan Spence. They actually do talk to Damien in one of the parts of that documentary, and I found his comments about Jacko to be interesting. He said that Jacko would come over to the Stein house whenever he wanted and loved watching old performances of his on the family TV set. Damien said, “You’ll be surprised how much ‘Michael Jackson’ Michael Jackson is interested in.” (He intimated Jacko was a narcissist.)

      Jacko then struck up a phone correspondence with Damien’s mother Glenda. The infamous “Glenda Tapes” that Jacko’s Wackos love were recorded because Mr Stein suspected his wife was having an affair — but really she was talking to Michael Jackson who had zero interest in vagina. You can listen to some of those tapes on YouTube. (The ones without audio but have transcripts are faked by fans. Be wary of those.) There’s a lot of “grooming” of the mother; after all she was a parent of a “special friend”, and Jacko had to make her feel like she was special, too, by making her believe he was confiding in her especial info & secrets about his life.

      According to Damien, he was never molested or touched. Given his cynical view of Jacko, it’s clear why: he was “unmolestable”. Perhaps when Jacko realized Damien wasn’t biting, he abandoned the Stein family. That’s what happened: suddenly all of the calls Glenda had been getting stopped without warning. That’s the same thing that happened with the mother of an 8-year-old Australian boy named Ash Denton back in 1996. She chatted on the phone with Jacko about life and then one day Jacko stopped calling: https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/17005307/our-friend-michael-jackson/

      I wonder if his sudden disinterest in the Denton family (and the Steins) coincided with his discovery of Omer Bhatti? I think it may have. As Bob Jones said: Michael Jackson knew how to find the parents that were “wooable”. That applied to the boys, too.

      So, yes, Damien is someone else. Not Jonathan. 🙂

      • Hillary

        Damien wasn’t really Jackson’s “type” imo.

        • Pea

          Admittedly, I was a bit thrown by how “unattractive” Damien was when I saw him in the documentary (sorry Damien). Most of Jacko’s boys were good-looking, even beautiful (e.g., Jimmy Safechuck) — he never had overweight boys or ones that were shaped funny. While I think beauty was a big factor in how Jacko picked “special friends”, Damien probably just wasn’t receptive to his advances, which was the only real requirement Jacko, like any other pedophile, needed met. He dropped Corey Feldman, too, and for the same reason. Even Terry George lamented that maybe he’d upset Jacko by not understanding what “masturbating with cream” meant.

          I also think, considering Damien’s view of Jacko’s habit of watching his own performances and shows, Damien just wasn’t starstruck. He probably was even a skeptical boy. Jacko’s most loyal boys seem to be the hardcore fanboys who worshiped him like a god.

          Ultimately, while I think Jacko wanted “eye candy” on his arm because he always was a great admirer of beauty, he primarily wanted a boy who was most easily flattered by a celebrity’s attention.

          • Hillary

            I don’t think MJ tried very hard with Damien, plus his conversations with Glenda sound like therapy sessions. Maybe he needed her to talk to.

      • Andreas Moss

        Aha.
        Well, I kind of got a hunch after I wrote that because the documentary did a picture of Damien as a boy, and it didn’t look a lot like Spence when he was a boy. I still wasn’t sure who he was though. I thought Damien was just a pseudonym. I agree with your point that he seemed like a odd pick by Jackson in terms of looks, but how do you reckon he wasn’t molested, if that was Michaels intentions?

        • Pea

          I believe Damien Stein when he said he wasn’t molested. There’s no reason for me not to believe him, unlike some of the others who at least have some 3rd party saying that they were told of or had even witnessed inappropriate behavior (e.g., Brett Barnes).

          I think Damien could’ve been a ‘special friend’ but he probably wasn’t a significant one. I forget the date range they provided in the documentary — 1985-1992? Something like that? Well, he had very public relationships with other boys during those years. The ones on his arm were his “boyfriends”, as Norma Staikos referred to them, the “cosmic” love connections. While I suspect Jacko has molested boys we’ve never heard of, Damien wasn’t “cute enough” and he didn’t come off as “molestable” like the other ones. I’m sure pedophiles have some kind of sixth sense for stuff like that; Damien probably didn’t come up on the radar.

          I should add that I’ve seen Emmanuel Lewis disavow being molested but I didn’t believe him at all — he fumbled his denial, which was interesting. Besides, Jacko told Jordie Chandler he’d masturbated with Manny, and their closeness as described in J. Randy Taraborrelli’s book was odd. Outside of checking into a hotel as father & son, Taraborrelli described how Manny and Jacko would lay on the floor, and Jacko would tell Manny to close his eyes and pretend they were flying over Neverland. 🙂

  • Hillary

    https://youtu.be/taCAi9dF1u0

    Jackson and Jimmy Safechuck. 9 minutes in….

    MJ mentored him no doubt. I saw another tape of this which was longer a few years ago. It struck me as odd.

    • Pea

      I’ve never seen James dancing on stage, only stills of his performances. According to his court papers, he and Jacko danced together in the dance studio at Hayvenhurst; Jacko told him he “had rhythm”.

      As for the connection to the “bacha bazi” boys, although I know Jacko read widely and one time stated about child marriages in India that the West shouldn’t “assume” it has the best model for everything(!), I doubt the “boy play” culture was something Jacko knew about. I read that article, too, and saw a documentary about the “practice” back in 2011. It was disturbing (that New York Times article was horrific), but not entirely surprising given the culture: there seems to be some correlation between boy abuse and woman-hating. It’s similar to Ancient Greece: they had zero respect for women, outside of the learned courtesans, and instead viewed it as something beneficial for boys to be with men and even for men to be with other men. In the “bacha bazi” culture, some of the boys even dress up like women, or at least femininely.

      Some pedophiles fantasize about “sissy boys”, as they refer to them — boys who dress in girl’s clothes. I haven’t figured out the root of that but I think, perhaps similar to the “bacha bazi” culture, it has something to do with feeling more masculine over their target and, I would add, filling the void that would naturally be filled by a female’s presence.

      None of Jacko’s boys seemed feminine so I don’t think he was interested in women in any capacity!

      • Hillary

        There’s no doubt that the boys he tended to like were prettier than average though. Who is the boy in the LA Bad tour video, I get them mixed up….plus I haven’t watched any of his videos in years. The bacha bazi video of the boy dancing brought the whole Jackson thing back to my memory.

        • Pea

          No, you’re right, lol. Jacko did have pretty boys but they weren’t “pretty” to the degree I’ve seen preferred by some pedophiles with a feminization fetish. Jacko admired beauty, and beautiful men/boys tend to walk the fine line between masculinity and androgeny…

          As for your question, I know Wade Robson was in an LA Gear ad in approximately 1991 but I don’t know if that had anything to do with the Bad Tour. James Safechuck was the one on the Bad Tour with Jacko. Does that help? 🙂

          • Andreas Moss

            Blanca Francia, in her interview with DD, she describes Jonathan Spence acted very “girly” and “giggly”.

  • Pea

    I understood your analogy fine. However, you’re conflating two entirely different things.

    As I said before, owning a book on Bonnie & Clyde would only be relevant if it establishes something about the accused’s mindset; otherwise, it won’t be let in as evidence. A biographical book on Bonnie & Clyde could be found in anyone’s home, so it would be important to look at other factors. Is the suspect accused of copycat crimes? If so, it could be relevant; but it would be irrelevant if the crime wasn’t a copycat and/or it was just one book that didn’t seem to have any especial significance. People doing copycat crimes typically have more than one item surrounding the crime they intend to ape.

    However, it’s significantly less irrelevant for prosecutors to use Jacko’s ownership of books filled with nude young boys (boys the same ages as the ones Jacko shared his bed with and was accused of molesting) as circumstantial evidence that he had a sexual interest in boys. According to one of the investigators in Jacko’s 1993 case, his decades of experience as a detective has shown him that books like the two Jacko owned are frequently found in the homes of suspected pedophile child molesters. Unlike books about Bonnie & Clyde, which could be read by anyone and are probably not frequently found in the homes of suspected bank robbers.

    So, your analogy is pretty bogus. Yes, possession of a legal item is not illegal but it doesn’t mean the possession is “innocent”. Those boy books were made by pedophiles. Jacko didn’t need to own 100s; what he had was more than enough.

    As for the media, the media has nothing to do with my view on Jacko. I used to believe he was innocent, as fans instruct. But when I looked at the evidence on my own time — read everything I could get my hands on — it became clear that a supposedly “asexual” man who shared his bed with young boys and was accused multiple times of molestation is probably a pedophile.

  • Pea

    If one is really objective, it’s clear Michael Jackson wasn’t the most amazing dancer — at the very least that’s obvious; he could dance but didn’t do much to develop and hone his natural ability. I personally believe his voice was very nice as a child and prior to all of the nose surgeries that gave his voice an unfortunate pinched quality. But even then — even acknowledging his less than stellar oeuvre of dance moves and his diminishing vocal ability — he was a genius in knowing exactly what to put together to make a hit!

    Michael Jackson deserved his success because he was good. Period.

    You make a really good point about Elvis Presley. He was what I like to call a “culture bandit”; he was an absolute unrepentant thief of black culture. Jacko said it best himself when talking to the Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: getting a white man to sing like a black man would make a record company a million dollars, and “In come walk Elvis Presley,” he said.

    Elvis was talented but manufactured in the same way as Jerry Lee Lewis: white Americans loved black music but were too racist to want black albums in their homes. In fact, that whole “black music” appropriation has misled many people about the true origins of American popular music!

    All artists are guilty of theft to some degree — they call it “inspiration”. But if a list of music thieves is going to be made, Elvis Presley would be at the top of the list. He wouldn’t be anything if it wasn’t for his hanging around in black southern communities listening to our blues music and watching us dance.

  • Kat

    OMG, what a hostile comment. Before you said that to each their own, but now my opinion is being called stupid because I disagree with you? I know that Elvis Presley didn’t write his own songs. I know that Janet Jackson has a flat voice. I just happened to like their, and Beatles, music better than I like MJs. With Michael, the only song and video that I like is Billie Jean. And I know that Elvis also lifted his moves from other artists, but I still like his dancing and singing. With MJ, I didn’t dig the crotch grabbing, or moon walking, or the silly outfits he wore. I think he didn’t deserve to be as famous as he was. I realize that it’s the unpopular opinion, but that is how I feel about him; deal with it.

    • ShawntayUStay

      Kat, I think that is the paradox. Many black people realize that MJ was essentially a race traitor — especially now since Prince Jackson has confirmed MJ’s love of little white kids — but they can’t help defending him against real (and perceived) jabs at his success and/or talent. Any time anyone wants to do a comparison between MJ, Elvis, and the Beatles, there will be some who think that it’s racist to always end up having the two white acts as numbers 1 and 2. It’s just based on a legacy of rampant discrimination in America.

      This is the same thing with OJ Simpson. He abandoned his urban beginnings and became an “honorary white”, rubbing elbows with rich whites, dating white women, etc. But when his crimes coincided with the excessive force racial beating of Rodney King and the resultant LA Riots, black people were fed up with police hijinks and supported OJ even if his guilt was obvious (to be fair, though, he may have been guilty but the LAPD completely mishandled evidence and contaminated the crime scene to such a degree that it’s not unsound to think there is reasonable doubt).

      It’s certainly dysfunctional thinking when misapplied, but it’s pretty reflexive.

      • Kat

        It wasn’t my intention to turn it into a racial thing, I only wanted to express my confusion over Michael Jackson’s immense popularity. I didn’t mean to say that he had no talent, merely that I think his talents didn’t merit the level of fame he achieved. It baffles me that he was the most famous person on the planet and had crowds of people gather around him everywhere he went, because I can name many people who’s music I prefer over his who never achieved that much fame. It’s normal for people to have opposing attitudes to things like music and art, I think we can agree to disagree about it… Just to clarify, this isn’t because he was a pedophile, I always felt this way about MJ even before I had a definite stance on whether or not he molested kids.

        MJ didn’t need to turn himself into a white feminine looking creature to be successful, since people were clearly willing to accept him and his race. In year 1984 he was breaking racial barriers by being the first black person whose videos were getting regular MTV airplay and the Thriller album was on it’s way to become the biggest selling of all time. The hatred towards his own race was something that came from within.

        I also think his insinuations that the child molestation allegations against him were racially motivated and the whole policy brutality farce were insulting to actual victims of racism and police brutality. It’s like, nobody beat you up because of your race, stop lying Michael, this is pathetic. I’m pretty sure that the last interviews and magazine cover that he got was for Ebony Magazine, not long after he was acquitted of the second child sexual abuse allegations. That bewilders me, because I have to ask myself why they decided to put a person on the cover who had a) just been controversially acquitted of a terrible crime b) had so blatantly removed himself from the racial and cultural community in which he was born. I’m not sure if in year 2006 there was still anyone left who thought that Jackson really had vitiligo, lol. People shouldn’t be supporting Jackson or OJ just because they happened to be born African American, since they didn’t embrace it and weren’t proud if it.

        • ShawntayUStay

          MJ’s self hatred was clearly a lot more pathological than your typical black American, so because of that, he probably really internalized the message of being 3x better that many of his time learned. He likely thought that the only way he could achieve recognition was if he became as racially neutral as possible. Although most blacks don’t do this to his level, it’s a fairly common thing to think about.

          Perhaps he even thought that if he made himself “genderless” it would make him more palatable as well. I’ve heard of female authors using initials instead do males would buy their books since men tend to avoid female writers! But I think the androgeny had more to do with his sexuality than anything else.

          I believe that ebony magazine spread was in 2008? I remember buying a MJ tribute mag from them and they said they were not interested in talking about the drama; they wanted to remember him just as Michael. Which makes sense because the Jackson family had always had a relationship with the publishers of both Ebony and Jet magazines since the J5 days. That’s why they without fail always defended MJ…it was out of loyalty.

        • Digga Stigga

          Michael Jackson stated numerous times he was proud of being black. I do believe he loved white people in general, which you’re right comes with something from within. Never mind that though,I do believe he had vitiligo I’ve seen multiple pictures when he was still an obvious black male with white spots and stuff all around. Even on this website I’ve seen it on his hand. I do think because of his money he bleached his skin to even it out not knowing that bleaching it doesn’t make the disease say “hey you just got lighter so I’m done here” no instead the disease kept going and attacked the pigmentation after initial bleaching and so on. Which is why I feel he lost his pigmentation a lot more than any other person who has ever suffered from vitiligo. I also read recently at a late age he Began to regret a lot of his previous decisions on plastic surgery and skin bleaching. He also became a person constantly fishing for compliments saying “I don’t look that bad do I?” To friends and such. If you showed a 13 year old Michael Jackson a picture of himself in 2000 im 100% sure that kid wouldn’t say “I want to look like that someday” or even “that person is beautiful” what I do think you’d hear is a “Ew! Or a “what the heck Is that” and if u went further to say “that’s you in 2000” he wouldn’t believe you.

  • Pingback: The Boys in Michael Jackson's Life - MJ Facts()

  • truthfinder

    Great article. So hard to find out anything about their relationship. Must have been a lot of work. It’s so sad. I wonder if Jonathan will ever tell.

  • michaeljeffrey

    https://michaeljacksonandtheboys.wordpress.com/2016/04/27/michael-jackson-corey-feldman-1984-2001/
    This story is so creepy. Corey says MJ never touched him but says he would never let his kid stay with him. Makes no sense at all

    • Andreas

      I used to write off Corey Feldman having been molested by Jackson, mainly because he denies it so aggressively and seems so touchy about it, and since he talks about Michael in such high regards often, but I have to admit there’s something strange about the whole story between him and Michael.

      Corey has said he slept in bed with Michael, and that Michael wanted to have pornographic magazines present, and then there’s the weird boy book with diseases. That alone is quite suspect. (Not to mention since we’re talking about a man who’s probably molested other boys.) There’s also the whole thing about him dressing up and imitating Jackson onstage very recently, and starting to egg around with Diane Dimond on twitter about not being molested by Michael. Now, Dimond told him she had never said he was molested by Michael, and I don’t think she ever did. They sort of made peace at twitter but talked about discussing things further private on mail. Okay, fine, except: Talk about what exactly? What would Corey want to discuss with DD in private?

      I sort of wonder if Corey is looking for a way to come forward about something, or is ‘testing the waters’ in some kind of way. It sure wouldn’t be easy to come forward about such a thing. And if he actually wasn’t molested by Jackson I have problems seeing reasons to talk things out further with Diane Dimond, someone who is widely known for being someone who accused Michael of molesting children. There’s certainly something odd about it. Like Corey hasn’t told everything. When he also says he would let his children stay at Neverland it sort of says it all.

      I also find it weird that Corey Feldman never has named his actual molester, even though he has publically announced he has been molested. Some people speculate it was his former assistant, and that might be for all I know, but when Feldman says “pedophilia is the biggest problems in Hollywood”, it sounds like he has experienced more than one occurence. So even if Corey’s main molester was someone else, Michael still wouldn’t be off the hook.

      There’s also strange stories in comment fields on Corey articles from someone who claims he knew Corey Haims, and had listened to him drunk at parties, where Haims allegedly said Michael had molested both him and Feldman in the late 80s and goes quite into detail what happened, and talks about there being a settlement. I don’t know what to make of it. The person who wrote those comments seems quite unstable, and might be a troll, but I’m not sure.

      • michaeljeffrey

        Right . I did write about Feldman, because , I mean almost all boys are denying that anything sexual ever happend between them besides 5. I still find most of that stuff “not normal” at all. What came in my mind was that Corey also mentioned how sorry he feels for MJ. Maybe that’s why he doesn’t accuse him. Also he was really raped as a kid & MJ’s nice molester stuff was something not that bad compared to the others.

        • Andreas

          Its possible. Besides, if the 3 days story about Haim and Feldman visiting Neverland in the late 80s was true, both boys would have been 17. Which would make it at least a little bit different.

      • ShawntayUStay

        I don’t think Corey Feldman was molested by MJ, but I do believe he’s now obsessed with him. He is basically an MJ impersonator at this point, and every time I see him, it gets worst and worst!

        What would be the reason for him to attack Wade Robson on Twitter over his claims? I personally think Corey is jealous of MJ’s special friends like Wade or James because their molester was Michael Jackson. Perhaps Corey’s abuser was downright vile in comparison.

        Diane Dimond did basically say that Corey was one of MJ’s victims. I saw the tweet, but of course she always backtracks when her errors of this magnitude are called out. Does she always play so fast and loose with the facts??

        • Andreas

          Here’s the exhange between Feldman and Dimond:
          https://twitter.com/Corey_Feldman/status/686123028787273728

          You’re right about one thing. She does claim Corey named MJ once but recanted his name quickly. Not sure what she refers to though. I’d be very interested to know where she got that bit of info from. Interestingly, in their exchange Corey says “I never once claimed MJ assaulted me”. As MJ was a nice guy molester, and from his pattern with other boys none of his potential victims has said he did anything by force or violence. It was always by careful soft grooming and scaremongering. So I find it curious that he chose to use that particular word, “assault”.

          My hunch is that something indeed happened, since things point that way, but that Corey is still confused about it. Perhaps like Wade and James was before they had children. In denial. I think his recent obsession with Jackson is telling. He’s probably processing something in his own way.

          He also tells DD “something tells me R paths will cross n the near future.”, about why further mail exhance could be good. Again, WHY, if nothing happened?

          I personally think Corey is jealous of MJ’s special friends like Wade or James because their molester was Michael Jackson.

          Hah. 🙂 Seriously? I think thats a rather crazy suggestion. If Corey wasn’t molested, as you suggest, he wouldn’t even have a reason for thinking Wade and James were molested and telling the truth about that in the first place, would he? Besides, being jealous about “better molesters” sounds a little bit off the wall, if you ask me.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Thanks for the link, Andreas 🙂

            I just don’t get why she’d say that so confidently and then, just as confidently, say she never said it! She just did! LOL. I’d say it was a senior moment but it’s more like a CYA moment. And I can’t fathom what “well see more of each other in the future” even means, but I doubt it has anything to do with him telling her MJ molested him.

            Hmm, I don’t know. Perhaps Corey Feldman just thinks molestation is an assault, an assault on trust, a child’s innocence, and not to mention their bodies. Maybe he can differentiate between “seductive” molestation (that wouldn’t be an “assault”) and more “coercive” molestation, but I don’t know.

            I truly don’t think there is any evidence, that I’ve seen, to suggest Corey Feldman was one of MJ’s victims. The way Corey tells it, it seems as if MJ stopped being interested in him, like changing his number, not returning calls, etc. And MJ may have wanted to do something, though, because of all the attempts at grooming, e.g. the asking to bring porn when he stayed at Feldman’s house, the diseased genitals book thing, etc. But if that fell flat, it would explain MJ losing interest in him; that was MJ’s thing.

            If Corey wasn’t molested, as you suggest, he wouldn’t even have a reason for thinking Wade and James were molested and telling the truth about that in the first place, would he? Besides, being jealous about “better molesters” sounds a little bit off the wall, if you ask me.

            I don’t think it’s off the wall at all, LOL. You’d be surprised at the strange machinations that go on in peoples’ minds! I’m just speculating as to why Corey is 1) so obsessed with MJ, and 2) goes so far as to actively criticize other abuse victims. What’s the cause?

          • Andreas

            Yes, DD did sort of contradict herself there, didn’t she. The thing that makes me confused is that she claims Corey did first mention MJ as an abuser, but that he later recanted it. I have never heard of that, but I wonder where she got that from. It sounds like she mentions it as a fact, not an opinion. Perhaps someone should ask her for a source. I don’t know, but you know, it would actually corraborate with the rumors of there being an out of court settlement. It wouldn’t be the first time Michael would use that method to get things out of the way, and it would also explain why Corey is so defensive about it.

            No no, I’m not saying there’s hard evidence for him being molested either, its speculation, I’m just saying there’s enough weird stuff to be a little bit suspicious. Look at the arguments:

            – There was one-on-one sleepovers between Corey and MJ.
            – Jackson demanding there to be pornographic magazines.
            – The weird books with naked children with diseases, which Michael showed him.
            – Them being good friends when he was a kid, and there being a “fall out” when he got older.
            – Corey saying the child paradise Neverland wouldn’t be a place you should leave kids.
            – Strange unsubstantiated rumors of settlements from anonymous people on the net claiming they know Corey Haims. (For example in the comments to this article: http://gawker.com/396859/whoawho-raped-the-coreys)
            – Jackson already being a molester with a sexual interest in boys(well, at least most people in here would agree..)
            – Corey being a self-proclaimed victim of molestation from the show biz, and sounding like he’s talking about pedophilia being a huge problem in the industry.

            So I wouldn’t be surprised if something happened. It does sound like it to me, at least. Something is untold, and there’s not a whole lot of options to what it could be.

            The odd obsession with MJ post-Michaels death is probably up to debate, its definitely strange, but my suspicion its a result of Corey processing his feelings and thoughts about the man he once knew, and someone he perhaps has very mixed feelings toward. It does at the very least indicate he’s thinking a lot about him, at minimum.

            Michael was such a weird mix of good and bad, and I think thats a problem some of the victims have with it too, and makes it complicated to come forward. That he was a humongous artist and that it would go mega-public if they do, just adds to it(for Corey or Macalauy especially, since they’re famous too). They’re also likely to not be believed. The victims might also feel somewhat sympathy towards Michael, and perhaps don’t really want to subtract from his legacy as an artist, something that could be seen as a seperate to the private man, but at the same time it obviously would ruin a lot if they came forward. It just would. There’s also the concerns for Jacksons children, family etc. They obviously suffered a lot by the 2005 trial, by his premature death and so on.

            I don’t think we really can appreciate exactly how brave Wade Robson was for coming forward. That man was heroically brave. For so many reasons too. I think Corey’s reaction toward Wade might be that by Wade coming forward he puts a LOT of pressure and stress on the other potential victims, including himself. They’re all in the same boat here. If Wade and James actually get a trial, many of these boys Jackson knew when he was alive might be subpoenaed to court, having to testify, and they know it. So I read Corey’s reaction to Wade more like a “Ssshh, shut up.”

          • ShawntayUStay

            I watched the Amy Berg documentary “An Open Secret” (it’s on YT), and they show a bit of Corey Feldman. Besides coming off as really “out there” he was/is always adamant about molesters in Hollywood praying on kids. I mean, he’s very vocal. In one clip, he’s talking about all this, very demonstrably and animated, but he’s dressed like a subdued version of MJ! Hair and shirt. That’s curious to me. Why would he dress like MJ while talking about Hollywood molesters if MJ molested him? It makes little sense to me.

            As for DD, she was caught in a lie. She made it up for only God knows why, and recanted it when called out. Why she plays fast and loose is anyone’s guess. I don’t think she has any evidence of Corey Feldman being a victim, just an amorphous memory of Feldman being friends with MJ and then not being friends which she played off of to say he was indeed a victim.

          • Andreas

            Why would he dress like MJ while talking about Hollywood molesters if MJ molested him? It makes little sense to me.

            Yeeah.. Its perhaps overanalyzing but I actually wonder if that could be Corey’s way of saying something happened without being allowed to say something happened. If there was a settlement that could be a hint to people watching. I don’t know though. Alternatively its his way of shaking any suspicion off. If so, it worked. Everyone got off his tail.

            Did you know that in 2005 Michael Jackson threatened to sue Corey? Yes, he heard Feldman was writing a book, and he automatically thought it was about him and their relationshp, and wanted to sue Corey. “Michael had some paranoid delusion that I had some ill-fated intentions to write some sort of book about him, which was categorically untrue. What happened next was basically, the way I perceived it, is that he threatened my life.”

            Source:
            http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0058002/

            I also noticed that the anonymous guy commenting on articles, like the Gawker article that I linked to, said that one thing that happened was that Michael had performed oral sex on him when Corey was asleep, and Corey wake up in the middle of it. Interestingly, I read somewhere else that Corey actually told the same story on Howard Stern once, of a male friend blowing him while he was asleep. I haven’t been able to find the Howard Stern interview, perhaps someone else around here can track it down, but if this is correct he might be talking about none other than the The King Of Pop.

            He has also been quoted saying:
            “I started looking at each piece of information, and with that came this sickening realization that there may have been many occurrences in my life and in my relationship to Michael that have created a question of doubt.”

            And I’ve asked DD about that quote of hers. I sort of doubt she’ll answer. I think I mailed her about something earlier, and I got no reply, but I thought heck, why not try.

            Thank you for the Open Secrets tip. I’ve been wanting to watch that one for a while!

          • Pea

            I tend to agree with Shawntay on this one: I don’t think Corey Feldman was a victim of anything more than Jacko’s pedophilic inappropriateness. Given that Corey was a victim, it feels strange to say that he wasn’t “molestable”, but I think Jacko rejected him not only because he may have gotten “too old” but primarily because he wasn’t getting anywhere in the “grooming”. Corey always seemed naive in that regard when the story is recounted — similar to Terry George. Terry said he felt he hadn’t answered Jacko’s question correctly (“Do you ever do it with cream?”), which caused Michael to reject him.

            It certainly is Jacko’s pattern: if he can’t get the boy interested, he loses interest and finds another.

            I also feel, as Shawntay suggested, that if Corey was molested, he would have said something. He talks too much and too openly — and he never shied away from discussing the problems in their friendship. But, also, being reasonably cynical, Corey Feldman is an opportunistic has-been. I looked up this article based on the quote you pasted, and wondered why he was speaking at all back then: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1026055,00.html

            That’s not to say I don’t believe him about the porn, the book of venereal diseases, etc., but seeing that he ultimately never accused Jacko, exaggeration for attention and out of spite seems possible.

            This is the Gawker comment you’re referring to? http://gawker.com/396859/whoawho-raped-the-coreys?comment=6366311#comments

            I don’t know…. It sounds like fanfiction — it’s a bit too “detailed”. I wouldn’t readily believe any anonymous poster. For instance, when I was more heavily involved in the Jacko fan community, I learned that many forums become infested with nuts who create yarns about being Jacko’s girlfriend, being from his inner circle and knowing the women he was really seeing, or knowing about payoffs. Even Vindicate MJ ridiculously has several posts devoted to a fan-created, forum-originated “letter” by a supposed bodyguard….

            I’ll need a little more proof before I believe Corey was molested by Jacko. I think he was another Damien Stein and Terry George.

            As for Diane Dimond, I’ve seen that tweet before. She should be ashamed of herself. The only reason I could think of for her saying that and then immediately recanting is that she lied about it. But why? What drives her? I remember it took about 2-3 months of hounding her to get an answer to a question, and she was quite rude and self-pitying before finally answering the question. Not a fan of Diane Dimond, LOL.

          • Andreas

            As I said, its more speculation, but all I’m saying is that there’s something a bit off-key and strange about the whole thing, and Corey has spoken with two tongues about everything involving Michael all his life. Besides that he has been perhaps a little bit too defensive. I do think something happened. Not that I would want that, but its the only thing that makes sense, the way I see it. :/

            Terry George I think its difficult to compare to Corey, because Terry’s relationship with Michael was mostly by phone anyway, and Jackson probably did all he could in that instance, by engaging in talking about masturbation and perhaps sex. Thats as much as you can do by phone, anyway. I am not sure about Damien Stein.. was there even signs of Michael trying to groom him? Are you actually claiming Michael was interested in him?

            With Corey there’s physical sleepovers, porn, alcohol and stuff involved which is typically grooming signs, and a person who by his own words had been molested, and also talking about pedophiles being like vultures around him, and so many ambigious comments about Michael for years, and so on and so on. There’s a lot more room for speculating. There’s no way around that fact. It even sounds like you’re saying that perhaps Michael tried to molest him, but couldn’t… but Corey had been a victim since he was a young child, so he was probably very “primed” to be molestable. (Sounds a bit creepy to phrase it like that, but..)

            This is the Gawker comment you’re referring to?

            Yes yes, the comment with the story that is, not the main article. That poster has been on other articles telling more about the same story too. They’re around the net if you look around. He claims to know Corey Haims personally(he wrote these comments before Haim died). Its not a “safe source” no, but I think the level of derailed detail and something about it gives it have some bizarre sense of credibility. I’m confused why someone would make something like that up, although I suppose anything is possible on the internet. I do think true that Haims and Feldman visited Neverland together though. I think I have read that elsewhere, at least.

            And again, this commenter tells a story about Corey being asleep and Jackson performing oral sex on him, and Corey has told a story on Howard Stern about a friend doing that to him once, so its one heck of a coincidence at the very least.

            About Diane Dimond. I don’t really care about having such a strong opinion on her as a person. I don’t know her, besides reading her book. Judging people’s character too cynically usually corrupts rational thinking anyway, in my opinion. I’m ready to believe that she might have had inside information, as she was involved with everything Jackson for so long, so it might be true that he mentioned Jackson first and then suddenly recanted it. Not sure why Diane would lie about that. What would be the motive?

            Corey has admitted Jackson threatened him, and planned to sue him when it was announced that Corey wrote a book. Why would Michael do that, if nothing happened, and they were just friends? Makes no sense. What was Michael worried about?

            Another interesting thing was that Corey Feldman was actually supposed to be a persecution witness in the 2005 case. What role was he supposed to serve there? I suspect to establish that Jackson did refer to wine as Jesus Juice, but who knows.

            Most things rhymes better if something happened but Corey simply being too reluctant to disclose it. To me at least. You say he talks too much openly about Michael not to mention it. I think I disagree, because Corey has never disclosed anyone else either! Not even if his main abuser. Even now as he’s well into his 40s, and after writing a whole self-biography about his life — nobody. He talks a lot about being molested as a child, and talks a lot about the business being full of pedophilia and that being a problem, but for whatever reason he’s just not prepared to disclose who actually molested him. If he doesn’t mention who his main molester was, why would he disclose Jackson? (Of course assuming his main molester is someone else.)

            I’m actually more bound to believe DD contradicted herself because she wanted to appeal to Corey. That makes more sense to me, at least. We can probably agree to disagree on this though, no problem. 🙂

          • Pea

            I need more evidence — please link any of your findings. (Definitely not anonymous posters, though, lol. I believe that person was probably a “Coreys” fan, a crazed Jacko hater like the kind you see on Topix, or a pedophile.) I did think the IMDb story was interesting, as well as the quote viewable on People.com, but neither prove Corey Feldman was molested by Jacko, only that he was another boy with whom Jacko was inappropriate — a boy Jacko later dropped. (But I said this already, lol.) As for Damien Stein, yes, I do think Jacko was interested in him, although the fan narrative is that he was interested in Stein’s mother, Glenda. Ultimately nothing happened and Jacko abandoned them, too.

            Admittedly, I’m puzzled that Corey’s “doublespeak” would indicate to you that he was molested by Jacko? To me, it seems more that he was torn: as a victim, he didn’t want to accept that his friend was a pedophile (by the way, many Jacko fans are victims and I think they defend him against pedo charges because they don’t want him to be in the same “category” as their abusers), and remembering the porn shown made him wonder if Jacko was trying to seduce and abuse him. Again, his statements, taken together, don’t indict Jacko for sex abuse; they underscore Jacko’s peculiar and suspect interest in boys.

            I didn’t know he was going to be a persecution witness. Perhaps Sneddon & Co. didn’t use Corey because all Mez would have to do is pull up his 1993 police interview in rebuttal, in which Corey stated that Jacko never touched him:

            https://youtu.be/rdITa9Ulx2A

            https://youtu.be/3F0I7q94HEQ

            About Diane Dimond. I don’t really care about having such a strong opinion on her as a person. I don’t know her, besides reading her book. Judging people’s character too cynically usually corrupts rational thinking anyway, in my opinion. … so it might be true that he mentioned Jackson first and then suddenly recanted it. Not sure why Diane would lie about that. What would be the motive?”

            A bit ironic coming from the person who said, “Fuck Tom Mesereau,” lol. 😉 I wouldn’t impugn her character without ample, non-speculative reason to do so, which is manifestly not irrational. (It is also irrational and naive to assume that someone is good, which I never do.) I used to give her the benefit of the doubt but it became an exercise in cognitive dissonance. It’s easier to accept her for what she is. She’s opportunistic, arrogant, and sloppy with facts. She jumped to break the news about James Safechuck but when asked about her opinion on the progress of the current cases, she’s dismissive and disinterested. Why? I told her she shouldn’t be shocked people view her as an expert and would therefore want to talk to her, which seemed to calm her haughtiness.

            As for why she’d lie, honestly, I don’t know — it was stunning, but it was equally stunning that she’d recant. I just chalked it up to good ole dishonesty. The nonexistent “love letters” she gushed about in 2003 would be another example. She also lied to Susan Etok, a Jacko friend, about her position on Michael, so much so that Etok was convinced that she no longer believed Jacko was a pedophile. This, of course, was to secure an interview with Etok so she could report that Jacko was a big fat druggie using Etok’s insider info.

            DD’s duplicity is well-documented (and even your version of why she recanted her Corey comment would prove it), but, of course, she could be rotten to the core and that wouldn’t necessarily mean she couldn’t provide good information. A person’s character and their utility are not linked in my mind. 🙂

            By the way, I am not sure who was the famous friend Jordie Chandler mentioned to Dr Richard Gardner, but if it was Corey Feldman (alternately, it could be Sean Lennon), Jacko told him they were “just friends”, unlike the other boys, including Emmanuel Lewis, who were described as victims. That Jordie differentiated between Jacko’s “friends” — and that Jacko differentiated them, too! — was always an indication to me that he was telling the truth.

          • Andreas

            To me, it seems more that he was torn: as a victim, he didn’t want to accept that his friend was a pedophile (by the way, many Jacko fans are victims and I think they defend him against pedo charges because they don’t want him to be in the same “category” as their abusers), and remembering the porn shown made him wonder if Jacko was trying to seduce and abuse him.

            Its not a bad theory, but once again, lets look at what Corey says, in perspective.

            I haven’t read his self-biographical book, but from what I’v read he has pseudonyms for FOUR abusers in the book: Ron, Tony, Burnham and Crimson. All people working in the entertainment business. He says when he was young he had a difficult situation with his own family, and his own father especially, so he sort of seeked out to father figures who would first take care of him, guide him — tragically one by one turn out to be something else; pedophiles who would groom him and sexually abuse him. Bad luck for Corey, right. They were like vultures around him, he said.

            Now, he publically claims Jackson was not one of them, but actually instead one he could go to and be SAFE from pedophiles, and be 10 years old again and so on. Jackson was perhaps the genuine deal of a real actual father figure, or something like that.

            Now, thats a quite bizarre story. At least we could agree on that, right? But more importantly, is it likely? Is it likely that someone who had by his own reporting had been groomed and abused over and over and over would actually need decades of thinking to understand that Michael was probably grooming him too? When he was showing him porn, books with naked boys and giving him booze at a young age? Is that being 10 years again? It sounds bizarre.

            If you want to believe that, thats okay, go ahead, but to me it just sounds a little bit too.. odd.

            There’s also the rumors of there being a settlement which I’ve heard a few times now, and DD alludes to that as well. Combined with Corey’s comments which has been all over the place the plot thickens. Plus Jackson threatening him and wanting to sue him when it was announced he wrote a book. That he denies anything happened doesn’t need to mean too much, because so did Brett Barnes, Wade Robson and Macaulay Culkin under oath and on national television. There could be many reasons for that.

            A bit ironic coming from the person who said, “Fuck Tom Mesereau,” lol. 😉

            Hehe. I saw that one probably coming. No, not guilty of being a big admirer of all things Mez. I just think he has an authoritarian streak that clouds his thinking. Being loyal to Jackson seems to be his highest virtue, and he confuses that with “truth” too often, which of course is a logical fallacy. To this day I’m still confused if he’s truly honest in what he claims he says, but he often gives me a bad vibe. I reckon you’re probably not nodding as you read this. Thats fine. You brought it up. I don’t hate the guy though.

            Okay, I suppose it just looked a little bit like you were kind of saying “I don’t like Diane Dimond. Therefore I don’t think she definitely lied about Corey recanting Michael as one of his abusers.”

            Usually I just like to to think that even “bad people” have a good reason to do their bad actions. Accepting that bad people just do bad things because they are bad in nature is a bit simplistic. Doesn’t explain much why Diane would lie about such a thing.

            I personally think its more likely she recanted her first comment because she wanted to appease Corey, yes, perhaps like the story you told with Etok, and I grant that could be seen as journalistic duplicity, PERHAPS, if you insist, even though its probably a typical thing for journalists… but I just don’t think her first comment came out of thin air. She probably got that from somewhere. That is my hunch. At least I find it suspect that it’s supposedly a given that she just lied.

            As for the “love letters” to Gavin I think they actually happened. They were one of the things Jackson’s goons managed to confiscate when they took over their Soto Street apartment, so most of the letters was successfully lost, thats why weren’t materialized. Janet Arvizo testified they were full of “I love you”, “Applehead” and “Doo-doo heads”, which sounds like typical Michael lingo. Also confiscated was a little plush-rabbit that Gavin was instructed to call “Michael”, and a bunch of pictures of them with Michael. The prosecution actually did gather one later handwritten note Michael quite like that right before they went to Miami, including the line “You have to really be honest in your
 heart that I am your dad and will take care, good care of you. […] Love, Dad.” (Not to conflate all this with the old Gavin debate though.) The earlier ones probably existed too.

          • Pea

            Today, the fans are upset with what they believe to be Corey Feldman’s “tepid” support of Jacko in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/corey-feldman-elijah-wood-hollywood-897403

            Let me ask you about Michael Jackson. These kinds of allegations followed him to his death. You guys were very close. Where do you stand on the matter now?

            “It’s in my book. Nothing is going to change on that because there is no new evidence. The man is gone. Let him rest in peace.”

            For anyone who has not read your book, please restate what you experienced with Michael Jackson?

            “I would prefer they read my book. But he was a friend and our relationship did not end well. We had a falling out and that was due to the fact that there was definitely a dark side to him. But that dark side in no way connected itself to pedophilia by my estimation.”

            He was never inappropriate with you and you don’t think he was inappropriate with other boys?

            “Not to my knowledge.”

            According to articles about his book, which I am loathed to read, he is adamant within it that Jacko never touched him or behaved around him inappropriately (sans the venereal disease book and the allegedly asking to bring porn to a sleepover).

          • Andreas

            If there was a another reasonable explanation of the supposed ‘fall out’, that would actually make Jackson want to sue Corey for writing a book afraid of what would be written, I’d might lower my suspicion, at least a notch or two. My fantasy just doesn’t stretch far enough to imagine what that possibly could be. Besides, Corey’s not exactly known for someone open about who or what he’s talking about when it comes to these matters, so no, I don’t take his words literally. His comment about Neverland not being a place for children I think speaks for itself.

            Plus, I don’t really think of Corey as a d-lister or a “has been”. After being a child star in huge movies he simply by artistic choice wanted to a lot of independent horror movies and/or artsy stuff thats not the popcorn mainstream stuff. He probably has enough money to pick and choose. More power to him, if you ask me.

          • Pea

            LOL, you should really consider getting into PR work. 🙂

            Corey Feldman actually epitomizes the D-list — “D” standing for dehydration, as in so damned thirsty for the attention they no longer receive. A child star who never got much work when he became an adult, so he did reality TV shows. And, by the way, doing “indie horror” is never anyone’s “first choice” — it’s their last choice, or the choice when there are no choices; doing straight-to-DVD flicks (that invariably end up in a 3-for-$5 bargain bin at a drugstore) is like a USDA Grade A “Has Been” Stamp of Approval.

            Celebrities are stratified here in America. Corey Feldman is at the very bottom, and he acts the part, too. I’m not being mean to him; he knows what he is.

            And just for shits and giggles, I’m going to go ahead and check out Corey’s book. Obviously I’m not going to read the whole thing — I’m no masochist — but I’ll withhold further judgment on your “He really was molested by Jacko” theory for now….

          • Mahoney

            He’s talented too, or was.

            I feel sorry for him actually, another victim of fame. He was a fantastic child actor with a string of really strong performances under his belt, he’s awesome in Stand By Me, Gremlins, Lost Boys and of course The Goonies.

            Which also has an MJ connection…

          • Pea

            LOL. Gavin insinuated at the Grand Jury that that letter, “You have to be really honest in your heart…”, had something to do with masturbation — or, I should say, he linked the two (it was quite strange and I had trouble following his logic). That entire letter is photographed in Aphrodite Jones’s book, and it has nothing to do with masturbation; it was just a friendly note. If Sneddon thought it was “kinky”…. :/

            While I’m a believer in “the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence,” the “love letters” story started in a UK tabloid and was repeated erroneously by Our Gal Diane Dimond. The cops never found them, and the only claimant is Janet, who is a proven liar and sociopath…. hard to believe they ever existed. Just saying.

          • Andreas

            Hehe, no no.. Gavin wasn’t connecting the letter with masturbation in that sense. I think I understand what he was trying to say was that with that line, although I get why its confusing.

            “You have to be really honest in your heart…”, well, Jackson said something similiar to that when he was asking Gavin about masturbation for the first time. Gavin said Jackson asked him about masturbating and got upset when Gavin said he didn’t do it, because he didn’t think Gavin told the truth. Gavin said Michael acted like Gavin had done something mean to him. (Like he wasn’t being “honest in his heart”, perhaps.)

            Here’s where he says it:
            http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/john-doe-part-1?page=70

            I think Gavin somehow just connected it. He didn’t say the letter itself was about masturbation, just that exact line where Michael said this reminded him of when Michael asked him about masturbating.

            Here’s the letter:
            “You have to really be honest in your
 heart that I am your dad and will take care good care of you, Dad. I want you to have a great time in Florida. I’m very happy to be your daddy. Blanket, Prince and Paris are your brothers and
 sisters. Love, Dad.”

            This letter was given to Gavin in Miami(in Florida) at the very start when they were supposedly going to have a press conference there, meaning around 6th of February, 2003. The alleged molestations didn’t happen before in March, so it was some time before. If the letter in it self is “kinky”, I’m not sure, when pedophiles go into this daddy/son-roleplaying modus its so weird, but I do think its more than just a friendly note.

            The reason Michael sounds so protective in the letter is because Michael and his goons bluffed the Arvizos about killers wanting to get Gavin, just so they could get them to Neverland under their control. Michael got the family to believe he was going to protect and take care of Gavin, but obviously there was no killers.

            I disagree that Janet Arvizo is a sociopath. As far as I’ve ‘researched’ I can’t find anything she told in her testimonies to be factually wrong, or proven to be direct lies. All of her dates seems to check out, and all of the people thats supposed to be ‘here and there’ in the story, seems to have been there. The conspiracy story checks out basically. As far I can tell, anyway. I actually believe her in the JC Penney case too. Shocker, huh? I still believe she’s probably was a welfare fraud though. With this case however, I tend to believe her for the most part.

          • That letter is a huge red flag, unless the intention was to keep Gavin on-side in any subsequent publicity battle. I don’t understand why MJ would want to be Gavin’s “Dad”, it’s so over the top.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Considering the over-the-top effusive letters the Arvizo family sent MJ (and others…sheesh!) — saying “I love you”, “I miss you”, “We’re family”, when they didn’t know him at all — during the long stretch of time he had zero contact with them, MJ’s letter isn’t bad by any means. Delusional, perhaps, but that would only be if you believed MJ really wanted to be a father figure to Gavin. I suspect, given the surrounding facts leading up to this letter and subsequently following, that MJ was just trying to be nice. He did mention his three children, as well.

            And Janet Arvizo is a sociopath, LOL. It can’t be that everyone is making up lies about her repeated pattern of manipulative and/or suspicious behavior, and she’s telling the truth. Occam’s Razor, as they say.

            BTW, have you heard about Star Arvizo’s impending assault charge? He beat up his girlfriend, and was intoxicated. Great guy. Definitely not the result of having two psychotic parents!! :-/

          • Andreas

            I dare to say, Shawntay, when the moment you realize that the reason for the “fall out” between Gavin and Michael in 2001 wasn’t because of Jackson’s sudden loss of interest in boy he was obviously crazy about at one point (gee, calling Gavin an angel, an inspiration, even saying he was “representing the light we see before we die, that hope that comes” and so on) contrary to what you seem to believe, but was because of.. ::drumroll:: Janet Arvizo actually stopping the intensifying relationship, as it made her uneasy, by her own words, and thus making Jackson dead scared, then the whole 2005 case suddenly will make a little bit too much sense to comprehend.

            Much can been said about Janet, but she ain’t no June Chandler. She wouldn’t turn away. She sensed something was wrong, and stopped it before it developed.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I dare to say, Shawntay, when the moment you realize that the reason for the “fall out” between Gavin and Michael in 2001 wasn’t because of Jackson’s sudden loss of interest in boy he was obviously crazy about at one point … but was because of.. ::drumroll:: Janet Arvizo actually stopping the intensifying relationship, as it made her uneasy, by her own words, and thus making Jackson dead scared

            LMAO! No, that is not what the testimony suggests… at all. Firstly, according to Gavin, most of these early visits — many of which MJ was not present, and on at least one occasion, MJ lied and said he wasn’t present at the Ranch when he was because he didn’t want to spend time with Gavin — Janet was not even there, David was. So how would she have any real impression, as she claimed, of any problematic relationship between Gavin and MJ? Makes no sense.

            Secondly, if we are to believe Saint Janet put a stop to a dangerous, intensifying relationship, who told Gavin and the rest of the family to send MJ those letters? Letters that gave not only no indication that they thought MJ was a danger to be around, but also demonstrated the family were acutely interested in becoming close to MJ again?

            Given that, how is it logical to believe that Janet was “no June Chandler” who put a stop to an obviously coveted relationship between her child/family and a celebrity? So, I wouldn’t be “drum rolling” using Janet Arvizo’s words, if I were you. She’s clearly full of the smelly brown stuff, LOL.

          • Andreas

            It actually is what the testimonies suggest, Shawntay. In the beginning while David Arvzo was in the family Michael was calling Gavin all the time, for hours and hours. He even gave Gavin, an 11 year old boy with cancer a Ford Bronco. Take second and google a picture of a Ford Bronco to appreciate how absurd that is. He also sprinkled him in gifts for his birthday and christmas in the end of 2000. If you don’t believe Janet, its also testified by Louise Palanker. Palanker visited Gavin at christmas and Michael had been really excessive with the gifts, like giving him a Playstation 2 with loads of games, and an expensive Apple laptop. Michael also sent very mushy letters to Gavin. Correct, Janet was only at Neverland one single time when Michael was there, in the very beginning, and that is he time when the first sleepover happened. This is the time Star and Gavin reported that Michael showed them nude women on the internet and said “got milk?”.

            Janet reported that after that visit and first sleepover Michael started calling even more, almost every single day now, and for hours at a time. She felt alarmed by several things, because Gavin said Michael told him all his favorite things(colors, etc) was exactly the same, which sounded suspicious to her (the reason Gavin was given a Ford Bronco by the way was because Michael had questioned him about his favorite car). She also found it odd because unlike the other celebrities that visited talked to all the children of the family, as they all suffered because of Gavin’s lethal cancer, but Michael seemed to only want to talk to Gavin, and as privately as possible, for long long periods. Yes, it was intensifying.

            How Janet put a stop to it? Easy, she just limited more and more of the phone calls, broke them off early, and didn’t let Gavin go as much to Neverland, because Michael was inviting him over all the time at that point, begging him to come. (This is all in her testimonies, more in detail in the grand jury one though) This was also within the period when David Arvizo was removed from the family, making Janet do the decisions from now on. Michael definitely had an easier time with David. Its true that Janet never visited Neverland after that initial time, (save one time on a day trip for Chris Tucker’s son’s birthday at Neverland, I think, but Michael wasn’t there so it probably doesn’t count.) To me however this says, contrary to what Tom Meserau desperately wanted to portray, she had no need to “adopt” Michael Jackson into the family. Really, she was a bit uneasy about Michael all the time, and rightly so. (The daddy/son stuff was between Gavin and Michael, not Star or Davellin.)

            Michael on his side understood the mother was on to him, and judging by how most people describe Janet she probably wasn’t too subtle, so he broke contact scared and ‘heartbroken’ over Gavin, and even though Gavin visited Neverland a few times more, it slowed down and stopped eventually. Michael once hid from Gavin when he was there, making Gavin confused, but to me that only indicates Michael’s panic, and not his “disinterest” or whatever(you’re not usually hiding from people you’re disinterested in, right?). Michael simply knew he had to stay away, because he sensed (perhaps correctly) Janet wasn’t really stable, and wasn’t controllable as some of the other mothers of other boys he had groomed before. Janet let Gavin and Star send some letters to Michael yes, because Gavin was very fond of Michael, (she didn’t stop things completely, just limiting their interaction) but she didn’t direct those letters, nor did she send any herself to him.

            Its apparant that Gavin never really understood why his best friend Michael suddenly broke contact with him. Even when he was testifying in 2005, he still had no clue. It probably did break his 11 year old heart, just as he said, because it went from a LOT of attention to awkward silence quite abruptly, and right in the middle of his chemotherapy, and to Gavin it made no sense. I actually think most things indicate Michael really liked Gavin, in all kinds of way, but he just understood Janet was in the way. He couldn’t risk it, so he had to let Gavin go, even though I suspect it wasn’t easy as I think he still had a lot of feelings for Gavin.

            Fast forward to 2003. When Michael called Gavin after the Bashir scandal, and wanted Gavin over for the non-existent press conference, Gavin actually mentions how annoyed Michael seemed when Gavin suggested that his mother had to come with him. When they were taking a plane to Neverland after no press conference happened in Miami, Michael absurdly started to groom Gavin again just from the get-go. I personally still can’t fathom why Michael would do that, and at a time like that, it seems bizarre, but I’m starting to wonder if thats just how he was. When little boys he liked was around his seduction motors turned on by himself, making him a danger both to himself, as well as the boys. He gave Gavin a Jacko-jacket with glitter on the back and a 75.000$ watch even before they had landed in Neverland. These actions speaks for themselves, I think. These two objects were given to the police. So, yep, they surely existed.

            This also explains the whole conspiracy theory. They knew that Janet talking to the media could destroy Michael’s repuation, so they had to get them away.

          • Neely

            It doesn’t seem like Michael would break contact “scared and broken hearted” if he was getting busy putting Pellicano on her tail. That sounds aggressive and suspicious more than broken hearted.

            I actually do find the conspiracy theory somewhat believable. I do believe the Jackson camp sprung into action to keep her/them quiet and loosely controlled for a period of time…..until they had a solid PR plan in place at least. Janet seemed to feel like the threat was much bigger than it actually was, and this was proven by her comings and goings and multiple opportunities to report, yet failing to do so. It’s completely conceivable in my mind that there was some coercion and maybe very limited restraint in the air. I have a hard time swallowing the idea that she was physically restrained and in fear of her and her kids’ safety or life. So many missed opportunities to report.

          • Andreas

            It doesn’t seem like Michael would break contact “scared and broken hearted” if he was getting busy putting Pellicano on her tail. That sounds aggressive and suspicious more than broken hearted.

            Oh.. when Michael broke contact with Gavin we’re talking early 2001. He didn’t send anyone after her back then. He just broke contact with Gavin. The whole alleged conspiracy didn’t happen until after the Martin Bashir documentary had aired, when the whole world saw him with Gavin you know, meaning 3rd of February 2003. So it was two years later.

            It wasn’t Anthony Pellicano this time around. He wasn’t working for Jackson anymore in 2003. The co-conspirators was 5 people: Two germans Dieter Wiesner and Ronald Konitzer, who both previously had worked PR work and marketing abroad for Jackson, they were replaced by Vinnie Amen and Frank Tyson(aka Frank Cascio). Mark Schaffel was also involved.

            I sympathize with your view otherwise, Neely. That was my exact hunch for quite while too. That something indeed happened, as it made sense that the PR team of Jackson was under a lot of pressure and stress to damage controlling the bad effects of the Bashir documentary quicky, and they at best just got bit agitated at her for not cooperating, and I reckoned that Janet perhaps either exagerrated things or she was perhaps just experiencing it as worse than it was. A symptom of battered women(Janet was domestically abused since she was 16 by her husband, and perhaps physically abused by her father before that) is that they get paranoid and imagine dangers when there isn’t any. So it made sense in way to think so. To me it did.

            But I’m not of that opinion anymore. At all. Unfortunately. I do think its exactly as bad as she described it, or at least close. Perhaps even worse. I still find it surprising and a bit unbelievable that they would need to treat her and the family like that, but it seems to be the case. Its almost so bad I’m wondering if they contemplated bringing the whole family down to Brazil and kill them off…. although I sincerely hope it wasn’t that bad. They were buying them one-way tickets though.

          • Pea

            I’m shocked at what you’re saying here, Andreas! Certainly, in reality, you must think it’s more likely, at least as a comparison, that Janet Arvizo could have “exaggerated” her impressions due to her mental illness versus Michael Jackson wanting to “kill” anyone, least of all a kid who was put in the Bashir documentary through Jacko’s request? When has Jacko ever demonstrated that he was violent or capable of violence?, especially to that extent. Come on…. The idea is just silly! :p

          • Andreas

            Maybe its silly, you’re free to think so, but there’s a tiny tiny tiny issue with the whole thing, the little crazy woman’s story against all odds actually checks out. You see, thats what happened when she brought finally told her story to Larry Feldman and the police too, they thought her story was too bizarre, and as Zonen put it “plus, she presents it in a bizarre way… but it all seemed to be true!”. What is Ron Zonen referring to? Okay, lets see:

            The police found the Arvizos passes and visas at Bradley Millers office, George Erwin from Dino’s Moving and Storage testified Jackson’s people had moved everything from their apartment to their storages, Janet’s landlord-lady admitted she had papers signed by Janet that the apartment was resigned, Jacksons people had paid off the rents(Janet was a month behind on the payments), Janet claimed they had forged her signature in Miami so they were signing stuff in her name, Cynthia C. Montgomery came from a flight travel bureau and said Frank Tyson had tried to buy one-way tickets to Brazil(but this company didn’t sell one-way tickets, so the deal fell flat).. and besides that there was found a lot of video footage of surveillance of the family after they had escaped Neverland the last time, just as as supposed paranoid Janet claimed. People were watching her, stalking them, following them.

            Everything checks out! Odd, huh? Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction.

            Now, but surely, SURELY, this still is crazy talk, Andreas. There must be some reasonable explanation, right? Lets at least hear both sides of the story before drastic conclusions! Well, as you know Frank Tyson/Cascio was never put on stand so we never got his side of the story. Who knows? Perhaps there really was a good reason why he was buying tickets for them to Brazil and resigning them from their apartment without them knowing. Perhaps Janet is just twisting it to something more negative than it was? There’s always another side of the story! Cheers for not seeing things in black and white! Well, good news, in his book “My Friend Michael” he actually has a chapter where he talks about things surrounding the 2005 trial, involving the Brazil thing. Goodie! Now we can finally get an answer what the heck they were doing! Lets dig in to hear the other side, and not just crazy looney Janet’s version of the events!

            Quote from the book:
            The press was even reporting that I’d attempted to kidnap the Arvizos and take them to Brazil, possibly to make them “disappear.” That would have made for a great movie.

            Ummmm, and thats its. Thats all he has to say about that. If that doesn’t give you the chills, I don’t know what possibly would. 🙁

            To top off the creepy factor to the whole thing, they were making a fake travel document about the family going to a vacation in France, at the same time. Whats up with that, Frank? Why send them to Brazil on a one-way-ticket, a place known for being able to hire hitmen, a place with a language they didn’t speak, and make a cover-story about them going on vacation to France, completly erasing their apartment, putting everything they owned away in a storage, taking the kids out of school… sort of like, well, hate to say it, almost like ERASING their identities and every trace of them. So, yes, as much as I feel sad saying it, they probably were trying to make them “disappear” in some kind of way.

            When has Jacko ever demonstrated that he was violent or capable of violence, especially to that extent?

            Good point. Good question. For sure. No, I don’t think of Michael Jackson as a man capable of that either. I’m sort of lost for good answers… kind of left with speculation what was going on.

            Its still a question to me how these guys were working, how the machinery functioned within that group, and most of all what role Michael Jackson had in it. I have a lot of questions myself, but I personally think Jackson more or less left it to them to handle things, after of course paying them an awful lot. (Tyson was found to have been paid a million dollar for his work.) Thats what it seems anyway, although he might have gotten reports of their progress or something like that. He could have a minor role I suppose. He did the same thing with Pellicano in the 90s. I get the impression Pellicano after being hired, sort of did things his own way without Jackson interfering much how things are done. I think Jackson’s method was just buying the best he could find, paid them enough for their full complete loyalty, and expected them to do their ‘best work’ protecting him.

            Zonen suggested the reason they weren’t sent to Brazil was because MJ was growing too fond of Gavin. I really don’t know anymore. There’s still a few loose threads. Its such a crazy story so I can’t blame anyone for denying it, and just blaming it on Janet being delusional or what have you, but if its true, then it is.

          • Pea

            Well, that was an entertaining read! 🙂 In thinking about what you wrote, I just wonder how one should resolve your theory about Jacko’s “people” trying their hardest to “erase” the Arvizos, even “kill” them, with (a) why would they need to do that? and (b) Jacko suddenly deciding to molest Gavin at the 11th hour?

            With respect to (a), can you please provide some kind of basis for why Gavin’s appearance in the Bashir documentary, which was given a darker context by Bashir, would ever necessitate any of the Arvizos needing to be “killed”?

            “If that doesn’t give you the chills, I don’t know what possibly would.”

            No, that passage doesn’t give me chills. While I was disappointed in Frank Cascio’s lack of a real discussion of the case in his book, and I do believe it may indicate that the team’s overall handling of the family was “overzealous”, it’s more interesting to me that Sneddon & Co. decided to keep those guys uncharged if, as you say, a potential “offing” was in the works. Wasn’t that dropping the ball on their parts — going after a weird-looking, deeply-in-debt faded pop star for something like child molestation instead of a group of shady men whose alleged dealings affected the family directly?

            If that’s the case, then isn’t it very likely the Prosecution, in spite of their showmanship at trial, simply did not believe Janet’s claims? Zonen seemed to shush her when she said that Jacko, et al., were the real “killers”!

            As for (b), it’s a legitimate question that has yet to be answered satisfactorily. In order to believe what you’re saying, one would have to believe that someone thought the Bashir situation was so dire and the family was such a liability (again, why? what did they really do?) that killing them or marooning them in Brazil forever were the only viable options. And if it was ever that serious, why would Michael Jackson go on to molest the boy his people were essentially trying to protect him from by offing he and his family? To me, those things are incompatible.

            It appears to me the simplest explanation is that this “crazy story” is crazy because it’s from a crazy mind (Janet’s) which had a history of manufacturing victimhood; it seems to me that they were going to be sent away to Brazil because Jacko’s people wanted them away from the press. It was “one-way” because they didn’t know how quickly the storm would blow over. It wasn’t sinister, and the kids enjoyed running a riot at Jacko’s home.

            And, by the way, Zonen suggesting that the Brazil trip was canceled because Jacko suddenly took some deeper interest in Gavin is really convenient… well, if you want to separate it from Gavin’s claim, it very strongly suggests the trip wasn’t as Janet described it.

          • Andreas

            With respect to (a), can you please provide some kind of basis for why Gavin’s appearance in the Bashir documentary, which was given a darker context by Bashir, would ever necessitate any of the Arvizos needing to be “killed”?

            Okay, lets say killed OR kept in Brazil for a long long time, as I suppose it could be either. (Its the masquerading it to a trip to France that makes me wonder if they tried to kill them, besides Janets own words, as she said they never gave her any details about where they were going to live, etc, and they got angry at her when she asked. Sound mysterious.) Yes, indeed, why. Thats sort of the big question in the air.

            Well, first off, to be clear, the way I’m thinking about it is that its proven that they were sending them to Brazil, its mentioned by several of the witnesses, and as I said, a flight travelling company confirmed Frank Tyson tried to buy tickets. No debate. So its not a if, its a why.

            But why exactly they would need to do that isn’t science, nor what they were planning for them there. I don’t know. I’ve sort of been looking for any kind of reason, because not even by the Arvizos claim, had Gavin yet been molested. The only one that has any explanation is Janet, besides the kids, who by the way corraborate what she says, so if you’re not going to believe her I’m not sure who to turn to. Frank Tyson, as you read in his book, just denies it like its a joke. (“Would have been a great movie”) So no help from him. And Jackson plead the fifth on the conspiracy charge just likt the molestation charge.

            I don’t think its because of Gavin though. Most things seems to point that its Janet they were scared of, and by their actions VERY scated. And thats part of the reason why I think she’s telling the truth when it comes to her holding Gavin away from Jackson in early 2001, and David telling Michael about her skepticism towards him. Even if you don’t believe her story, you have to admit it at least makes sense to target her. If she knew too much, it gives a reason to get her away.

            The thing is, most people were wondering about the true relationship between Gavin and Michael after the Bashir documentary, and my hunch is Jackson panicked and was afraid the media would get to Janet or Gavin. Thats why the story of someone out to kill Gavin was made.. It was just to scaremonger them to their control obviously. Desperate times deserves desperate measures, and so on. Jackson’s whole legacy and imperium was on the line. Would it be impossible they saw sacrificing a nobody mexican poor family to keep Jackson clean a necessary evil? Hm.

            It appears to me the simplest explanation is that this “crazy story” is crazy because it’s from a crazy mind (Janet’s) which had a history of manufacturing victimhood; it seems to me that they were going to be sent away to Brazil because Jacko’s people wanted them away from the press. It was “one-way” because they didn’t know how quickly the storm would blow over. It wasn’t sinister, and the kids enjoyed running a riot at Jacko’s home.

            Okay, but Ann Marie Kite said she was very worried about the family, and from the way they talked about her. Mark Schaffel had supposedly been refering to her as a “crackwhore”, and stupid woman, just like Janet said they did. Kite also said Schaffel wanted her to be in make up and lipstick to make her look like a whore in the rebuttal tape. (As she weared in the rebuttal tape, according to both her and the kids, she never really wore make up usually.)

            And Jesus Salas also said he was very worried about the family, and thats why he helped them escape. He had to do it after midnight, because the guards had been told they weren’t allowed to let them go. (Jesus Salas wasn’t anyone in Neverland either, he had as I understand it worked there since before Jackson moved in there, meaning he even worked for the previous owners too.)

            So as you see, its not just “crazy Janet”. Janet, to some extent at least, told the truth. So when there’s some basis for her of her crazy story, why not at least consider the rest of her story as she tells it straightforward?

            And if it was ever that serious, why would Michael Jackson go on to molest the boy his people were essentially trying to protect him from by offing he and his family? To me, those things are incompatible.

            Yeah, they sort of do, or at least its two very odd things going on at the same time. To help your argument out even more: Its probably strange that I think Michael Jackson had a crush on Gavin, and at the same time wanted to kill him off.

            I suppose one way to explain it would be that I don’t think Jackson was the main guy pulling the strings with the conspiracy, as much as the molestation. I think Frank Tyson was controlling the conspiracy more than Jackson. Here’s a new theory: Frank had his own steak in this. Because he probably was molested himself as a kid, by Jackson, and didn’t want that revealed, and didn’t want Jackson to be outed as a pedophile for his own reasons as well. Plus, he was very loyal to Jackson and was working for him.

            You might argue that Michael hadn’t really molested Gavin yet, and thats true, but I’m not sure Frank actually knew that. Perhaps he presumed he had, because he knew Jackson’s hang to little boys.

            Why the co-conspirators weren’t charged. As I understand it the scope of the trial was already way too big, so Sneddon and Zonen sort of decided they would take care of them in a second trial after he had gotten Jackson guilty. So yeah, these guys were in line basically biting their nails for 5 months throught Jackson’s trial. This is confirmed by Frank Cascio in his book too.

            And Tom Mesereau I think just didn’t want to defend them, because I think he figured it was wiser to seperate their potential misdeed from his client as much as possible. I think he wanted to prove Jackson had nothing to do with whatever they were doing. You can sense this, becuae he’s objecting very often as “vauge” everytime a witness mentions “they” in conspirators, and he also says it sometimes. But at the same time he also were criticizing the conspiracy story, when he saw a possibility, so he was shooting from two different guns I suppose, Which ever worked, I suppose. I’m not sure if it was a good move or not by the prosecution not involving them. Thats how they chose to do it anyway.

          • ShawntayUStay

            With respect to the Brazil trip (which all the kids knew was to Brazil; Janet claims France? What?), the most likely explanation is the one Pea gave: the trip was a vacation that would extend the length of time it took for the Bashir brouhaha to blow over. According to Azja Pryor, Janet was excited for this trip; Davellin, according to Simone Jackson and like her siblings, preferred to stay at NL — because they liked Neverland. The most likely explanation was a simple vacation away from the media’s prying eyes and pocketbooks.

            But can you blame MJ’s camp? From their vantage point, many have sold stories to tabloids saying all kinds of things about Michael Jackson, and this could’ve been really bad considering all that was being alleged in the media with them saying look at his pattern, he has another boy, etc etc. MJ hadn’t done anything to Gavin nor had he talked to this family in a long, long time (Gavin’s words, btw).

            It was just an attempt at “containing” the problem, not trying to “kill” anyone or drop them off in the middle of nowhere. Do you think that would even be a smart thing to do? Leaving them in Brazil indefinitely, where the family could easily contact authorities there and it would be an even bigger problem for the Jackson camp? Oh, I guess you think this is why they planned to kill them? LMAO! So would Camp Jackson also have to then kill the entire Arvizo extended family because they would surely come looking for Janet and the kids! Then it would turn into a missing persons case, with investigators wanting to know who was the last people seen with the family, and they’d look at MJ and Schaffel and Frank Cascio and the Germans — it would be a huge thing, way huger than the Bashir doc fallout! It would be a murder investigation bigger than OJ Simpson! LOL

            So let’s use a bit of common sense, reason, and Occam’s Razor. Janet’s crazy-ass story of “killers”, which she implicated MJ as being a “killer”, is just that: crazy, nonsensical, and untrue.

            Parsimoniously, the reality was likely that they wanted to get the family on tape as a sort of “insurance policy” in the event they would have to defend MJ against BS allegations. Sure, they were probably heavy handed and scared the mentally ill Janet Arvizo (if she’s even telling the truth about being scared, but for argument’s sake…), but they never scared the kids, did they? And they didn’t scare the prosecution, who felt no urge to go after the main people implicated by Janet Arvizo. Why? Because the prosecution wanted to make sure they controlled the narrative about Janet Arvizo; they wanted to stay on the offensive because she was a liability but they realized that without her cockamamie story of imprisonment, they had no means or opportunity for MJ to molest Gavin. Hell, in the beginning MJ was only charged with alcohol and molestation; kidnapping and conspiracy hadn’t even been considered! But the prosecution knew their case was paper thin and they’d be forced to use conjecture, innuendo and child molester behavior “probabilities” to prove MJ would molest this boy in the midst of everyone thinking he molested him. They would’ve been laughed out of court, and rightly so…because it makes no sense.

            But by limiting outside voices — namely the co-conspirators — that could testify to an alternate narrative of Janet Arvizo, they could feel they even had a shot at winning(?) this case. Indicting the others (who “did” essentially everything, according to the family) would open up a can of worms and would force the DAs to defend a pretty indefensible woman. Luckily, they knew Tom Mesereau wouldn’t call the co-conspirators as witnesses because the strategy was to distance MJ from everyone else’s actions. So basically the prosecution didn’t care too much about Janet’s story of woe; as Mez astutely pointed out, the order in which they called their witnesses — the kids first, everyone else including the 1108 witnesses second, and Janet last — indicated that they realized she was a threat to their case and they hope the 1108 portion would buttress the guaranteed fuck-ups Janet Arvizo’s testimony would deliver (of course the 1108 witnesses were fuck-ups too, for the most part). The order indicated that they only had her testifying because they had no other choice. It’s all pretty amusing, actually…..

            BTW, Janet didn’t look like a crackwhore in the rebuttal. She only had on lipstick and mascara. In any event, if MJ’s people talked about her, so what? They didn’t want her going after big bucks in some UK tabloid; it would be an insurance policy to make her “look” incredible, if it came to that. How does it indicate they wanted to “off” the family? It doesn’t.

            Its probably strange that I think Michael Jackson had a crush on Gavin, and at the same time wanted to kill him off.

            You don’t really believe that, do you? Yes, after everything, MJ allegedly hated Gavin, but who could blame an innocent man for hating a kid that had no problem lying on him? The mother is a sociopath and would do anything to anyone for material gain; she taught her kids to lie on innocent security guards just to get back at them for catching her family stealing, and of course to get a settlement. She accused her husband of molesting Davellin when that shit is false and the girl not only can’t remember it but doesn’t even think her dad would ever do it. She committed welfare fraud. (Look at Star Arvizo beating up his girlfriend in late 2015! Bad examples, I tell you.)

          • Neely

            With respect to the last paragraph – didn’t davellin even say she didn’t know her dad molested her until her mom told her? Wowza!

          • Andreas

            Vacation? What the heck… Are you serious? 🙂 While surveilling the family with videotapes, stalking them and resigning their apartment for them without them knowing? And taking all their furniture and belongings, and storing them away? No, you are not in tune with the facts surround the case Shawntay. I hope you don’t really mean this. I’m sort of chuckling here.

            Okay then. If it was just a vacation, wouldn’t it make sense they’d let them have the apartment, pay for it for X amount of months/weeks (it would be pocket money for Jackson to just pay for a few months, or even a year) and give them a rough estimate when they could come back or where they would be staying. They didn’t though. They forged papers for them to resign the apartment, yet Janet had no clue they did. (She said they were not allowed to go back to their apartment because Gavin’s killers was there, but instead they were there removing everything and putting everything in a storage.)

            No no, Janet never claimed France. Neither her nor the kids had even heard of that (to my knowledge). The police just found papers at Bradley Millers office, that said something about a vacation to France instead at the same date, so one of the co-conspirators seem to have made that, which you have to admit is odd. Why? It would seem like they tried to mask the trip to France with the real trip was to Brazil, and thats why I wonder if something really bad was going on, and if Janet really was actually telling the truth all the way. Like in, “what if the family just got “lost” on a vacation to France”? (But I’ll admit I’m guessing, to be fair. I hope they weren’t doing that.)

            You have to admit though whatever Jackson’s camp were doing, its extremely bizarre though, and makes little sense. Actually far less sense in your version of these events(actually zero sense). They took the kids out of school for a month(I’m not positive, but I think they even resigned them from their school, claiming they were transfered), and didn’t seem to care about that. Even if you don’t believe any word coming from Janet’s mouth, that alone is enough to prove they put Jackson’s PR campaign before their lives and education. Surely? At minimum?

            No, I don’t think it was a good idea by the Jackson camp to send them to Brazil. It wouldn’t be a good idea to kill them or keep them down there forever no, but they DID intend to send them down to Brazil and that at least shows some kind of desperation to have complete control them. Again, at minimum.

            For whatever reason, right? Its the “why” thats the question. We can dispute the reason. If you really think Jackson never had showed any sign of being interested in Gavin, or Janet simply lied about most things like the letters and so on, you need to think of an alternative explanation for these ridiculously extreme actions against the family.

            Perhaps you think the killing part is over-the-top, fair enough, but if you’re honest, you don’t know for sure what was going on either really, do you? Good, because neither do I. Can we at least agree that these people were doing really really weird things, and in need of some explanation? Like, why did they takeover and resign their apartment? Why hire people to stalk them when they finally got out of Neverland? To me it sounds like something sinister was going on, and not on par with your sweet little vacation-theory… but if you really think there’s a nicer and reasonable explanation, please share your thoughts.

            I’m not blaming you for being in disbelief though, Shawntay. You do however seem to somewhat agree with me that Mesereau didn’t want them as witnesses because he wanted to seperate them from Jackson, which must say something to you? He didn’t want to defend these things. They weren’t really defendable.

            About Pryor, Janet was very confused about the trip. Yes, she had told Azya she had to come visit, and allegedly Michael had said he would come visit Gavin too, but there’s reportings from a LOT of people that she didn’t want to go too. Plus, the kids didn’t want to go either, if that matters. Since the apartment was resigned it does sound like they were going to keep them down there a couple of months at minimum, but most likely a lot longer. It makes perfect sense they didn’t want to go too. Janets parents and boyfriend weren’t in Brazil, but in LA, they didn’t speak portuguise, meaning schooling would be difficult, besides, they didn’t really have anything to do there, didn’t know anybody there, and there is little info what was planned down there, where they were going to live, etc. Are you really saying its logical Janet would love to move to Brazil under these circumstances? You’d have to be nuts to claim that.

            For whatever reason it didn’t happen. They didn’t go Brazil. The plan was abondoned. Either because they couldn’t find a travelling company who sold one-way tickets, or something else. Supposedly they were meant to go to Brazil 28th of February, but instead they were kept in Neverland until the 12th of March. Janet wasn’t running around the ranch having fun though. Nobody saw that. Jesus Salas tesfied like she said, she was inside the guest unit all the time she was there. Sort of supporting the claim she didn’t want to be there, right? Janet’s claim is she finally said her grandparents were sick and wanted to see the kids, so Jackson’s people sort of had to let them go, but evidence showed they didn’t do it lightheartedly as they were videotaping them, stalking them, knocking at their doors, all the time after that when they moved back into Jay’s apartment.

            Skeptical of the last part? Well, Mark Gregaros admitted it in court. He said he had hired people to know what they were doing at all times for them. He said the government is doing stuff like that sometimes, making it acceptable, a reasoning I by the way find.. um, creepy, orwellian and… insane.
            And the police found the surveillance tapes.

            Actually, Star said Frank Tyson had told him that if his mother didn’t do as they said(probably referring to the rebuttal tapes at this point), they could make their grandparents disappear. So yes, he threatened him too. Although I’m sure you’ll just conventiently claim Janet simply coached him to say it, but still, for notice though.

            The reason I believe Janet is that her story seems to match the actions and papers/evidence that has shown to be true. If they didn’t, I’d say there would be grounds to be skeptical (obviously), but the police did find everything she said to be in tune with what they found. Which I’m sure surprised them too, because her story certainly is out-of-the-world in many ways. Plus, unlike her sons, who in my opinion unfair flac for not keeping dates(they were kids!), she was actually very very very good at giving the dates of everything that happened, and from my own lament research everything she says checks out exactly like she claims. If you can believe me on that. And as I said earlier, I think Jesus Salas and Ann Marie Kite proves they were being very mean and sinister to her. Its not without reason Ann Marie Kite was first witness in the whole case after Bashir.

            But still… “vacation”. Wow, I’m sort of numb here.

          • ShawntayUStay

            “Numb”; “nuts”? Absolutely not, not over my belief in the acquittal and my disbelief in the Arvizos’ tall tale! Never…until better evidence.

            I am “numb” over the idea that you really believe everything you just wrote, that you believe the most likely explanation is Janet Arvizo’s version of events! Surely you must be seeing something not even the prosecutors saw, which is why they didn’t think it necessary to charge the “killers”.

            And yes, it was a vacation of sorts, not a move to make them disappear forever. Keep the family “secured” and away from the media. Completely plausible and….That’s what happened. I also think that MJ had zero role in how the Arvizos were handled. “Do whatever it takes to make sure no media gets to them” was the exhortation. So it begs the question: why didn’t Sneddon charge the co conspirators??

            Btw, where do you fit in Star Arvizo’s obvious lies about seeing molestation? It’s not possible given the timeline. If it’s not possible, yet he claimed it, why did he lie? And how can you trust anything he says, including the accusation of death threats by Frank Cascio?

            The co conspirators’ hijinks you are suggesting do not jive with molestation. It makes no sense, and Judge Judy would say, if it doesn’t make sense it’s probably not true. Janet is a sociopathic liar with a history of doing it for personal gain. Why you believe her, God only knows! Btw, as a skilled liar, she knows how to mix fiction with fact. That’s why you think her story “checks out”, but that’s just surface similarity.

            But I guess it’s a pointless discussion insofar as I will likely never think Gavin was molested and the Arvizos were held against their will. I’m actually shocked that you believe them without seeming thought. You’re reminding me of this kid on Twitter that I argued with, @Hammertonhal. He literally believes everything MJ said, even when it makes no sense! Every interpretation is to MJ’s benefit…just like all your interpretations — to the exclusion of alternatives — benefit the Arvizos. The truth isn’t so black or white. I do think they may have over handled the situation, but I don’t think there was any intent to commit any crime, nor do I believe MJ molested this kid.

          • Andreas

            OK, first off: The co-conspirators got a deal by Sneddon to have their own case after Jackson’s. They were charged too, obviously. Its there in Cascios book even, if you doubt it. As he said it, Jacksons acquittal was his acquittal too, because that meant he was off too. If Sneddon had gotten Jackson guilty, these co-conspirators would get their trial straight up afterwards. Sneddon’s own words was something along the lines of not letting them sink down along with the Jackson ship… but then you know, things didn’t turn out like that. The jury then found Jackson “not guilty” on the acquittal, making Sneddon probably more than a bit dumbfounded.

            We sort of agree-ish on one thing though. I also do sort of wonder too how much Jackson was involved. Even in Janets version its not a lot. According to her Michael called her(after he had called Gavin), and told her about killers out to get Gavin, he could help and protect Gavin if they’d come to Miami for a press conference. In Miami Michael (according to Janet again, yes yes, I remember) she said Michael just told her to do everything Dieter Wiesner and Ronald Konitzer said, as they would put things right. Besides that, in Janets story she never had anything more to do with Michael. It was first Dieter and Ronald, and later it was Vinnie Amen and Frank Tyson. (Although Tyson seemed to have been pulling strings all the time, at least thats my sketchy theory.)

            The only thing I ever heard about Jackson connecting him to it otherwise is, again, that he supposedly told Gavin he would come visit him. So if that was true, he knew about it at least.

            Of course, you don’t believe this. Just giving their claim, your know. Thats what they said, true or not.

            “Do whatever it takes to make sure no media gets to them” was the exhortation. So it begs the question: why didn’t Sneddon charge the co conspirators??

            Nah. The real question is why they were so afraid that media gets to them, isn’t it? A question you still need a good answer to, as you seem to accept that they were trying to get them away from the media. :/

            And you don’t have to answer this at the spot. Perhaps there actually is some other explanation, who knows, you could still be right about it all, but so far, Janet is the only one we got, as Frank denies it and Michael plead the fifth(remember that he could have plead fifth only on the molestation charge, and not the conspiracy charge).

            Btw, where do you fit in Star Arvizo’s obvious lies about seeing molestation? It’s not possible given the timeline. If it’s not possible, yet he claimed it, why did he lie? And how can you trust anything he says, including the accusation of death threats by Frank Cascio?

            As I said to Neely. Gavin first molestations were 3rd and 4th of Mars, and Star saw it around 9th and 10th. I think it happened around 4-5 times. Thats what I gather anyways… 🙂

            Btw, as a skilled liar, she knows how to mix fiction with fact. That’s why you think her story “checks out”, but that’s just surface similarity.

            Well, her dates seems to be correct at least.. I think its a little bit unfair to claim I just blindly believe her though. Its not just her words alone. There’s a lot of facts, papers and witnesses supporting they took over the apartment, that she was coerced to do the rebuttal tape, they were getting sent to Brazil, taking the kids out of school and so on, and I’ve been giving an effort showing that. At least I thought I did. You have to specific about what part is a lie.

            The police believed her too, yes, so at least swallow that part, please? They charged Jackson for it after all, and they spent millions on a huge trial, and were going to charge the others in a seperate trial afterwards. They must have had some faith in what they could prove of her claims, and that they could get Jackson convicted.

          • Pea

            Do you think you can provide some links to the documents, the pages in the transcripts, news stories, books, etc., that are the sources of some of what you’re saying? I would like to know on what you’re basing some of your conclusions. I know you may be in the process of writing for this website (that was my idea, by the way!), and perhaps you don’t want to reveal “too much”, but I think it would be easier to know where you’re coming from by seeing the exact references.

            I haven’t looked closely into this case for a couple months, nor have I been able to get through as many pieces of testimony as you apparently have. I’m apprehensive about making time for it, however — it’s a bit of a time sucker!

            I just wanted to clarify something about the “unindicted co-conspirators”…. Given the portrait you’ve painted about Jacko’s people, it’s a legitimate question to ask about why the Prosecution didn’t bother charging them. I read the relevant sections of Frank Cascio’s book last night, and there is no indication from the DAs that they had any real interest in charging any of those men. That Frank said (paraphrased), “If Michael was convicted, it meant they would indict me,” doesn’t mean Sneddon was doing anything more than saber-rattling. According Frank, Joe Tacopina stated that following his conversations with the Prosecution, it was clear they had little against Frank — certainly nothing that would convict him.

            It’s very telling that Sneddon “bluffed”, saying that Frank was going to go “down with the ship” if he didn’t take immunity and turn on Jacko. Again, they were only interested in Michael Jackson, not anyone else. If you’ll recall, the conspiracy charge came later, though it’s evident by the interviews mentioned in the Statement of Probable Cause, that the DAs knew of Janet’s claims from Day 1 — they just didn’t care. They had a very set-in-stone agenda: put an alleged pedophile in jail.

            So, no, they weren’t “obviously” charged, too. Sneddon, et al., just wanted to keep those men (Frank, Vinnie, Weisner, Konitzer, and Schaffel) from testifying on Jacko’s behalf by “scaring” them away from the courtroom. The objective appears to have been that they knew Janet was a liability, and, if they could “threaten” Jacko’s people into silence, her narrative would be the only one the jury would hear. They couldn’t afford to have the very people she accused (again, not Michael himself!) come on the stand and contradict her perceptions. (We saw how the stories of the 1108 witnesses fared when Mez brought Wade, Brett, and Mac on the stand.) They knew those sophisticated and worldly men would outperform her. For the Prosecution, it was about spinning the right story to the jury, and they’d tangle the yarn.

            It’s really that simple, from my perspective, and it’s very disappointing — this whole discussion might be very different had they testified. I think that even rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct, although I know it’s very commonplace out here in the States because justice officials make more deals than they actually go to trial….

            Anyway, but can you please give some source links, pages, citations, etc.? Like where did Jacko “plead the Fifth”? A defendant never has to testify in court, and, per Miranda, he never has to talk to the police. Thank you. 🙂

          • Andreas

            Do you think you can provide some links to the documents, the pages in the transcripts, news stories, books, etc., that are the sources of some of what you’re saying? I would like to know on what you’re basing some of your conclusions. I know you may be in the process of writing for this website (that was my idea, by the way!).

            Okay, thats quite surprising. I didn’t know it was your idea. Mjfacts contacted me a while ago if I could write something, and said I could try, and have been reading about the case and been writing on something since. (But I actually thought you and Shawntay might leave the website in protest if something like that would be posted though, so I’ve been really unsure if it really was such a good idea, I wouldn’t want to cause drama.. so I hope you can understand its surprising to me if it was your idea. Plot-twist.)

            I have sources for most things I claim. At least I claim I have. I kept notes and quotes in documents and such, and an article would contain those, as much as I could. The less filling of blanks between the dots the better, I reckon. Although as you know, people can still read into things differently based on the same evidence.

            As for your theory of Sneddon not caring about the other co-conspirators, I see what you’re saying. Now, from what I’ve read they were supposed to get a potential trial afterwards, but I don’t really remember where I read it unfortunately, but its been my impression since.

            There might be different reasons why they weren’t thrown together with Jackson in the trial, but I think one of the bigger reason is that the molestation charge was kind of the big point of interest to most people, not really the conspiracy(which almost nobody even understands the claim of anyway, is my impression) and the scope was already big. Plus, how the molestation charge and the conspiracy charge relates has always been kind of fuzzy too. Its like it must be connected, but its not obvious in what way. Nor the Arvizos or the prosecution seemed to have any clear idea.

            Its quite possible Sneddon wanted them out of the courtroom to make things easier for the prosecution to keep Janet’s story more unchallenged, like you say, but if that was the case it was more a gamble, as I personally think these people would have problems explaining themselves, so in my opinion it was a big mistake not to bring them in. I think the real error is that Sneddon & co probably thought Michael was the one pulling the strings of the whole conspiracy, and that the others was just tokens doing his strategic biddings. Perhaps they expected the connection would reveal itself in court, and show Michael indeed was behind it alll, along with the reason why he did. It never became clear however. It remained a mystery to them what was going on.

            According to Jesus Salas though, Jackson was mostly drunk, drugged and hung around with Star and Gavin within the period, so it would sort of contradict that he was the plotting mastermind behind the conspiracy at the same time.

            I personally more and more suspect it was really Frank Cascio who made the big calls, obviously making it a huge mistake not to charge him along with Jackson. I think Frank was trying to protect Michael from himself, because he knew Jackson was an unstable pedophile, and now under a lot of negative pressure too because of the effects of the documentary. I agree, I also suspect he was an earlier victim of him. Meaning he knew that side of Jackson more than anyone else.

            He had quite a self-interest in Michael not being found guilty as well, because if anything was revealed it would put his quite documented “special friend” relationship as a boy with Jackson in the spotlight too, and he had a cushy job for Michael(and still does to this day, I think), and as he writes in his book, he valued being very loyal to Jackson. I think thats why he was so scared of the Arvizos. If Jackson was grooming/molesting Gavin, and Janet the mother, as she says, did keep Gavin away from Michael in early 2001, and there really was some kind of tension there, Cascio knew Michael was in grave danger if the wrong people got hold of the Arvizos before they did, as he probably feared Janet knew too much(in reality, she was just a bit “uneasy”, as she put it.). He understood very well the media would come chase the Arvizos after the Bashir documentary was aired, so it was a rat race to get to them before the media did.

            Yes, he was probably furious at Michael for bringing Gavin to the Bashir documentary so Michael could show a cancer survivor he had helped, and probably even more so for going along with making a scene about the beauty of bedsharing with children. I think thats why he went to great measures to contain them, and I also think his resentment of Janet rubbed off on the others involved, and it obviously didn’t help when she resisted.

            Janet actually said Frank seemed like a nice guy in the beginning, while she resented Dieter and Ronald almost immediately, but she claimed Frank turned out to be the absolute worst one in the end.

            So I don’t think Cascio was a token. I think the others might have been a little bit more like tokens however. This was perhaps one of the prosecutions biggest miscalculations, when you see it like that. It wasn’t Michael, it was more likely Frank.

            Anyway, but can you please give some source links, pages, citations, etc.?

            No! I’m too tired right now. Sue me! >:(
            (Okay, maybe later..)

            Like where did Jacko “plead the Fifth”? A defendant never has to testify in court, and, per Miranda, he never has to talk to the police.

            I’m a bit confused. I thought it was common knowledge he plead the fifth in the case? Are you implying he didn’t? Yes, a defendant can refuse to testify, but in the US, I thought that was the fifth amendment? Perhaps I’m not understanding your question correctly.

            … but I always had the impression it was just in very obvious cases where the accused was found with a smoking gun, so he/she may use that right. Usually only in cases with hard evidence, when there is nothing to debate, is “the fifth” normally used. Therefore I always found it to be a possible sign of guilt that Michael plead it in 2005, because in most cases when someone is accused of something so serious they’d want to defend themselves.

            It makes sense to me at least. If I was accused of molesting a child and I actually didn’t, it would be absurd to go to trial and plead a right to not say anything, because you’d more likely want to say something to counter the claim. I’d want to get my side of the story out as much and clear as possible. To only let my false accuser talk and give his/hers version would be more like torture than, say, a “relief” not having to testify.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I’m a bit confused. I thought it was common knowledge he plead the fifth in the case? Are you implying he didn’t? Yes, a defendant can refuse to testify, but in the US, I thought that was the fifth amendment? Perhaps I’m not understanding your question correctly….Usually only in cases with hard evidence, when there is nothing to debate, is “the fifth” normally used. Therefore I always found it to be a possible sign of guilt that Michael plead it in 2005, because in most cases when someone is accused of something so serious they’d want to defend themselves.”

            Yes, you’re a tad bit confused, LOL. MJ — or any defendant in a criminal case — never can be compelled to testify as a witness in his/her own trial, nor is the prosecution ever allowed to subpoena a defendant because it violates the constitutional protection. It is a part of the 5th amendment: ” …nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment It is not seen as admitting guilt or a something to hide, as it is standard court procedure for most defendants to never say anything — because they don’t have to. (Defendants don’t even have to put up a defense, technically speaking, because the burden is on the government to prove he/she did the crime). It’s not the same as invoking the 5th during questioning on the stand like racist cop Mark Fuhrman did during the OJ case, or even when MJ plead the 5th during a deposition in the Hayvenhurst bodyguard case.

            Sure, people can argue that you should defend yourself but not every defendant has the ability to defend themselves properly … for whatever reason: ill-educated, mentally disabled, poor speaking skills, etc.
            If you have Netflix, check out “Making a Murderer”. It’s excellent, the story of an innocent man in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. Steven Avery. He was a Midwestern hearty blue collar guy, didn’t have much (intellectual) means to defend himself, and paid for it.

            And I know you may think MJ could defend himself, but I don’t think so. He knew he was a pedophile and Sneddon, I guarantee, would be more interested in grilling MJ over all the 1108 stuff than the Arvizo matter (he knew the case was a sinking ship, anyway… I know you disagree, LOL). Sneddon would have a raging, indecent power boner if he had gotten the opportunity! LMAO. But MJ, even if he was innocent of molesting Gavin, would have surely muddied the water trying to defend himself with the Jordie allegations and stuff Ralph Chacon saw, or those naked boy books etc. (Dammit, too bad he never testified!!) They may have convicted him just for that stuff, which would be unjust.

            Mjfacts contacted me a while ago if I could write something, and said I could try, and have been reading about the case and been writing on something since. (But I actually thought you and Shawntay might leave the website in protest if something like that would be posted though, so I’ve been really unsure if it really was such a good idea, I wouldn’t want to cause drama..

            Haha, you couldn’t make me leave the site over a difference of opinion. It’s not that serious to me, and I’m well aware (too aware) that MJFacts is a Arvizo supporter, LOL. Good that you’re writing a post because I’ve been woefully unconvinced by any Arvizo supporters’ rhetoric, although I’m very interested as to how/why you think the opposite of me. 🙂

          • Andreas

            Haha, you couldn’t make me leave the site over a difference of opinion. It’s not that serious to me, and I’m well aware that MJFacts is a Arvizo supporter, LOL. Good that you’re writing a post because I’ve been woefully unconvinced by any Arvizo supporters’ rhetoric, although I’m very interested as to how/why you think the opposite of me. 🙂

            Okay, thats good to know, Shawntay. I know MJfacts is fond of you guys, so I just wasn’t sure how you’d react to articles in favor of Arvizos claims. If you’d welcome dissenting opinions, or if you thought it completely would ruin the site. I just didn’t know. If Pea actually was the one who suggested it though, its quite ironic.

            because I’ve been woefully unconvinced by any Arvizo supporters’ rhetoric

            While we’re obviously polarized on the topic, its interesting to note that there’s actually very little written or published in favor of the Arvizos. Almost nothing. On this site I only think there’s a quite short article on that the Arvizos weren’t after money, but there isn’t much else.

            Otherwise, you have Diane Dimond’s book obviously, but its for whatever reason very netural(contrary to what fans claim), although you would probably come out of it by thinking she thinks he’s probably guilty of molesting Gavin still. I actually disagree with many parts of Diane’s book. She dismisses the conspiracy charge pretty much, or at least doesn’t take it very seriously, and on grounds which makes me think she wasn’t really paying attention. Its also clear she didn’t really like Janet Arvizo, even going so far as naming her one of the two best weapons of the defense(the other being Michael Jackson being Michael Jackson).

            You also have Stacy Brown and Bob Jones book, but it doesn’t dwell too much on the totality of the trial. I don’t think. I’ve only read chapters in it though, to be fair, but its focus seems to be elsewhere, is my impression.

            On the other side there’s obviously Aphrodite Jones book, and VMJ 1+2 and MJallegation websites that has written a lot about the Arvizos.

            There’s also Randall Sullivan’s book, which is an interesting outsider book of the whole thing, because while you’d think fans would love it because its defending Michael staunchly and largely focuses on the Arvizo trial(and also a bit on the Chandlers), Sullivan still come out of it by saying something like, and I’m paraphrasing here: “Jackson wasn’t a child molester nor a pedophile, I can conclude by my reseach that he wasn’t, good news, but… there’s a tiny tiny tiny dust of doubt still that he could be, I can’t deny. Hopefully its nothing!” I find it sort of funny that its not good enough for the fans, not by a mile, so the book simply gets no love… 🙂

            Um. About the 5th stuff, I sort of see what you’re saying. Perhaps I’m confused about the difference in using the 5th amendment right, and pleading the 5th. I thought that was the same thing, although I think I understand now. Either way, my point was that Jackson never commented on the conspiracy charge, not on stand and not later. My point was only that he could have refused to talk about the molestation charge, but explain what they were doing with the Arvizos, why they were at Neverland. If he chose to. Why were the Arvizos even staying there? To me it seems like there’s enough proof to say they were were going to send the Arvizos down to Brazil, and a bunch of other stuff, and the question still is why go to such lengths to contain them. I think the denial by Cascio shows it wasn’t innocent in any stretch. Janet’s story to me seems believable, even if the claim of hostility on these people’s part is much too swallow, the bulk of it makes sense in her version.

            And again, it wasn’t by any loose definition a vacation, because they were clearly going to move them there, it was a one-way-ticket, and no indication when they would be coming back. Besides, the family by most reports didn’t want to go there, breaking yet another usual normal rule of “vacation”. 🙂 At best it was a temporary move for a few months, until things had calmed down, and at worst they tried to get them to simply disappear.

            Hm. I remember reading the All That Glitters book, in the chapter where all the back & forth if there was going to be a criminal trial, or a civil trial.. that at some point Barry Rothman(if it wasn’t Feldman, but I think it was Rothman) was ecstatic, and seemed to want to pop the champagne, because Jackson’s lawyers had told him Jackson was going to plead the fifth. To him that was great news, because in his experience(and he was a lawyer) only guilty people normally plead the 5th, and in his opinion that would look terrible for Jackson’s side if a criminal case would come of out the Chandler spectacle. Since I don’t know squat about stuff like that, I always thought of it as a sign of guilt that Jackson didn’t testify. Thats where I got it from, anyway.

            But I grant, since its Jackson, and he could spent millions and millions on a defense, it could make sense to let them do the talking. I kind of get that. That alone makes it different than the run-of-the-mill child molester case. Although I still think it makes sense for an innocent man to talk in virtually any scenario I can imagine. Thats my opinion anyway. Interestingly, older news articles on the trial actually confirms that Meserau contemplated putting Jackson on stand. It was a bit back and forth, it seems. It was probably a good choice not to do it, but I don’t know if it was Mesereau’s choice, or just Michael who didn’t want to. It could be either.

            They did something smarter though, because they instead showed the Martin Bashir documantary and the rawmaterial for that, so Jackson talked for hours on that. So there was actually someone who said it was almost like he had testified, because they’d heard him talk so much on tape. That way the jury would have to sit and listen to Jackson sob over his life, and all the people backstabbing him through his life because he was so famous, and nothing could be challenged. Quite genius.

            But MJ, even if he was innocent of molesting Gavin, would have surely muddied the water trying to defend himself with the Jordie allegations and stuff Ralph Chacon saw, or those naked boy books etc. (Dammit, too bad he never testified!!) They may have convicted him just for that stuff, which would be unjust.

            Yes, It could have made a difference, and I agree it would be fun, because he wouldn’t be able to be so evasive and general in court as he normally is, he’d have to answer direct questions to specific things. I think most of those things you mention you get Jackson’s explanation filtered through Mesereau.

            The stuff Chacon, Abdool and McManus testified was countered by the defense; it was bitterness of their own trial, which they lost, and owed money to Jackson for. So the answer was obviously “greed” and “revenge”. I can almost hear Jackson explaining to Meserau that these people were spiteful, wanted money and is now just bitter and vengeful on him, as that was Jackson’s insta-explanation to everything, so Meserau simply took that with him when cross-examinating them.

            That explanation also worked, well, some people in the jury seemed to buy it anyway, at least on juror #3, Susan Drake: “And witness after witness I was more convinced of the innocence, because of the motivations of financial gain and revenge, it was just amazing the way it was laid out.”

            At least I suspect Chacon, Abdool and McManus are the one’s she refers to here. Especially them seems to fit the bill.

            The boy-books I think Jackson has explained once, didn’t he? (Paraphrasing) “Oh, fans send me stuff all the time. They know I love children. I can’t control what they send.” Of course, I’m sure the prosecution could easily argue that his writings were in these books, and besides that, hidden in a locked closet in his bedroom… So yeah, it probably would be fun if Jackson testified.

          • Neely

            Hi Andreas. I was just checking my Twitter biz, and someone posted these documents re: the Arvizos. I think they’re pretty telling, and to be clear, I’m not really trying to sway you……I don’t think. (Self observation/honesty can be elusive). 🙂

            I wondered if you’ve seen these before, and how you feel about them, or what you’d say in defense of the Arvizos after reading this? I hadn’t seen this before…..but that’s not really alarming is it? Haha.

            https://michaeljacksonvindication2.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/020405oppdamlieplidoefam.pdf

          • Andreas

            Hi Neely, yeah, I’ve read it before. No, sorry, its not really swaying me. 🙂 Hope thats not too disappointing. I know the real stories behind most of those claims. The document is obviously a smear campaign with no nuance. Very similiar to the Mary Fischer GQ article in the Chandler case. Its very compelling if you don’t know the real stories, but if you do, you see it for what it is mostly.

            There’s a lot of things to comment on it but I don’t really want to initiate more Arvizo debate for now. If I can avoid it. Like I said to the others, its easier to address things if its specific. Its too much to comment on “everything”.

            As someone revealed I’m in the process of writing something about the whole thing for the site, and if that happens, I’m sure the comment fields will be open for anything.

          • Neely

            Schnarky!! I should know by now I have nothing new to bring to the table!! :0)

            I understand not wanting to debate it. I wanted your angle because somehow I told myself you hadn’t seen it, and your angle might have changed.

            You said you know the real stories behind the claims. Is that from reading the transcripts? Just curious, and I’ll stop bugging you. ;0). Unless of course I feel the need to bring something else to the discussion that you likely read 43 years ago!

            I’m anxious to read your contributory piece, btw.

          • Andreas

            I fear its too late to rescue me from the lying, frauding, manipulating grip of the Arvizos, Neely. They got me under their dark dark sorcery spells. 🙂

            Thanks for trying though.

            Don’t worry, I sort of doubt the article will change your opinion if it haven’t already.

          • Neely

            You might be right, however, I’m always interested in what others bring to the round table. It might not sway me, but, it just might too. Sadly, in cases like this, there isn’t a smoking gun. We have to choose who to believe. Child molestation is difficult to prove, and I’ve learned how tough it is to rely on the words of children. Before I started this research, I would have said, “always believe a child.” That’s old school thinking, so at least I’ve learned something. I’ve learned oh so much about child sexual predators also. So, not all is wasted.

          • Andreas

            I don’t think children always tell the truth either, Neely. There’s quite a few cases where children become pawns in custody battles, where they are taught lying, usually from the mother. Sometimes kids are confused about what their young bodies experiences, so they might say things that can get adults in trouble. Its however more uncommon when they get older to lie. Sometimes troubled teenage girls have lied about abuse to get “away” from their fathers, or stepfathers, etc, although even that is pretty rare.

            Its extremely rare however that young boys lie about molested by older men. The tendency is actually more the opposite. They tend to stay quiet about it if it happens. Even going to greath lengths to strongly deny it. Sometimes they’ll reveal it when they’re in their 30s, sometimes perhaps ever. It has a lot to do with the stigma of homophobia and the fear of being teased by their peers, something Gavin actually experienced. Going up against a superstar like Jackson is that stigma multiplied by multitudes obviously. So I don’t think the odds on Gavin lying is good, just by the statistics alone. Gavin was largely bullied, got into fights and so much he had to be taken out of school and take homeschooling after they had left Neverland. I can’t imagine he would want to tell the world even more. If it was a lie as well, it makes even less sense.

            He wasn’t eager to go out against Jackson, according to the police, Steve Robel, Gavin said he wasn’t interested in money, he just wanted Jackson not to be able to it to more children, because he had suffered from it, and that was it. Steve Robel and Paul Zelis reasoned to him beforehand that it would be the right thing to do for other kids going to Neverland, and Gavin agreed. The mother wasn’t involved at all in these meetings, nor was his siblings.

            Tom Meserau tried to compare the Arvizo case to the old Bakersfield case and the McMartin cases, cases that was shown to perhaps be wrong (or at least very very exaggerated), but its very different type of cases where the 80’s craze and fear of satanism and the occult was largely part of it.

          • Neely

            Have you watched the movie “The Hunt”? Very interesting writing about a false accusation. It wasn’t an elaborate story from the ‘victim’. It culminated from a little statement a girl made that alarmed the school, and it snowballed. I really enjoyed it, and I see how these things can get out of hand. The poor girl’s feelings were hurt, she was angry and said something that was suspicious. She recanted but it was too late. Anyway, a good film if you haven’t seen it. I feel like after I put this into words, you probably have seen it, haha. Just like the last doc I posted for you. If you have, please disregard. 😉

            I have maintained that Gavin’s testimony was the most compelling part. If I were to change my mind, it would be based on him. The timeline is still a hang up, however. I remember reading in that doc I posted that the statement Gavin made to security was “they made me do it”. I don’t know what to think of that. Was he being honest, and his parents really did put him up to it? Or was he a skilled and fearful liar by that age already? Either way, it doesn’t work in any of their favors with respect to character. If Gavin was lying that well by age 7, well what’s he capable of at 14? If he was being honest, his parents are revealed as classic examples of child coaching. I don’t really expect you to answer this. I’m just putting my thoughts to paper really.

          • Andreas

            Yes, The Hunt is a strong movie about how false allegations can develop. Its an interesting movie for sure.

            If you liked it, you should also see Thomas Vinterbergs “Festen (aka The Celebration)” from 1998, which was the first movie of the famous Dogme95 movement. I always deemed The Hunt was his spirtiual successor to that movie. In Festen though, its not false allegations. Also quite a masterpiece in many ways. Very intense.

            Not sure if The Hunt is relatable to the Jackson cases though. In The Hunt, there’s a little girl who is in puppylove with her male kindergarten teacher. She gives him some kind of drawing of a heart. The male kindergarten teacher tells her in a very kind way to give it to someone else she cares about. She feels upset about this. Later at home, her big brother and his friend runs around the house, and they briefly show her a pornographic picture on their iPad for a couple of seconds. A picture involving a big erect penis. This really confuses her as she’s only 5-6. She later tells her mother she don’t like the kindergarten teacher anymore, and bursts out that he has a big erect penis. Chaos ensues from there.

            But the tragic thing is that they don’t question the girl at all anymore after that. She has said one very vague thing, and she haven’t even claimed being touched or abused, but they still take full actions against the man like she has been abused. When she later tries to say nothing happened, they claim its regression, and that her “little brain” makes her forget it. Then the allegations against the man is spread to other kids, because of silly things like some of the kids had experienced headaches sometimes, and maybe nightmares, and that supposedly is symptoms of being molested too.

            To me its a movie that deals with the mass hysteria around pedophilia, and its probably based on stuff that has happened for real too. If they just questioned the girl a little bit more an innocent man’s life wouldn’t have been ruined, and I think that was the point.

            To compare it to the Arvizo case, or the other boys, like Jordy, I find difficult though. I don’t see much connection. Jacksons accusers were older, and the stories around this are vastly different. Both Jordy and Gavin were questioned in lengths by psychologists, police and social workers, so its clearly no misunderstanding what they said happened. They both also managed to go into great detail about the grooming process and everything that lead up to it.

            I’m not sure why Jordy is deemed more credible than Gavin. Jordy’s parents weren’t saints by most accounts either. Jordy’s mother let Jackson sleep in bed with Jordy over and over. She only really questioned it at the very beginning, but after Jackson had cried his sore eyes out about her not trusting him as family, and been given expensive necklaces, she let him sleep in bed with Jordy and never questioned it again. And Jordy’s father Evan at one point in the settlement deals went briefly on a meeting about film deals as an alternative negatiation(he was a filmmaker/scriptwriter). The story makes a little bit more sense if you know the full context and build up of the story, but it still sounds bad. Evan later admitted it was a really bad move on his part though, to his defense.

            The Arvizos never considered a civil court. Nor were they interested in settlements. It went straight to criminal and both the family and everyone involved up in the process of the trial has been adamant there was never anything else planned. Not before, nor after, meaning if they had won. They never took money from tabloids or media outlets, and allegedly there’s standing six digit dollars offerings if any of them want to tell their version of the story to certain media outlets. But no… and this was a very economically struggling family, mind you. Still, it seems suspiciously easy to call them greedy and “only after money”. I have no idea why. It actually puzzles me.

            Even in the new celebreated documentary “Michael Jackson Life Of An Icon” its blurted out confidently by a commentor that it was apparant “from day 1 of the trial” that the whole case was about money. Oh, RLY? On day 1 Martin Bashir was testifying about his documentary. Not sure how that makes sense?

            With the Chandlers however it was back and forth between criminal, civil courts and out-of-courts settlements, before as we know, Jackson suddenly agreed to do a settlement, and they accepted it. You can’t possibly deny money played a part in the process, as they accepted money for their silence. Although the explanation was also a worry about Jordy who seemed to suffer mentally by the whole thing. Psychologists warned the family it could affect him to great extents, because they had seen bad effects on smaller scale cases. The other big reason was the police didn’t grant them witness protection if they went to criminal, and they had death threats on the phone constantly by the Jackson fans(the Arvizos got witness protection).

            Gavin’s father David Arvizo wasn’t a good man. I’m not sure what you refer to with being Gavin being coached, but there were some shady business with David that could be used against him and by proxy Gavin and maybe Star. Like the wallet occurence with George Lopez, and David asking for more and more money from Jamie Masada and Louise Palanker. David was a bit exploitive. I think Tom Mesereu and the defense had a problem though, because they couldn’t really “use” anything that David ever did, or made the children do, because David was out of the family by the time everything with Jackson happened. David got a restraining order from being near the family because of domestic violence against Janet and the kids and even pets.. So, I see Mesereau tries to sneak in that document that Janet was “always in charge of the family”, without any further explanation, which I suspect is just flat out dishonesty on his part. (but I’m sort of used to that sort of stuff from Mr. Mesereau by now though.) Most reports said David was in charge of everything, and even violently so. Janet couldn’t even visit the hospital to vist Gavin at often, because she was so full of bruises from constant beatings. Neighbors eventually saw beatings of her, and called the police, and he was as a result removed from the family.

          • Pea

            Jordie Chandler is considered more credible because he got a settlement since Jacko wanted to avoid both a civil and, as per Carl Douglas, a criminal case. Alternately, Gavin and the rest of the Arvizo troop had their claims unanimously rejected by a criminal jury. It’s really that simple. Gavin wasn’t paid to go away; Jacko fought those claims while surrendering to the former’s. Furthermore, neither Chandler parent had a prior history of making false allegations or kissing (greasing?) the asses of wealthier people. Jordie Chandler was also an actual, legitimate, bona fide “special friend” — Jacko’s interest in Jordie never wavered. The same cannot be said about Gavin Arvizo, who Jacko ditched at least twice prior to the Bashir documentary fiasco and then again when he went to Florida to hang out with Al Malnik for a couple weeks while the Arvizos were supposedly marooned at Neverland.

            As per prior history again, Gavin accused his mother of physical abuse in March 1996, which he mysteriously recanted (whether because he was a slick liar even then or because Janet threatened/manipulated him to be quiet, I don’t know). Nothing like that from the Chandlers.

            The Chandler case is so credible that when I was writing about Michael Jackson, I created a whole website suggesting Jacko’s guilt without a single post on the Arvizos. Alternately, to prop up the Arvizos, you’d have to do a lot of PR to clean up Janet’s image, which the Prosecution tried to do (and failed).

            And here is the clincher: one can easily maintain that Evan Chandler was financially-motivated without sacrificing the idea that Jordie was victimized. That feat is impossible with the Arvizos, hence the suggestion, even on this website, that Janet absolutely, never-ever had dollar signs in her eyes in spite of getting with two civil attorneys (one who called her “Wacko” and “in it for the money” — compelling words from a greedy lawyer!). I still don’t get the “they didn’t go after money post-verdict therefore they never wanted money” argument; since when does future/present behavior explain past behavior? Shutting up was smart, lest they be sued for slander.

            So, June can be a gold digger; Evan could be a jealous extortionist. Janet… she has to be really really clean. I find it quite amusing, I must say. 🙂

            So long ago, Shawntay questioned why the convention seemed to be that so-called “haters” had to believe the Arvizos, too, even when they are so damned problematic. Believe me, I wanted to and did, though I could never completely erase the claims of Angel Vivanco about Davellin out of my head. (They had a relationship, so to speak — apropos an older discussion, if 16yo Davellin could already give a blowjob, 13yo healthy-sized Gavin likely didn’t need Jacko’s help to masturbate. Same clan, you know.) Anyway, it’s just easier, as per Occam’s Razor, to not believe them until better proof emerges to challenge that position.

            So, let’s see what you put up! 😉 It was my idea, yes, because I’m curious of your reasons and lazy. 🙂

          • Andreas

            So, June can be a gold digger; Evan could be a jealous extortionist. Janet… she has to be really really clean. I find it quite amusing, I must say. 🙂

            Nyaaaah… Not really. Janet can be, well, anything at all, and Gavin could have been molested either way. OR you could use parents dubious actions against their credibility, but if you do, it works just as well on them all. Its just the same in both cases, as I see it. When I read about “normal people’s” reactions to the allegations against Jackson, they react just as often to the Chandler allegations as the Arvizos.

            The argument that “nobody really takes money if their kid is molested”, “no no, you’d want them in jail”, is as far as I can see, just as popular to say and reason about the whole matter, as Jackson showing guilt by accepting to pay a large settlement. Its a two-edged sword. Neither part looked good by settling a child molestation case with money.

            With the Chandler case two very solid false myths is hanging around in the zeitgeist too. First is the one about Jordy being drugged and hypnotized with sodium amathyl, and the other is that Jordy officially recanted that he was molested. They’re both obviously humbug, not even the MJ vindication sites takes them seriously, which says a lot, but its still surprising how common these sayings are and how often people repeats them. Especially the one about Jordy recanting. There’s actually many many people who thinks that really happened.

            As per prior history again, Gavin accused his mother of physical abuse in March 1996, which he mysteriously recanted (whether because he was a slick liar even then or because Janet threatened/manipulated him to be quiet, I don’t know). Nothing like that from the Chandlers.

            Yes, there is. Evan tried to hit Jordy with a large object in 2005, and Jordy reported him for a restraining order, even claiming Evan had tried to kill him. Evan also hit Dave Schwarz once twice, during the whole process before the settlements. He was also caught angry on tape saying he wanted to destroy Jackson’s reputation. This is also often used against him, naturally. Then of course you have his suicide six months after Jackson’s death, which is very often commented as a possible sign of guilt for supposedly “coaching Jordy to lie about Jackson molesting him”. I’m not saying I believe this, I’m just reporting what is often commented around the intrawebs, and you probably know this, because you’ve most likely seen these types of comments multiple times too.

            My point is just that you sort of see what you want to see. This affects reasoning. With Evan you seem to be able to seperate his unfortunate actions from the allegations he made on behalf of his son, and you still believe Jordy was molested. With Janet, not so much. In my opinion it seems like you are working with two standards with Jordy and Gavin. If Jordy had a 16 year old sister who allegedly performed a blowjob I suspect you wouldn’t try to connect that to the credibility if Jordy had already started masturbating when he was 13 or not, because there obviously isn’t a connection necessarily, but with Gavin it seems to be some serious source of doubt however. Its a deep problem in there somehow (that I at least suspect) you probably wouldn’t use against Jordy.

            I actually think they were both two quite dysfunctional families in each their own ways, and that can be read two very different ways when it come to these allegations. To some it might count in as a serious credibility issue, and their problems would be used against them for all its worth, (and it certainly has too!), but for those of us who has studied a little bit on child predators we know these predators often target unstable families. Thats sort of their thing, right? The families where there is no stable father role they can “substitute”, and the kids who are troubled in some kind of way, or perhaps lonely and in need of company. Some predators even target some families exactly because they have credibility issuses and a bad reputation. It very convenient if they’ll be outed. In a paradoxical way this should make these types of families more credible, not less, because these type of families fit the pattern of child predators. Still, in practice they really get a tougher time all the same. So I suppose thats one reason why I never really felt the Arvizos “unstable-ness” was an argument against their credibility. It could just as well work as an argument in their favor.. if that doesn’t sound too crazy.

            It also seems like many people have this idea of pedophiles being obviously bad wolfs, and their victims being these defenseless little lambs of innocence, but in reality it isn’t that easy. :/

            So, let’s see what you put up! 😉 It was my idea, yes, because I’m curious of your reasons and lazy. 🙂

            Okay, thanks for that, Pea. Its going to be called “Re-visiting the Arvizo case”, and it attempts to explain what ‘really happened’, and what supports the claims of the Arvizos. I don’t know when it will be ready though. (I know you’ll probably laugh, but it sure is work to defend to the Arvizos, y’know…)

            I probably could have just written an freestylin’ essay on the go why I personally believe them, and that’d be a lot easier and faster to do, but I have sort of tried to use the evidence and quotes from the witnesses testimony from the trial to ‘prove’ their claims, which is a lot tougher… It was such a large trial too, so I sort of understand why nobody has tried to do this before. I might potentially(if I’m allowed, obviously) write a follow up article too with “the most common objections to the Arvizos”, and how to “explain them”, just not to shy away from the difficult questions. I’m not sure if I want to deal with all the criticism of the Arvizos in the main article, so it could sort of make sense to do something like that as a seperate thing. I haven’t talked to MJfacts about that yet though.

          • Kat

            I’m looking forward to your article about the Arvizos, Andreas, I’m sure that as a new contributer you’ll bring a different perspective to the site. Also, I know you and I agree about a lot of things concerning the family. By the way I think all families that Michaels victims came from were far from perfect, Chandlers, Safechucks, and Robsons had their own dysfunctions, it’s sort of unfair to always single out the Arvizos as the troubled family unit.

            But yes, I would like to read what you’re currently writing, especially since I still haven’t learned everything about the case (I’m talking more about the kidnapping and imprisonment part of the allegations, with the molestation of Gavin I’m well familiar with.)

          • ShawntayUStay

            What dysfunction did the Safechuck family have? The parents are still married.

          • Kat

            Accepting a huge sum check and allowing Michael Jackson to spend alone time with your son as exchange like James Safechuck Sr. did is pretty dysfunctional in my book. So is Joy Robson delivering Wade to MJ whenever he wanted. And what about Evan Chandler’s temper? Or June looking the other way and letting Jordan be molested?

            In that way I don’t think any family that MJ befriended was entirely clean. If you look into any family’s history I’m sure there’s baggage there. But it doesn’t matter to me, it never has, because I think any child can be molested, notwithstanding their background. Somehow the argument that a kid from a bad family couldn’t be abused has never made sense to me and it still doesn’t.

          • Andreas

            Somehow the argument that a kid from a bad family can’t be abused has never made sense to me and still doesn’t.

            Exactly… As I mentioned I would even argue it could actually be seen as an argument in favor. At least when we’re talking about the common child predator it seems to be the case. Jackson is always a little bit difficult to compare to the common pedophile, considering who he was otherwise; one of the most famous persons in the world…. but if we’re to believe anecdotes from everyone’s favorite journalist around here, Diane Dimond, and fair, enough I don’t know where she got this anecdote from, but she claims she had people tell her Michael Jackson would stand around on the fields of Neverland looking at kids, and actually request knowing which families that had problematic family situations. I don’t know if its true, but it seems to be very in tune with what child predators would do. If it is true he was very conscious about his ‘pickings’.

            Its a good point that the Chandlers weren’t that dysfunctional before Jackson entered their life. Thats kind of true. Their tragic story seemed to come along with Jackson. June and Evan was divorced, but were allegedly on very good terms and still friends. As I understand it Evan got Jordy every other weekend, and him and Jordy had a very good relationship, even doing scriptwriting together, but sometimes when he wanted to do scriptwriting he would drop of Jordy to a cinema and pick him up later, and some tend to think that was “selfish”, “neglecting” or whatever, but I don’t know.. Judge yourself. Dave Schwarz and June Chandlers marriage wasn’t good though. It was falling apart, but they were still together. Dave was barely home. He worked all the time and gave little attention to the children. (Plus, its weird June still kept the Chandler name even after she married someone else, but whatever.) It wasn’t super dysfunctional, but lets say there seems to have been enough to be an “opening” for a predator to come in. At least if that predator even had his target as a fan in the first place.

            I don’t know much about the Barnes and Safechuck families, so I shall refrain from commenting on them, but I would argue The Robsons was just as, it not even more, dysfunctiontal than the Arvizos. Some of the stuff Joy Robson did is difficult to even comprehend. I have a far more difficult time understanding her than any of the others, and far more than Janet. And I have no idea what the father was doing meanwhile, but he ended up killing himself. In that family it even seems possible they could have known Jackson was molesting Wade, but thats up to debate… Macalauy Culkin also reportedly had a lot of problems with his parents, especially his father, and Jackson seemed to be very “on the ball” with that, if we’re to believe Guitierez book. (Same with Corey Feldman’s relationship with his parents, very dysfunctional, if we’re throwing him in here.)

            The Arvizos actually seemed to be doing a lot better when David Arvizo was removed from the family, and it seems like Jay Jackson, a major in the army, was a very stable person (with a more stable economy too and larger apartment, if that matters) and he seemed to have adopted the children like his own, and they considered him a dad, and so on. Jay seems like very decent and nice person, to me. So it seemed good to me. Louise Palanker reported the whole family seemed to be doing a lot better after David was out of it. They seemed freer and more at ease. Before that it was always the fear that David would throw one of his violent temper tantrums. Janet according to Palanker needed some kind of stability in her life, as she was a very unstable person, so I suppose it was a ‘happy ending’ she found Jay.

            The terminal cancer of Gavin was probably problematic for the family, but I wouldn’t say thats “dyfunctional” in the sense we’re talking about here, but even if we count it, it was in well in remission at the time of the Bashir documentary. So the Arvizos were actually pretty functional at that time, I’d say. They seem very happy in the Bashir documentary. They didn’t have economical problems anymore, and since Janet didn’t really know Michael personally(it was always David and the kids that hung out with Jackson), its difficult to find some kind of ‘revenge’ or ‘greed for money’ opening there. No easy dots to find lines to put between their situtation and lying about the claims about Jackson anyway, but thats just my assessment.

            According to Ron Zonen all the kids seemed to have been doing very good after the trials too, and he has been holding contact with them. Surprisingly good considering how bad some people expected it would go for them. Well, until this recent stuff about Star Arvizo being threatening and violent to his girlfriend. Pretty heartbreaking stuff. He has obviously acted like David did to his mother in other words. Gavin still seems to be doing good though. A bit wtf to some perhaps but I think he’s becoming a lawyer..

            And thanks for the support about the upcoming article, Kat. We’ll see what happens.

          • Neely

            I just want to weigh in here on my own behalf. Having dysfunction in the family unit does not make a kid immune from molestation. I have not said that in the past, perhaps others have, but I haven’t. No kid is immuned, and that’s never been my personal argument.

            The most glaring differences for me are 1) Janet is a criminal, and her own son said he made her do something illegal. 2) Janet’s character has been publicized by the simple fact that she was a witness, and testified. All her business is out there for the world to read/hear/see. For that alone, she stands out from the ‘mothers’ pack, whether good or bad.

            These things do not make Gavin unable to be molested. Not even close. What it DOES do, is make Janet more vulnerable to speculation due to her private life being made public. And her criminal tendencies cause me to ponder what she’s capable of with respect to child rearing. It still doesn’t make Gavin unmolestable. It makes Janet appear like a ring leader with criminal intent. Poverty, divorce, violent behaviors, tiny apartments, and old furniture have nothing at all to do with the development of my opinion. Half the planet is in that same marital and socioeconomic status, or more. It would be a very shallow statement to claim his family dynamics could somehow make him immuned. Certainly not a statement I would make, or agree with.

          • Andreas

            I understand, Neely.. I agree on the bulk of what you say, but I just think we just have very different perceptions of what actually happened in the JC Penney case. I don’t consider Janet a criminal beyond potentially being a welfare fraud. I’m not going to go into an argument about it it though, and I probably think this will be my last comment on the Arvizo case before I potentially publish something some day. (Effectively meaning if I never finish the article I will never comment on it ever again.)

          • Neely

            Yeah, it is kind of like beating a dead horse isn’t it? I don’t comprehend very well, how to minimize her character flaws in the midst of it. She IS a key player in my mind. If she was removed from the mix, we would have only Gavin’s words to which I would probably be more likely to invest. She’s not the victim, but is a strong force in the victims life, as all parents are to their children. She is intrinsically woven into the fibers of the case which makes it nearly impossible to ignore her altogether, for me. She doesn’t make Gavin unmolestable, of course not. We can’t brush her under the rug either.

            I feel a need to apologize for getting into this debate again. I really am looking forward to your post, and I hope I haven’t impacted your decision to comment further or not. I respect you and your ideas and conclusions. I just don’t think we will see Janet from the same angle, and I can respectfully agree to disagree.

          • Andreas

            No need to apologize Neely. I guess I just think its ‘tidier’ to defend my article and seemingly contrarian perspectives after its been published than before. Its a bit backwards. Hopefully with the article it will become a little bit clearer why I make the conclusions I make.

            Besides that I think its commendable that you insist on thinking for yourself when it comes to these things, and don’t just trust anyone blindly.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Besides that I think its commendable that you insist on thinking for yourself when it comes to these things, and don’t just trust anyone blindly.

            As opposed to whom?? I can assure you that myself, and probably Pea as well, arrived at a similar conclusion by independent thought. How many MJ “haters” think MJ may have been innocent in 2005? Close to zero.

            So…yea…

          • Andreas

            No, as opposed to Neely just going along with “sides” in the debate about the Arvizos. As in not just “trusting” me, or “trusting” you and Pea. Thats what I meant.

            And I think I’ve always said its an independent(and even original) thought that Michael might have been innocent in that case, while guilty in others. I always thought the idea was interesting, I was fascinated by the proposition, and it probably is why I got intrugued by the case, even if my own conclusion has been different. I do respect your opinion though, as it clearly is a quite weird case.

            I think most sensible people would pause when they hear that Gavin allegedly was molested after the Bashir documentary.

            And I agree that the Arvizos shouldn’t get free passes because of the others. Their case should be seen on its own merit as much as possible. You’re probably right that a lot of people probably just assume guilt without looking much into it, or caring to explain all the difficult aspects of the trial… Still, at the same time, you have to admit its not exactly intuitive that a serial child molester when he finally goes to a full fleshed trial its against someone he didn’t touch?

            So yes, its an independent thought. 🙂

          • ShawntayUStay

            Oh okay, but I was never trying to convince Neely of anything. I never even thought to. Were you??

            As for a serial child molester finally going to court over false allegations, when you write it out like that of course it sounds ridiculous, LOL! I can admit that. But as they say, fact is stranger than fiction, and when you look closer, the idea is not so far fetched at all. Especially with the eventual ACQUITTAL(!).

          • Andreas

            Oh okay, but I was never trying to convince Neely of anything. I never even thought to. Were you??

            Nope.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Btw: I find it a bit interesting that you put so much trust in the acquittal. You’ve expressed this very strongly in earlier debates too. Are acquittals always something you trust in? It almost sounds a bit like you do…It just sounds very conservative to simply trust a court of law blindly.

            Oh God no, I do not put trust in the court of law “blindly”; you’re making way too many assumptions, LOL. I’ve watched too many crime docs to count and taken many criminal justices courses in college (plus, I’m black so we are by nature suspicious of cops and the criminal justice system, given our history in America), to ever just trust a court decision! All my personal evaluations come from me looking at the facts for myself, and making my mind up from there. So if an acquittal or conviction seems just after I look into it for myself, I’ll accept it; if it seems unjust, I won’t and will be sicken at the decision (e.g the Steven Avery case, George Zimmerman, Darryl Hunt, etc etc).

            It’s not “conservative” to trust a decision; it’s prudent. For one thing, it acknowledges that one cannot know for certain what happened if one wasn’t around to see it. Another, it comports with our “innocent until proven guilty” standard, which I’m a strong proponent of, especially with sex crimes when just an allegation is enough to destroy a reputation (again another reason to respect verdicts!). Also, it’s not “trust” but rather “respect”; we respect a decision so that there isn’t riots or violence, etc, because some people think a verdict is incorrect. It preserves order. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if a “not guilty” verdict always came with asterisk? They’re be no point to ever having trials because they’re would always be some faction ready to disagree!

            Bill O’Reilly is right! Why mention ol’ Billo anyway? Because he’s a right wing traditionalist? I like Bill O’Reilly, been watching him off and on since 2004. He’s arrogant, opinionated, loud, but he’s authentic and genuine. He doesn’t lie about his viewpoints and owns them, and you have to respect that. What you see is what you get and, in a sea of fakes, it’s refreshing. I’ve even written into his show trying to educate him about race (because he’s filled with “white guilt”)! LOL. I sort of feel you harangued him into the convo because it’s supposed to be “eww yuck!” to be associated with a religious conservative but he’s better — or at least no worst — than some of the leftist stars like Bill Maher (a cretin, that man is) and Richard Dawkins (who I respect for his contributions to evolutionary biology but he’s not very pleasant).

            Actually, it seems more conservative to trust everything that the prosecution does (Don’t you think it’s a tiny bit strange that some of the last motions filed by the prosecution were like “Motion to admit evidence defendant’s not a good parent” (irrelevant), “Motion to admit photos and description from Jordie Chandler” — seems like desperation to me!). In America, most prosecutors/law enforcement are conservative, while your T-Mezes and other defense attorneys are liberals…..Maybe you have more in common with Billo than you originally thought! 😉

            At any rate, Michael Jackson. I say the acquittal because that’s the starting point. There has to be a standard for which we can evaluate a case. During conviction appeals, the appellate court looks at all the evidence in record in a “light most favorable to the prosecution”. So it’s like they are respecting, at least temporarily, the decision made in the lower court. Doesn’t that make sense? That’s how I see it. MJ was acquitted after over 70 days at trial with many, many witnesses — including the accuser — and pieces of evidences. Without trying to find fault with the jury, I’d say it was a pretty standard airing of the facts, and I personally can’t see any objective reason for why I or anyone else should disregard the verdict as anything other than 12 people taking their time to come to a decision based on the best interpretation of what was presented. Looking into the case, there’s a lot of questions that make me doubt the validity of the Arvizo family’s story. Stuff doesn’t add up, doesn’t smell right, is weird. Still, as you said, you have a likely pedophile being accused of what pedos do best. But the whole is greater than the some of its parts. I can’t separate the actions and lies of Janet Arvizo, or even Star Arvizo, because all four of them corroborate each others’ stories. If one is lying and their word is vouching for another Arvizo, how can I have faith in the other? It makes no sense to me, for example, how to separate the molestation from the conspiracy/kidnapping because they’re related.

            So, no it’s not the “Argument from Authority” fallacy. I think you should at least consider the verdict, and why twelve people looking at the evidence could find him NG. It’s a legitimate point to ponder.

            About OJ, he was guilty. No one else was demonstrated to have any reason to kill her but him. Plus his actions after the acquittal and his statements in depositions for the Goldman family’s civil suit shows he’s guilty, and a psychopath. All the evidence pointed to him, so I would’ve voted to convicted. However, I’ve seen one of the jurors, a Hispanic male, say he really strongly believed that the cops tampered with evidence and that he’d be comfortable with voting NG again and again because of the reasonable doubt….

          • Andreas

            Oh God no, I do not put trust in the court of law “blindly”; you’re making way too many assumptions, LOL.

            OK. I see better where you’re coming from better now. We see things a bit differently though. I consider it conservative simply to trust in authority. God, law and country, right? Well, roughly thats how I view it. To say “respect” instead of “trust” doesn’t change much. If it means “blind respect” in something its still potentially dangerous thinking, if you ask me. It’s true however that to blindly trust the police, DA and prosecution in every case would be “conservative” too, under that definition… but that is not the reason I believe the Arvizos. Not any more than the reason I believe the Chandlers.

            Nah, I didn’t bring up Bill O’Riley for any other reasons. Just that I didn’t get his reasoning for thinking Jackson was innocent just because a verdict finds him ‘not guilty’. It shows he puts the lawsystem over his own personal assessment/ skepticism, and that makes absolutely no sense to me. If I thought a verdict was wrong… I would, um, think it was, well, wrong. In every single instance. Its very conservative to put some authority’s decision over your own opinion. Its a way of thinking I can’t wrap my head around.

            I guess my main point is just that its fine to disagree with a verdict. Thats bascially it. And yes, I of course have my opinions about the jurors on the Jackson case.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Bill O’Reilly didn’t think MJ is innocent. He thinks he was likely a pedophile but he respects the verdict. He covered the 2005 case. He was shocked at the outcome because of his personal opinions about it, but again he respects the process. Nothing “unthinking” about it.

          • Andreas

            He’s on video saying something like “I’m going to go with the system and say he’s innocent” and reasoned it to something like “because I believe in the american court system”.

            Not sure why its not apparant to you. Call it what you want then, I call it ‘blind trust’, but he obviously put the verdict over his own opinion since he really seemed to express thoughts that Jackson was guilty. Its not exactly difficult to say “I disagree with the verdict”, “I’m not sure about the verdict” or something like that.

            Conservatives, and O’Riley is a typical conservative, usually don’t like the idea that a system made to protect them can be terribly flawed. Instead they usually favor “loyalty” to the system. So its based on fear basically.

          • ShawntayUStay

            It’s funny. I explained perfectly well what my thought process was behind bringing up the acquittal as a legitimate point to ponder when looking at the 2005 trial, that it has nothing to do with fallaciously putting trust in “authority”, and yet here you are, quibbling over terms and, in my opinion, disingenuously claiming you understand where I’m coming from, when clearly you are maintaining your original erroneous assumption. LOL.

            I don’t have a “blind faith” in the verdict just because it was the official decision. I respect a verdict in general, even if I disagree with it, in the sense that I won’t riot in the streets, that I won’t try to re-litigate the case when I’m not 100% certain what happened. It’s not fear-based to be prudent and rational.

            As for Bill O’Reilly, you have it all wrong in your interpretation. What you’re doing is trying to make a value judgment by generalizing a single comment about the Michael Jackson case, and making it represent his alleged “conservative, fear-based loyalty” to the criminal justice system, which is fallacious, as I’m sure you’ll recognize. I’ve watched his show for 12 years, off and on, and you don’t get Billo. He’s just like most people: if he agrees with or understands a verdict, he’ll accept it; if he disagrees with a verdict, he’ll say it loudly, sometimes to the point of calling for the removal/investigation of a judge. In the case of MJ, he respects the verdict because, even if his personal feelings are that MJ was likely a pedo, he can acknowledge that there were some major credibility problems with the witnesses, which creates the reasonable doubt necessary for rendering a NG verdict. He knows he wasn’t there; he’s trying to be fair. He said that the only thing we can say for sure was that Michael Jackson was inappropriate with children.

            That’s a completely legitimate position that maintains fairness when we can’t know for certain what happened. Again, imagine if every NG verdict came with an asterisk. How could those defendants go on with their lives? Acknowledging a verdict is the starting point, and it’s objective. It’s not being an unthinking idiot.

          • Andreas

            yet here you are, quibbling over terms and, in my opinion, disingenuously claiming you understand where I’m coming from, when clearly you are maintaining your original erroneous assumption. LOL.

            But I was talking about O’Riley, not you. Please read before answering. And he said what he said. If he thinks differently in other cases, thats another thing, but the way he phrased it was obviously one of putting the verdict over his own hunch which seemed to be guilt. You are also explaning his actions with your own feelings on the case, or so it seems. You don’t know that he thought the family had too many credibility issues to be believed. Thats you talking, not him.

          • Kat

            I respect the verdict too, because I think that according to the legal system Michael Jackson was indeed not guilty, that is his guilt couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt. But for me it’s more of an issue with the crime of child molestation itself rather than the particular family’s less than stellar credibility.

            So is the nature of child molestation – it leaves no real evidence. The prosecutors won’t be able to present DNA or bodily injury evidence or a CCTV recording or the weapon used in the attack. Without any of that the jurors have to decide whether they believe the child or the adult, and in many instances the adult is believed. Even in famous, widely publicised cased, like OJ Simpson’s or Casey Anthony’s the prosecution struggled to put forth evidence that would remove any doubt that a premeditated murder was committed. Although it’s certainly easier to do with murder than molestation.

            This may sound paradoxical, but it’s yet another thing that makes me believe the Arvizos. I wonder why, if Janet was desperate to have MJs money, she would chose to accuse him of something that’s so difficult, almost impossible to prove. With the JC Penney case, she had bruises on her body to show as proof. With child molestation, there is nothing. Surely it’s not the thing to go with when you want to win in a court battle? With no real proof not guilty verdict is the expected outcome.

          • Neely

            In my neck of the woods, in women vs men court battles such as these, custody, molestation and the like, women are still viewed as victims and most likely to be believed. Do you agree that we still live in a society where women are viewed as the weaker sex with regard to these specific issues? Most often it’s women who are awarded custody. Most often when they tell a sob story whether truthful or not, they are likely to be believed. The court still has a soft spot in their hearts for battered, abandoned, poverty stricken women…..as they should. It’s when these things are fabricated that the issue is abused. The soft mindset carries over into all cases whether they’re true or not. I don’t think it’s that difficult for a woman to present herself (and her children) as victims in order to gain the upper hand in the eyes of the court system.

            I understand what you’re saying re: difficulty proving molestation. But, if you think about it, what else COULD she claim? She tried to prove being held against her will, and that brought the biggest mockery of the entire debacle. The crazy part is I think there was truth at the core of that claim, albeit fairly heavily embellished. She couldn’t really claim Jackson beat and assaulted her like in the JCP case because literally nobody on the planet would buy into that. Armed with the same shrink and attorney as in the Chandler case, well, that increased her odds of winning at the outset. And, honestly, what other charge could she bring against Jackson that would fly in a courtroom? If we are saying her only motivation was money, how else could she feasibly score a huge payout? I don’t think there’s another choice. This can be viewed in her favor certainly. Maybe because it’s equally difficult to DISPROVE, she rolled the dice.

          • Kat

            I disagree actually. I don’t think women who claim to be abused are automatically believed. Or that they’ve given sympathy just because they present themselves as poor, beaten, week, deceived and so on. Look at what happened with Amber Heard. Being called a liar and a gold digger was all she got when she claimed her husband was violent toward her. And I think there’s still stigma and shame attached to being a victim of domestic abuse. Woman still try to hide it, they don’t shout about it so that everyone would know.

            As for women presenting their children as molestation victims… Well that just isn’t common. Rare, in fact. The mother of the child is often the last one to find out. And many mothers disbelief their offspring when they reveal molestation, since the molester is frequently the mother’s husband, boyfriend, brother or a close family friend. As far false allegations, personally I don’t know any instances when mothers told their children to lie and pretend to having been molested. Although I heard it does happen with very small children in custody battles.

            What else could have Janet accused him of? Probably anything that could be resolved with money, if that was what she was after, anything that would have been decided in a civil court or anywhere else where money would be the reward given.

          • Pea

            That Amber Heard’s allegations are met with skepticism is actually not a bad thing — it suggests that people still possess the intelligence to not immediately believe every charge leveled against a person. Johnny Depp has never presented himself as an abuser to the public, so why — in the absence of convincing evidence shown in an objective way — should most of the public believe her?

            For the record, I don’t know the truth of that situation, but I’m wary of anyone who asks for spousal support after a short marriage. Doubly so for people who like to play things out in the media. As you said, there’s a lot of shame associated with intimate partner violence, and she’s not exactly acting in accordance with statistics.

            I agree with Neely (perhaps it’s an American thing?) that women are easily viewed as victims. Not automatically, but they are given the benefit of the doubt. That makes sense, though: men, being the ones in power, will readily make victims of the so-called “weaker sex”, completely ignoring the fact women can be psychopaths, abusers, and con artists themselves. They can be downright evil using their femaleness as a weapon.

            Being a woman myself, I always am immediately skeptical of women’s motives when they level a charge against a man. I always have to hear the facts first.

          • Kat

            I don’t know what happened between Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, since I wasn’t there, but I wouldn’t call a woman a liar when she reveals violent behaviour just because I consider the person that’s identified as the abuser to be a likeable guy. My understanding is that that’s what happened with Amber, because Johnny’s so popular (or because people like his movies like they like MJs music – I’m not too certain.)

            Anyway some of the things that people wrote were disgusting. Saying that someone faked bruises and is lying about domestic violence to get money is quite low, especially when you’re saying that without knowing the truth of the matter.

            That being said there are people who manipulate others by always acting the part of the victim, so called wolves in sheep clothing. Every situation is different, I suppose. And we’re also bombarded with such contradictory information. You’re supposed to automatically believe anyone who reveals victimisation of any kind, but you also have to remember that everyone accused is innocent until proven guilty. How do you combine that? That’s the difficult part.

          • Pea

            There’s nothing inherently wrong with disbelieving people because of one’s feelings about the accused. It’s natural, and, at the risk of repeating myself, it’s a good thing that people don’t completely dash their concept of an individual because of one accusation against them — everyone approaches all information with a bias. Of course, one would have to evaluate the evidence and be honest enough to admit when it doesn’t comport with a previous conception.

            “You’re supposed to automatically believe anyone who reveals victimisation of any kind, but you also have to remember that everyone accused is innocent until proven guilty. How do you combine that? That’s the difficult part.”

            I don’t think anyone should be forced to believe anyone because they claim to be a victim of something — there’s definitely some trend in Western culture to “shame” people who question a victim’s motives, and that is so lame. People are free to question everything and think for themselves. In my opinion, of the two options, it’s much more important to uphold “innocence until proven guilty”; our whole system would fall apart and be rendered moot if that were rejected. Fairness is more important than compassion sometimes….

          • Andreas

            What you say isn’t illogical, Pea. You’re quite right that there shouldn’t be an automatic perception that every accused person is automatically guilty, I don’t think any person who isn’t insane would say that… Sure, innocent until proven guilty.

            But lets look at this from another angle. This is a website that gathers rape statistics in England and Wales.
            http://rapecrisis.org.uk/statistics.php

            * Rape in England and Wales is a very common, according to the statistics there’s roughly 11 rapes every hour.
            * Only 15% of women(and men) who say they’ve experienced rape report it.
            * And only 5,7% of reported rapes ends in actual convictions.

            For many rape victims it almost makes no sense to report it, because if they can even get it into court it will usually only be word-against-word, which tends to only lead to “not guilty” verdicts. Hard evidence is almost impossible in rape cases, because the only hard evidence that really exists in rape cases is if someone actually filmed the act, and that we have to assume is extremely rare.

            People who aren’t really thinking will always ask for “evidence, or they won’t believe it”, thinking they sound smart and fair, but not really giving any thoughts to how difficult it is to “prove” you’ve been raped.

            Its even more difficult than child molestation cases, because in child molestation cases sperm(DNA) found on the victim can serve as hard evidence, because a child can’t (legally) consent to sex with an adult, so that would obviously mean automatic convictions. However, if sperm of the accused is found inside a women who claimed she was raped, the accused could work around it by saying the sex was really consenting, and that she’s simply lying about it afterwards. A somewhat believable counter-story and a good lawyer, and its suddenly not that damning evidence anymore.

            I know you seem to have a different perception, but really, women that say they are raped are often looked at with great great suspicion in the courtroom. Its really quite typical. But I think part of the problem has more to do with how most people look at what ‘rape’ is. They assume you have to be a psychopathic monster to be able to rape, or that the act always is a very gruesome outlandish act, a very violent act, which isn’t necessarily the case, so if the jury see the man who is accused, and they think he seems decent enough, nice-ish, seem to even have feelings, can talk for himself somewhat, have a crying mother in the audience or whatever, they could easily refuse to believe he is capable of doing such an act. Its safer to acquit him, and not ruin his life… especially if they can’t be 100% sure. Right? When you see this case-by-case it can seem reasonable to do so, but in the bigger picture when rape rarely get convictions at all you notice something isn’t working the way it should.

            Likewise, if the girl isn’t an innocent flower from before, there’s often a very cynical presumption she could be lying, and if she isn’t lying, that she still could be to ‘blame’ somehow. “Be careful how you dress, and where you walk, and who you talk to!” is the typical line they get in response, implying its their own fault if they didn’t do those things carefully enough. After all, “men are men”, and some men simply can’t help themselves. Common knowledge! Many people act like there’s nothing to do about men who rapes, sort of like you can’t control bad weather. Well, even if is true a raped girl wasn’t ‘careful enough’, its a bizarre preset to start out with it. “Awww. You shouldn’t have been wearing lipstick and a skirt, honey.”

            As for the manipulative, dishonest ‘sluts’ that wants to tarnish a mans rumour for either fun, revenge or what have you, sure, they can exist. Its just hard for me to believe they’re in the majority all things considered. Or even in a 50/50 margin. It seems quite unlikely to me, but we can probably dispute that.

            Realistically, coming forward about being raped obviously is very traumatizing and difficult, and we know most women that are raped around the world just don’t do it in fear of not being believed. This fear obviously increases in multitudes if they do it against someone in great power, like a much loved celebrity, with hordes of fans. For obvious reasons it would be tough. Their whole reputation will be on the line after all.. AND in front of the whole world.

            At least, it seems out of tune with reality to claim they would to it for “glitz and fame” or ‘for the lulz’ for example. I can’t see any good reason for a woman to brag about being raped by Bill Cosby two decades ago for example.

            That said, I actually don’t have any opinion on the Johnny Depp accusation. I hope its not true.

          • Pea

            I seriously doubt rapes are occurring at a rate of 11 per hour — that’s a very bad way to handle statistical data, although if you’re promoting a service it makes for quite the flashy bullet point! In fact, those numbers suggest that rape is actually quite low (0.5% of women and 0.1% of men) compared to population size (but seemingly not low compared to the hours or minutes in a year), which is to be expected since the UK is not a third-world country in which women are viewed as second-class citizens.

            I checked the report on which that data was based, and they stressed that it is a misleading to compare reported rapes with actual convictions since there are various police and court outcomes (including the finding that a crime never happened or that the offender was never found) between those two steps.

            Of course, again, if your peddling a service or jostling for political or social control, the comparison has a definite use in furthering the idea of a (likely non-existent) patriarchial conspiracy.

            (There is an excellent documentary reliably suggesting a patriarchal conspiracy in the handling of rapes and sexual assaults in the American military: “The Invisible War”.)

            “People who aren’t really thinking will always ask for “evidence, or they won’t believe it”, thinking they sound smart and fair, but not really giving any thoughts to how difficult it is to “prove” you’ve been raped.”

            You know, you need to refrain from making (veiled?) insults to get your point across; I don’t do that to you, so you ought to make the same effort, please.

            The rest of your comment is an extended iteration of the current dogma about rape (of which I’m well-aware and don’t accept every precept), but I am failing to see a solution to what you describe as some fatal flaw in the system. You suggest that it is an “unthinking”, “not smart”, and “unfair” to demand evidence before belief (it’s none of those things, by the way — at least not to my scientist’s mind), but what is the alternative? Faith in someone’s word because it makes them feel better?

            No, that’s not a viable alternative at all because it’s merely a presumption of guilt. One cannot have “faith” that semen found in an otherwise untraumatized orifice is “good” evidence of a crime just because the accuser says so. Is it fair? Well, if fairness is conflated with perfection then no; if it is evaluated in reality where the world is grey, complex, and imperfect then it is our best effort.

            My proffered solution to the feeling of a lack of “justice” is this: mediation as an alternative to the courtroom. Studies have shown that mediation, in which accused and accuser discuss the incident, greatly increases victim satisfaction; many people just want apologies and an acknowledgment of their feelings and experience — definitely so when you consider that most victims (+70%) are raped by people they know. A serial rapist should be imprisoned because they are a danger to society, but probably not a Harvard frat boy who made a mistake while inebriated. Mediation could reduce victim trauma and make sure a regrettable event doesn’t lead to years wasted behind bars with truly violent felons. (This would also work in physical assault cases, I reckon, and probably save millions in tax dollars.)

            Of course, I don’t know how well the feminists would accept this alternative, as they believe all rape is more symbolism than sex.

            (By the way, I’m not attempting to have a long discussion about this issue in public on someone else’s website. I’m not particularly interested in the topic and am too lazy to type comments most days.)

          • Andreas

            You know, you need to refrain from making (veiled?) insults to get your point across; I don’t do that to you, so you ought to make the same effort, please.

            Hm? I’m not making veiled insults to you, Pea. Why would I? Just because I’m not making open insults, doesn’t mean I “veil” anything either. 🙂
            Nooo.. thats ignorant!

            In this case I was just talking about how difficult it is to prove if you are raped, and that while it can seem reasonable to ask for hard evidence before believing it, every conscious person should keep in mind how difficult someone who was raped can give evidence of being raped. I’m just saying its very problematic. I wasn’t refering to you at all. I would in fact probably have thought you would (or could) agree with that, although I wasn’t really presuming anything either. I was just speaking my mind.

            I am failing to see a solution to what you describe as some fatal flaw in the system. You suggest that it is an “unthinking”, “not smart”, and “unfair” to demand evidence before belief (it’s none of those things, by the way — at least not to my scientist’s mind), but what is the alternative? Faith in someone’s word because it makes them feel better?

            Ah. Okay. Well, I was referring to those who only accept hard evidence, and dismiss corraborating evidence (even when there is a lot). Perhaps I should have made that clearer. Its just the steep rejection of corraborating evidence that bothers me. Perhaps its harsh to say people who only ever would stubbornly accept hard evicence isn’t “thinking”, but I, um, haha, have to admit I honestly really think so, so I’m not going to apology for that. In a court of law if you would only accept hard evidence if someone was molested of course its problematic, because it basically means its almost impossible to convict somebody. All I’m saying is one have to weigh everything in, and be fair to both sides. In rape cases for example there isn’t hard evidence, so to expect it is problematic. I refuse to believe 95% of the accusing raped women are all lying about it, so obviously there has to be a flaw in the system, as the conviction rate is so low.

            Your mediation thoughts are well put though. I never thought of it like that. That could be a better solution. And yes, yes, I’m fine too with stopping the discussion around here too. Be my guest.

          • Pea

            Okay, fair enough. Perhaps it’s a failing of the written medium, since I can’t hear your tone. But it sounded snarky in my head. 😉

            Just to clarify, when I used the term “evidence”, I wasn’t referring just to so-called hard evidence (as I pointed out, semen evidence can corroborate either side’s story, so it’s pretty moot), but evidence in general, e.g. consistency in statements, behavior after the alleged incident, perhaps even past conduct (as far as it is relevant)… and that goes for both parties. That’s all we have to go on, as you know, since we weren’t there.

            “I refuse to believe 95% of the accusing raped women are all lying about it, so obviously there has to be a flaw in the system, as the conviction rate is so low.”

            It’s not that the leftover 95 percent are all “lying” (I don’t even think anyone believes that!), but more that there are various outcomes between reporting a crime and securing a conviction — and, yes, some of which include a finding that no crime was committed. A flaw in the system can’t solely explain that low number either.

            I don’t know why you think upward of 90 percent are telling the truth; that’s likely a bit high. It’s probably more like a quarter to even a third are false. That doesn’t necessarily indicate intentional lying/revenge in every one of those cases (although false accusations are something like seeing one cockroach — you know there are probably more where that one came from), but perhaps false memories due to being drunk or high during the alleged incident.

          • Neely

            Right?? What are the odds that Jackson was involved in a shakedown by the ONE kid he did nothing to?? Pretty out there if you think of it in those terms. But you’re right Shawn, truth is stranger than fiction. And Hollywood has big issues, and child molesters are super weird in their thought processes. (Random thoughts) I had no idea until recently that the priest molesters would be hauled off to a different Parish, rather than suffer any consequences. And it was kept secret by the diocese. The haughty attitude of a serial molesting priest is downright sickening. Freakin weirdos!

          • Mahoney

            Aaah, the good old Catholic Church. Don’t get me started. Corrupt to the core…

          • ShawntayUStay

            It is weird, Andreas is right. But if we just looked at things from the surface like that, we’d dismiss a lot and convict a lot more, too. Fact is stranger than fiction, esp with the rich and the famous.

            About priests, have you seen “Deliver Us From Evil”? That’s a really good one. Also I highly recommend Frontline’s “Secrets of the Vatican”. You can watch it on the PBS website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/secrets-of-the-vatican/ Pedophilia in the Catholic church has been going on for centuries! Or I should say, priests and children together. And they’ve been keeping it a secret because the higher ups are a bunch of perverts, too.

          • Neely

            Yesssssss…..Father O’Grady. He was one of the most disgusting accounts. He had such an eerie presence. His mannerisms and physical appearance were repulsive to me. I haven’t seen secrets of the Vatican, but, thanks for the title. I will check it out.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I just started to rewatch Deliver Us From Evil, and Father O’Grady is a psychopath. It’s funny because as he talked, I felt sorry for him, but then when he made comments pushing blame for his continued behavior on the monsignors and other higher ups, for shuffling him around California, I knew he was a psychopath. Psychopaths have a unique way of convincing people that they’ve changed or are self reflective, but it’s an act. I watched a documentary about psychopaths recently and, strangely enough, two of the highest-scoring individuals on the psychopath scale were convicted child molesters. Interesting… Janet Arvizo fit a lot of the traits, too.

            Please watch Secrets of the Vatican. There’s a Mexican bishop on there who was one of the most vile pedophiles ever, IMO. He even raped his own sons and forced them to do things to him. Unforgivable. The Church hid him for decades, even promoting him to the highest levels.

          • Neely

            I started watching it last night and had just gotten to the mexican’s poor son and had to shut it off due to time constraints. It was horrible to see this kid so broken. I will continue it tonight. I could watch deliver us from evil again, even though the vile bastard disgusted me to the core. I think I need to see it again to really observe him closer. If I remember, he seemed so haughty in parts and he would have a sly grin at times when he should have been expressing all out shame and self loathing. What a pig. And, If memory serves me, he’s a free man overseas now correct? Well, I don’t know what year the doc came out, I suppose he could be serving his eternal sentence of damnation and hell fire by this point. One can hope.

          • Mahoney

            Just to let you know, it is “Victory Day” – I’d appreciate some respect for Michael.

            I personally, in his honor, will be listening to Ola Ray’s beautiful “Remember” single on repeat… I suggest you do the same Shawn…

            *Releases white doves*

          • ShawntayUStay

            Are you telling me to calm down? 😉

            Ola Ray made music? I did not know that. I did know she did a little “acting” in adult entertainment films, LOL. Dare I look up this song, Mahoney?

          • Mahoney

            I had no idea either until yesterday! And I’d advise against watching Ola’s incredible tune and video…

            I did however come across this –
            http://stargayzing.com/how-a-45-minute-visit-with-michael-jackson-led-to-years-of-nightmares/ – And it’s not the most flattering account of a brief meet with MJ.

            Get passed the prosthetic nose malarkey and there’s a great account of what it was like to be in the same room as MJ during this era.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Thanks for that link, Mahoney! Quite sad, really. Especially the part where the writer says that he wished he never met MJ because he was NOT the man in the image. Made me wonder if some of MJ’s more die-hard fans would have the same reaction. He was so broken with no one willing or able to put him back together.

            Also interesting was the crook lawyer who would be disbarred for extortion. How many goons did MJ befriend? I’m starting to think this was a matter of “you are the company you keep”.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Never comment on the Arvizos again? Why? It’s just a discussion, nothing serious. You’re the only person willing to explain why you support their claims. Most “haters” just believe them out of habit, a faith based thing because MJ was a pedophile — quite an unthoughtful position! So it’s refreshing that at least you’re honest in your beliefs.

            By the way, I checked the Terry Eagleton article you mentioned. I must admit I’m not too familiar with philosophy so a lot of what he was babbling on about was over my head, LOL.

            I just don’t see what is his point? He clearly has a preconceived opinion about postmodernism (whatever that is) and he is using the Jackson trial as evidence against it. But does he not realize that this might not have been this philosophical symbolic spectacle but rather as simple and tangible as a fight for a man’s life? While it’s true that a trial is about who can tell the best story, is it really always a nefarious thing if only the accused and accuser were present? Besides, it’s a pretty simplistic view of a system that is increasingly and successfully using scientific methods to tease out fact from mere inference and speculation.

            Also, the problem I’ve seen is many people like to comment on Michael Jackson and base their theses on his mediated image. But that image is fake. He’s talking about reality vs unreality, but he doesn’t even see MJ as a real person. So he starts on a false premise because his argument isn’t based on MJ the man.

            The link to the piece if anyone wants to read it. http://www.theguardian.com/comment/story/0,3604,1491420,00.html

          • Kat

            I know that Janet was a criminal technically speaking, because she was dishonest with the benefit system and possibly lied under oath. However even with all that I have never thought about her as a villainess, ready to do anything for money, or unable to tell truth.

            The impression I got from reading the family’s testimonies – especially Davelin’s – was that the Arvizos were poor and disadvantaged, but far from liars, scampers or all the other nasty terms they were labelled with.

            And Janet was also having a very hard life phase. Here

          • Neely

            Thanks for the explanation Kat. These are good ideas to ponder, and I see where you’re coming from. The best way to imagine the state in which the family survived, is to put myself there and try to become that, and I can see what you’re saying. It was a sad situation, and Gavin was the real victim….either at the hands of his mother, or Michael Jackson.

            If I’m honest, it would be tempting to cheat the government in that situation. I don’t have it in me to go through with it, but I admit it would be tempting. People do it ALL THE TIME, so I guess she’s an average joe in that respect……no more a criminal than many other people supported by the government. But, having said that, her religion and desire to please God should have played on her conscience. This situation speaks to the many facades I believe she was putting forth in her everyday life. A good Christain woman wouldn’t cheat the government, or lie in civil suits, right?

            I don’t remember whether you are a former fan or not, but would you please consider this? (Because I do remember that you’re convinced of Jackson’s guilt in all molestation claims). Many people say that Jackson was a liar and manipulator, and would base that opinion on the lies he told the public about surgeries, his skin diseases, etc. does that really make him unable to be believed in all other aspects of his life, specifically regarding criminal behavior? You can lie in one area, and be truthful in another. At least you’re considering that with Janet. (The problem is, the line is blurred and we don’t know what to believe once a single lie is brought to light). But, the standards are different among the two people. We can vilify Jackson for his lies, but not Janet.

            Before you club me, lol, I want to redeem myself quickly. I’ve been watching more pedophile documentaries lately than anything Michael Jackson. I can’t deny that almost every time I see a new one, another likeness is revealed. I don’t think anyone could deny that Michael Jackson absolutely could be on billboards with the child abuse hotline. The only real difference between these abusers and Jackson, is the number of victims. Perhaps suspicions are correct and there are many more victims who’ve failed to report simply because they face a giant. If I were a victim, I would go after that giant, and he would be responsible for making the remainder of my life as comfortable as humanly possible in the form of mai tais and bonbons delivered directly to my seaside lounger.

          • Kat

            I’m not a former fan, I sort of always thought MJ was overrated as an artist, and because of that he as a person and his personal life didn’t really interest me. But when Wade Robson and James Safechuck were identified as the latest sexual abuse victims I wanted to know the truth about who he really was. But yes I am convinced that he molested children, as sad as it is. And he was also a liar, which everyone who isn’t blind or stupid can see. Does it mean that MJ was incapable of telling the truth? I certainly not, he was sincere about some aspects of his life and some of the rumours that swirled around him weren’t true (him being gay for example).

            But when someone lies to the extent that he did it becomes difficult to believe anything they say. And how realistic it is to expect to hear the truth from someone for whom lying is second nature? Not very realistic in my opinion. Don’t expect for people to do things that aren’t in their nature, as Hercule Poirot said. Another thing he says in one of Christie’s novels is that the truth usually reveals itself with time, which is kind of how I like to think about MJ’s criminal trial. If Arvizos lied, it would have come out by now. But the one person who admitted to lying was testifying for the defence, not prosecution (that would be Wade Robson).

            Anyway, back to Janet. Yes, I do see her as a person who was desperate and made a wrong step, for which she ultimately paid for. I know that you probably think I’m too kind to Janet and too quick to forgive her sins. Maybe so, but it’s honestly the impression that I got from reading the family members’ testimonies. Them not being villains, but merely mistreated by life. It doesn’t seem to me that Janet had done anything to deserve the hardships that she went through. So she did something criminal to save herself and her family. Like in Les Miserables when Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread. Criminal, yes, but also justified if the person hasn’t eaten for a week.

            With that being said, there is no justification for molesting a child. And there was nothing that pushed MJ to do it – he chose to. That’s how I see the differences between between these two people and their life situations. I think Janet and her entire family is more deserving of compassion. Again, this is only my opinion, but if you want to know how I feel about the whole thing Neely, then here it is.

          • ShawntayUStay

            So if the Arvizos are dysfunctional, they’re telling the truth because MJ the pedophile picks boys who are from rotten homes (not true, but for argument’s sake…). If the Arvizos, to quote you, “actually seemed to be doing a lot better when David Arvizo was removed from the family, and it seems like Jay Jackson, a major in the army, was a very stable person….were actually pretty functional at that time, I’d say. They seem very happy in the Bashir documentary. They didn’t have economical problems anymore” (etc etc), it also means they told the truth because “stable”, “functional” people would never falsely accuse anyone of a crime (disregarding the already proven false allegations of battery and sexual assault leveled against JC Penney guards…).

            So which is it? Seems to me a “have my cake and eat it too” kind of thing we have here. Ron Zonen did as much in that Louise Palanker podcast.

            Tell me, Andreas…truly curious here…Is there anything you disbelieve about the Arvizos’ story? Anything the skilled American prosecutors with decades of experience trying cases in American court rooms missed that you’ve seen which could’ve put MJ away? I mean, you’ve already seemed to state that you believe Janet told the truth about the JC Penney incident, which necessarily means that the guards, including a female guard in her early twenties, colluded together to cover up a (later recalled) sexual assault. Mary Holzer and Janet’s attorney in the matter both lied, too? Is the world against this poor, innocent, naive Latino woman from the barrio??

            Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m getting the impression from your words (in general) that you believe everything/everyone that/who supports the Arvizos’ version of events, and disbelieve/”reinterpret” anything said that demonstrates they could’ve been lying. The jury is a bunch of MJ stans (despite taking a week to deliberate) but Ellie Cook — a clear attention seeker — is telling the truth; Zonen and Sneddon are completely stand-up guys with respect to this case, but “fuck Tom Mesereau”, the defense document about JC Penney is a smear job (disregarding the police reports/interviews contained) etc etc etc. No proof of love letters yet you somehow believe they exist, when what actually exists is letters to MJ (and others) written in a weird, overly effusive tone.

            You say we only see what we want to see, but I think that cuts both ways, at the very least. Sometimes when I talk to fans, their so rabid is makes me dislike MJ very strongly; likewise, sometimes when I talk to “haters” they are so extreme that I want to defend MJ. Two sides of the same coin.

            everyone’s favorite journalist around here, Diane Dimond, and fair, enough I don’t know where she got this anecdote from, but she claims she had people tell her Michael Jackson would stand around on the fields of Neverland looking at kids, and actually request knowing which families that had problematic family situations.

            LMAO. Diane is full of crap. Dysfunctional family environments were not the alleged criterion, but just how the kid looked and acted at NL. Of course, this is all just a rumor and never substantiated, but Diane’s version is untrue. Actually, look at his attempted befriending of an Australian family in the mid-1990s; it was a stable nuclear family with two kids. Even look at his friendship with the Stein family. Reportedly, MJ liked to “adopt” families and become a member; the Cascios remarked how MJ loved to come to their house so he could be normal and vacuum the carpets. He liked stability, apparently, because he came from an abusive, cold family. He idealized childhood just like Walt Disney did; I don’t believe he would specifically single out a kid from a bad home to molest, like some pedos do, because it wasn’t just about the boy but the whole family. He’d have deal with them all! It’s also been said that MJ was conflict-averse. So we can’t just use stats to say what MJ could’ve did or did do because he’s a unique, three-dimensional person. You have to take his personality and behavior outside of this one issue (child molestation) to try to get a full picture.

            Who knows, perhaps MJ didn’t want to harm so-called “at risk” kids because they are already being harmed enough. Maybe he was a compassionate pedophile (bit of an oxymoron). That could explain why they said he separated kids into two groups: kids that were troubled (ie. photo ops) and kids that were his (special) friends. There must be a reason for the separation.

          • Andreas

            OK. I get where you come from, but generally I think I just look at this in a very different way than you, Shawntay.

            First off when it comes to ‘logic and reason’, like in a very general way, I never really been one of those who would always presume that when there’s two very polarized versions of events that the answer would always presumably be “somewhere in the middle”, “both parties are probably telling some truths and some lies”, that I somehow have to act balanced to both parties. I see that as a bit of a logical fallacy to think that way, although a forgiving one to make. Nobody wants to seem biased. If you take something like the creationism vs evolution debate, its a quite good example. Very polarized. Still, one part is simply flat out wrong, and the other side is completely right. No balanced answer in the middle. Many cases can be like that. Its not biased to think so, its just the way it is.

            Of course, sometimes in other cases there might be points to have on sides, so I’m not saying in all cases one side is 100% wrong and the other is 100% wrong. Obviously. In this case though, if we for example zero in on the most important matter of the whole, the alleged molestation of Gavin, you have to agree that one side is lying and the other is telling the truth.

            So, either Gavin is lying, or Michael is lying. There’s no ‘middle ground’ to be had on the molestation question. And if one part is lying on the root thing there’s reasonable to think there’s other lies to back up the initial one and so on. This is perhaps stating the obvious, at least I hope so, but its important to remember when going into a guilty/non-guilty case like this. They can be a bit black/white. So I don’t think its necessarily balanced that I have to say something like “Gavin was molested by Jackson, but him and his family was still a piece of lying shit” just to seem balanced or what have you. To me that makes little sense.

            The other point, and one you don’t seem to take into consideration, and I think its an important one, is that while I’ve heard you and others critizice the money use of the case from the prosecution side, which supposedly was around 2-3 million dollars according to some legal analysts, Jackson allegedly spent around staggering 10 million dollars or something around there. Perhaps even more. Ron Zonen said it was the first time he had experienced the defense outspending the prosecution by multitudes. It was staggering how much money that was used to protect Jackson.

            Now, as you know, I personally think the arguments for both the molestation and conspiracy was quite strong, strong enough for conviction, so its fair to wonder how money could be spent to counter it and how that could get Jackson off. Well, tons and tons of investigation on the family(and every other witness) was made. Past events cleverly used against them, even though in most cases there was no connection to this case. Careful cherrypicking of facts, carefully omitting facts that didn’t fit. Focusing far more on past events than the present at hand, especially when it comes to Janet.

            In total, a completely alternative version of the events being made. A team of Susun Yu and a bunch of people working all night to find info and supposed ‘flaws’ in all the witnesses testimony, and then a very rethorical quite talented Tom Mesereau presenting all these to witnesses in a very firm, biased and in my opinon often very dishonest way. It was basically a million dollar operation to get Jackson off. A fascinating machinery. It worked out for an acquittal, but that doesn’t mean it actually was reality the defense presented.

            My favorite favorite writing ever on the whole case is what Terry Eagleton wrote about it, and I highly recommend it if you haven’t read it. Basically he argues it became a postmodernist trial, where two wildly and extremely different versions of the truth competed against eachother, where tons of money and having a couple of good smart defense lawyer could twist reality and evidence into something else. Does it show fault in the whole justice system? Yes. Did it present a false version of reality? Yes.

            And then after Mesereau and Yu left the operation, you have thousands and thousands of fans of Jackson who for free picks up this re-constructed truth, and ran with it for years, polishing it and defending it almost like their lives depended on it. They love love love Jackson, and want him to be innocent. The Arvizos however doesn’t have fans, and since they chose to stay silent after the trail too, its not weird the fan version has made rounds. The winner writes history, after all. Tom Sneddon was also smeared to pieces, and also found it best to just stop commenting on it. He was supposedly obsessed with Jackson, so if he said a peep it would be noted. He didn’t say all that much after the trial, and claimed what Michael had gone through was ‘quite prophetic’, and that he had nothing against the man personally, but he still seems to be treated like a scapegoat. Highly unfair if you ask me.

            And another point from my personal experience reading the case. I saw the exact same thing happening with the Chandlers, so many established lies, myths and misinformation. The same thing. At first I was confused, but when I looked into it it became clear the Chandlers story seemed more reasonable, more coherent and more credible. It was fascinating. So with the Arvizos I’ve just been seeing the exact same thing. Step by step by step I get to understand the more sober version. And its not so mysterious. Its because people love Michael Jackson. They don’t want him to be a pedophile. They want to believe in the escapism he presents, who he tried to pretend he was. Its obvious. People don’t love these families, so they don’t want to believe them. To me its still sort of weird that you seem to see this with the Chandlers so clearly.. but you don’t with the Arvizos. To me its been the same thing.

            So thats how I see it. Its not that I’m saying Janet or Gavin couldn’t be lying about this and that, that they’re saints or whatever, but I recognize that Jackson paid millions and millions and millions to make people presuppose they were a drifter family that was out to get Jackson, and its a story that I just don’t buy. Tom Mesereau blurted out “You can’t trust these people” from the get go, and it was one of the last things he said in the closing argument as well. Well, thats convenient if Mesereau could just discredit Janet before she even told her story, isn’t it?

            I find it completely fair to at least listen to Janet’s claim with an open mind before just presupposing that she will always lie. I don’t think thats biased at all to do so. Because thats what Jackson’s defense want you to do. I’m just not that gullible, sorry. I’ll rather listen to a presupposed liar and judge for myself.

            And thats what I did. One day I manned up and tried to read Janet Arvizos testimony quite carefully, taking notes about the dates and the occurences that supposedly happened, to see what she said could be backed up, or if it was different than everyone else. I tried my best to ignore her somewhat erratic behavior like talking to the jury and so on, which everyone focused so much on. But I actually was very skeptical(even if you won’t believe that). I just tried to understand her claims, what was she saying, what was the prosecution saying. I’ll admit I was a little nervous, because I heard all this stuff about Tom Mesereau destroying her in cross examination and so on, and while he cornered her a couple of times, I think her story stood firm. To me as an individual it did. I saw that her dates seemed to match up, and a lot of her claims had support here and there.

            Am I evading your question? Is there something I disbelieve her or any of the other Avizos about? And you want examples?

            OK. I don’t know. Lets see. Well, I think she left off the money she got from JC Penney on her tax documents. She put it all in banks for her kids to go to college I believe, and just continued going on welfare. Thats what I think she did. She said it wasn’t intentional, but I’m not sure about that. She was convicted for it too so there’s that too. I haven’t studied it more than that though. No, I definitely don’t believe a single word of Mary Holzer, and while I do believe both Janet and her kids were given a beating by the guards at JC Penney, I’m on the fence about the sexual harrassment part of it. Its possible it happened, I’m not denying it either, but I’ll admit I don’t know. I haven’t read the full testimony of her lawyer yet though. I probably should.

            With Gavin and Star. Well, I am prepared to believe they were a acting reckless and perhaps a bit destructive at Neverland while they were there. I believe Star might have flipped a knife on Kiki Fornier, and I think one of the security guards said they egged down one of those little mini-golf-car things… That they threw garbage on people from that huge pariserwheel-carousel. Things like that I think is quite possible. Although at the same time I recognize that Jackson encouraged boys living out these types of things at Neverland. No rules, live out boyhood. They also denied ever drinking when Jackson wasn’t there, despite some people seeing them going into the wine cellar without Jackson. Something they denied. Its possible they were bringing bottles up as a task from Jackson, but I don’t know that for sure. And I do believe a lot of the bad stuff allegedly David Arvizo did, if that counts. He seems very dubious to me. Not saying Janet was an innocent lamb in family, but I don’t think Janet was in charge of the family, like Mesereau claimed. People who actually knew the family said David was in charge and Janet was quite silent and had to toe tip around him because he had a huge temper. So I think thats just Mesereau being dishonest to save Michael Jackson. He had no grounds to claim so.

            But anyway, as I said, its not to be rude… I just don’t find it logical in any sense that I have to trash the Arvizos to say I believe them on the molestation claim and the conspiracy claim. Besides, I don’t normally trash people, so why should I? I don’t think I’m usually trashing Michael Jackson even. I’ve never been one of these “lets dig up that fucking sick pedophile’s body and lynch him!”-type of people. So I don’t think I act hypocritical.

            Yes, to a large extent, I believe they were victims of a successful and very expensive smear campaign. I personally believe them because their story makes sense to me, despite its proposed ‘flaws’, and it is supported by a lot of witnesses and evidence. I never said they were perfect however, or always tells the truth or anything like that.

            “Have your cake and eat it too”

            I’m not saying it was a perfect family. I’m saying they were more stable around the time in question of the Bashir documentary than you make it out to be. No denying they’ve had their share of problems. I’m just making an argument of nuance. I suppose you could argue all day they were the most problematic family of the bunch, if you want. Either way, its not an important point to me. Janet reacted correctly when she found Jackson a bit too ongoing to Gavin in early 2001, and she reacted fast when she understood Gavin and Star had been drinking wine in 2003. Thats already a lot more responsible than most of the families Jackson managed to groom.

          • jamal stevesn

            The only problem with the Arvizos is that Jackson never had a close relationship with them, and their own testimonies support that.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Accepting a huge sum check and allowing Michael Jackson to spend alone time with your son as exchange like James Safechuck Sr. did is pretty dysfunctional in my book. So is Joy Robson delivering Wade to MJ whenever he wanted. And what about Evan Chandler’s temper? Or June looking the other way and letting Jordan be molested?

            Why are you blaming James’s dad for trusting Michael Jackson? MJ was squeaky clean between 1988 to 1992. Anyone would trust him. MJ spent a lot of time grooming these parents and gaining their trust. As James said, his parents weren’t “sophisticated” and believed that MJ could do no wrong because from their perspective, he’d never done anything to topple that viewpoint. And James didn’t tell anyone anything, so what did his parents have to go on? Nothing. They are still married, there is no evidence of domestic violence…there only “sin” is being a naive, wooable family who gave their trust to a clever pedophile who happened to be Michael Jackson. They’ve done nothing wrong.

            June Chandler isn’t dysfunctional. She was wooable. She loved Jordie and was a good, attentive mother. Her judgment lapsed when a skilled groomer convinced her that he loved her son and would always be there for him. The baubles, trips, and gift certificates to fancy boutiques helped things along, but not in a “money for child” kind of thing like Diane Dimond likes to erroneously argue — Jordie told Gardner that he didn’t think June “pimped” him but rather was “under his spell”. Likely, June’s rationale was similar to many people from that time period: how would a man with a (seeming) heart of gold who lavishes attention on my son, gives him (and the family) gifts, be bad? Again, Jordie never said anything about what was going on.

            Joy Robson did make a series of errors, in retrospect, and it can be argued that she may have suspected MJ had “predilections” for boys. But Wade never told her a thing, either. As Chantal Robson confidently said on the stand, Wade would have told her if something happened. But besides what is up to debate, there is no Arvizo-level dysfunction.

            None of MJ’s real special friends were dysfunctional, they were wooable — that bares repeating. I’m actually a little shocked that you and Andreas would even try to argue that because it seems to me an attempt to create a pattern of behavior and ascribe it to MJ in an effort to make a square-Arvizo peg fit into a round-special friend hole. It’s just…weird.

            I think any child can be molested, notwithstanding their background. Somehow the argument that a kid from a bad family can’t be abused has never made sense to me and still doesn’t.

            No one here, that I can tell, is making that argument so it’s a moot point, and a bit of a red herring to even mention it. It’s as if anyone who questions the actions of the Arvizo family, the mother in particular, is somehow claiming because of her behavior Gavin could never have been molested! A bit unfair if you ask me! All kids can be molested, just like anybody can be struck by lightening; no one is immune to either. That being said, the discussion of the family’s deeds is relevant in this case because it’s directly related to the credibility of the accusations against MJ. Coming from a troubling home environment doesn’t immediately void an allegation of abuse, obviously. But if the family making the allegation has a history of making false allegations of abuse against other people and one another, it’s a red flag, and they should be viewed with suspicion. So their particular dysfunction is relevant to the particular facts in this case.

          • Neely

            I didn’t mean to suggest there were similarities between ‘the hunt’ and anything Michael Jackson. We had touched on children lying and it triggered thoughts of that movie. My learning process in this research has spanned far greater territory than Michael Jackson and his life. I loved the movie, and it was an eye opener for me, that’s all. Btw, I couldn’t tell who the shooter was in the end. Was it his son?

            I don’t know if Jordy is really more credible than Gavin. He was the first widely publicized victim, so I think in the eyes of some people, he paved the way for others, whether Jackson was guilty or innocent. It can be viewed as Jordy opening the whole can of worms, the kingpin so to speak. I don’t know as much about the Chandlers as the Arvizos. I’ve never read Ray’s book. The things I have read left me feeling like it boils down to one simple decision……you either believe Jordy, or you don’t. Again, no real smoking gun.

            I admit I’m puzzled by the Arvizos lack of interest in selling their stories. Maybe threats on their lives have prevented them from indulging in that paycheck? If Jackson was guilty, wouldn’t they want to maintain that in the public eye? It might be a stretch Andreas, but, a fraction of me thinks if Jackson was guilty, they’d speak about it. However, if they stirred up false allegations, that’s every reason to run and hide. Just a theory…..I don’t expect you to buy it. 🙂

            The comment about Gavin being coached – he told security, according to statements in the JCP case, that his parents made him do it. They’d approached and apprehended him hiding in the van, and that was his retort. One COULD conclude, if he was being honest that his parents made him do it, that coaching him to steal gives rise to coaching him in all kinds of other fiascos. I.e. Molestation. He said it with his own mouth, “they made me do it”. Its not much of a stretch to entertain the idea that this was their way of life, regardless of which parent was at the helm. In contrast, if Gavin fabricated that on the spot at age 7, he was a pretty good little liar already. I tend to believe They made him do it. That muddies the water for the molestation case in my mind. If they made him steal from a department store at age 7, what’s next?

            Janet did deny being bruised up by David. But, there’s a protection order to factor in, along with different claims that he had beaten her. All things considered, what was her reason for ever denying it? Was it so she could blame it on JCP security? That doesn’t prove her to be a very honorable character. I personally think she threw herself around the house a little bit, thrusting herself on the furniture to sustain enough bruising to prove she was a victim of SOMEthing. I am not expecting you to agree Andreas……I know better by now. I’m simply trying to make sense of nonsense. Not that easy, turns out. 🙂

          • Pea

            Oh, one other thing about Frank Cascio’s book: I will say — and this is the same feeling I had when I first read it — the whole discussion about the Arvizos is fairly vague. Jacko’s fans quote the book all the time, but I would have thought they’d be angrier at how sparse the Arvizo section was. He said he and Vinnie gave Joe Tacopina their whole history with the Arvizos but he didn’t even bother to lay it out for the reader. :/

            While I personally don’t believe any of the family’s claims at this point, I think it is very evident in the book that Frank Cascio just doesn’t know for sure whether Jacko molested that boy. On pages 276-277, he says he was angry at Jacko for opening up the Arvizo can of worms when he just had to have Gavin in the Bashir documentary (of course, he didn’t make the leap in logic and note that Jacko was just a massive user who used people to make himself look better), and that Jacko had somehow allowed Janet to set the whole thing up with her manipulations. In my opinion, what Frank is really saying is that he’s upset Jacko opened himself up to being accused because he knows Jacko is a pedophile. Did Jacko give into temptation, reversing all of the work his people had done getting the rebuttal film together? I truly believe that was prominent in his mind — he doesn’t know for sure!

            Frank slept in the room with Jacko and the Arvizo boys that time in 2000 because he didn’t want Jacko to molest anyone.

            It’s amusing to read or watch Frank say he believes in Jacko’s innocence. His book is creepy and he speaks as though Jacko is his dead ex-lover, and it’s obvious Frank was molested. How can he ever certain?

          • Neely

            Wait, when was Pellicano involved? What year? Sorry, unless I read it yesterday, I don’t tend to retain it….. :-(. I stand corrected.

            I do remember the event where Jackson was home but told Gavin he wasn’t. That doesn’t sound heartbroken to me though. Basic avoidance? I have a hard time reading more into it than that. Heartbroken and fearful is kind of a jump for me, although if this is your conviction, I can’t stone you for that. Certainly I don’t know what his frame of mind was.

            Honestly, I feel like the ‘kidnapping’ claims were quite inflated, but, there is some truth at the hub. I feel like that aspect was the most believable part of all the testimony I read. Due to timeline though, among other things in testimony, I still find it hard to believe the molestation. So many inconsistencies with even things like the door alarms. They’re meant to alarm a predator in action, yet, they’re inaudible. Which is it?? There are lots of details like this that make it so difficult to believe. The timeline is a big one too. If your claim of fear is true, Jackson acted completely recklessly (and you must admit abandoned all fear) by molesting Gavin at the very moment he was under scrutiny and suspicion by the law, and the world.

            It isn’t my intention to open a can of worms that we have already hashed over. It’s just that I still have many questions, there are mysteries in my mind that remain unsolved. I watched the documentary that’s been recently spoken about on social media. Have you watched it (anyone)? “An Open Secret”……it was so alarming, and if ever there were a poster child for molestation, Michael Jackson was it. I can reject what I wish to all day long, but, the facts are that he fits the profile so perfectly. I never thought I was invested much in this drama, but, I admit I’m disappointed when I see things like this, and compare them to Jackson’s world. Maybe the disappointment has its roots in the opportunity to literally make a global difference, and it was negated by behaviors that rendered him a criminal in public perception. How tragic.

          • Pea

            Pellicano worked for Michael Jackson — or did work for him — in the time period of 1987 – 1993; he was compensated in 1995.

            I agree that there was something underlying the so-called kidnapping/conspiracy, such as Jacko’s people being heavy-handed in dealing with the family (after all they did want to get them on tape to buttress their claims that Bashir had taken the Gavin portion of “Living With Michael Jackson” and twisted it into something sinister), but, given Janet’s fragile mental state, is it really their fault that she mistook their “handling” as threatening? I don’t think it is. Some people read a lot into things others say or do that has little, if any, basis in reality. That seems to be the most logical explanation, seeing that the kids didn’t feel threatened, they didn’t want to leave Neverland, etc. Also, that is me assuming that Janet was being genuine in her claims of distress, which I’m not entirely certain about. According to phone records, she freely called a bunch of people while at Neverland but the poor thing never told any of those people to call the police.

            I’m convinced at this point that all of the “bad” was injected into their Neverland visit well after the fact, as per Janet’s style with the JC Penney’s claim. I was surprised (although I shouldn’t have been) to read that she had signed up for victim’s compensation. LOL.

            Anyway, yes, I watched “The Open Secret”. What resonated with me was the portrait of Marty Weiss; he was so similar to Michael Jackson, although that would be consistent with the fact that there is a profile for “nice guy”-acquaintance molesters. Befriending the kid, befriending the parents, becoming a de jure member of the family…. It’s amusing: fans would be reticent to see the similarities between Jacko and Marty, but they’d readily draw comparisons with Walt Disney, who also retained his playfulness and relived his childhood through his Disney creations. Of course, Jacko is much, much more like Marty Weiss than Disney!

            “Maybe the disappointment has its roots in the opportunity to literally make a global difference, and it was negated by behaviors that rendered him a criminal in public perception.”

            That’s one puzzle I’ve yet to crack, but it seems to me that there was something — who knows what — that prevented Jacko from being “good”. He had grand ideas about healing the world and wanting Earth’s people to be conscious, but he himself was so far from those ideals and it was very, very obvious that that was the case! What created the chasm between what he said he was and wanted to be, and what he actually was? Or is the simplest explanation that he simply was bad and it was hard for him to fight against what had become second nature? Things to think about!

          • Andreas

            It isn’t my intention to open a can of worms that we have already hashed over. It’s just that I still have many questions, there are mysteries in my mind that remain unsolved.

            Yeah, I get that Neely. It is a difficult case, for sure, easily demonstrated by how polarized people’s opinions about it is.
            I really can’t tell anyone what to think, I’m just calling things like I personally see them. 🙂

            As for the timeline, I think the first molestations of Gavin was 3rd and 4th of Mars 2003, and then the potential later ones, after Jackson came back, so, like 9th and 10th of Mars. These days could have been the ones where Star saw things two days in a row, and then went back to sleep in the guest units, like he said. Davellin confirmed Star came back a couple of days to sleep in the guest units, so things seems to fit.

            As for the alarms, I never saw that as much of a problem. First off, there were two sets. One in the hallways, where the sound is more distant, and one when you walked up the stairs to Jackson’s bedroom. I think Star said the ones in the hallways went off, they rang, but they were quite faded and low from the bedroom, so a drugged down and drunk Jackson probably just didn’t notice them. As for the alarms on the stairs, yes, Jackson probably should have heard them if they were turned on, but Star said they didn’t go off. I personally think they were just turned off. No big problem the way I see it.

            If your claim of fear is true, Jackson acted completely recklessly (and you must admit abandoned all fear) by molesting Gavin at the very moment he was under scrutiny and suspicion by the law, and the world.

            Surely the weirdest part of the whole saga, yes. I think perhaps Jackson felt safer after the rebuttal tape was done. Maybe he thought he was safe after that. According to Jesus Salas Mr. Jackson was also very very drunk and on prescription drugs during this period, so its possible to also say he just wasn’t thinking quite right. If you accept he perhaps was a pedophile already, you know, and you consider the fact people do a lot of things they shouldn’t do when they’re drunk or influenced by drugs, things they wouldn’t do when they are sober, its not so unlikely. At the same time there was quite a lot of grooming on Gavin leading up to it too, which could be seen as strategic, so I don’t know. Jackson was a weird guy. Most things indicate he did it though.

            I watched An Open Secret too. I quite liked it, although personally found it a little bit too careful in its approach maybe? Some interesting stuff though, and I suddenly feel justified for not liking Brian Singers movies. I also re-watched Capturing The Friedmans recently. Its very recommendable on the topic of pedophiles. Great documentary. I used to argue back in the day with a buddy if the Friedmans were pedos or not. (I used to think they were, while he was adamant they weren’t.)

          • ShawntayUStay

            He even gave Gavin, an 11 year old boy with cancer a Ford Bronco. Take a second and google a picture of a Ford Bronco to appreciate how absurd that is.

            How is it absurd to give transportation to a family that claimed they needed transportation? He didn’t give Gavin a Ford Bronco, he gave it to the family. According to David Arvizo, it was a “loan” of sorts that they were allowed to use to help get Gavin to the hospital, etc. That would explain why the Arvizo family called MJ’s people up and wanted them to have the car fixed when it was wrecked; they never got it back. If it was the gift used for the purposes of grooming — as you seem to suggest — why on Earth would MJ take it back?

            As for MJ giving Gavin gifts, so what. In terms of quantity… he’s rich, so the scale will always be larger. He was always generous when it came to giving gifts. He believed he was helping by giving a kid with cancer presents. That’s a completely logical explanation.

            Michael also sent very mushy letters to Gavin.

            Really? When? Where are these letters, because not one was ever read during the boys’ testimonies, and none were read in court that objectively fit the description of “mushy”. (But effusive letters sent to MJ from the Arvizos were read!) Are they still inside the mysterious potted plants Janet talked about? How can one argue that MJ sent Gavin any letters that were “inappropriate” if said letters have never materialized? You’re just believing they existed because they claimed it!

            Let’s put this one to bed: the “love” letters didn’t exist because they were never found and only known to exist by one person — Janet Arvizo.

            She felt alarmed by several things, because Gavin said Michael told him all his favorite things(colors, etc) was exactly the same, which sounded suspicious to her

            That’s what she says……

            Easy, she just limited more and more of the phone calls, broke them off early, and didn’t let Gavin go as much to Neverland, because Michael was inviting him over all the time at that point, begging him to come. (This is all in her testimonies, more in detail in the grand jury one though)

            That’s what she says….. But it seemed these requests for Gavin to visit NL (many times MJ wasn’t even there, so there goes that…) was because MJ wanted to film the video of Gavin and Star, to have them on tape showing MJ helping out a sick child. Cynical, of course, but doesn’t seem to be about “grooming”. As Gavin testified to, MJ cut off contact when he went into remission. Gavin was a photo-op.

            Its true that Janet never visited Neverland after that initial time, (save one time on a day trip for Chris Tucker’s son’s birthday at Neverland, I think, but Michael wasn’t there so it probably doesn’t count.) To me however this says, contrary to what Tom Meserau desperately wanted to portray, she had no need to “adopt” Michael Jackson into the family. Really, she was a bit uneasy about Michael all the time, and rightly so.

            Well, an alternate explanation that goes with other testimony is Janet’s absence was a typical thing when it came to dealing with potential celebrity benefactors. David was the one at the events and he was the one chaperoning Gavin around. I’d wager that Janet made everyone else do the “grunt work” because she was decidedly off-putting; Chris Tucker rarely interacted with Janet, and when he did, he found her unlikable.

            Michael on his side understood the mother was on to him, and judging by how most people describe Janet she probably wasn’t too subtle, so he broke contact scared and ‘heartbroken’ over Gavin, and even though Gavin visited Neverland a few times more, it slowed down and stopped eventually. Michael once hid from Gavin when he was there, making Gavin confused, but to me that only indicates Michael’s panic, and not his “disinterest” or whatever(you’re not usually hiding from people you’re disinterested in, right?). Michael simply knew he had to stay away, because he sensed (perhaps correctly) Janet wasn’t really stable, and wasn’t controllable

            I’m sorry but this is ridiculous, Andreas. One, you are assuming MJ felt this way, which is unknowable, and by the facts, doesn’t seem to be true. Secondly, how would MJ know Janet was unstable if she only met him once?? David Arvizo was the chaperoning parent, not Janet, so that makes no logical sense that MJ’d ever suspect anything problematic with Janet! The most likely and simplest explanation is that MJ was not interested in Gavin anymore because he wasn’t useful since his cancer was in remission and he couldn’t be a photo-op to make MJ look good. He already had the video of Star and cancer-stricken Gavin; Gavin was no longer “needed”.

            And yes, you absolutely would hide from people you’re disinterested in, LOL. MJ was exposed as lying to this kid about being away from NL; MJ’d only lie if he was trying to be nice by letting a cancer kid come to Neverland but really didn’t want to spend any time with said cancer kid.

            This also explains the whole conspiracy theory. They knew that Janet talking to the media could destroy Michael’s repuation, so they had to get them away.

            They indeed knew that the Arvizo family needed to be contained, so to speak, because for the right price they could say anything. So in that regard, it’s quite understandable they’d do whatever it took, including claiming there were death threats against the family, to get them to come to Miami and then stay at NL. I think the handlers “over-handled” crazy Janet Arvizo, but that doesn’t mean there was any conspiracy to harm the family or, as you seem to bizarrely suggest, kill them. And if the co-conspirators were attempting to “get rid of” the Arvizos, mafia-style, why on Earth were the district attorneys disinterested in them being indicted or testifying? Surely a conspiracy to commit murder is much more serious than a conspiracy to get a family on tape to make sure said family couldn’t make money off of bad-mouthing Michael Jackson…

          • Andreas

            That would explain why the Arvizo family called MJ’s people up and wanted them to have the car fixed when it was wrecked; they never got it back. If it was the gift used for the purposes of grooming — as you seem to suggest — why on Earth would MJ take it back?

            According to Janet both the car and the laptop got problems, and Jackson’s secretary Evvy said to send them back, and they would fix it. According to Janet(not worth much to you, I know..) Jackson kept saying Gavin had to come to Neverland to get them back. She didn’t let Gavin go back, so neither the car nor the computer ever came back either.

            As for MJ giving Gavin gifts, so what. In terms of quantity… he’s rich, so the scale will always be larger. He was always generous when it came to giving gifts. He believed he was helping by giving a kid with cancer presents.

            Yeah, I suppose like he would with any cancer patient or something. Okay. Check this page at the bottom, Shawntay: http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-04/htcs/htcs120.html
            Do you really think that doesn’t sound like a Jackson quite in awe of a little boy? There’s quite a few quotes confirming Jackson’s dedication to the boy in Shmuley’s book.

            Are they still inside the mysterious potted plants Janet talked about? How can one argue that MJ sent Gavin any letters that were “inappropriate” if said letters have never materialized? You’re just believing they existed because they claimed it!

            Jackson’s people took them, yes. Its confirmed they were there and took everything in the apartment, so why not these things too when EVERYTHING was taken? But if you insist Janet is lying about these letters… fine.

            Let’s put this one to bed: the “love” letters didn’t exist because they were never found and only known to exist by one person — Janet Arvizo.

            And Gavin, obviously.

            As Gavin testified to, MJ cut off contact when he went into remission.

            Nope. Read his testimony again. He was not in remission at all. Jackson broke contact in the middle of his cancer.

            Chris Tucker rarely interacted with Janet, and when he did, he found her unlikable.

            Sure, probably why both Janet and Davellin was good friends of Tucker’s girlfriend at the time, Azya Pryor, who was very fond of both?

            How would MJ know Janet was unstable if she only met him once?? David Arvizo was the chaperoning parent, not Janet, so that makes no logical sense that MJ’d ever suspect anything problematic with Janet!

            According to Janet, David went to Michael saying Janet was skeptical of him. Besides that, Gavin could have made signals of it. In this period Michael was calling Gavin a lot. Its true though, Janet didn’t converse directly with Jackson, she just held Gavin back from him. Thats the claim too though.

            They indeed knew that the Arvizo family needed to be contained, so to speak, because for the right price they could say anything.

            Exactly, demonstrated neatly by how they never once have taken an interview or anything for money from this whole ordeal? Hah.
            Yeah, this family sure made money from the tabloids by this Jackson thing.

            And if the co-conspirators were attempting to “get rid of” the Arvizos, mafia-style, why on Earth were the district attorneys disinterested in them being indicted or testifying?

            Oh. Their trial was planned afterwards, probably because the case was already too big, but as they couldn’t get Jackson charged guilty for the conspiracy charge, the co-conspirators got off by proxy. Tom Meserau could have called them in though, as defense witnesses, if he so chose to, but it seems like his strategy was keeping his client seperated from what they were doing.

          • ShawntayUStay

            1) Regarding the car. You believe Janet.

            2) Regarding the “love” letters” that don’t exist. You believe Janet and her coached son, Gavin.

            3) Regarding MJ somehow knowing, ESP-style, that the mother he barely knew thought he was a dirty pedo. You believe Janet.

            You just believe everything they say, and the question is “Why?” given other likely alternative explanations? How does a conspiracy to basically “get rid of” the Arvizos in Brazil mesh well with MJ wanting to molest this boy? Makes no sense. And how are you viewing this story as believable — this mother as believable and credibility — when even a sympathetic media didn’t buy her crap? The DAs didn’t buy it either or they would’ve charged the others with a crime, too.

            As for the Rabbi, no, the page doesn’t sound like a man “in awe” of a kid in the way you suggest. It sounds like a man that wants to use a cancer kid to make himself look like a “savior of children”, a child’s advocate. He was clearly delusional and clearly obsessed with the fact Gavin had cancer. You put a lot of stock in MJ’s saccharin words but the Rabbi made it clear that MJ’s words about Gavin did not match his actions with Gavin. He said MJ said all this stuff but from his vantage point, he showed very little interest in the boy. That’s why in the Rabbi’s opinion, he didn’t believe MJ molested Gavin. So, what’s the most logical conclusion given this information? It’s that MJ was full of shit talking about healing sick kids when he clearly only used them as props. Gavin was a photo-op.

            (BTW, yes in the middle of his cancer. I couldn’t remember exactly. My point still stands. Once he got his video footage he didn’t given a crap about the Arvizo family. Sounds similar to what happened with the Bashir filming in 2002, where he cut off contact again, and with the rebuttal tape, where after the filming MJ left for Miami for the rest of February to early March. Same pattern, same reasoning: MJ couldn’t care less once he used people for his personal gain.)

          • Neely

            Hi Pea!! Maybe DD made that statement to garner attention. Isn’t she an opportunistic has been as well?

            I recently started following a ton of people on Twitter as a means to gather more information about Michael Jackson. Corey Feldman was one, and he blows up the feed with his new project, asking for donations. This is probably not news to you, but I knew nothing about him prior. people here were saying he was beginning to look like Michael and spurred my curiosity. (And the DD comment). I’m following her too, and any Jackson I can find. Of course a rabbit hole developed and now I’ve looked up Pellicano in prison and have entertained the idea of writing him. Surely he’s a has been by now too right? He might be positively gleeful at the idea of getting mail. The pedophile I wrote to in Indiana didnt really want to communicate with me about Jackson. His new name is definitely Joy Kill. :-).

            Anyhow, what the heck is Pellicano talking about when he says Jackson did far worse things to kids than molest them? (very loosely quoted). What could be worse? Dismembering a tiny body is all I can come up with. I can’t think of a motivation for him to lie on the subject given the context of the article in which it was written. He seemed honest and down to earth, even loyal in the remainder of the article, which makes me question why he would deviate on this particular subject. My introductory line might read like this, ‘don’t be a douche’. I do have some modicum of respect for him, even if he wasn’t law abiding. His forward thinking efforts and determination appeal to me. The statement he made however, is shallow and disrespectful to readers, leaving everyone with a ? In their minds. First question, ‘what is worse than child molestation’? We need to get that on the table at the outset. And really, what does the man have on his calendar so time consuming that he’s unable to answer to Neely?? 🙂

            I haven’t decided for sure if I’m going to do it, but, I will share our correspondence and budding new friendship here……if in fact he’s unable to resist.

          • Pea

            Hi Neely. 🙂

            I wouldn’t necessarily call Diane Dimond a “has been”, so to speak, but she’s definitely not “working” like she used to. I can’t tell you what my first inclination was about her Corey Feldman comment — I only saw the thread after Corey called her out. It was a bit surreal to see her deny her own words; it only compounded dark suspicions I held about her ethics. It wouldn’t be the first time from her, unfortunately. I think she’s a little too invested in the Jacko story, and her personal beliefs sometimes supplant the facts. Her book is measured, though. God bless that attempt. 🙂

            I don’t follow Corey Feldman — his Twitter or his “career” — so I don’t know much about him… besides that he seems like your typical attention-seeking D-lister, lol. 😉

            As for Pellicano, his comments greatly upset fans back in 2011. Over at Vindicate MJ, they wanted to write him in jail, they were so troubled. It was all pretty funny. I can’t imagine what he was referring to — we certainly know Jacko, although rumored to be interested in the Occult, wouldn’t dismember a kid (“disrobe” maybe, never “dismember”, lol). So, speculating, I think maybe he was referring to penetrative sex or something along those lines. “Molestation” is touching/fondling/masturbation, right? Sex would be worse…. But is it “far worse”, which was the term Pellicano used? That we don’t really know…. He just acted like it was something that made him their in the proverbial towel, but that’s a lie — he was paid $2-3M in 1995 and given a Mercedes convertible for his “work”. While he has 9 kids or so, I don’t think he had a soul to care about other people’s kids, a typical feature of those in Jacko’s world.

            I think that contradiction is one of the reasons why fans think it’s impossible for him to have been telling the truth.

            I totally think you should contact him, if you can. I’m sure he’s gotten letters but I doubt he’d clarify, let alone answer. He seems to follow the “Snitches Get Stitches” credo.

          • Neely

            Yeah, once Michael Jackson died, what did Diane Dimond do with herself. Too bad she’d put all her eggs in one basket. Once the I read about the Canadian debacle, my opinion of her developed quickly. Someone gave her a little too much rope. I can respect her opinion that Jackson was a child molester. I can’t respect her getting on national TV and talking about the positive existence of some tape she’d never laid eyes on. Even a moron would use better judgment.

            So you think Pellicano was lying in his statement? The whole article seemed truthful though. He didn’t make outrageous statements about the other celebrities they highlighted. He respected their confidentiality for the most part, I thought. But, if he was still on the payroll, I guess that says something.

            Defining molestation: I thought it was the umbrella word, to cover any type of improper touching, including penetration, but not necessarily with the requirement of penetration. The word seems open to interpretation, and when I read Pellicano’s words, I imagined every form of inappropriateness on the spectrum, including penetration, and can’t imagine what would be worse. I can’t call his words verbatim right now. I just remember being baffled. Was he ticked at Jackson for some unknown reason so he rambled about something the rest of the world was likely to believe as a means of vilifying him?

            Like you, I rather doubt Pellicano will respond, let alone speak of any indiscretions, or explain his stance on his own statement. At which point I will have to up my game and pay him a visit. Just kidding……maybe. Lol

          • Andreas

            I actually wonder if the “worse than molesting the boys” comment by Anthony Pellicano meant Jackson was filming them, or something to that effect. Blanca Francia, personal maid for many years, said once in an interview that Jackson had very high tech camera equipment in his bedroom. Now, you could probably argue that molesting would be worse than filming, but its really arguable if you think about it. If Pellicano hid a collection of films with boys nude or what have you, he could easily say thats worse than Jackson “only” molesting them. (If he molested them ON film thats obviously worse.)

            Bill Dworin, responsible for the first police raid at Neverland, said there was a huge visible chunk from Jackson’s video collection missing, and it looked like someone had removed it in a hurry. The police said they were aware of that someone had been there and taken stuff away.

            There was for example a safe the police spent hours getting into, and when they got into it it only contained a note with the password to the safe, which was obviously someone having fun with the police, but it also showed someone had been obviously there.

          • Pea

            The problem with Diane Dimond is that she’s too thirsty, like a rabid animal in need of water — every journalist is; they all want the “big story”. But she’s a tabloid girl, and I think the practices of the tabloid circuit make it so you’re less careful with the facts. The Jacko sex tape debacle in 1995, the “love letters”, the Rodney Allen scam… all of them evidence an individual who just wants to be the first one to report on something “big”. That can get messy quick, lol.

            I don’t think Pellicano was lying about Jacko doing something worse than molestation — the comment wasn’t solicited, according to the article and he was the only celebrity client Pellicano mentioned as far as we know. I just suspect that he saw the incredulity or shock in the writer’s face and quickly shielded himself from censure by claiming some modicum of scruples. (Pellicano knows full well the couple million he was paid was for intimidating witnesses into silence.)

            So, no, I think he was telling the truth. I’m not sure why he would finger Jacko in particular, though. I know they claimed Bert Fields and Pellicano weren’t fired in 1993 but “resigned”; perhaps that was whitewashed and they were booted. He could’ve been raw. Or, my theory, the stuff he knew of Jacko was so varied that the conversation about his days as running Hollywood necessarily brought them to mind — maybe Jacko was one of his “hardest jobs”, legally speaking.

          • “What could be worse than child molestation?” That’s easy, and I don’t understand why you couldn’t think of it. Molesting involves inappropriate touching, but not actual sexual intercourse. So what’s worst than molesting a child, is actually having sex with or raping a child. Child sexual abuse that isn’t just molestation, involves actual sexual intercourse. That has to be what Pellicano meant when he said Jackson did far worse things to kids than molest them. I’m pretty sure that MJ got away with more than just molesting many of the kids that he groomed and have shared his bed, there has to be at least a few victims that he actually had sex with.

          • Neely

            Well, that’s entirely dependent on how you interpret the word molestation. As it’s stated here, it DOES include penetration –
            http://www.childrefuge.org/molestation.html

            Some say the word is all inclusive. Some say it doesn’t include penetration. I tend to think of it as all inclusive. Do you now understand why I ‘couldn’t think of it’?

            If ‘it’s easy’ as you suggest, how would Pellicano have any notion of whether there was penetration or not? You’re saying he knew intimate details of the sex acts, enough to make a public statement that confirms a differentiation between molestation and penetration? Yeah, don’t think so.

      • The Queen Of Swords

        Even though I knew as far back as 2007 by Feldman’s own words that he was drunk/drugged and abused in a bed, I use to think MJ wasn’t one of them simply because I didn’t think he’d lie about that and that his sexual abusers were only John Grissom & Alphy Hoffman. But as of recently I have had the same thoughts due to his 2010 statement that he’d expose MJ when Katherine died, Wade/James coming forward, Feldman’s negativity towards Wade, his recent obsession with MJ & his supposed innocence, and Sean’s “Bubbles Burst” video.

        Check out these videos:

        The Two Cores Discuss Sexual Abuse:

        https://youtu.be/BlZxPPzjIb0

        Corey Feldman Opens Up About Childhood Abuse:

        https://youtu.be/ADFIaO7lGyU

        *** MJ took Jonathan Spence to DisneyLand & in Feldman’s 1993 statements & in his own book states MJ took him to DisneyLand and on adventures …

        Remember Gavin Arvizo’s allegations?:

        https://youtu.be/Bi8HCUp_f5c

        Remember when Aaron Carter Said MJ Gave Him Alcohal & Weed?:

        https://youtu.be/NLg0gn7h2fA

        By CF’s own words, if he named his abusers he would have a Media-frenzy and Media harassing him & his son. Now, whose name would cause that?

        • Pea

          Can you provide the source of Corey Feldman claiming he’d expose Jacko when Katherine Jackson died? That’s interesting, if true.

          Also, his comment about a media-feeding frenzy at his doorstep following the naming of his abuser(s) doesn’t necessarily mean Michael Jackson, by the way. I’ve heard some point to David Geffen as the offender — that would certainly be huge….

          As it stands, Corey Feldman’s candidness about what Jacko had done (i.e. showing him the book of naked people infected with venereal diseases and allegedly requesting to bring porn as a stipulation for a sleepover) while maintaining that nothing physical had happened is very convincing evidence to me that he is telling the truth about their short-lived relationship.

          Personally, I wouldn’t use Gavin Arvizo’s claims as some kind of corroboration of Jacko having molested Corey Feldman. The jury sat through 70+ days of testimony and acquitted him of all counts; the jury of public opinion is still out to lunch on the validity of that boy’s allegations as well. Ditto with using Aaron Carter. Even if both were telling the truth (well, Aaron carter certainly was), Jacko was a lot older, more drug-addled, and quite faded in status and prestige when those events allegedly occurred; Corey, alternately, would’ve been molested during a time when Jacko wasn’t as debilitated. No other early accuser talked about being made to be drunk before molestation occurred….

          I don’t think it is impossible that Jacko predated upon Corey Feldman, but do you have anything more reliable on which to base that belief?

          • The Queen Of Swords

            My first reply that I typed last night (which was very long and referenced/quoted Feldman’s words about Michael from 1993 to today and compared some of them to what he has said of “Ron Crimson” — of whom I now honestly believe is a mixture of both MJ & John Grissom — in an interview I posted) is not posting for some reason.

            Here is former MJ maid Adrian McManus’ words about MJ which back up both Gavin’s and Aaron’s claims.
            http://youtu.be/LoWXTzYiYzc

          • Pea

            It went into the Spam folder, but I’ve rescued it now. 🙂

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Thanks. 🙂 But I probably un-did what you did. All I did was edit an error (I hate seeing them in writing), and it’s gone …

          • Pea

            Yes, if you edit the comment, it will kick it back to moderation. Standard operating procedure. 🙂

        • Andreas

          By CF’s own words, if he named his abusers he would have a Media-frenzy and Media harassing him & his son. Now, whose name would cause that?

          Yeah, but to bring you to the same page Corey has talked about several people that molested him as a child, at least four, and many of them Corey has claimed are big shot names in Hollywood. So it could be others than Jackson he’s talking about even if they’re famous. To be fair.

          Although I personally suspect Corey was molested by Jackson, and that he indeed was one of these people, but I do think his main perpetrator wasn’t Jackson. There’s someone who did something to Corey over a period of time that seems to deserve his special contempt more, and I think that also could be someone powerful in Hollywood.

          I am currently researching the Arvizo case, and I did find an interesting Corey-related tidbit with what the police found at Marc Schaffel who worked for Jackson (he was one of the co-conspirator of the kidnapping of the Arvizo family), and Schaffel had hired a woman Kathryn Milofsky, who would send him urgent matters, often from the media about Jackson. The police found two mails called “Corey Feldman urgent urgent”, and “notes and quotes Feldman urgent urgent”.

          In the media around 2003 Corey did come out and said, referring to Gavin, among others:

          “This child — if he’s telling the truth — and the other children like him — if they’re telling the truth — they’re small voices, they’re weak voices.”.

          So its possible Schaffel & co were discussing these public comments by Corey, and about Corey going against Jackson, and how to handle them. How to contain Corey, perhaps.

          Therefore I find it weird that he’s latching out on Wade Robson after the allegations to be one of the most suspicious things about the whole thing. If Corey wasn’t touched by Jackson, but he would support others who he suspected could have been victims of Jackson, why wouldn’t he support Wade too? To me it seems like he’s more angry about Wade for blowing off his cover.

          Here’s what Corey said about Wade:

          “@MikeParziale1 dude get over it! MJ is gone And if Wade had a gripe, he shoulda said so while the man could defend himself!” “plus if he was such a victim y did he take his side during “the trial” and let MJ buy him a house/car? I never took a thing!”

          “I never took a thing” ?? Umm.. For what? For Jackson never molesting him perhaps?

          I didn’t know MJ bought Wade a house or a car for protecting Jackson in the 2005 trial. If thats true thats certainly interesting too.

          If nothing happened with Corey and Michael I’m just surprised why he’s being so defensive. Thats what made me suspicious in the first place, because it makes no sense. I think Corey sounds quite genuine when he says Michael didn’t touch him, but its his over-the-top defensiveness and other stuff/rumors/facts that makes me at we wonder if there’s something he isn’t telling us.

          And of course, Jackson threatening to sue Corey when he was writing a book about his life, according to Corey himself. I mean thats as transparent as it gets. Something inappropriate must have happened. No way around it.

  • yaso

    What’s the deal with Gavin Arvizo’ case? was Michael falsely accused at this one time or what? Was there an exaggeration on the prosecution side like the kidnapping accusation?

    • Andreas

      Do you personally think so, yaso?

      • yaso

        No, I don’t think so. I know Michael was a pedo who victimized Multiple boys through the years. I just need to know more information about that Arvizo case other than the available court transcripts . Most probably Michael deliberately chose a boy from a family with questionable credibility to cast doubts on the boy’ claims and i think that exactly what happened in this case. His team played on the credibility issue of Gavin’ family.

        • Andreas

          Right. Yes, its unfortunate that one have to read thousands of pages of testimony just to get a fair picture. I’m writing on some stuff that attempts to “unpack” things a bit more though. Both the molestation case and the conspiracy case, and how they relate. Hopefully I can shed some light on what actually happened. 🙂

          • yaso

            Will be waiting for it. I think Gavin Arvizo’ case deserves to be discussed more like the other victims’ and we should shed more light on it other than the very lengthy court transcripts. I believe the failed Arvizo court case shut down any further claims (until Wade Robson), and his death has put Jackson on an even higher pedestal. When you look at what happens to victims who do come forward in abuse/assault cases (like the many Cosby victims for example ) and how they are pilloried and branded gold-digging opportunists etc it’s a wonder anyone ever does.There’s a very strong message from society not to tarnish our heroes.

          • Kat

            I too think that this site would benefit from a few articles about the Arvizos. They are key players in the Michael Jackson child molestation saga, but there’s hardly anything about them here, except court room trial transcripts that are lengthy to read.

            However I also think that whatever is written about them has to be well-researched and unbiased, so that people could draw their own conclusions. They are quite controversial after all – not everyone believes them.

          • Neely

            Here’s a video about the Arvizos I found interesting.
            https://youtu.be/lmjQ8UUVv2I

          • Pea

            I watched that interview a few days ago. I didn’t know what to think of it — and I probably should watch it again — but it seemed the interviewer should’ve worked a bit harder establishing the timeline of the classmate’s narrative about Gavin. That was the most confusing part. The crucial bit (i.e. the stuff the fans were saying was “explosive”) I couldn’t really decide when it happened.

            The girl was also clearly a Michael Jackson fanatic, which was a bit… unfortunate. :/ I wonder if her memories of Gavin forced her into Jacko fandom? Probably….

            But what she said about Gavin bragging about being close with Jacko — because he told her he was always instructed to brag about the celebrities with whom he was associated — was pretty telling. It comports with Janet’s comments that she had always wanted to be famous and not a housewife sitting around getting fat. I always wondered why they even knew celebs anyway — a poor barrio troop? It makes no sense unless you consider there was at least some calculation on their parts to get next to those particular people.

            Also the comment the classmate made about Gavin being pulled out of school randomly really hit home how toxic Janet must’ve been. Truancy is usually a sign of trouble.

            But what was your opinion of it, Neely? Again, I should probably re-watch.

          • Neely

            Thank you for asking Pea. I was disappointed too that she turned out to be a fan. And, I was a little shocked by a few points……

            I had taken Gavin’s bullying with a grain of salt, which apparently was very real and painful for him. I really thought he (or Janet or both) was playing that up quite a bit. Maybe because in my mind it would thrust him into popularity (holding hands with the king of pop), All sexual pretenses aside. I would be intrigued by it, not suspicious about his sexuality or any misconduct. But, times were very different when I was in middle school…. And I must say quite sheltered.

            He disappeared from school many times, which was already established although a bit fuzzy for me. It sounds like janet had literally no regard for his education, and I’d been hopeful that this wasn’t blatantly the case.

            The girl came out and said she whole heartedly believes that Gavin had always been coached to lie, and this was just one of those times. I believe her. And, I agree the timelne wasn’t very clear, but she did mention she was reflecting on events from several years ago. I remember she said it seemed like he was there, and then he was gone and it happened within the confines of a single semester. She recalled the important parts imho.

            I just finished watching a little clip from Linda Deutsch who said that Janet’s whole plan and expectation was to live out her days at Neverland in her personal cottage. This isn’t something I’d heard before, and it put some puzzle pieces into place for me. I didn’t really believe Jackson’s comrades emptied out her apartment and stored her stuff without her consent. I think she was expecting to move to Neverland so she was compliant with everything that would bring that to fruition. It makes sense to me anyhow. Also heard recently that Gavin asked Chris Tucker if he could go to Florida with him, not that Jackson demanded the family be there in the wake of the bashir doc.

            I am planning to watch the classmates video again as well because it was getting deep into the night and I’m sure I dozed off a few times. 🙂

          • Pea

            Hi Neely. Sorry for the slow reply; I wanted to re-watch that interview before I answered but I still haven’t gotten around to it!

            I wanted to add, though, that I was quite disappointed in the comments attributed to Carol Lamir. She said something to the effect that Jordie(?) had continued to call Jacko, crying, on the telephone after the 1993 allegations were settled, saying he was made to do it. I don’t know if that was Jacko feeding her the lie, but, if I’m remembering correctly, she claims to have been there when those calls came in.

            Obviously that is a lie. According to Randall Sullivan’s book, no member of the Chandler family had changed their stories about Jacko molesting Jordie, so… I have no idea why Lamir was saying that. It really, really made me suspicious of her — and it’s disappointing because she had a lot of interesting, telling things to say about the Arvizos! Because as with the Arvizos, when one lie is told, it makes me skeptical of other things the person may say…. :/

            I did check that Linda Deutsch video, too. I think her comments about Janet wanting to live at Neverland was her impression, but I think it was spot on. For instance, Janet (and Jay Jackson) claimed to have never given an interview to anyone from a tabloid (recall that she was contacted after the Feb 3rd airing of the Bashir doc in the UK) but that wasn’t true — she did give an interview prior to their leaving to Miami and it was published in the Daily Mail on Feb 8th:

            My dad, Michael; Cancer boy’s mother tells how he looks upon Jackson as his father and wants to travel the world with him.

            Daily Mail (London)

            February 8, 2003 | Gardner, David

            Byline: DAVID GARDNER

            The mother of the 12-year-old cancer sufferer who shares Michael Jackson’s bed has revealed how the boy thinks of the singer as his father and even calls him Daddy.

            As it emerged last night that Jackson will face a police investigation into his behaviour, Janet Arvizo said she was perfectly comfortable with her son Gavin and her two other children staying at the star’s Neverland ranch.

            She hopes Jackson will include the children in his entourage when he travels around the world. ‘Michael has brought something special into our lives,’ Mrs Arvizo told the Daily Mail in an exclusive interview. ‘He has pet names for all of my children and Gavin even calls him Daddy. He is the father they never had. He is a saint to them.’ Gavin, who was given only two weeks to live when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer two years ago, tells his mother: ‘I am living for my Daddy, Michael.’ The family has suffered so much hardship that it is perhaps not surprising that they see Jackson as a guardian angel.

            Struggling to scrape together enough welfare cash to feed and clothe Gavin, his 11-year-old brother Star and sister Davelin, 16, Mrs Arvizo was once so poor that she was forced to take the children to live in a stable.

            Courtesy of Jackson, they now have a car, numerous other gifts and live in a small but comfortable flat.

            Mrs Arvizo, 34, is clearly doing all she can to encourage the connection with their celebrity friend. ‘The children are hoping to spend a lot more time with him in the future,’ she said. ‘It is not just Gavin – all of my kids have stayed over with Michael. They have spent a lot of quality time with him on their own.

            ‘Sometimes they stay overnight. I am totally comfortable with that. They are happy with him and have a lot of fun. I don’t need to be there all the time.

            I am not worried about Michael at all. He has been so good to all of us.’ Her voice brimming with excitement, Mrs Arvizo added: ‘So far, they have only been with him at Neverland, but they are hoping to travel the world with him.

            That is what he has told them will happen. It’s a dream come true for them.

            He is their angel.

            ‘Whenever they feel sad, Michael sends them a card and invites them over to see him. They really look forward to that.’ The revelations about Jackson’s relationship with Gavin were one of the main talking points from Martin Bashir’s documentary about the singer, which was screened to 15million viewers by ITV on Monday.

            Many have since questioned the motivation of a man sleeping with children who are not related to him and last night a criminal investigation was launched into the documentary’s revelations.

            Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas Sneddon said: ‘It is anticipated that it (a videotape of the programme) will be reviewed.

            ‘The conduct of any adult under these circumstances sleeping with a child is certainly calculated to raise concerns and be considered by most reasonable people as unusual, at best. For this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking this matter seriously.’ Before meeting 44-year-old Jackson two years ago, Gavin was unquestionably at the very lowest point in his difficult upbringing in a rundown district of Los Angeles.

            While Jackson would not blink at spending millions in a morning shopping spree on Beverly Hills’ Rodeo Drive, just a few miles away Gavin’s mother was struggling to keep the family together.

            Preoccupied with her daily struggle for survival, Mrs Arvizo had paid no attention to the child molesting allegations ten years earlier that resulted in Jackson paying pound sterling10million to settle a civil suit brought by Jordy Chandler, his 13-year-old alleged victim. It was not that she knew nothing of abusive men. Friends say she was forced to take out a restraining order against her husband, David, 36, claiming he abused her and the children.

            Trying to bring up the youngsters alone, she constantly struggled to find a decent home.

            ‘They were living in a stable with the hay and horses in Bakersfield, California, for a long time,’ said family friend Jamie Masada.

            ‘I went to visit them another time to see just how bad things were and they were all living in a tiny room in Compton that wasn’t even big enough for one person to live in.

            ‘They couldn’t afford to buy clothes or food. It was heartbreaking to see people living like that in Los Angeles. It made me cry.

            ‘It is hard to believe there could be this kind of poverty in a country like America.’ Ironically, it was Gavin’s battle with kidney cancer that turned his life around.

            The first two occasions his mother took him to a community hospital complaining of stomach pains, he was turned away because he did not have insurance.

            On the insistence of Mr Masada, the owner of the Laugh Factory comedy club, Mrs Arvizo took Gavin back again. Doctors found a tumour the size of a football.

            Surgeons at Kaiser Hospital in Los Angeles operated to remove the cancer and were forced to take out one of Gavin’s kidneys and his spleen.

            Exhausting chemotherapy sessions made all his hair fall out and sapped his spirit. All the time, the medical bills were mounting.

            Gavin, Star and Davelin had earlier attended a comedy camp that Mr Masada holds each summer for underprivileged children.

            He kept in touch with the family and, after Gavin became ill, asked the boy for a wish-list of the celebrities he wanted to meet.

            After Adam Sandler, a comedian who appears on the American show Saturday Night Live, and Chris Tucker, from the Rush Hour movies, the third name on the list was Jackson’s.

            ‘Gavin said he’d seen him dance on TV and wanted to meet him,’ said Mr Masada. ‘It was like meeting these people was giving him something to live for.

            ‘I contacted Quincy Jones who talked to Michael and he came to the club but Gavin wasn’t there.

            ‘Then Michael spoke to Gavin on the telephone and called him a couple more times before he asked him if he wanted to visit Neverland.

            ‘Gavin and his brother, Star, went to Neverland and they stayed for two days. Janet would drop them off and pick them up after the weekend.

            ‘No matter what people may say about Michael Jackson, he came in and helped this boy to survive. That’s the most important thing to me.

            ‘Gavin said Michael was like a kid. They had fun and played games. Gavin is not a naive kid.

            He would have said something if something bad had happened.’ Mrs Arvizo’s ex-husband refused to comment on his son’s relationship with Jackson.

            He lives in an eastern suburb of Los Angeles with his mother, Marleen, who said: ‘He has not been able to see Gavin for about a year. I don’t even know where they are living now.’

            Her comments in that article echo a desire to want to be a part of Jacko’s world — not sure why she lied about giving the interview (well, perhaps it’s obvious why).

            “Also heard recently that Gavin asked Chris Tucker if he could go to Florida with him, not that Jackson demanded the family be there in the wake of the bashir doc.”

            My understanding is that Gavin asked Chris Tucker because he knew Chris Tucker had transportation, which, in my opinion, shows how “savvy” Gavin was. But I don’t know if Jacko had contacted Gavin to go to Miami, which then led to Gavin calling Chris. Seeing that Jacko hadn’t talked to Gavin in months (only using him for the Bashir documentary), he probably called Gavin as the family has indicated.

            In Frank Cascio’s book, he seemed to be quite bitter toward Jacko reaching out to that family again — so, in my opinion, that is at least something I feel is true: they were “invited” down there. Chris , for the record, had no knowledge about how Gavin knew Jacko’s whereabouts.

          • Neely

            I’ve been a bit crazy lately, and all things Jackson have been on the back burner….actually, not even in the stove. Just a quick question ~ have you heard the MJCast most recent podcast (or one before that)? The guest speaker, Scott (?), has a lot to say. It’s been a few weeks ago and I think his last name is Ross? A P.I. For Mesereau back in 2005. It was an entertaining podcast. Check it out if you haven’t yet.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Oh Neely, its over 2 hours long… can you give any highlights? 🙂 Sorry, I know that’s lazy of me.

            But I will saw this: fans spend an inordinate amount of time confirming their own biases.

          • Neely

            Is Scott Ross a dedicated fan?? I mean, from the interview he did, it’s obvious he doesn’t think of Jackson as a child molester, but I don’t know if I’d say he’s a fanatic. I don’t know anything else about him though aside from this interview. Is he an otherwise determined fan?

            I could give highlights if I’d heard it his morning. I think we both know how well I retain celebrity biz, lol.

            I can say this…..the man is very compelling. He was quite confident (arrogant) but I tend to be VERY drawn to that type of speak. A smooth talker who doesn’t mix things up, and there’s no doubt what he stands for. And, peppered with slightly raw humor which is always appealing to me as well…… I couldn’t look away. He had me at hello. Invest the two hours. He has some little known info about the Arvizos, and honestly he makes the whole case appear exactly like the mockery it is, imho. I too feel like it was such a waste of time and money, and there was literally nothing found in all the raiding and computer scanning, and video footage, photos, etc. Nothing there to warrant an indictment. To me, that’s criminal. Even Gavin’s words can’t render an indictment without some sort of proof or at least suspicious physical content right? Well, I’m not going to get started in this, lol. Just listen to the podcast. :-). You will enjoy it I believe.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I meant that the fans will always find someone to confirm their already established opinion. Do they ever talk to anyone that doesn’t think MJ was a demigod??

            LMAO “He had me at hello”… xD

            Okay, I’ll listen to him, you’ve convinced me. I’ll be back with my thoughts 🙂

          • Neely

            Ahhh, wonderful. I hope you enjoy it. And yes, I’d love to hear your thoughts. 🙂

          • ShawntayUStay

            Hi Neely. I’m only an hour and a half in, but I thought I should leave my thoughts because there was so much to say!

            It was very interesting his thoughts on Conrad Murray, having been the defense investigator in that case. I tend to agree with him: Murray was undoubtedly negligent but I don’t think he should’ve went to jail for those 2 years. As Ross said, it wasn’t as if Murray wanted him dead — especially since Murray took a sabbatical and MJ was going to be his only source of income! Also interesting was him saying that Murray was basically just the tail end of a bunch of doctors that were trying to help MJ, and forced to clean up the previous doctor’s mess, a mess created because the bottom line was a rich, drug addicted celebrity who demanded whatever he wanted and whenever. Also the tidbit about Dr Arnold Klein giving MJ propofol in the early 90s. At any rate, I think everyone involved — Murray and Michael — made really bad choices, but I personally feel the blame is on MJ. He refused help numerous times and never tried to get control of his excesses.

            The Arvizos: Of course they are full of BS. That case was garbage from the beginning to the end, and the Santa Barbara DA Office, the Sheriff’s Dept, etc should really have taken a giant step back and, as Scott correctly noted, thoroughly vet this family before wasting so much tax payer money. The most interesting thing (thus far, LOL) was the fact that the Arvizos being Kaiser Permanente members they did not have to pay a dime in medical bills. So what the hell where those fundraisers for?! Asking for Gavin’s story to be put on the news and in the papers. There can be only one logical explanation, and that is a scam for money. Then the fact that Janet was funneling all that money through her mother’s bank account; I guess David Arvizo’s description of her as cunning and relentless when she wants something wasn’t the bitter rantings of an ex husband after all. Add all of this to the JC Penney case, and you have one hell of a lot of reasonable doubt at the very least and full exoneration at best.

            I laughed out loud at Scott Ross’s description of Star Arvizo as being the “size of a Buick” and having a “license plate strapped to his ass”. Yes, that is a very important point: these weren’t little frail children that we saw in the 2000 video footage from Gavin’s first visit to NL. These were the healthy fully grown boys we saw in the Bashir documentary. So how the hell would anyone need to teach them sexuality? Lies! That’s another thing that a careful, objective investigation would’ve vetted.

            The alarm theory was always ridiculous. If the argument is that MJ used this alarm to know when people entered his hallway and then his bedroom, how could big butt Star Arvizo be able to slip past these measures and see his brother get molested? Not possible. See, Star’s testimony was problematic and I cannot understand why he alone didn’t raise a red flag in the mind of the prosecution. He, as large as MJ (as was Gavin Arvizo), saying that MJ touched his butt and crotch only to later change that to MJ not doing a damn thing to him is highly suspicious. I can only assume that this important fact was dismissed by the prosecution because they had their heart set out on convicting MJ for past wrongs…and likely it was an ego thing on Sneddon’s part having lost out in 93-94 (although Larry Feldman kept Jordie squarely away from Santa Barbara, likely because Sneddon would’ve charged MJ while Gil Garcetti, a former colleague/friend of Johnnie Cochran’s, wouldn’t have and allowed financial negotiations to take place in the interim.)

            Oh, and Ross was also correct in pointing out that Janet was very smart — criminal-minded but smart. She wasn’t the simple, Latina battered wife that she was portrayed to be. But does that even make sense? She wouldn’t have been able to put her kids into all these activities, schmooze with celebrities if she was an idiot. He also confirmed my opinion that she was simply adding onto real events, exaggerating to the point of absurdity in some cases. Actually, isn’t that the best way to tell a good lie? Conceal the lies within true stuff so that they (hopefully) flow into each other without a noticeable “join”? That’s why some think she told the truth (IDK why) :-/

            At this point, I’m starting to wonder why anyone believes these liars? Is it ignorance or out of knee-jerk habit? Surely it isn’t based in objective logic! The prosecution was looking for an accuser ever since Jordie Chandler. Unfortunately for everyone involved, the Arvizo family volunteered. I keep repeating this, LOL, but they should’ve been investigated, regardless if they are the alleged victim, because we’re talking about someone’s liberty here. People say the defense went after the victim and the family, etc etc but what else is the defendant supposed to do?

            I could go on, LOL, and I’m sure that there are more gems, but you get the picture. They are scum con-artists. Even though I think MJ was a pedo, I feel sorry that he had to go through this sham. This trial killed him, I think. He never recovered.

            BUT, I couldn’t disagree more with his assessment of Wade Robson. I understand that he talked to him, interviewed him, but he, just like Tom Mesereau, is looking at all of this through the prism of the Arvizo case. As a result, MJ was completely innocent of all allegations. But as Wade and James both said in their lawsuits, MJ was telling them from the get-go to deny everything. You say those long enough to a kid it becomes routinized, especially if the abuser adds the threat of total ruination if the child tells. So how hard would it have been to deny abuse when asked? Wade had been doing it for 15 years at that point. So I take his opinion with a grain of salt; there is more evidence outside of Wade’s words that makes me believe he was a “real” special friends, with all the (unfortunate) trappings that accompanied it.

            Which brings me to another point. I remember having a disagreement on here about whether Tom Mesereau “knows” that MJ was guilty and just defends him regardless. Well, if Scott Ross is to be trusted, then clearly that is not the case. I argued that Mez’s opinion on MJ is shaped by his personal dealings with the terribly fragile and humble MJ persona, his knowledge of the Arvizo case, and his lack of extensive knowledge about the earlier Chandler case. Scott Ross then confirms that lack of knowledge by revealing they only looked at what the prosecutors turned over, taped interviews. They never looked at anything from MJ’s first lawyer Bert Fields and Anthony Pellicano, who would have the bulk of info about 1993. They never subpoenaed records from Carl Douglas, who took over after Bert Fields was fired. So basically they knew very little — and MJ wasn’t talking! He could’ve easily handed over his documents from that case. The parties to the confidential settlement from 1994 actually agree to safeguard that document from ever being an exhibit in any other case.

            So Mez loves MJ honestly. So does Scott Ross. They are smart men, no doubt, but only know what they know. And they know very little details about MJ’s past.

            Okay, that’s long enough. 😀

            Oh and the thing about the computers with the nude pictures and porn on them: as MJFacts pointed out, very little fingerprints — proportionally speaking — belonging to MJ were on the porn magazines. So he likely wasn’t looking at them like the fans like to insist. Same with the computer porn. There was no logins to the computers so anyone could use them easily. There was no way to discern who was viewing those websites at any given time. So, so much for the fans’ insistence that MJ was looking for poon on the internet, LOL. According to the bodyguards who wrote a book “Remember the Time”, MJ wasn’t computer savvy at all; he could only do the most basic things and needed help.

          • ShawntayUStay

            The Scott Ross interview if anyone is interested

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GVsD9GeWrU

          • Neely

            Hey, well worth the time right?? He is a smart man and it’s quite obvious. Very compelling indeed. And yes, the license plate and Buick comments are just the raw humor I was referring to. And seriously….you can’t make this shit up about the alarms and Star getting past them. It is common sense, which makes me so appalled that this seasoned veteran such as Sneddon didn’t have the brains to string two thoughts together.

            I never doubted that Mez truly believes Jackson was an innocent man on all fronts. He is consistent and level headed when he speaks on Jackson’s behalf. I always felt he truly did have a dog in that fight. And, I heard somewhere along the line that Susan Yu burst into tears when the verdicts were read. She also was fully invested in his innocence obviously. Regarding the 1108 evidence, I do understand your point that their exposure was limited. Do you really think MEZ would leave any stone unturned though? He has claimed he had people in the wings ready to refute anything Jordy would bring to the table. He doesn’t seem foolish enough to make that claim without having the chatzpah to back it up. I’m not sure how I feel about MEZ not having researched every shred of evidence he could. He is very on top of his game.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Do you really think MEZ would leave any stone unturned though? He has
            claimed he had people in the wings ready to refute anything Jordy would
            bring to the table. He doesn’t seem foolish enough to make that claim
            without having the chatzpah to back it up. I’m not sure how I feel
            about MEZ not having researched every shred of evidence he could. He is
            very on top of his game

            It’s not that he isn’t thorough but Scott Ross’s comments about the evidence from Pellicano, et al is a significant piece of the puzzle as to why Mez didn’t do very well cross-examining June Chandler. He didn’t look at a lot of evidence. Because as I mentioned before, Pellicano, Fields, Barry Rothman, Larry Feldman, and Cochran et al have all the 1993 evidence. They were involved in the civil case in 1993 and most of the good evidence was collected during the civil case, not the criminal investigation. So, in my opinion, only looking at what the prosecution provided, which was from the cops’ investigation, would not give a total picture if what happened in the Chandler scandal. Remember, too, that the defense fought the subpoena the prosecution requested for Larry Feldman’s copy of the confidential settlement papers.

            And I don’t think Mez had people who were credible lined up. And even so, that would be their opinion because again none of Jordie’s alleged college classmates were privy to the evidence from 1993. 🙂

          • Neely

            Are you saying the ‘good’ evidence collected in the civil case could not be used in the criminal trial in 2005? I sincerely don’t know the answer to this question. And, I don’t remember…..did the defense win that motion to keep the settlement papers out of court?

            Did MEZ say it was Jordy’s college classmate(s) who were prepared to refute his testimony? I don’t think I ever knew who it was specifically that was lined up, but, I did wonder if there really was someone. But, again when thinking about MEZ, I can’t imagine he’d be so foolish to take such a risk.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I’m saying that the evidence that was really juicy was the evidence collected during the civil suit (Chandler v. Jackson) rather than in the criminal investigation. The cops in 1993 seemed to have a difficult time finding and getting people to talk. The civil lawyers, like Feldman, had a much better time at that. And Scott Ross said they did not look at those records, along with not looking at the records from Anthony Pellicano, who had a number of taped phone calls between Evan and Dave Schwartz, him and Barry Rothman (Evan’s first attorney), etc.

            Actually, if you recall, the defense wanted to do a subpoena duces tecum on Ray Chandler, and that was denied. Curious how they’d try to go after Ray but wouldn’t bother talking to one of MJ’s attorneys of record Carl Douglas.

            The settlement did come in but not the amounts of what was paid, the payment schedule, etc. You know, the juicy stuff. It was deemed prejudicial.

            Yes, it was alleged classmates of Jordie, such as Josephine Zohny who was on the huge defense witness list (and who is not credible and is a hardcore MJ fan; she wasn’t even friends with Jordie, smh). So it would just be a he said, she said. Personally, I wonder if Mez even really believed these people. IDK.

          • Neely

            Oh…..thanks for the details. I swear i don’t know how you keep all this stuff straight!! I recall Ross saying he wouldn’t touch anything Pellicano did with Oxman’s arm, lol!! I figure even having said that, if there was somewhat of a smoking gun (from 1993) in favor of either prosecution OR defense, there’s no way it would have been kept out of criminal court, whether Pellicano had his fingerprints on it or not, and no matter whose moral convictions were at stake. It really doesn’t make sense to me. If emphasis was placed on 1108 evidence, and clearly it was, why didn’t Messereau have his ducks in a row re: those specifics. He is crazy intelligent, so maybe he just didn’t put a lot of focus on it, knowing that this ridiculous family was going to hang it’s own self when the rope was handed over. I kind of feel like that’s where he put the majority of his stock. Like, these fools don’t have a chance, why am I gonna waste my time on anything besides making sure they sink their own ship.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            That’s why I stated I hoped Rodney Allen-Rippy, Siggy Jackson (I doubt it though), Emmanuel Lewis, Alphonso Ribeiro, Sean Lennon, Corey Feldman, MacCaulay Culkin, Bryton McClare, Evan Ross, Eric Trump (I hate his racist, Xenophobic dad, but I do believe he was a victim) and Aaron Carter come forward. It will help heal themselves from the mental/emotional/sexual truama done to them by this Psychopathic man, and help other victims to come forward.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Do you really believe Siggy Jackson was a victim? Rodney Allen Rippy? I don’t think so. Neither was Alphonso Ribeiro or Evan Ross or Eric Trump. While pedophiles seem to have low impulse control, they do not molest ever kid they interact with.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I know that. But Siggy literally signed “Rubba” on something at the memorial. Jackson’s fans thought it was cute.

            Alphonso was friends with him until puberty where he later “dumped” him like he does to all his “special friends”.

            Evan Ross slept in his bed, like the others.

            Eric Trump, I have doubts. But Jackson was close to Trump and. Eric was one of his “friends”.

            People used to think MJ only targeted poor/middle class, non-celeb kids, only. It’s only recently I see people think Corey Feldman or MacCauley Culkin was a victaims — despite 3 witnesses seeing Culkin being fondled.

            Predators don’t target every kid, but Jackson was too selfish to ever spend time befriending anon-relative pure-pubescent/pubescent boy he knew he couldn’t groom and/or abuse. Terry George proves this theory.

  • Fudhux

    I don’t know if you guys saw that but there is a lot of articles in Spanish that claim that Macaulay Culkin confessed that Jackson molested him . I have seen a few days ago and pretty much everyday there is a new article about it . I am confused since they are only in Spanish. Have you guys seen it ? Its kinda weird that they are repeatedly reporting it but I don’t know if that true because if it was I think mainstream media would’ve reported too. What do you think ?

    • Andreas

      I saw those articles too. Its extremely weird, because they seem to have spread down in South-America like wildfire recently. There’s like 150 articles about it now… but nowhere else in the world.

      The original article however claimed Culkin had a press conference where he said this, and that they cited international media but not citing which one. No international media, american nor european, has mentioned anything about Macaulay saying he was molested, nor at a press conference nor anywhere else. The original article doesn’t say anything about where and when this press conference happened, so no, it seems highly unlikely it happened. Obviously international media would have been all over it if something like that happened.

      I do however wonder if someone, possibly Victor Gutierrez, since he’s operating down in those regions, is trying to egg Macaulay Culkin into commenting on it.

      Its a bit odd to me, because the quote Culkin supposedly gave ‘kind of’ does seem like something he could have said if he ever came forward.

      Here’s the quote. I tried to fix the google translataion a little, but its probably not perfect:

      “Michael and I were great friends, he loved me and I also got to love him, I told stories and he was a sort of guide for me. I was young and famous, for me normal life was not an option, and our friendship helped me deal with my problems. But after some months he was completely transformed, his attitude was that of a sick, and began to threaten me, repeatedly said he would kill my parents if I said something. Michael abused me many times, even once in my parents’ house while they slept. So I fell into drugs.”

      I did check Culkins testimony at the 05′ trial, and it seems like its confirmable that Michael visited Culkin at his home a few times. I also think its true he started doing drugs at some point, although I’m too lazy to research if its timely with his relationship with Michael. But who knows, even if its years later, lets say he started doing drugs when he was 17-18 or something, things like that could work latently.

      If this is not complete fabrication, and thats not impossible, perhaps even likely… but IF there’s something to it, my theory would be that Victor Gutierrez, through his octopus-armed network know someone who Culkin confessed something like this to in private, and Victor Gutierrez simply re-packed it into a strange article about Culkin saying this at a press conference, designed to be diffuse, in hope of Culkin being pressured into commenting publically on this for real.

      So far Culkin hasn’t commented on it.

      • Pea

        I, too, had fingered Victor Gutierrez for the story. I like Gutierrez, so I was a bit deflated that my mind went there — especially since fans like to (absurdly) blame him for pretty much all of Jacko’s troubles. (No doubt some of those loony tunes conspiracy theorists are reading these comments; they definitely don’t need much, by way of suggestion, to believe that he’d be behind it!)

        I think it’s possible someone else (not Gutierrez) in the Spanish-language media made it up as a sort of follow up to all of the ROL nonsense. Perhaps they wanted the same kind of hits? At this point, fans have concluded that those ROL documents about Jacko’s “porn” originated from Wade and James’s attorneys. I actually think that’s probably true….

        As far as that statement goes, it is too general, in my opinion, to be something Mac Culkin would say. It’s almost stereotypical. But plausible for most: one website had a comparison photo spread, in which past Mac and present Mac were placed side by side; the implication was that because he looks so horrible now, their “news” is definitely true. Compelling, lol, but I never figured Mac was as “molested” as the more passive boys like Brett Barnes and James Safechuck….

        • If that Radar Online document came from Wade and James’s lawyers, then god help Wade and James. They have no hope of success if that is an example of their representation 🙁

          • Pea

            Absolutely. Apparently Wade felt the same way because he dumped Marzano, et al., within the last week or so and now has new lawyers:

            http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/with-trial-date-approaching-michael-jackson-accuser-wade-robson-wants-an-end-to-secrecy-300298602.html

            Here’s the new team’s letter to the Estate:

            http://origin-qps.onstreammedia.com/origin/multivu_archive/%5BInbox%5D/Manly-Stewart-and-Finaldi.pdf

            They have experience as child abuse civil attorneys. Unfortunately, James Safechuck has already been severely screwed by the abysmal writing skills and sloppy work of the first team. Hopefully these lawyers will prevail.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Wow! I can’t believe it. It’s funny, the fans were speculating all along that his attorneys were responsible for the leak of the ROL document…I guess they were correct. And, as MJFacts rightly said, if that was the caliber of research — completely with erroneous photos from books MJ did not own, and that whole mess with the Percocet addiction stuff — he was up shit creek without a paddle. I bet Wade read the coverage of the whole debacle and saw how the story just crashed and burned, and noticed that it was from the very people supposed to protect his interests. Don’t they realize that that made Wade look bad? Even if Marzano et al didn’t intentionally leak it, people (i.e fans) could speculate that he had no case so he was going through a tabloid (and a crappy one at that). Luckily for Wade, though, the facts are on his side so even with the sloppy work of Marzano, he was able to survive demurrer.

            And you’re right about James. I feel so sorry for him. I guarantee you that had he had these lawyers first, he would’ve had a case as well. As far as I know, James’s civil case hasn’t been thrown out, so maybe there is still a chance for him if he also retains these new lawyers.

            The new team’s letter to the Estate is at the bottom of that press
            release. They want a full airing of the case and previous cases.

            Interesting that they cited CCP 1002 as a basis to lift the confidentiality agreements. But MJ settled for negligence, not specifically child abuse, so I wonder if that would apply; also would it apply to Jordie’s case if that section wasn’t around in 1994 — likely not. But then that would put the Estate in a pickle because while the law doesn’t mandate releasing the plaintiffs from the confidentiality agreements, it would look bad if the Estate went and said they are “protected” and “we won’t release anything” — it would look like they are trying to hide something. Bit of reverse psychology by skilled CSA attorneys!

            The fans are mad because they think that they are trying to do it through the media. As if the Estate hasn’t released numerous statements in defense of MJ! I think they are afraid that it could trigger an avalanche of secrets previously unknown. Let’s be real: they know — deep down inside — MJ was suspiciously lacking in the “adult relationship” department, and spent an inordinate time with kids, particularly boys between 7-14. And the he had those books, which they still try to downplay without even having seen them. I think being fans of an accused pedophile, they live a life on the precipice.

      • Fudhux

        There was a few articles the first few days and then almost everyday there was another , I would look because I was curious to see if there was gonna be other articles .I don’t know what’s up with the South American journalists but I feel like they are less credible than ROL. And God knows how much ROL is BS .

        I really don’t understand because like you said there are so many artciles about it . It’s not like it was one or 2 . There are hundreds of them . Don’th they check an infotmation before they write an article or what ? It’s not like it’s a joke . They are making themselves look like fools litteraly .

        I don’t know if Mac is gonna come forward anytime soon though. When Wade came forward in 2013 , it was said that there was gonna be 2 other victims coming foward . So far there was Jimmy Safechuck , but who is the other ? But , once again , we don’t even know if that’s true in the first place ( that there was gonna be 2 others) .

        I really don’t know about VG , but it’s a good therory since he lives in South America ?? I don’t know but I just think this is very weird .

        Mac is very private , you don’t see him that often . Even though I saw an article about him not long ago . But I think he talked positevely about MJ not long ago too so I don’t know .

        Its all very confusing

        • Andreas

          Yeah, if its really just someone who made a fake article for ‘clicks’ and it really spread into 150 articles without anyone fact-checking it even slightly its far more ridiculous than the Radar Online spectacle, which was mainly exaggerrated ‘old news’. This stuff though is possibly 100% fabrication, which would be worse.

          I do really still wonder though if this is someone orchestrating some pressure for Culkin to come forward/ or at least comment. It would be quite genius if it was. I sort of get a VG vibe. It sort of would be his style, in a sense. I mean that in a positive way by the way. I’ve always seen him as a sleazy genius.

          I would expect there must have been some journalists who had contacted Culkin for comments already. Culkin seems to have done more interviews lately…

          I do know Culkin wrote a book called “Junior” in 2007, and supposedly its auto-biographic, and part fiction, and he supposedly spent years writing it, going through many many many drafts and changes. Culkin had a lot of problems with his father, so I got the impression some of the book deals with that, although its supposedly ‘comedic’ in tone. An interesting thing is I think Culkin actually asked Michael Jackson if he could come visit Neverland, while writing on it. He was allowed to come write at Neverland. Michael wasn’t there at the time. I wonder if he might have been doing some ‘soulsearching’ while writing his book, perhaps there’s drafts about his relationship with Michael that weren’t used. Which is somewhat telling, because even if he wasn’t molested he had a strong and publiziced relationship with Michael, so its strange to omit that, after writing an autobiographical book at Neverland.

          Ultimately the book didn’t contain anything Jackson, and Culkin even bitingly said there’s nothing about Michael Jackson in there, almost like a ‘shaming’ to people expecting it to be. He also appeared at Michael Jacksons funeral, of course.

          Yes, there was going to be two others after Wade. Do you remember who exactly said this though? Where did that rumor come from? I remember reading that too, but I can’t remember where. (Does anyone know?) I remember reading that third X person being referred to as waiting to see how the other two came along first. I always pictured that to be Culkin for some reason. Sort of mysterious. Who sits around knowing these things in advance? Who ever it was they were right about Safechuck though.

          • Fudhux

            I thought about it too , Andreas , that it was a way to pressure Culkin to come forward to confirm these claims. But I am still blown away by the fact that the story was taken by so many web sites if that’s not true . I don’t know from which country exactly it comes from but damnnn . This really intrigued me though . But well, we will see if this comes back on the future.

            I really hope that Culkin comes forward and sets the record straight too.

            Ouah , I didn’t know that Macaulay wrote a book in Neverland. Interesting. I thought that Mac and MJ had no relationship as Mac grew too old for MJ . Well , I don’t think they had a real friendship though , it would be known since there is no photos of them after the 2001 concert.

            I don’t remember where I saw that information that 2 other victims were coming forward but I think it was either Radar Online or the Dailymail or TMZ. I mean all the articles were the same pretty much . They would relay the same information.
            As for the person that had this information. If I remember , it was ” unknown sources ” . But again I am not sure . It was 3 years ago already !! Time flies !!!

          • Andreas

            Yeah. I seem to remember Culkin talking about only a yearly call by Jackson as he grew older, or something to that effect, and some comment about “Neverland being for kids”. They were probably not very close in later years. Jackson, as you know, just seemed to drop contact with most of the boys as they reached a certain age. I suspect something like that happened with Culkin too. When he reached a certain age, Jackson got occupied with other children.

            Unknown sources, right. Well, if there was a third one I would assume it to be him. His silence is kind of telling though, isn’t it? When Wade came out he didn’t say a word.

          • Pea

            Fudhux, can you speak French? The Mac Culkin articles from the Spanish websites allegedly lifted the content from a French-language interview with Culkin that was published online June 1st:

            http://www.voici.fr/news-people/actu-people/la-drogue-michael-jackson-l-enfer-hollywoodien-macaulay-culkin-se-livre-comme-jamais-596512

            In the article, according to a fan website I found this on (http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=10768 ), Macaulay is still defending Jacko, and he believes that Jacko was a positive force in his life. Maybe you can come back and give us more details?

            But, in a nutshell, the Spanish media twisted the quote into something salacious. The fan also suspected that Victor Gutierrez was behind it, lol.

          • Fudhux

            Yes Pea , I speak French , I am French actually =)

            I’ve read the article and yes , Mac says only nice things about MJ . I ‘ll translate the part where he talks about MJ :

            « C’est l’une des personnes les plus impor­tantes de ma vie, avoue-t-il. Il a été mon meilleur ami. Nous étions inti­me­ment liés parce qu’il savait ce que j’en­du­rais. Le stress, les abus, une famille oppres­sante. Il a toujours été présent et compré­hen­sif. »

            Translation : ” He was one of the most imporant people in my life , Mac confesses. He was my best friend . We were intimately linked because he knew what I was going through. the stress, the abuse . an oppressive family . He was always here for me and he was always understanding ”

            That’s what he said about MJ . All nice , but the word ” intimately ” is interesting . It’s a weird word to use when describing a friendship , don’t you think ? Actually when you use that word in french it means that you are having sex ; basically . So I am surprised that he used that word .

            As for the spanish articles , I think they invented the things that Mac supposedly said accusing MJ of abusing him .

            But it’s possible that the french article was invented too . Because this website is not the most credible website out there . And I’ve seen an article I don’t even remenber where , that Mac didn’t want to talk about MJ . Which seems weird that he talked about him in this article . He didn’t even want to say even one word about him in the other article !

            So yes Mac only said positive things about MJ . Hope I helped ! If you have other questions no problem =)

      • FunkAnarchy84 ☭

        Because Macaulay never said MJ molested him! God, do y’all read???

    • Pea

      I saw them, too, Fudhux, but, I think it’s bogus. Something as huge as Mac Culkin admitting he was abused — complete with press conference! — would not be confined to Latin American news outlets.

      What’s more disappointing is that it’s been transmitted so many times — but it looks as though not one of those outlets has any confirmation of the alleged press conference. Truly pathetic journalism.

      • Fudhux

        Yes , I think it’s bogus too . But the weird thing is that it’s everywhere !! It’s hundreds of articles ! I am confused lol

  • Pingback: Was Child Pornography found in Michael Jackson's home? - MJ Facts()

  • The Queen Of Swords

    Conrad Murray claims Jackson was “obsessed” with his son:

    http://pagesix.com/2016/07/26/conrad-murray-michael-jackson-was-obsessed-with-my-son/

    Yet, Conrad wants me to believe MJ was not into pre-pubescent & pubescent boys. Hmmm … I wonder why … And I’m starting to wonder if Conrad is hiding something because he doesn’t want to look like a negligent parent …

  • The Queen Of Swords

    Excuse me, but I was wondering if a rumor that Film-maker & Director Amy Berg’s husband is Johnathan Spence is true or not?
    I actually don’t find this far-fetched, at all.
    She herself admitted her involvement in the making of documentaries like “Deliver Us From Evil”, “West Memphis Three”, “An Open Secret”, and “Prophet’s Prey”, may have had something to do with an unwanted, nonconsenual, sexual experience during adolescence.
    And Johnathan Spence is married to a Film-maker according to this very article.
    Just wondering.
    No one else seems to know anything much about Johnathan Spence, in comparison to MJ’s other former “special friends”, as much as the writer of this article.

    • ShawntayUStay

      Jonathan Spence is not married to Amy Berg. He’s currently married to Jenna Rosher, who did work on Berg’s film “An Open Secret”.

      • The Queen Of Swords

        Thanks.
        Wow. I was sort of expecting there would be no connection at all there.

        I wonder if Johnathan will come-forward (considering the nude picture, and MJ’s body-language in many pictures with him, I think he was a victim), but I fully understand why he has not. The way the Media has White-Washed MJ since his death & the fanaticism of his die-hard stans is very terrifying and extremely intimidating. Plus, like many others, he may still have some positive emotions attached to his better memories of MJ.

        Whether you come foward or not, I wish you nothing but the best, Johnathan, if you are reading this.

  • Pingback: Wade Robson – The Marathon Part II - MJ Facts()

  • Pingback: The Michael Jackson Rebuttal by Razorfist - MJ Facts()

  • Why do you believe Victor Gutierrez is not a reliable source?

  • FreeThinker888

    Yes, the boy at Michael’s left is Jonathan Spence.