Contact Us

This is our contact page. First of all, let’s share some of the emails we don’t want.

  • Ones just to say YOU SUCK! They kinda hurt our feelings. We’ve spent a lot of time on this site and it really gets us down when people are nasty about it. If you don’t like it, pressing the CTRL (or the Apple button on a Mac) and the F4 button simultaneously will make this website disappear. Really. Try it.
  • Ones that say YOU GUYS ARE HATERS! Just as it is sad and pathetic to love a celebrity you have never met, it would be equally sad and pathetic to hate a celebrity we have never met. All we are doing here is expressing an opinion you don’t like, m’kay? So don’t get your panties in a twist.
  • Ones that say YOU’RE BIASED! It’s okay, we know we are a little biased, but only because we have read everything we could get our hands on about Michael Jackson, both positive and negative, and after careful deliberation have come to the conclusion that he was a child molester. We encourage everyone to go out there and find out all they can about the allegations and come to their own conclusion. It might be different from ours. That’s OK too. The important thing is that we are all entitled to our opinion.
  • Retro-moderation. Disagree with a comment someone else has written? Please don’t send us an email about it. You can flag the comment in the comments section, or reply to the comment that’s bothering you pointing out why it gave you boo boo feelings.
  • Emails generally discussing the posts. While we love getting down and dirty with a good meaty discussion about what’s on the site, that kind of thing is what the comments section is for. That way, everyone can join in the fun! Please post a comment where everyone can see it.

What we do want.

  • Errors pointed out. If we’ve made an error on some date or point of fact, please point them out. We’re only human, which means we make mistakes. Let us know!
  • Information. While we have an expansive library of Michael Jackson-related material, we still love getting tips, source material, stories, theories, anything MJ related! Shoot it through!
  • Story ideas. While for the most part the writers on the site only write stories on things that interest them in order to keep it fun, you may be able to pique their interest in your favorite Jackson related subject. While we can’t guarantee your idea will be acted upon now or in the future, we’d still love to hear them!
  • Compliments. Yep. Give us some warm and fuzzies. We love them.
  • Anything else positive. 

That’s it. Stick to the rules and we’ll read your email. Break them, and your email goes on vacation to Neverland. Oh, and if you send us something we may not be able to respond straight away. What with our international jet-setting lifestyle, vacations with the rich and famous, and preparing stories for high-end magazines we can’t always reply right away, so be patient. OK, OK, we are joking about the international jet-setting lifestyle, vacations with the rich and famous, and preparing stories for high-end magazines. What we actually meant was the grind of daily life, real jobs and study 🙂  

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Subject

Your Message

  • Samantha

    Can I ask, or more importantly will I get an answer, why are you targeting Michael Jackson? Who was cleared in a court of law.

    • Samantha, based on your previous Disqus comments you are quite the troll, even attacking abuse survivors which is quite sickening. I realise you are just here to stir up trouble so I’ll give you a heads up – your future comments will be carefully scrutinized by mods before being published.

      In answer to your question, this site is about Michael Jackson because he serves as a perfect warning to parents on how acquaintance molesters behave. Even if he didn’t molest the boys he enticed into his bed, his actions in grooming boys, their parents and the public, as well as the way he tried to “hide in plain sight”, shows what parents and carers should watch out for if they want to keep children safe.

      It’s important that adults who want to be “friends” with children keep those friendships open, transparent and accountable – not behind closed doors like Jackson did with his sleepovers. One day you will have children yourself and realize the importance of this message.

      I suggest you read more on this site with an open mind rather than the viewpoint of a starstruck fan, you will learn a lot.

      As for Jackson being found not guilty, that does not mean he was innocent – only that there was some reasonable doubt (as the jurors in the case have pointed out, they didn’t believe he was innocent of molestation).

    • Pea

      You should start here, Samantha: http://www.mjfacts.com/mj-facts-exclusive-jimmy-safechuck-story/

      That entry has convinced a lot of people of Jacko’s guilt, since, unlike Wade Robson who testified under oath at Jacko’s (inevitable) molestation trial, most fans have very little — if anything — they can hold against James Safechuck’s credibility. As of this date, there has been no fan blog to convincingly impugn his character, just a bunch of substance-less whining about him being a “liar”.

      What you’ll read in that article is exactly what MJ Facts described: a pattern of luring, grooming, and molesting/brainwashing; then upgrading to a newer, younger boy; and finally abandoning the older one.

      Then you should read about Omer Bhatti, a boy Jacko plucked from in front of his hotel and then moved into his Neverland Ranch for what can be assumed were endless “sleepovers”: http://www.mjfacts.com/whats-the-story-with-omer-bhatti-and-michael-jackson/

      All of the information you need to know is here at MJ Facts…

    • ShawntayUStay

      Just because MJ was acquitted doesn’t mean he couldn’t ever have molested young boys. Do you realize how high the burden of proof is in criminal court? Beyond a reasonable doubt. But everyone knows that the real standard is beyond all doubt, and when it comes to a secretive crime like child molestation, where the perpetrator is an highly skilled “seducer” of children and the victims are often compliant “willing participants” in the abuse due to manipulation, there won’t be that proverbial “smoking gun” and the entire case become as a “he said, she said” between a powerful adult and a vulnerable child. In this case, MJ had firmly established credibility that ordinary people don’t have, so how easy was it for him to be acquitted? All he would have to do is find a few flaws in his accuser, say it was all about money, and he would get off scott free. This is not unusual at all. You act as if MJ never demonstrated any peculiar interest in children and didn’t have a history of norm-breaking adult-child interactions. If you were talking about Brad Pitt, I’d agree that someone would be out to “get” him, but not with Michael Jackson.

      • Kat

        I’m always amazed at MJs supporters throwing around arguments such as ‘he was found innocent in a court of law!!!’ Don’t they know that not guilty means guilt not proven, not guilt exonerated? If American criminal courts could exonerate defendants, then the name of the verdict would be ‘innocent’, not ‘not guilty’. And the one time when MJ was tried in a criminal court, it was only for ten counts pertaining to the Arvizo boys and their family, not for all kids he might have molested. Those were included in the prior bad acts section only to show that this person, Michael Jackson, had a propensity to commit sexual crimes, which is a rare thing in general and mostly only true for preferential sex offenders, not ordinary, harmless folk like you and me…

        I think the jury members were confused about what constituted evidence in a child molestation trial. I suppose they can be forgiven, because they were regular people, not experts. They wanted a smoking gun type of evidence, so all doubts could be cleared. But it’s completely unrealistic to expect that to be presented in such a case. In many child molestation cases there is no evidence at all, all there exists is the child’s word against the adult’s. Dr. Stan Katz explained to the people in the courtroom that fondling doesn’t leave marks, injury, or sperm. And yes, many normal people can also be confused about compliant victimization and ask themselves – well why didn’t the child fight back and immediately ran to tell their parents? Or even the fact that acquaintance child molesters often choose kids from poor, chaotic, problematic families. Regular people with no education or experience in the field don’t understand these things very well. Maybe judge Eleanor Cook was convinced that MJ was guilty, because she had a registered sex offender in her family and saw the same hallmarks in Jackson?

        And plus we all know Tom Mesereau planted reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors by endlessly attacking the characters of the Arvizo family members, going as far as to say that Janet involved her kids into theater practice so that they could lie and scam people better.

        • ShawntayUStay

          Fans like to say that the introduction of the Prior Bad Acts evidence into the trial meant that those allegations were “in play” and MJ’s acquittal was not only because the jury rejected the Arvizos’ claims but also the idea that he molested any of his other “special friends”. So, in totality, MJ was supposedly declared innocent of everything. It’s one of the big talking points (which is why they keep repeating it) but of course it isn’t based in reality.

          One, the statutes (1101b and 1108a) both severely limit the type/amount of prior bad act “propensity”/”disposition” evidence that can be admitted because at the end of the day, those prior allegations were not what MJ was on trial for, so the issue of prejudice was an important factor. Judge Rodney Melville only allowed some of the witnesses in that the prosecution mentioned in the 1108 motion; he would only allow those witnesses to testify who directly saw “actual physical sexual conduct”. That excluded testimony about Jonathan Spence and James Safechuck (who we now know says he was molested), and only included testimony about Wade, Jason Francia, Mac Culkin, Jordie Chandler, and Brett Barnes. Now, just imagine all the witnesses that could potentially have given testimony if MJ had actually been on trial for molesting all these boys (now men)? Therapists, doctors, friends, family members, and employees…all of whom are excluded because they don’t fit into Melville’s criteria. Second, the jury’s instructions were explicitly clear that this evidence didn’t even need to considered in the first place and was there to use at the jury’s “discretion”. Indeed, foreman Paul Rodriguez didn’t even want to look at the two books filled with nude young boys from ’93 because he didn’t want it to influence his decision, even though many jurors seemed to agree that MJ was probably guilty of molesting boys in the past but they didn’t believe Gavin. Most of the past alleged victims didn’t even show up anyway!

          So how was MJ declared innocent if most of the past evidence was so severely limited and there was no jury obligation to consider it? Fans are always making logical leaps that make little sense in reality.

          You’re right, most people don’t understand. They see only one way to look at a child molestation case and if the situation and/or victim doesn’t fit that dominant archetype, people find it hard to be empathetic. Just look how people react when young boys are victimized by female perpetrators! They can’t even imagine it would ever be traumatizing. MJ being a celebrity, I think, made those jurors be on extra high-alert; Gavin had to be a grounded angel from Heaven to get a conviction, and he wasn’t.

          I saw a declaration from Janet Arvizo about her ex husband, and he was telling people that Janet made the boys lie about MJ. so to me, it seems like he wouldn’t have been involved if the kids were ever instructed to lie. But Janet seemed so bizarre, I would think that if they were lying she’d need help to manufacture all this. :-/

    • Andreas Moss

      The 2005 case was only about Gavin Arvizo. It was a difficult case, because the family had some credibility issues. The jury just weren’t sure(some people in here aren’t even sure about them!). I suspect the jury also felt a bit sorry for Jackson, which may not be professional, but seems to be a pattern in many places. Two people in the jury were also reportedly big fans of Jackson, and according to Eleanor Cook, would say stuff like “Oh, my Michael would never do that!”, and there was resentment along the way towards those who suggested Jackson did these things. My opinion is that “normal folks” don’t always understand enough about pedophilia or child molestations to be good jurors, as there is a lot of things that is not always intuitive about child molestations. Just the fact that some victims can protect their molesters is very difficult to understand, or that child molestations aren’t always forced, or the stereotypical rape scenario. In cases like these they would have gained a lot by having some experts in the jury.

      My impression is that the Jackson case still has a bit of mystery around it in the public eye. A lot of people aren’t sure what to believe about it, even if most people understand that when there is so much smoke(and there is a lot more smoke than most people think!) has to be caused by something. After 2009 and his demise, which was celebrated like a greece tragedy, the whole “he was perhaps innocent after all, and WE all killed him”-meme has been spreading. I see MJfacts as a place to bring some sense into it all. That is not the way we should remember MJ in my opinion.

      I don’t think the public should just go along with pretending he was innocent just because its easier to celebrate him as a great artist that way. And I think fans, if they indeed love Jackson, should love him for who he was, with all his flaws, no matter how big, and not just for who they want him to be, which to me is kind of fake and almost a bit selfish.

      • Kat

        Hey Andreas! Have you finished reading ‘Michael Jackson Was My Lover’ by now? If so, what are your thoughts about it? I would really like to know. I swallowed the book in three days, and while I thought it was very well researched and illuminating in many ways, it was also revolting and I was left shaken by what was written in it. I thought I was going to have nightmares after reading all that information. I mean the descriptions of MJ throwing rocks at animals and leaving them to die, putting various objects into his butt, crapping in front of his employees, using high quality photo and video equipment to capture his special friends in the nude… It made me sick, because I couldn’t believe that one person could be this self-serving, twisted, and hateful, often against innocent animals, kids who didn’t interest him (girls + sick kids who came to visit Neverland) and people of his own race. I wish I could refute what was written, but I can’t – I just feel in my bones that all, almost all of it, is true. Like I felt that everything is bullshit when I was reading Frank Cascio’s sycophantic book. Sometimes I want to think that Jackson had some redeeming qualities, like that the charity work wasn’t just a PR stunt. But Gutierrez makes it clear that that was exactly what it was. MJ hardly even spent any time with ill children in Neverland, while spending the entire weekends with his boy-toy, Brett Barnes.

        I was wrong in that I thought the book was sort of like ‘Lolita’, there aren’t really that many similarities between the two. The book also convinced me that Jackson was never in love with the boys that he molested, even though it had been Victor Gutierrez’s goal to show it that way. Remember when we were debating whether MJ was cognizant of the fact that sexual abuse harms children? Having read this book I believed he might have been very well aware of it, he just didn’t care. It just seems like he knew exactly what he was doing at all times, he knew that what he did was illegal and immoral, but did it anyway. And that, at the end of the day, it was all about the sexual stuff, not anything approaching real love.

        But anyhow, what were your impressions? =)

        • Betty

          I’m tempted to read this book too out of curiosity howeve it does sound quite sickening, so I’m not sure. The hefty price tag puts me off to be honest. VG seems to have a lot of insider knowledge which he backs up previously unpublished photos of the Chandlers and interviews with ex-employees and others connected to the family.

          • Kat

            Gutierrez’s book was surprisingly well-researched and filled with exclusive info that I hadn’t seen anywhere else, most of it obtained directly from MJs Neverland employees. I would say that it’s definitely a highly valuable book, but I wouldn’t recommend spending 150 dollars on it, since it’s not exactly worth that much. I got a scanned copy from the people who run this site, you can try asking moderator Pea for it. Unfortunately, Gutierrez threw his credibility away by stating that he had access to a video tape that showed Michael molesting his nephew. The tape never materialized and Gutierrez got himself a defamation lawsuit for several million dollars, which he lost, then filed for bankruptcy and left the country.

            The book was definitely a sickening read. I didn’t enjoy the paragraphs about Jackson throwing rocks at a lion until the poor animal started bleeding or throwing away fanmail which had come from girls or boys outside of his age of preference. I don’t know why, but sometimes I want to believe that Jackson had good qualities too, not that it would excuse child molestation, but still. But the more I learn, the more I come to understand that he was a very selfish person. He never did things simply out of kindness or anything like that. With everything he did, the question on his mind was – what can I get out of this? :/

          • Pea

            Yes, Betty, if your email is the same as what’s used for your Disqus account, a copy of “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” can be sent to you. 🙂

          • bigakizzle

            Is there any way I can get a copy of that book as well Pea? I have looked for months and I just cant afford it.

          • Pea

            The book is really expensive, bigakizzle. At one point I recall seeing it sold on Amazon.com for $39.99 — I don’t know if that was a typo but I’m sure someone snatched it up!

            A few years ago, the Jacko’s Wackos over at Vindicate MJ had pooled their money together (as it has always been expensive) to buy a copy. They wanted it so they could bash it, but they then learned how excellent the research within the book actually is — they, in turn, crafted a giant conspiracy centering around author Victor Gutierrez, since they couldn’t actually refute the awesomeness of the book, lol. They began calling Gutierrez a pedophile and NAMBLA member, when, instead, he’s just a sensationalist who’s done a LOT of research and hard work that many Jackson writers (Dimond and Taraborrelli, especially) have used without giving him credit.

            Anyway, the VMJ crowd had a download link that one could access (in exchange for your email address) and download a PDF of the book one of them had scanned. That’s how one MJ Facts contributor has the book and has shared with some of the commenters here, though she also has a hard copy of the book that she paid for back in 2009.

            I will see if we can get a link sent to you, too. 🙂

          • Betty

            Thanks Pea, much appreciated. It would be good to read the book. My opinion of MJ can’t get any lower tbh!

          • Pea

            Thanks for getting back, Betty. A unique download link will be emailed to you soon by one of the contributors.

          • fudhux

            I would love to have a copy sent to me if possible. But my email on disqus is not the one I use =)

          • Pea

            I offered months ago, Fudhux, but you never replied. That was disappointing, especially now because I’m feel guilty about even bringing up that there’s a copy to be passed out!

            But send an email through the contact form using your real email address. We’ll see what we can do.

          • fudhux

            Hi Pea,

            Well, Pea, actually you did not offer to me directly a copy you offered it to Betty.

            I did not read all the old articles, which is what I was doing then I came to this part of the conversation . I actually learned most of the info through Desiree’s blog ( which I don’t understand why it was shut down because it was one hell of a good site )

            I was interested in this book a loong time ago but the problem is that it is super expensive and not accessible.

            I created this disqus account only for this site because I was reading conversations and I wanted to reply to some people and also be a part of this community =)

            But since I used an email adress that I don’t use and that I can’t change it ( I tried), can you tell me to who ( what is the contact) that I have to send an email to ?

            Thank you very much =)

          • Pea

            Just to make sure I wasn’t losing my mind (!), I checked and, yes, I did offer it to you 3 months ago: http://www.mjfacts.com/jackson-fan-intimidation/#comment-2137082748

            No matter. 🙂 You can send a message through the contact form above using your real email address.

            Yes, Desiree’s site was great. Hopefully it’ll come back sooner rather than later. 🙂

          • Don’t worry fudhux, we love your comments and your contributions to MJ Facts 🙂

            Send an email http://www.mjfacts.com/contact-us/

          • Daniel OPunkt

            Pea, can you please send me a copy, too? Thanks.

          • Pea

            Who are you exactly? A “lurker”? No, you don’t get a copy. Sorry about that. 🙁

            It’s a shame Victor Gutierrez’s book is not more readily available because it is must-reading. However, I admire and respect this wrongly-vilified man too much to pass out his rare, high-quality work to any stranger on the Internet, least of all one who suddenly pops up asking for a handout.

            Sorry again, Dan.

          • bigakizzle

            Me too!! I requested it a few months back and got a response from you pea, but didnt get a copy 🙁

          • Pea

            To be fair, Bigakizzle, I never promised I’d give you a copy. I said I’d have to check on it. What happened was that the contributor possessing Gutierrez’s book didn’t feel good about passing it out to people who lurk and haven’t proved their bona fides to the MJ Facts community. It’s perfectly natural, since she values Gutierrez as one of the few Michael Jackson researchers worth his salt. His research was passed off as others’, and he never got much credit for it. It’s a bitter pill for any writer.

            “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” is important, but it’s about weighing that importance with respect for Victor Gutierrez (who was pilloried for the book), with its rarity (the contributor has two copies of the book, so you can imagine the price paid!), and with the knowledge that some people may put it up on the Web in a free-for-all.

            Besides, you might even just disappear once you get it.

            I will get back to you when I figure out what the scales say but it’s not looking promising at the moment. Sorry to be a book-tease.

        • Andreas Moss

          Hey Kat. Thanks for asking! 🙂 I was trying to construct a response to your last reply, but things got very hectic for me suddenly, so it went down the drains. Yes, I’ve read the book too. Its certainly fascinating and highly recommended. (Pea has shared her copy with me and Kat, not sure if she will share it with others.)

          I kind of divide the book into two sides. One side which is his research about Jackson after 3-4 years of interviewing and snooping in every corner he could find. Its impressive to say the least. He got into places I don’t think even the police got access to. The other part, obviously, is this odd lovestory between Jordy and Michael, and I’m more skeptical about this side having much roots in reality — at all. I am not sure what to make of it. It seems less based on research, and more like propaganda for some kind of social acceptance for man/boy-relationships, which I think was what VG was at least partially pushing for, as we know he supports that.

          For example; I don’t see how VG could have known that Jordy supposedly has a sexual dream about Jackson, and then told one of his closest female friends privately about it, and all those other “secret thoughts” of Jordy. Just trying to imagine a way VG could hypotethically have gained this information would be beyond creepy. And its all based on that non-existing diary anyway.

          On a brighter side I usually didn’t have much problems differentiating between when he was doing this man/boy-erotica-fiction, and when he was presenting real research based on real evidence and confessions by real people in MJs life. As a whole I think the book is fascinatingly weird for mixing reality(done by incredible investigation) and fiction with a very unusual political agenda.

          I actually could see him being inspired by Nabokov’s book. The protagonist in Lolita is also not portrayed as a very charming and noble man either, really quite the opposite, and the same could easily be said for MJ in this book, which in both books strangely works against its purpose that way. If the purpose is social acceptance of adult/childhood relationships, that is. Nabokov was always a weird one to understand too.

          As for the things written in them, yes, you are right, there was surprisingly amounts of bad and disturbing stories about Jackson. I suppose it worked a little bit against its purpose for me, in retrospective, as it at times got so bad, I wasn’t sure if VG was even trying to give a balanced accord of who Jackson was. Although I still admit I believe most of it, although the part about MJ putting tampons in his butt got a bit far out.

          Right. I’m still on the fence about how callous MJ was about molesting those little boys. Its a very important question.

          I remember when Tiger Woods, the golf star, had that scandal about being unfaithful to his wife numerous times with several women, and he later ashamed admitted in his confession that as he was a star he had felt a special entitlement other people wouldn’t have. I’m sure Michael Jackson could have felt the same. Its not unusual for people with starpower to feel entitlement to do almost whatever they want, so he might have just used many boys for selfish ‘needs’. But If he had some kind of “real” loving feelings towards SOME of those boys though, or if they were objectified “young blood” to him, ready to be replaced by the next boy-toy, to me is still difficult to conclude. But if we say its the latter, are we talking about all pedophiles, or just Michael here? As for pedophiles in general I’m sure its possible for them to fall in love with a little child. They say so themselves at least. Although its complicated to call it ‘love’ perhaps as they usually lose interest in these persons when they reach a certain age.

          I also was also quite intrugued by the different versions of the same story between Ray Chandlers book and Gutierrez book. I have to admit I still trust Chandlers book a bit more here, partly because I believe Ray Chandler’s motivations for the book and his now defunct website, was really about warning parents of behavior between children and predators, while I feel Gutierrez motivations were more diffuse, at worst speculative, as Evan is portrayed a bit like some person who were stopping the fictional love-affair between Jordy and MJ.
          I also think Ray’s version made more sense in general.

          I’m also still skeptical about the idea that Evan Chandler used his son for his own gain, for money or his filmcareer, although I’m still open to be persuaded. Gutierrez seems to imply Evan was driven by greed and uppertunity, and I’m quite skeptical about that, but lets remember he also tried to portray him as someone standing between a touching love affair.. I still feel Evan was mainly actually trying to do the right thing, and in the interest for Jordy, no matter the result, no matter if his temper did more bad than good even if his intentions were good — but again, thats just my impression.

          • Kat

            It’s pretty widely known that Gutierrez consulted with NAMBLA while researching and writing his book and thus his ‘Michael Jackson Was My Lover’ was influenced by it. What NAMBLA told him was most likely that a) pedophiles are boy-lovers, not pervs b) despite of what the law says, children can consent to sex. If a kid goes along with what the adult is proposing, if this kid isn’t fighting back, but says yes to sex, and if they have physiological responses, such as getting an erection, then it counts as consent. Gutierrez also writes in his book that no other boys came forward, because they and Michael had been lovers and that Evan Chandler didn’t include the parts about Jordie gladly participating in the sexual acts in his lawsuit, because he didn’t want anyone to know that had been a loving relationship.

            VG was clearly confused and deluded by boy-lovers’ propaganda. It’s true that a child can say yes to sexual activity and even the Lolita scenario isn’t an impossibility; a twelve year old girl can very well try to seduce an older man. But that doesn’t count as consent; children don’t have the psychological maturity to consent, so even if they agree, it doesn’t count. Unfortunately, many people are in the dark about such things. Even with Wade Robson, they might be thinking that Michael used threats and force to keep him controlled for seven years, not that Wade was groomed into willingly participating in the abuse.

            Heh, you’re actually right about that aspect of ‘Lolita’. Nabokov could have written his book to be a controversial love story (people actually call it the most controversial fictional love story of the twentieth century), but it doesn’t read as such. It reads more like two people using each other, and neither Humbert Humbert or Lolita are likable.

            From the research that I’ve done, it’s fairly common for pedophiles to think that they are in love with kids they molest. Hence they call themselves boy-lovers, and the word ‘pedophile’ translated from Greek simply means ‘a lover of children’. I don’t know why they think so, it’s probably just a psychological trait that they have. But they also rationalize their actions by thinking of it as love. Like Michael Jackson said many times: ‘I love children, I would never hurt them’. But medically pedophilia is classified as a paraphilia, which means a sexual desire directed toward an inanimate object, a party that can’t consent, or abnormal sexual behavior. So at the end of the day it’s about the sexual gratification that child molesters seek, not about love. From reading VG’s book, it was very clear to me that MJs ultimate goal was to get boys to participate in sexual activity, not anything else.

          • Andreas Moss

            “From reading VG’s book, it was very clear to me that MJs ultimate goal was to get boys to participate in sexual activity, not anything else.”

            Can you elaborate on why this is clear to you, Kat?
            Are you saying he didn’t enjoy the companionship of these kids for other reasons than the hopeful scope of molesting them? And are we talking about pedophiles in general here, or just Michael in particular? I suppose I could imagine that a pedophile could fall in love with a child, and it wouldn’t be all that different from when others do, its just that its an “impossible love”.

            The Chandlers seemed to believe Michael really did care about Jordy, although in his own twisted and psychologically damaged way. They thought of him as ill, someone who needed help, but from his own intention, still well-meaning. Evan seemed to not doubt MJ wanted what was best for Jordy, for the longest while. (At least before Michael outed them in public as extortionists and liars.)

            I somehow have the impression Michael really felt bliss and happiness being around kids, and many of those things he said, and probably did relate to them more than with many adults, he seemed to be a highly regressed person, but then there was this extra dangerous layer — he felt sexual attraction to little boys, which made him quite the walking and ticking bomb.

          • Kat

            I sort of grasped that when I read about the grooming process of Jordie once again. I had read about it many times, in other books, as June Chandler’s court testimony, watched documentaries… But when I read it again in VG’s book it suddenly clicked for me, it became so clear that the grooming and seduction process was directed toward one goal only – to molest the kid. I don’t believe Michael loved Jordie, and his statements about their relationship being cosmic sounded obsessive and delusional. Also, there’s not one shred of evidence that he ever missed Jordie after they weren’t allowed to see each other. It seemed like he was fine, as long as he had his other boys, Brett, Wade, the Cascio brothers.

            I don’t think pedophiles truly love children, not any more than zoophiles love animals or necrophiles love corpses. I suppose there is something like love there, but it’s not pure love. And if you really love children you don’t cause them harm, right? Child molesters harm children, so their love can’t be considered true. It’s true that many boy-lovers feel as if they’re in love with their victims, and we know Michael thought so too. Hence the marriage ceremony with James, or the promise to Jordie to be better than best friends and live together in Neverland forever, or the words he says in Bashir documentary when he and Gavin are holding hands: ‘Why can’t you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone’. I suppose he was superficially infatuated with these boys, but again, only until puberty came knocking. Then they were disposed of and he couldn’t care less about them. That only shows that his attraction to them was fleeting, physical and only lasting until their young bodies were desirable to him. Not at all like real love.

            Not sure what I think about Chandlers thinking he meant well for their son. I guess they thought he had trouble appreciating the wrongness of his actions and needed professional help. But he was a thirty five year old man when that happened, surely he should have known that what he was doing was criminal, harmful, and loathed by regular people? I think that, had he really loved Jordie he wouldn’t have molested him. Like Jordie himself said in the psychiatrist interview: ‘I think he loved me, but in a selfish way.’ And refusing to appreciate that what you did was wrong doesn’t change the fact that it was a serious criminal offense deserving of a punishment.

            My take is that Jackson himself believed he loved children, but the love he had for them wasn’t wholesome or natural, or healthy for the kids that he spent time with. I know many people who claim to love children, but none of them makes exaggerated statements such as ‘I would slit my wrists before I would hurt a child — I would jump out the window if there were no children in the world — I see god in the face of every child’ that MJ was fond of making. Jackson also craved to spend more time with kids than with adults and thought of children as equal to him, someone to have friendships and relationships with. I don’t know any person who would want to have kids as friends; adults normally prefer other adults as friends, and kids should be with their peers anyway. None of my friends who claim to love kids can stand spending more time with them than with other adults. And finally, he placed children in ambiguous situations, and that’s just wrong. No adult who loves a child innocently would sleep in one bed or bedroom with them or make them believe it’s ever OK. He disrespected the boundaries of children and that’s not something a well-meaning, thoughtful adult would do.
            I agree that he probably did have a great ability to relate to kids as one of their own, but he wasn’t one of them, he was a fully grown adult male. I believe that had he really loved children and cared about their safety he wouldn’t have done any of these things.

          • Andreas Moss

            “Also, there’s not one shred of evidence that he ever missed Jordie after they weren’t allowed to see each other.”

            Yes. I think I agree with you that Jackson’s plan with Jordy all along was to molest him, as a lot of it seemed quite calculated. Still, he confessed to Evan(and others) that he didn’t understand why he was so drawn to Jordy, and talked about the cosmos bringing them together. Which he probably said because they met a couple of times a bit against the odds. I think MJ seems like a superstitious person in some ways, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he actually believed he was “meant to be” with Jordy. At least at the time. (Remember, he also said Omer was sent down from god to him “in desperate times”, so who knows if he literally meant it.)

            What Michael really felt towards Jordy is kind of like a big X, as Michael never confessed what he did. Most of what I’ve read is that after the 93′ accusations he went abroad to Europe and was put in drug rehablitation for a long time.
            There’s not much details beyond that, but its reasonable to assume the whole situation was having some effect on him. In some way or another. If the effect of him understanding he would never see Jordy isn’t impossible. Although, it could just as well be stressed about his image as an artist in the public eye, which is just as likely. Still, something about the whole ordeal of the first accusation made him escape reality and enter the druggy world of medicaments.

            “I suppose there is something like love there, but it’s not pure love. And if you really love children you don’t cause them harm, right?”

            Yes, its right from our point of view. From my own readings on pedophiles however, many pedophiles don’t see what they do as harm, and thats a big point here. Disturbing or not, thats a common pattern in their thinking. They often think society just misunderstand or is ignorant, and I think Michael probably believed this too. Whatever he did with these kids, he didn’t think he did anything wrong, even though he at the same time understood society would condemn it, and it would crashland his career, so it was important to hide it. I used to be very confused about Jackson on this, but when I started reading some articles on the NAMBLA website, things started to make sense, and it became obvious that they really do believe this.

            You might be right about it not being “pure love”. Its a good point that when a boy hits puberty pedophile usually lose all interest in the boy, and move on to someone else, but I’m not sure pedophiles think that far. Perhaps many of them only think in the “now”. And “love” is a difficult term to define, so I’ll skip that, but lets instead ask if Jackson actually cared about Jordy, if he had some attachment to him, if he saw him as a friend, and I’m open to that he might have. Because Evan Chandler seemed to think so. On the surface he seemed to, as he wanted Jordy to come along on tour with him, and wanted him to meet “imporant people”, hire the best “private tutors” to join him on the tour and so on and so on. Its possible it was as all a part of careful grooming of the parents, and that he didn’t really care about Jordy, but I’m not completely sold on yet.

            Still, I don’t think he cared more about Jordy than protecting his career and public image. He threw Jordy and the Chandlers under the bus on the Diane Sawyer interview.
            Still, if we are very generous it doesn’t mean he didn’t care about Jordy at all, just that his career was more important.

            Its of course possible that he really was as callous and loveless as a monster from a nightmare. I’m not saying I know. I’m just asking questions. I guess the truth is bigger than any of us, and so on.. 🙂

          • ShawntayUStay

            Michael was recorded in a phone conversation as saying “But I don’t love these people…”, referring to the fact that he has all these folks around him all the time, but he feels little for them personally. In the book by those 2 bodyguards recently released, one of them said that MJ could show compassion to a lot of stuff, from afar, but when it came to people that were around him, he had little ability to empathize with what they may be going through. I think that this really underscores how he probably related to his child friends. He only could see them through his own prism, and what they could do for him. Example, look at James Safechuck: as he outgrew Michael’s attractions, MJ made no secret that James — the boy he was obsessed with for 2 years — would see him with other friends. He groomed him for separation, after he spent months grooming him for abuse and years more maintaining that groomed state, and he (I’d say) cruelly pushed James out of his nest by parading his relationship with Brett Barnes in front of James.

            So I’d say that MJ was really just a user (a trait he probably learned from his father Joe). I do think pedophiles, as you say, believe they love these kids, but it’s just delusional. And I’m not saying that just because I think it’s completely crazy to want to be intimate with children, I’m saying it because pedophiles have deluded themselves with the idea that they are suffering from unique condition that is completely immutable, not realizing it is just a fetish; deeply held, yes, but not inborn and unfixable. They’ve misplaced normal, human sexual desires onto their object of choice: children. And we all know that fetishes (paraphilias) have zero to do with anything but sexual arousal and fantasy; is all very obsessive-compulsive and need-driven. So if MJ had this fetish for kids, we can’t really expect him to have cared deeply about these kids because they were basically his “sex toys” he fixated on. Of course a paraphilia involving a person/living thing is a little more complex than being abnormally attracted to inanimate objects, but MJ clearly cared about his safety/well-being more than he did those boys. And the evidence bares this out…repeatedly. You’re right: he first and foremost cared about his image. I’d think that if he at least (delusionally) cared about these boys, maybe he’d have been like those NAMBLA members and would have let his “freak flag” fly for everyone to see instead of bring boys into his secretive pedoworld. :-/

          • Andreas Moss

            “I think that this really underscores how he probably related to his child friends.”

            I understand what you mean, but I am not sure if comparing people who worked for Jackson with his young boyfriends/lovers/victims is all that fair. Is it, really? If Michael didn’t ‘love’ many of his maids, guards, cooks etc from Neverland would that be surprising? Its kind of understanable as they were just paid workers. They were his staff and business colleges. I mean, do you think Madonna, Elton John or whoever were full of “love” for all the small people working for them, the faces that probably changed each season?
            If you attach to people emotionally it often is a cogntive choice. Like Slavoj Zizek once said, and I think I agree, love is a commitment you carefully choose.

            Homosexuality was also deemed a paraphilia some time back, so I’m skeptical calling any paraphilia a ‘fetish’ personally. Unless you have some socialdarwinistic views that “love” is only qualitative or “real” if it can in theory only result in an offspring, or something to that effect, which I probably would disagree with it, it does not make that much sense to me to say it can’t be real feelings of love if a pedophile claim he loves a little boy or little girl.

            I see no reason in theory why it can’t be just as “real” as if a hetero person claims to love someone. The only problem is that the person a pedophile loves isn’t mature or developed enough to consent to such a relationship, and if they do happen to engage, they usually get psychologically and emotionally damaged, and it usually has lasting effects for life. Therefore it is abuse. I see it more as an impossible and perhaps even a tragic “love” from the point of view of the pedophile, a love that most people wouldn’t be able to identify with and perhaps would be disgusted by, but I wouldn’t rule it out as a kind of love. I would say the same about zoophilia, and even many of those attracted to inanimate objects.

            Our disagreement here may be partially semantics, though. “Love” is not a word easy to define, at least in any sober way, and I am not sure how one could even try to draw limits to what love could be, so I’m just not going to try at all. Also, I’ve read about a lot of weird types of love, like men in love with their dog, a tree, or mannequins, and to me it seems evident its more than just something exclusively sexual… and if its more than something sexual it automatically rules out it being a fetish, right? (And just because its weird does not make it impossible to call it love)

            Thats why I instead proposed the question if a pedophile could potentially care about their ‘chosen ones’, or if they could enjoy their company in other ways than just sexual ones? If they would protect them in dangeous situations, care about their well-being in some ways, and even talking sexually, would they respect some limits, etc? And it seems to me like they probably can. And I’m basing it on what I’ve read about pedophiles and what they say themselves.

            To just call pedophilia a fetish could seem like a way to brush it off, does it not? Its very easy and convenient, as its simpler to condemn pedophilia without condemning the individual if it was just a kink, which would be preferable. I have no problem understanding why that would be a popular stance, but I’m not convinced that makes it reality just because its convenient.

            I’m sure there’s a lot of theories on pedophilia that goes against each other though.. I know there is. In the field of psychology there’s usually hundreds of theories competing all at once. Its not a hard science. Its a difficult jungle. I’m not really expecting easy answers.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I see your point about the workers vs the boys, lol, but I guess I’m seeing it as a typical pattern of behavior in Jackson, repeating itself in multiple ways towards multiple people. Just like he showed little care/compassion towards the his workers, he also did with some of his child friends, as I’ve mentioned. Even some of his closest confidantes, those that supported and protected him for decades, were treated callously, e.g. Bill Bray, who wanted MJ to visit him in the hospital when he was dying and MJ never came. Reportedly, Bray hid MJ’s “condition” from authorities and grand juries. They say that Bill Bray was like a father figure to MJ, so one could expect that MJ could feel something akin to affection for this man, right? So this is typical for him, I suspect. But lack of empathy is common amongst narcissists.

            “…I’m skeptical calling any paraphilia a ‘fetish’ personally. Unless you have some socialdarwinistic views that “love” is only qualitative or “real” if it can in theory only result in an offspring, or something to that effect, which I probably would disagree with it, it does not make that much sense to me to say it can’t be real feelings of love if a pedophile claim he loves a little boy or little girl.”

            I think it’s very appropriate to allow people to speak about their conditions and define themselves, because they know themselves better than an outsider, right? I do think that these pedos “love” these kids (the nonviolent, “child-lover” ones, anyway) and they believe that it is equivalent to what us normal people feel towards age-appropriate peers. And I’m not going to speak about the lack of consent on the part of children because, at least for older teens, feelings can be reciprocated even if it isn’t condoned legally. But it is a paraphilia. Research shows that the brain responses of pedophiles are different from gays and straight adults, that although the sexual arousal centers are activated in in both pedophiles and normal adults when presented with sexual stimuli, the pedophiles also have significant activation patterns that correspond to impulse control and reward system regulation areas, i.e. their sexual response to children is associated with obsession-compulsion. And their behavior bares that finding out, yes? Just look at MJ. And paraphilias in general are the same way, alternative phenotypes of the same basic problem. I believe these feelings of “love” that these folks feel for their object of choice are tangible and akin to what would normally be felt, but they have been re-routed/misplaced do to some kind of trauma or maladaptive response to trauma (some people have especially sensitive temperaments — which are completely genetic — that make them more susceptible to stress and thus poor response to that stress). And they’ve synced their sexuality with these maladaptive responses and thought patterns.

            Do you think pedophiles are born that way? If they were, the argument would be entirely different, and it would be harder to condemn someone for something they have no ability to rectify; it could even be seen as cruel. But scientifically, there is no evidence to support that pedophilia and all the other paraphilias are anything but aberrant distortions of sexual behavior. It’s not normal for any human being to want to intimate with objects, corpses, animals, things that can’t consent, or to want to inflict extreme pain or receive extreme pain for sexual gratification. it’s simply not normal to want to be involved in such a one-sided relationship (and I know these people claim it isn’t one-sided, but let’s be honest, a car, an animal, a complete stranger on a train is not getting any psychological benefit from these interactions, lol…and that’s likely why the people prefer it in the first place). I whole-heartedly agree with you — as the often politically incorrect scientist that i am — that just because some explanation is comfortable doesn’t make it reality, that’s absolutely true. But this is pretty clear to me, based on the available evidence, that it’s a fetish and about control. Pedophiles are deluding themselves because it’s such a deeply held arousal pattern that they cannot imagine giving up. It’s comfortable to stay in the same place, but they need to be treated for their own trauma to change. Personally, I can understand, but ultimately strongly disagree with, the wholesale dismissal of child molesters as being completely unable to be helped. People even have a hard time wanting to acknowledge that many child molesters were victims of abuse themselves because they think it will attach a stigma to survivors. But just because this fact makes you uncomfortable doesn’t mean you have to deny people their right to be treated humanely. Cognitive behavioral therapy has reported success with paraphilias.

          • Andreas Moss

            Sorry for a bit of late answer, Shawntay and Pea.

            I’ve been pondering a bit on this. I don’t really know how to answer, but first things first: I concede the point that since they’re mainly interested in these boys only while they are young, Its a limited-time “conditional love” at best, then? Or a lust/fetish at worst! Still, if we were to exclude it being any kind of “love”, a bit of an open word anyway, I suppose you are saying there exists such a thing called “unconditional love”?

            An unconditional love that somehow is pure and transcends typical factors like physical attraction and status, right? But does hetero couples really never objectify their partners a bit based on what they want in a partner? Some more, some less? I suppose cynics would argue that love in the normative hetero world also can be quite dependent on attributes, sometimes consciously, other times unconsciously, and these things can weaken and go away based on such attributes. You might be able to claim these fatfeeders and pedophiles do it on a larger scale, perhaps, but I still find it very problematic to draw clear lines when its love or not. To me that makes it quite relative and subjective.

            Its not really that I just think child molesters should have final word to define what they are. I understand that is potentially naive, and people like NAMBLA most likely do choose how they’d describe their mission caaarefully based on what would sound more politically correct, and appealing to the public, and so do most pedophiles as well.

            I get that, but I think I come from this from a more philosophical angle. Have you seen the movie “Her” by Spike Jonze? Its movie set a bit into the future, where the male protagonist falls in love with a programmed voice on his headset, and its quite a happy story in its own way. The voice-bot in this movie is so well programmed that it similates a female person and voice very accurate, perhaps perfectly. And in the movie these two characters “fall in love”. So, is that “real love”? I suppose that is the question the movie asks its audience, and as a viewer you’re kind of pushed to answer “Well, why not?”. Its a thought-provoking idea. At the very least I find it a bit simplistic to dismiss it just as a paraphilia and the voice is just an inanimate object, so therefore it can’t be ‘real love’, but that is me. You might see it differently.

            So going back to Michael and the pedophiles, I just don’t know how they experience what they feel, som all I’m saying I won’t exclude the possibility that it can be a type love too, weird or not. I’m probably not arguing that serial child molesters are “in love” with all of their dozens of victims a year. It would have to be another type of pedophile that would fit the bill better. I admit I have no examples, its just hypotethical.

            If pedophilia is a paraphilia, and all paraphilias can be cured, I’d like to see documented cases that pedophilia has been successfully treated.

          • Pea

            Andreas, if you find it hard to define “love” — or at least don’t want to define it narrowly — how would it change the way you look at pedophilia if their “relationships” with children involved “real love”? Because it seems like a slippery slope: if they feel a love equivalent to that which normal people feel, then should their actions be proscribed against?

            As for “Her”, I’ve never seen the film, but I have heard about it and seen interviews with the people who made/star in the film. I think it’s important to remember that “Her” is (a) a movie and (b) written by someone who is not a fetishist. Therefore, it’s not surprising the operating system that the character falls in love with is more like a real person than like a computer. If “Her” was more like an actual computer, where his input completely controlled her output, only the most nonchalant, open-minded people would think he wasn’t insane, lol.

            There are many men who prefer sex dolls or fantasy sex robots, for instance, for the sole reason the sex doll/robot cannot leave them or hurt them, accepts them totally (of course, they are inanimate and/or perfectly programmable), and does whatever they want. I’ve seen one man say he was in love with the realistic sex doll he had — but really he was in love with himself in another form.

            I think something similar is going on with pedophiles. As MJ Facts said, they love what the child represents to them, not the child himself. It’s all very narcissistic, and narcissists can’t love anyone; everyone is their object. Look at Jacko…

          • Kat

            I really don’t believe child molesters love their victims. If they would love them they certainly wouldn’t molest them, right? I agree with the accepted definition that pedophilia is nothing more than deviant sexual desire; a desire to do sexual things with a party that can’t consent and consequently is harmed by it. My opinion is that they simply rationalize their actions by calling it love. They disagree with definitions such as ‘child predator’, ‘pervert’, or ‘pederast’, no, they are boy-lovers and child lovers. They love children and therefore their actions are justified because they stem from this so-called love that they have for these kids.

            I also refuse to acknowledge that pedophiles can’t appreciate the wrongness of their actions. It’s not like Michael Jackson was insane and didn’t know right from wrong! No, he knew very well that what he was doing was immoral, but had convinced himself it wasn’t and brainwashed his victims to believe it was loving and consensual. After all it’s very common for people who do bad things to try to rationalize them. I don’t think Michael Jackson was truly capable of loving another human being. He used his boys while they were able to serve their purpose and then discarded them. The fact that he ‘loved’ them only added to their trauma. Look at how cruelly he threw away James Safechuck, leaving him feeling rejected, confused, and jealous of younger boys that MJ spent time with. Even now James states that he finds it hard to trust people and has a negative view of them, because of how Jackson, the person James idolized and loved, used and betrayed him, and threw him away when he was no longer useful.

            I also agree with you that he kept his boys close to him after their expiration date only to blackmail them or to utilize them for another selfish purpose. See Frank Cascio, his loyal right hand man. I recognize manipulation and self-interest in his relationships with special friends, but not love.

          • dani

            I do not know Kat, I have come to believe that MJ was very much on the borderline of sane in the end if he EVER was. Not to mention yes he was high as a kite off stage and probably onstage for like 2 decades, so who really can say if his mind was all there. I watched a doc about him and the psyches were saying that if the human mind is not challenged on the regular, the connections in the brain will start to malfunction. So in the case of MJ they said parts of his brain were able to just shut off due to the fact that he lived in such a bubble with everything taken care of for MOST of his life. It seems his mind was stuck in many ways and I really doubt he was challenged, at all as an adult. If you challenged him he “froze you or iced you out, as LMP has said”
            Take Care
            Dani

          • Kat

            There are many indicators that his mind was going by the end of his life, if you watch the 60 Minutes interview with him it becames apparent quickly that hardly anything that comes out of his mouth is logical or rational.

            I think it’s mostly due to drug use, anyone’s brain would be put under pressure with so much poison swimming through one’s system. Nonetheless, I still think he was able to tell right from wrong, which made him qualified to be tried in a court of law.

          • dani

            Oh I did forget to mention to question of sanity, have you seen the deposition of one of his Drs during the time of the Chandler scandal. The Dr said he was on the HIGHEST levels of Fentanly (the drug that killed prince) and that MJ had SOO many injection sites on his body that when this DR was told to give him some extra painkillers via IM the needle broke due to so much scar tissue. MJ was seriously drugged out on stage that night (i saw the video of him performing) so do you think that could have effected his sanity or mindfulness? I sure do.

          • Andreas Moss

            “How would it change the way you look at pedophilia if their “relationships” with children involved “real love”?”

            Ah, well. Not much. I still think its very harming to children. I think the kids in these scenarios are manipulated and groomed into situations they aren’t comfortable with, and if they are not stopped they have to endure more of it, so even if a pedophile feels “love” or “lust”, it doesn’t change the fact that being sexually molested as a child is extremely harming.

            To be clear: I am not a defender that pedophilia is love. I was initially just curious how Kat(and others) could be so certain it wasn’t. The answers I got were good. I’ll leave the rest for now.

          • dani

            Wow, your thoughts on what is “love” or not, was very thought provoking. I would tend to agree, of course heteros or homosexuals objectify their partners. How could one say that does not happen? Very well put.

            I also agree, we cannot really know how anothers mind is running, so perhaps they are really feeling a sorta kinda love.

            I was always confused as to why MJ said He and Jordy were cosmic and also Jordy and his therapist sessions, something that got me was the whole “levitation” stuff. While I do not believe MJ was guilty, I do believe he used some serious mind games and manipulation to get his emotional needs met, and honestly the cosmic and levitation stuff just sounds SOOOO much like something MJ would say, and from the sound of it, what some of those guys in the chickenhawks doc would say as well. Oh and that one guy the morman one, he sounded like MJs saying “I see the face of God in children” I always thought that stuff was pure bluff as well, yet I still do not think he actually acted sexually with the kids, just over emotionally needy and putting them in horrible situations really.
            Dani

          • Pea

            I think you’re over-analyzing it a bit, Andreas. You are where I was on this issue a couple of years ago, giving pedophiles the benefit of the doubt, hearing their side, etc. It’s important to consider what pedophiles have to say about themselves, but it would be folly to believe everything they say about their affliction is 100% true. No one should completely trust anything a marginalized and/or minority group says about themselves; sometimes an etic, rather than emic, perspective keeps a dialogue about said group grounded in reality.

            After all, these are people who want to be able to have sex with [other people’s] children with impunity, so it is not surprising that they’d justify their desire to have sex with children with platitudes about how it’s some expression of “real love”, that it’s motivated by “equivalent” feelings normal people feel. It’s propaganda.

            A pedophile “loves” a child in the same way a fat admirer/feeder “loves” his fat partner — the so-called love ends the moment the beloved stops being a child or morbidly obese. I’ve heard of/seen stories about men cheating on their 400-pound wives with 500-pound+ mistresses, or divorces happen because the fat wife wants to lose weight so her children don’t lose a mother (her weight loss is often met with passive-aggressive resistance). Of course, the requisite for these unions was always centered around the woman’s girth.

            The same with Jacko. He “loved” his chosen ‘special friends’, as long as they remained the age he found most desirable, i.e., between 7-12 (maybe 6-14 if you want to be generous). When the boys aged out, they were promptly chucked in the trash for a newer, younger boy. Sure, he may have (“may” being the operative word) continued to be present in their lives, but the connection was completely sporadic and different, possibly even neutral or Machiavellian (i.e. Jacko couldn’t be too heartless because he didn’t want them to spill the beans).

            And what do we see as the common denominator between the pedophile and the fat admirer/feeder? Objectification of a particular part of the Beloved, specifically that which makes the Lover aroused, e.g. youth or fat, and if it ceases to be there, so ceases the “love”. That’s why these are considered paraphilias, and, at the risk of sounding circular, that’s why they cannot be expressions or feelings of actual “love”.

            With that said, I don’t doubt that pedophiles could boost a child’s self-esteem or genuinely care about children’s causes (after all, they need kids around, right?). I don’t agree with some idiots running around wanting to alter the English language and amend pedophile to pedosadist — that’s just political correctness run amok and is absurd. I can believe Jacko cared about children, but only inasmuch as they were a reflection of his own so-called “lost childhood”; he was narcissistic to the extreme.

            I think that’s the same with everyone who objectifies someone. You can’t love an object, sorry.

          • Pea, some commenters compare feederism to pedophilia on the documentary Fat Girls and Feeders Youtube page.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDtygpzybHk

            Andreas, in my view, if acquaintance pedophiles “loved” the children they focused on, they would continue being “in love” with them past their age of attraction, through puberty and onto adulthood.

            The sad fact is that these children who are “loved” get dumped for a younger model when they get older, so it’s obvious that the focus isn’t on the child itself, it’s on the what makes the child attractive to the pedophile – their age, their sex, their level of emotional (im)maturity, and whether they can be manipulated into doing what the pedophile wants.

            As Pea pointed out, once a particular part of the object of the pedophile’s love changes, usually age but possibly also either their manipulability or maturity, the pedophile loses interest.

          • Andreas, I know you’ve done a lot of research trying to get your head around this. Have you watched the documentary Chickenhawk?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygrd29-_O3I

            It gives a lot of insight into how pedophiles think and act. What you’ll notice is that a lot of the dialogue they use to describe boys, and their interactions with boys, matches almost exactly with how Michael Jackson interacted with and spoke about them, if not in the exact words then in tone. It’s almost chilling.

          • Andreas Moss

            That was a great documentary, MJfacts. I watched it twice, thanks! 🙂 Leyland Stevenson, what a guy… And I laughed at the part where NAMBLA tags along the gay parade. Not very welcome there.

          • ShawntayUStay

            You might like this one too, Andreas. It’s by Louis Theroux, called “A Place for Pedophiles”.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhNgQiXkGEM

            This facility in California, USA houses sex offenders on an “indefinite basis” once they’ve served their prison sentences. So the questions for the audience is: Is it constitutional or right to keep people incarcerated once they’ve paid their debt to society? Are there ever crimes so horrible where an indefinite sentence is warranted? Are these facilities really for treatment or are they glorified prisons? In the doc, you’ll see that many of these pedophiles are unwilling to go through treatment in protest, and you’ll also see a pedophile that was cured and released.

          • What I found interesting about this documentary is how similar the descriptions of children the men gave was to Jackson’s descriptions of children. Actually, it was eerie.

          • ShawntayUStay

            “My take is that Jackson himself believed he loved children, but the love he had for them wasn’t wholesome or natural, or healthy for the kids that he spent time with.”

            That’s what struck me as odd even when I was a fan. I never understood his obsession with children. I could understand that he loved his own children, as many people do, but I never understood why he always spoke about them the way he did. I remember reading the rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s “The Michael Jackson Tapes” and being slightly sickened over the way a grown ass man would wax poetic about kids. But beneath that, I also was sickened by the vibe I got — he seemed to view children through “What can they do for me?” way, as if they were only put on Earth to be his personal playthings or “drug”. He didn’t come off the way MJ supporters like to say, that his love for kids is so pure; he came off as a “user” of children. But it makes sense in the grand scheme of things because he so easily acquired new “special friends” and then discarded them like used Kleenex. The rabbi even said that he could never understand why it seemed that MJ loved one child but couldn’t care less about another (His example being that MJ liked a little 7 yo girl who was a cancer victim but had zero interest in a 14 yo girl that the rabbi introduced him to. I say that it’s obvious: the cancer kid was young and a photo op; the other was too old and probably too similar to a woman — and MJ didn’t like women, as we know).

            “Jackson also craved to spend more time with kids than with adults and thought of children as equal to him, someone to have friendships and relationships with.”

            I don’t believe MJ really thought that those kids were equal to him. I believed he knew that he could get them to do what ever he wanted through simple manipulation. Pedophiles (the outspoken activist-types, anyway) always claim that the relationship between them and a child is equal, similar to how it is between 2 adults. But if that was really true, why not just date adults? It’s because they are attracted to the control that is inherent in adult-child interactions. I think MJ was the same way. His childhood was chaotic, lacked appropriate boundaries (due to what he saw on tour and his own alleged sexual abuse), and he was under the whim of a very abusive father that terrorized all the children, so he probably felt incredibly powerless. I think he gravitated to kids because he believed kids would never reject him, and if he ever felt that they would, he could either manipulate them to stay or he could get another. Pedophiles are narcissistic so these kids represent a steady supply of self-objects. Pedophilia is often comorbid with anxiety and depressive illnesses, so they have very low self-esteem. Adult relationships are therefore likely seen as “risky”, as adults have their own opinions, feelings, and desires that cannot so easily be dismissed like they can with children.

            Look at his relationships with his wives: he quickly threw in the towel with Lisa Marie when it became clear that he couldn’t get her to go alone with being a baby oven after months of him “putting in work” trying to pretend to be heterosexual (lol) ; his “marriage” with Debbie Rowe was completely on his terms, i.e. she was just the incubator, never demanded sex, easily gave up parental rights, and disappeared with the “fee”. MJ had no desire to pursue these more “complicated” adult relationships and quickly got a new boy (Omer). MJ knew it would be easier to maintain the control if he was with an impressionable child that idolized him. It was never equal, in my opinion. Kids were his “possessions”, as Debbie Rowe told the cops, referring to Paris and Prince.

          • Kat

            I can’t believe MJs supporters claim that he actually loved children. Those were his words yes, but his actions hugely contradicted that statement. A person who loves kids doesn’t put them in ambiguous situations such as sleeping with them in one bed, while the doors are locked and have warning chimes on them. Someone who loves kids doesn’t have a house full of things that are attractive to children and serves as the ultimate lure. A person who loves kids doesn’t leave stacks of porn and alcohol in places freely accessible to them. In fact, normally people who advocate for children’s rights warn kids and their parents to be wary of unrelated adult males who do such things. Actions speak louder than words, and Jackson’s actions weren’t those of someone who loved children and cared about their safety.

            I do think that Michael himself might have thought that he was equal to kids that he spent time with. I don’t deny his Peter Pan side was real to some extent, I think there was an element to his personality that was playful and childlike and that he truly liked climbing trees and throwing water balloons from balconies. He also had an excellent ability to relate to children, as many pedophiles do. But adult-child relationships are inherently unbalanced and uneven, because there is a huge rift of experience and maturity between the two. Therefore children shouldn’t be having friendships with adults, it’s not healthy for the child. Like, there are these videos on YouTube where MJ and Macaulay Culkin are engaging in different shenanigans while in Neverland, and it sort of looks cute, because they’re acting like two eleven year olds until you remember that one is actually eleven and the other is thirty something…

            I suppose there was an element of control in his relationships with boys he molested. After all people say that rape and sexual abuse is not really about sex, but about power, right? And kids are way easier to control than adults. But MJ mostly just controlled and manipulated every person in his life. Although he miscalculated with some, since they couldn’t be forced to do what he wanted. I think Lisa Marie is a strong-minded individual and she did try to turn him away from his old ways of befriending boys and luring them into suspicious relationships, while all MJ wanted was a beard wife who would look the other way.

            P.S. Sorry I took ages to answer; I was blocked from viewing the site and then I had different other commitments.

          • L72r

            Where is the evidence MJ molested any child. Gossip by a group of people who have never met Michael or Jordan or talked to any of these people is not evidence. It is pure gossip and speculation not fact! A book written by a man that a jury ruled slandered/lied about Michael Jackson and never paid MJ the damages is not evidence either. Gutierrez is a court documented liar, and it is on court record 1998.

          • Berta

            Read around the site more.

          • I’ve never met Michael Jackson, but Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia, Gavin Arvizo, Wade Robson and James Safechuck Jr have all spent a considerable amount of time with him – traveling, at Neverland, at the Westwood Hideout, some in their own homes, and in his bed – and they have all admitted that Jackson molested them. That’s a very, very difficult thing to do for any boy or man.

            They’ve detailed his pattern of behavior – grooming, molestation, brainwashing – which is all in line with how pedophiles behave. Even boys who say they haven’t been molested, like Brett Barnes and Jonathan Spence, unwittingly have exhibited signs that they too have been groomed and brainwashed.

            Others, like staff and friends of Michael, have spoken out about his inappropriate behavior with boys.

            Are they ALL lying? If so, why didn’t they lie like the obvious fakes (Daniel Kapon, Joseph Bartucci Jr.), but all had similar stories to tell about Jackson being a “nice guy” molester?

            You are asking us to believe that dozens of people colluded to tell the same story, while at the same time none of them coming forward to say “we all got together and made this up”. That these dozens of people conspired, and got others to conspire, to ALL tell remarkably similar stories about Jackson’s methods of grooming, seduction and silencing of his victims? Are you saying these dozens of people who have spoken out are so disciplined that none of them have changed their stories in 10, 20, 30 years?

            You know what you are presenting is totally unbelievable, and deep down you know that Jackson is guilty but don’t want to face it. Forget about Jackson’s PR and the lies they told. You know, in your heart, that what Jackson did with those boys was inappropriate (even if he didn’t molest them), right?

          • L72r

            There were never any evidence of “dozens” of people. The Chandlers whom the secretary who worked for the attorney that sued MJ wrote the book Redemption which details all the things she say that suggested extortion of MJ. She tell how MJ then did file an extortion complaint against the Chandlers. Jordan left the country when Sneddon tried to get him to be a witness against MJ. Jordan filed with the court to have the court remove Evan and June as his parents, and he filed charges on Evan for assaulting him after the settlement. The settlement which was not for abuse. The court record speaks for itself concerning the Janet Arvizo coaching her two sons to lie so she could file false lawsuits on businesses. Jason Francis whom his mom alledged MJ did something admitted in court in 2005 MJ had never abused him. His mom though made money from selling false stories to the media and lying. That is all on court record. There was another article “Was MJ framed that appeared in GQ magazine and it was concluded he was. The FBI looked all over the world for other victims and found none! Wade’s story is not believable IMO and others considering he already under oath denied being touched and for years after MJ died voluntarily made public statements about how wonderful MJ was, which no one asked him to! His mother and sister defended MJ. Yes people do lie for money! About a third of all allegations of abuse are unsubstantiated. It does happen. Read the MacMartin Daycare case,.

          • Pea

            “Yes people do lie for money!”

            Yes, we know; a lot of Jacko’s ‘special friends’ and their families lied for money when they said Jacko was heterosexual and had sex-free sleepovers with young, tender boys. 🙁

          • L72r

            You have no evidence he was not Heterosexual, and he never invited people over for “sleep overs.” Frank Cascio and Mac Culkins all said their families came to visit MJ but only a few times a year, it was not a “sleep over.” Some times he was on tour when they visited also. MJ had three guest houses they could stay in. Culkins said he asked his parents if he could play in MJ room which was 2000 square feet and had a second story with his own bed. It had couches, TV’s game machines and another bed. He told the court his parents gave permission for him to play in MJ’s room and there were other people in there also, and that he would play games sitting on MJ’s bed downstairs till he passed out and MJ sometimes would be on the bed playing Video games also and that MJ never tried to touch him, his sister or anyone. He also said MJ slept on the floor many times. Frank Cascio said his brother and sister and parents were all welcome in Michael Room. Please stop referring to this as a “slumber party.” No ones testimony suggest that. That is NOT FACT! It is your interpretation! Have a nice day!

          • bigakizzle

            Mike admitted himself that they slept in the bed together. All the kids did much to Michael’s surprise when Wade and Brett let the secret out while trying to defend Him. There is no question he slept int eh bed with the boys. It was a slumber party, and it was usually just boys in the room. Not to many girls were welcome.
            The look on his face says all you need to know about what he feels about girls…

          • ShawntayUStay

            L72r, all your “facts” are either incorrect and/or speculative opinion.

            1. The FBI never did an independent investigation into the child molestation accusations. That is a false idea perpetuated by fans. The FBI clearly states that it provided to LA and SB law enforcement “investigative and technical assistance” during two separate cases: 1993-1994 and 2004-2005. See the time span? Only a total of two years, not “decades” like fanatics erroneously insist. So stop saying that the FBI did anything; state law enforcement were in the driver’s seat in the Jackson cases.

            2. Geraldine Hughes “account” of the Chandlers needs to be taken with a grain of salt, not only because she is a obvious Jackson fan (and thus biased), but because she made a humungous error with respect to Jordie Chandler’s appearance that clearly lets the reader know she never met or seen the Chandlers like she claims. From page 139:

            In Michael Jackson’s case, so much energy was directed towards indicting him on the child molestation allegation that the extortion investigation received minimum attention and investigation. Some people call it black justice in white America. There was a time in America when a serious crime was only a crime if it was committed by someone black….There is no doubt that this practice cause a lot of anxiety in many Americans, especially in the black community. But this case also involved the word of a 13-year old white boy against an adult black male, totally denying Michael Jackson’s constitutional rights as well as ignoring proven state and federal laws that applied to other cases.

            Ignoring the much-used and very fallacious “race card” argument being applied to an enormously famous, well-loved celebrity who, by that point, appeared no more a “black male” than Elizabeth Taylor, and the fact that Hughes is just giving her opinion (with zero evidence in support) about the inner-workings of the police investigation, Hughes was obviously lying about ever seeing Jordie like she claimed, saying that he appeared stressed and sad by the allegations, intimating that he was a pawn used to get money. How can you trust her account? No one in their right mind would ever mistake Jordie for a white boy! Stop being gullible. Her beef with Barry Rothman has nothing to do with whether Jackson was a child molester.

            3. Jason Francia never admitted in 2005 that he wasn’t inappropriately touched. What are you talking about? And Blanca Francia never admitted to lying to the media for money. Her friend was the conduit for the Hard Copy interview, she didn’t go out and pursue that. And her story has remained consistent, and no fans have ever had any evidence to challenge her. Mesereau simply liked to play “They went to the tabloids, they wanted money, thus they’re liars” song on repeat, and you all fell for it, of course.

            4. Stop with the “Jordie Chandler hates his parents and loves MJ” trope. Jordie likely filed for emancipation because he wanted access to his trust prior to his 18th birthday; he was still living with his stepmother and had constant contact with his father. He did, however, stop talking to his mother who was the one that allowed Jackson such intimate access to her son. And the altercation between Jordie and Evan is just that — an altercation, a domestic disturbance. Evan was seriously ill by that point, so to claim that it was an “attempted murder” by him on his son because Jordie was about to “spill the beans” due to Jackson’s recent acquittal is the height of delusional mind-reading by desperate fanatics. Y’all have no proof to support this theory.

            Mary Fischer’s GQ article is a non-factor by most people. She quote-mined the conversation between Dave Schwartz and Evan Chandler to make him look more sinister than he actually was. She claimed — again with no evidence to support it — that Jordie was given sodium amytal and had false memories of sex abuse implanted in his mind, when in reality there was no way that Jordie could make up all those details he laid out in his interview with Dr. Richard Gardner, and the records show that Jordie was given two standard anesthesia drugs, Vistaril and Rubinal, not truth serum. She’s a hired hack journalist paid to write about the allegations AFTER the confidentiality agreement would make it legally impossible for the Chandlers to give their side of the story; it was an orchestrated PR move of Jackson’s part that culminated in his HIStory album and his Primetime Live interview, where he called them extortionists, violating his end of the agreement.

          • ShawntayUStay

            If you’ve read “Michael Jackson was My Lover”, it’s pretty obvious that Victor Gutierrez actually talked to the Chandlers, because he had exclusive, never before seen documents, photographs, and information in the book. Somehow this man was able to get the Chandlers to trust him enough to tell their story. Yes, Gutierrez did put a slight pedophile twist on the molestation — saying it was love — but the book is solid. It’s not gossip in the slightest.

            Fans have never met Jackson yet insist that he’s innocent, but you’re demanding proof from us? Where’s your proof? Still waiting…

          • L72r

            It is a FACT the LA Times reported MJ was awarded 2.7 million for Gutierrez slandering him by saying in this book I was MJ’s lover
            he had seen this sensational video. MJ also sued Diane Dimond
            and Paramount. The Judge demanded Gutierrez produce the video, and he refused to produce any evidence he had really seen such a video or who any of his sources were. Gutierrez was found guilty of slander and ordered to pay MJ 2.7 million. The jurors said they wanted to send a message to tabloids to stop writing malicious stories about celebrities. Diane Dimond had to admit she had never seen this supposed video even though she told Larry King she had. She and Paramount were dismissed from the suit because it could not be proven they acted in malice but MJ appealed the decision concerning her. Only a fool would believe anything Gutierrez or DD said about MJ. They both are known for inaccurate reporting. The FBI investigated MJ for over ten years looking for evidence of molestation and victims and found NONE! The real FBI report was released in 2009. Here’s is the real FACTUAL Article about Gutierrez having to pay MJ 2.7 million for slander. htttp://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/10/local/me-37930

          • Pea

            Apparently you lack some reading comprehension skills. The article stated that the $2.7M judgment was due to Victor Gutierrez’s failure to produce the videotape he claimed to have seen, not the content of “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”.

            First sentence:

            A man who could not prove his claim that he had seen a 27-minute videotape of Michael Jackson having sex with a minor was ordered Thursday by a Superior Court jury to pay the singer $2.7 million.

            Another snippet:

            Goldman said that Gutierrez has asked Jackson to challenge the “truth of the book” and that the singer has refused. … Jackson filed the suit against Gutierrez after the writer told a reporter for the television show “Hard Copy” that he had seen a videotape of the star having sex with a boy.

            Jacko never challenged “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”; it didn’t happen. What he did do, however, is pick only four quotes from the entire book to demonstrate that Gutierrez was “malicious” against him. But, interestingly, none of the quotes had anything to do with what he wrote about the Jordie Chandler sex scandal. They only dealt with the allegations about him shitting on himself and violence and lack of resources at the Ranch — all of those allegations were repeated by Gutierrez following conversations with Jacko’s workers. He didn’t make them up on his own.

            Jacko would’ve never wanted to challenge the entirety of Gutierrez’s book because it would’ve opened him up to a full airing of his relationship with Jordie. Had Jacko actually wanted a full airing, he would’ve went to trial rather than paid Jordie Chandler millions of dollars to go away (Jacko’s attorney at the time, Carl Douglas, stated the settlement was to “silence” the accuser). But he did not, and he avoided any discussion of the allegations because in a slander/libel suit, the burden is on Jacko to prove that the alleged slanderous/libelous speech is not only untrue and/or malicious, but that the accused knows it is untrue and maliciously says/writes it anyway.

            He would’ve opened up a massive can o’ worms.

            That Jacko fought the allegation of the video, rather than the book, may demonstrate that the book is true while the claim of a young boy sextape is false. It could also mean that there may have been a sextape, but Jacko was so confident in his ability to conceal his precious homemade porn that he knew it was impossible for anyone to have seen it. (I will err on the side of the former, however.)

            It’s interesting, too, that Jacko accused Evan and Jordie of violating the confidentiality agreement; his proof was Gutierrez’s book. That’s another indication that book was accurate, and another explanation about why he didn’t sue Gutierrez over the book’s content.

            Victor Gutierrez’s work has never been challenged or invalidated in a courtroom. According to reports, Jacko’s people routinely went to bookstores to buy up all the copies they could find. One fan website attempted to show the picture below as “proof” that that allegation of Jacko buying up Gutierrez’s book was untrue:

            https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/victor-sheriff-001.jpg

            Given the long history of shoddy fan research, it’s not a surprise the fan was confused. Gutierrez’s book came out in 1996; the judgment was lodged in 1998, and that document was in 1999. Therefore there is approximately 3 years for Jacko’s people to have bought up the books from bookstores between its publish date and the document above asking for all of the remaining copies of MJWML Victor Gutierrez still had in his possession.

            You can claim that Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez are untrustworthy because of that one gaffe about the videotape. But, as it stands today, none of their work on the allegations has been refuted — by fans or by Jacko himself.

            As for the FBI, they only provided “assistance”; they never did their own investigations. And that assistance was for 2 years total, a decade apart. Learn how to read:

            Between 1993 and 1994 and separately between 2004 and 2005, Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases.

            http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson

          • L72r

            Michael Jackson sued Gutierrez and DD for “defamation of character.” The video he claimed to have was never produced. Thus it did not exist! There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. Some people on this site are in conversations talking about it as if it did exist as proof of something bad MJ did. There was no such video! To claim there is such a video when talking about his book is not factual! It is False! Diane Dimond was criticized by more than one ethical journalist for MISREPORTING on MJ during the 2005 trial not just in the Gutierrez case. Charles Thompson wrote an article titled “The most shameful incident in journalistic history” which appeared in the Huffington Post and details not just Diane’s inaccurate reporting of that case but others. This is from that article “Diane Dimond appeared on Larry King Live days after Jackson’s arrest and spoke repeatedly about a ‘stack of love letters’ the star had supposedly written to Gavin Arvizo. “Does anyone here… know of the existence of these letters?” asked King.
            “Absolutely,” Dimond replied. “I do. I absolutely know of their existence!” “Diane, have you read them?” “No, I have not read them.” “Dimond admitted that she’d never even seen the letters, let alone read them, but said she knew about them from “high law enforcement sources”. But those love letters never materialized. When Dimond said she ‘absolutely knew’ of their existence she was basing her comments solely on the words of police sources. At best, the police sources were parroting the Arvizos’ allegations in good faith. At worst, they’d concocted the story themselves to sully Jackson’s name. Either way, the story went around the world with not a shred of evidence to support it.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html Roger Friedman had mentioned the misreporting when he did the Interviews on the Drudge Report concerning the 2005 case. Those interviews are on youtube. As to the FBI file, this is the exact statement from the FBI Investigative Report on Michael Jackson from the “FBI webstie: ” In response to Freedom of Information Act requests, the Bureau has released its investigative files on the late entertainer Michael Jackson, who died earlier this year. The records total 333 pages, divided into seven files. They detail the FBI’s investigation of a man who threatened to kill Jackson, as well as various forms of assistance to California authorities in two cases involving allegations that Jackson had abused children. It should be emphasized that none of these allegations were ever proven in court. ”

          • CandyC

            Shawntay, do you think Victor personally spoke to Jordan Chandler? There was some explosive details in the book. I have read MJWML and I found it convincing, it was salacious but VG is a decent journalist.

          • Pea

            According to a fan website called “Turning the Tables on the Chandler Allegations” (which I’m sure you’ve read, Candy!), in the civil proceedings related to Jacko v Gutierrez, Evan and Jordie Chandler supposedly provided depositions that made statements (or rather failed to give denials) that could lead one to believe they did speak to Victor Gutierrez.

            It was Jacko’s contention that some of the details in Gutierrez’s book were so specific and unambiguous that the only logical conclusion was that the Chandlers had violated the confidentiality agreement and divulged them. (E.g., bank statements, personal letters, etc.)

            Of course, Jacko wasn’t going to challenge the book completely. Under US law, Jacko would’ve had to prove Gutierrez acted maliciously with regard to MJWML, specifically filling the book with lies; the only way to establish that is to prove that the allegations, which he’d settled for millions, were false. (And since he bucked a criminal and civil trial, we can reasonably conclude he couldn’t prove that negative.) That’s why he only went after Gutierrez for the videotape, never the book.

            But my personal opinion is that some of the quotes in MJWML attributed to Jordie are “poetic license”. I think Gutierrez did talk to the Chandlers (I don’t know if he ever talked to Jordie but I can imagine Evan Chandler getting Jordie to talk to VG if Evan wanted it), but, ultimately, he is a sensationalist and selling his writing was the point of the whole enterprise. I think the book is at least 95% true. Comparing MJWML and “All That Glitters”, both of which are based on Evan Chandler’s chronology, is a good way to get to the actual story.

            That said, “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” is the best book about Jacko ever written, in my opinion. Victor Gutierrez is the odd combination of Jacko muckraker and Jacko fan. 🙂

          • CandyC

            That website sounds familiar I can’t say for sure if I spent any time looking through it however. I agree, I don’t think most of the information in that book was fictitious, it’s way too detailed!

            It’s telling that Michael failed to challenge the book in court and also his urgency to remove the book from public sale — that is a testament to it’s probable accuracy. I think it’s bizarre that someone who was supposedly innocent would back away from the opportunity to prove so.

            I’ll have to have a look into “All That Glitters” would you describe it as similar to MJWML?

          • Kat

            I feel like Michael Jackson Was My Lover might be the best one too, Pea. I wasn’t sure what to think about Gutierrez before I read it, I knew he was a controversial figure who had gotten a slander lawsuit filed against him when he claimed that there was a video recording of MJ molesting his nephew that later failed to materialize, and that vindicators blame him for being the person behind the great big conspiracy to take down totally innocent of any wrongdoing Michael Jackson…

            But when I read the book I discovered that it was shockingly accurate and unflinching in it’s depiction of a man spoiled by his fame and money and falsely believing that he could present only one side of himself to the public and get away with doing abhorrent acts when the press or the fans weren’t present. Paradoxically, even thought Gutierrez had wanted to present the Jordie-Jackson relationships as a love story, reading the book convinced me that Jackson was incapable of loving another human being. Not in a selfless, not having ulterior motives kind of way.

          • Ses Million

            Sad that will believe these books after 2 of the kids having admitted to lying. I love kids. I work in retail and goof off with every child I see to make them smile. They see life the way we should if we didn’t grow up to be such sick, twisted adults.

            Sit and think Mike had Vitiligo, Lupus and was accused of things that are horrible that probably end up false .

          • CandyC

            Boy, you’re incredibly ignorant, the mere fact you’ve stated that, in your words, “2 of the kids having admitted to lying” shows how you have no credibility and are just another fan in denial, worshipping a past entertainer who had a disturbing addiction to young boys. Nice try, but you’re fooling no one who is on the right side of history here.

          • L72r

            Jordan Chandler did not have a diary. Think about this, two grand juries investigated the Chandler allegation which was actually brought by his dad, and they determined there was no evidence to indict Michael Jackson. If Jordan had a diary why wasn’t it given to the Grand Jury. If Jordan believed MJ harmed him why did he leave the country when Tom Sneddon issued him a subpoena in the 2005 case. The settlement in 1993 did not prevent Jordan from filing criminal charges on MJ which he never did? Michael Jackson filed a extortion complaint on Evan Chandler who had alreadly asked MJ for 20 million to help him produce his screen play Men in Tights which MJ refused, and there is a audio tape of Chandler saying he is going to ruin MJ’s career if he does not get what he want. Evan did not go to the police and accuse MJ he filed a civil suit. Once a Grand Jury was asked to investigate by Sneddon after he heard about the civil suit, Jackson lawyer asked the civil case be put on hold until the Investigation was over by the Grand Jury. The reason was if the civil case continued prior to the criminal investigation the DA would be privy to MJ defense which would be unfair. The judge ruled to allow the civil case to proceed first, which was very unusual and laws after that made it where if there is a civil case and a criminal investigation going on at the same time the civil case has to be put on hold. If the court would have done that then once the Grand Jury ruled there was NO evidence to indite MJ, I am sure his lawyer would never have settled with the Chandlers. Jordan’s mother testified in the 2005 case for the prosecution and said under oath Evan Chandler wanted MJ to pay to build a wing on his home she did not believe MJ harmed Jordan, and how come she did not know about this diary why didn’t that come up in the 2005 trial? There is NO evidence Chandler had a diary! That is why. Gutierrez book is fiction.

          • Andreas Moss

            There’s a lot of factual errors in your comment L72r. Too many for me to refute, so I won’t go into them (and I don’t have time), but you probably are right about the part about Victor Gutierrez fabricating the Jordan Chandler diary. Most people seem to think so, so you’re basically kicking down open doors. Still, I think you’re too fast on the trigger if you claim that fact alone discredits everything else in the book. I think you have to look at the whole part about Jordan and Michael being lovers as something he put in there with an agenda. (Gutierrez supported man/boy-relationships)

            If you actually read the rest of the book its well documented with a lot of legal documents, letters, pictures and having spoken to many many people close in Michaels circle. And most impressing is that it matches other stuff that has become well established many years later. Victor Gutierrez had worked 3-4 years investigating, and I’m impressed how he seemingly got most people to lower their guards, and he went around snapping pictures of everything. He was basically a spy, just working for himself.

          • L72r

            Are you aware that MJ sued Gutierrez and Diane Dimond for 100 million for Slander/Libel. Tom Sneddon came to Diane’s defense but the jury in that case ruled in Jackson’s favor and ordered Gutierrez to pay MJ 2.7 million dollars in 1998, which Guiterrez never did. This was reported by the Chicago Tribune! Why would anyone believe anything this man wrote about MJ. Diane Dimond has been publicly criticized by an award winning journalist Charles Thompson, as well as Roger Friedman for her misreporting about MJ. Why would anyone believe what come out of her mouth about MJ. This site is NOT objective. IMO.

          • I am very aware that Victor Gutierrez and Diane Dimond were sued by Jackson. VG said he had seen a video of Jackson molesting a boy, when asked to produce it, he couldn’t, so he was hit with a lawsuit. VG lost. Diane reported VG’s alleged video discovery, but as she believed she was acting in good faith, the suit against her was dropped by the court. Don’t try and twist things around.

            Curiously, Jackson never, ever sued VG for the book that VG wrote in which VG detailed sex acts performed by MJ on Jordan Chandler. VG outright called MJ a child molester, and MJ – despite his willingness to sue VG – didn’t do a thing. He just sat on his hands. Why do you think that was? Maybe he was just being nice, right? 🙂

            Are you seriously suggesting that criticism by Charles Thomson or Roger Friedman, both of whom have proven they have a heavy bias towards MJ (whether they genuinely believe MJ to be innocent, or whether they are playing to the MJ fan audience), carries much weight? Come back when you have something a bit more substantive.

            Now, which parts of Victor Gutierrez’s book were factually incorrect? Can you lay them out for us? You have read the book, haven’t you? Haven’t you?

            I’m afraid you are falling into the classic fan trap – looking at the behavior of everyone connected to Jackson, while failing to look critically, with the same amount of rigor, at what Jackson was doing with his special friends.

            I suggest you read a lot more – this article about Jackson spending 850+ nights alone with just 3 boys – Jordan, Wade and Brett – is a good start http://www.mjfacts.com/michael-jackson-sleepovers/

          • fudhux

            I would really want to read this book , ( Michael Jackson was my lover ) but it’s a fortune on the internet and I could not afford it . This would be great if somebody could share their copy somewhere in this site or in private with the readers or something. Mj facts could even write an article on it. I have been reading a lot about MJ and I think this book would be interesting. =).

  • Pea

    1. The point is the FBI didn’t investigate for a decade, but for only two years and at the request of Santa Barbara and L.A. law enforcements. They provided “assistance”, meaning that they themselves didn’t hunt for info but only looked into what was provided them. Had they done their own investigation, with their own resources, expertise, and technology, rather than be “helpers”, who knows what they would’ve found.

    2. Geraldine Hughes said Jordie Chandler was “white”. If she believes that to be the case, she is a liar, and her claim of “racism” being the reason Jacko was accused of molesting boys is now irrelevant.

    3. Improper interrogation by whose standards? Jacko’s Wackos (which includes Tom Mesereau as High Priest)? Jason Francia didn’t reveal the fondling to his mother but she sensed a change in his personality; he was resistant to the police because he likely didn’t want to be accused of homosexuality, a common fear that keeps boy victims from disclosing. The most significant indication of the truth of Jason’s claims is that he, too, just like Jordie Chandler, got a large settlement payout. None of the known liars, like Daniel Kapon and Joseph Bartucci, ever got any compensation! But the boy who was “merely tickled” (on his testicles) got $2.4M? Yeah…

    4. It’s important to trivialize that incident between Evan and Jordie insofar as discussing the Chandler allegations with Jacko’s Wackos, who’ve turned it into some indication that Jordie was attacked because he wanted to “confess” that his father had forced him to lie. What a crazy fanfiction, lol. The judge trivialized it, too, at least at one point, and dismissed the charges against Evan. It was, as Shawntay described, a “domestic disturbance”.

    And, for the last time, Jordie Chandler was never given sodium amytal.

    Evan Chandler may have been crazy; he may have even wanted money — but that doesn’t make Jacko innocent. This is the real world where life is more conplex.

    • L72r

      Pea.
      1. The FBI went to Mexico, Canada, Philippines and the Britain and investigated the leads that Sneddon or Law Enforcement in CA provided them and stories that appeared in tabloids accusing MJ of anything. They could not substantiate the rumor, they found the people and they interrogated them. It clearly states after the investigation of all these different rumors NO Charges were Filed. One of the accusers was a disgruntled employees ! It clearly states in the FBI notes that the questions asked of people are not revealed in that file to maintain integrity! It is ludicrous to presume they did not asks if these people know of other abuses they could look into. If you notice the file where a person was accused of stalking and threatening MJ’s life and President Bush it states charges were filed so they were able to substantiate the allegations. During the 2004 investigation the FBI took MJ’s computers to the FBI crime lab to attempt to find anything suggesting illegal activity on them, and they found “Nothing.” That is investigating! It is not just supplying support! CA Law Enforcement had already advertised for victims to come forward. Rumors were investigated. No Charges in 93-94 or until 2003 were filed on MJ because there was NO evidence to file anything! (2). What Geraldine Hughes says about Blacks and the criminal Justice System is correct. Statistics show if a white and black person are charged with the same crime the white person is twice as likely to get probation and the black person is more like to go to prison. Look it up online! So far as Jordan being White, if his birth certificate says he is Causation he is white. His Mother looks white, his sister look white, his uncle Raymond Chandler the brother of Evan looks white, so based on that alone you would think he is White! There is nothing online anywhere saying Jordan is black or that his mom and dad are black either. Michael Jackson is clearly Black, and his family is black, he just developed Vitiligo, which is on his Death Certificate. Why are you only picking one page from Hughes book. Ms. Hughes also states in her book dozens of children were interviewed and no charges were ever brought against MJ. Her book has a 5 star rating, with lots of information beyond one sentence! There are other books written in defense of MJ, My Friend Michael by Frank Casio who was present when the Chandlers and Robson were at Michaels home and he is adamant MJ never harmed anyone. His parents also were at Neverland and they defend MJ. Whoppie Goldberg defends MJ and her children stayed at Neverland, Donald Trump said MJ would never harm a child and his kids were around him, Sean Lennon has said he was around MJ all the time and nothing ever happened that was sexual and he was around when the accusers were. Nicole Ritchies stayed at Michael’s Neverland and Lionel does not believe MJ harmed any child. Brett Barnes defends MJ and he was around when Robson was. How many people does it take to say MJ was innocent! The accusers were all after Money, including the Arvizo’s ! If my child told me a person sexually or physically abused him I would be taking him to a medical doctor immediately and filing charges, right then, not trying to get 20 million in a civil case. If you suspect abuse you are to report it, and none of these employees did! They were all caught lying under oath having to admit they made stories up to sell to tabloids for money. (3). According to the records they used improper interrogation. This is not that uncommon in these cases, or especially in Eye Witness Identification cases. But the only thing he told the police was he was Tickled! The police or doctors are not supposed to suggest how a child may have been abused! You ignore Jason told the court in 2005 MJ never improperly touched him! His mother did not go to police and report abuse, she filed a case to get MONEY right after she saw MJ attorney settled a case for money?? She was an opportunist! Connect the dots. MJ did not settle that case for sexual abuse, it was negligence and there is no mention of abuse in the settlement! His insurance pushed for the settlement, it was obviously a mistake. People settle cases all the time but not necessarily because they are guilty, MJ was in the public eye the tabloids wrote lies about him constantly over anything and a civil case could last for many years which could affect his career. The settlement specifically stated it did not keep the Chandlers from filing charges which they never did! Two Grand Juries determined there was not enough evidence to indict MJ also. (4). No one is trivializing the Chandler case just trying to show there is another side to this story concerning what went on that has been documented. There is nothing fact about a tabloid book written by a Man who has a history of be ciited in court with “defamation of character.” IMO. BTW your site says you do not want people responding by calling this group haters, I have respected that. I have not called anyone an insulting name. Michael Jackson’s name is NOT Wacko Jackco! Most people that use that term in a derogatory way are often people who do not like MJ very intensely and because of that they sometimes may not be open to looking a the full picture. I hope your day is a nice one!

      • ShawntayUStay

        The FBI said what they did: provided technical and investigative assistance to local law enforcement for 2 separate investigations, 93-94 and 04-05. Not for 20 years; not for a decade — just for a total of 2 years, and only provided assistance when they had jurisdiction. Local law enforcement in LA and Santa Barbara were in control, not the federal government (the FBI). It is understandable that the FBI would help LA and SB police get in contact with witnesses, like the Quindoys when they were in the Philippines, since they have the resources to help local police get the necessary paperwork (passports, dealing with the embassies, etc) to travel to a foreign country. In 04-05, it is also understandable and expected that SB law enforcement would contact the FBI with regards to criminal profiling of pedophiles and looking through the computers seized from Jackson’s home since it is a federal crime to possess child pornography; it would be in the jurisdiction of the FBI and not only that, the FBI has more knowledge and resources to conduct computer analysis.

        The totality of the assistance provided by the FBI is minimal compared to what LA and SB cops and their respective DA offices did in these two cases. The United States attorney was not interested in pursuing Michael Jackson on federal charges, this decision being made very early in the investigation in late 1993, so why is it not a surprise that the FBI played virtually no role in the Chandler investigation? The same goes for the Arvizo case. You fans are delusional: the FBI never “tracked” Jackson for years or kept an eye on him or anything like that; they simply provided resources that local law enforcement lacked. Period.

        As for Jordie Chandler, apparently Geraldine Hughes isn’t the only one who never seen him in the flesh. Neither he nor his his mother June look “white”, LOL. That’s a laugh. June is Blasian (half black/half Chinese) and Jordie is half Blasian/half European Jew, apparent from the photos:
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/da305a60526f9b08e66a486ec35f0dfffd115f8c1fb331d9899742f1ca4d8a7b.jpg
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6d7de9aa8ca877b95cd37f6f45a0df623767fac703d3e7a0d3c57c7979108aa3.png

        That you don’t seem to realize the significance of Geraldine Hughes first claiming to have seen Jordie in Rothman’s office, with him allegedly looking distressed at the alleged “extortion”, and then later on calling his a “white boy” when it is clear as day that he would never be mistaken as white, you have blinders on. She clearly was lying about it which makes her “analysis” look suspect and biased. She is just a fan with an axe to grind against Barry Rothman, and she was able to make money on gullible fans like yourself. (You guys are the ultimate cash cows, LOL)

        Whether or not Hughes’ opinion on the state of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is correct has no bearing on Jackson’s case, as she likes to claim. He was rich, powerful, and well-loved by all; that his attorney, Johnnie Cochran, could so easily contact Gil Garcetti’s office repeatedly throughout the investigation and have strings pulled says something. What normal man could be accused of child molestation by a cooperating child witness, have a police investigation opened against him in two different counties, but still never be arrested or promised that he wouldn’t be arrested because his attorney is friends with higher ups in the DA’s office? NONE. Making this a racial issue with Jackson is fallacious and a red herring put up by fans that cannot accept the obvious: their idol was a child molesting pedophile. Johnnie Cochran was right: the color of justice is not black or white, it’s green. Michael Jackson moonwalked his way out of trouble in 1994 because he had the green to spend.

        • Pea

          Just as an FYI, L72r’s comments are piling up in the moderation queue, which is where they’ll stay until the head mod deletes them. They simply continue to excrete the same boring talking points, and no matter how many times you refute each talking point by showing the most obvious conclusion, they repeat the same talking point in a different way.

          From what I see of their seven (!) or so posts in the moderation queue, this Jacko’s Wacko is very angry that MJ Facts doesn’t present the same B.S. as the hundreds of fan websites and boards available for access online. It’s suggested that if L72r doesn’t like what’s being said here, they can stop the no doubt hypertensive exercise of reading MJ Facts.

          There’s no need for a meltdown, L72r! Certainly you wouldn’t sacrifice your health for Michael Jackson, would you? (That’s a rhetorical question; I’m not actually interested in your response! :))

          Furthermore, they seem oddly hellbent on maintaining the impossible conclusion that Jordie Chandler is “white”. This, of course, is what you get, Shawntay, for pointing out that Geraldine Hughes likely lied about seeing Jordie; bad girl! 🙂 They seem very hung up on the notion, since Geraldine Hughes is, of course, another essential part in their highly complex, highly elaborate explanation about why Michael Jackson was an innocent man-child falsely accused of sex abuse in spite of admitting he enjoyed sleeping with boys. They continue to insist Hughes got it right, even in spite of the fact photographic evidence proves that no one would ever mislabel Jordie as “white”. They conveniently use the word “Caucasian” to say that Chinese is white since “Asian” is a part of Caucasian. I kid you not.

          A Caucasian is someone from the Caucasus mountains, and has been wrongly attributed to all people of European ancestry, who are properly classified as “white”. Even with the word used incorrectly, a “Caucasian” is never Asian and, therefore, never Chinese. This is an objective fact, as the Caucasus mountains are nowhere near East Asia.

          They show a picture of Jordie Chandler that everyone has seen to “prove” Jordie was “white” when it’s obvious by the photo he is not white:

          http://www.nndb.com/people/697/000030607/jordy-chandler-sized.jpg

          But let’s not allow facts to get in the way of defending Michael Jackson, heehee. 😉

          • L72r

            So Pea, you will hold my statements and inaccurately give your interpretation of what I said. If this is the game you play just delete my comments. It is clear your site is not about Truth. So far your site has done nothing but misquote what I have said! This is the MJ Fiction Site. Are you going to slander anyone that disagrees with what this site says and can provide more accurate fact. I have copied all of my comments so please do not try to misquote me.

          • Pea

            No, your other comments in the queue will likely be deleted. I approved this one so I could tell you that what you’re doing is arguing over minutiae — a typical fan tactic because they can’t actually address Jacko’s behavior.

            Jacko’s Wackos have an odd sense of entitlement, too; sorry, but you do not get to excrete your spleen about Jacko wherever you want. So go relax, take a bubble bath, and stop spending hours over here at MJ Facts trying to spew the same nonsense many of us have rejected years ago. OK? Good luck.

            Oh, & stop saying Jordie could ever be reasonably confused for “white”. If Geraldine Hughes really thought Jordie was white when she allegedly saw him, she’s then too stupid to be believed about anything. And if she had all that evidence, why not go to the police rather than Anthony Pellicano? (Which is the same argument Jacko’s Wackos say about Jacko’s employees.)

            That’s not an actual question you need to answer, by the way. Just shoo, please.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Hughes never saw Jordie because she’s the only one who ever described him as white. All other journalists described him as dark skinned, biracial, etc, even Polynesian (which makes way more sense, even if he’s not Polynesian, because at least they are darker skinned!). She maybe only saw Evan Chandler and assumed that his kid had to be white so she could claim that she saw Jordie looking at odds with the “evil plot” to destroy MJ. If Hughes bothered to have done just the tiniest bit of research, she could have covered up her lie so no one would have known she was full of shit. LOL

          • For anyone that’s interested, an analysis of Geraldine Hughes’ book is here http://www.mjfacts.com/redemption-by-geraldine-hughes-sloppy-work/

            She misrepresented so many facts and made up so many lies it’s incredible that anyone still believes her tripe.

          • Hi L72r

            I admire your passion, I really do. However, you haven’t really come here to learn, or even debate effectively.

            All you are doing is posting long discredited fan theories in the form of comments. Ask yourself this – if people wanted to read about wild fan theories, wouldn’t they rather go to fan sites?

            This website is not a platform for you to grandstand and spread misinformation. If you’d like to espouse your thoughts on why a grown man would want to spend night after night after night (http://www.mjfacts.com/michael-jackson-sleepovers/) in bed alone with a succession of pre-pubescent boys, in the same room where he kept drugs, pornography and alcohol out in the open, please do. Otherwise, take your silly fan theories over to whichever MJ fan forum you prefer, where you will be welcomed with open arms by others who also don’t have the intelligence to work it out.

            Good luck in your quest for the truth.

          • ShawntayUStay

            A simple Google search of the inhabitants of the Caucasus region of central Asia will show anyone that they do not look like Jordie Chandler or June Chandler, lmao.

            https://www.google.com/search?q=caucasus+people&rlz=1Y3AHUG_enUS567US567&espv=1&prmd=in&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIvI2s8pSixwIVAfSACh0XqwYR&biw=360&bih=559

            China is an east Asia country and like all Asians, both East and Southeast, they would never be confused with a (true) Caucasian or with other whites (European). Why insist the opposite? Why defend the indefensible? I asked a picture if Jordie standing next to Michael Jackson and he was clearly four shades darker. He looks like you’re typical biracial guy. This is not a hard concept, OMG…LOL!

            Geraldine Hughes lied. Period. That throws her already dumb book further into ill repute. Michael Jackson should never have the race card played on his behalf. He was treated with kid gloves in 1993 and he got away with never being questioned, never being arrested. Why insist the opposite?

        • Aly Borntoolate

          It impresses me how much energy y’all invest in bashing this man. It impresses me how you can believe stuff that just doesn’t add up. It impresses me how informed and uniformed you are at the same time. It impresses me how much anger you possess with no actual reason. It impresses me how you waste so much time here.
          I’m just impressed.

      • ShawntayUStay

        Um, stop repeating fan myths. The settlement was never negotiated, let alone paid, by Jackson’s insurance carrier. That has been debunked since 2012 and confirmed by Tom Mesereau on the King Jordan Radio back in January 2014. The only signers on the confidential settlement were the three Chandlers, Jackson, Larry Feldman, Howard Weitzman, and Johnnie Cochran; no insurance company signed the document and they would have if they paid it.

        The negligence claim Jackson settled was defined as “explicitly sexual and otherwise”. So he admitted to this specific claim of liability, and it was sexual. Therefore this was an acknowledgement of having sexual encounters with Jordie Chandler. No other way to interpret that.

        http://www.mjfacts.com/the-jordie-chandler-settlement-revisited/

        Those “two grand juries” were never asked to indict Jackson and that was confirmed by his attorney Howard Weitzman to CNN back in 1994. They were investigating grand juries impaneled to help get reticent witnesses to give sworn statements. The “two” grand juries were actually a single grand jury that was split between LA and Santa Barbara for witnesses’ traveling convenience since LA and Santa Barbara are over 200 miles apart. All of this is in the transcripts but yet you prefer to defer to Tom Mesereau’s unsubstantiated lies??

  • Shadawn Johnson

    ??? You all need to let this go already. If you all really cared that much about children being molested, why not talk about all the pedophiles, You all talking about his fans having so much hate, but I see hate on here as well you hypocrites. Let God judge him, he the one really sees what’s going on.

  • Pea

    To those wanting to read our downloadable copy of “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”: please don’t lurk and expect a handout. This isn’t some socialistic free lunch program; you have to put in work out of respect to Victor Gutierrez (not to mention me).

    I know; it’s too bad the book isn’t widely available. But Jacko shut it down a long time ago. 🙁

  • Athanasia, I’m not sure of the purpose of your copied and pasted comment, but if anyone here wants to read information from the mjthekingofpop website they can go there directly and read it. In fact, the Guiterrez videotape has been extensively discussed by commentators here on discussions that are easy to find.

    If you want to contribute something original and thought provoking, or challenge any of the conclusions the writers have made on the site, we would love for you to write them.

    In fact, I would love to see your reply to the questions I asked you here http://www.mjfacts.com/wade-robson-michael-jackson/#comment-2373703238, your professional psychological opinion would be valuable!

    • L72r

      If the tape exist why didn’t Gutierrez give it to the court when MJ sued him for slander when the Judge demanded he bring it to court? The court ordered Gutierrez to pay MJ 2 million, and instead of paying him Gutierrez left the country. Why didn’t Gutierrez turn it over to the FBI.. The FBI mention a film but in the report they do not say where it came from and they noted the video was not even view-able, it was worthless.

      • Victor Gutierrez never claimed to have had the videotape in his possession, only that he had viewed it. He couldn’t produce it and thus had no proof, hence the judgement against him.

        It matters neither here nor there to me that Gutierrez lost that lawsuit. What is significant to me is that Michael Jackson wasn’t averse to suing Victor Gutierrez for what he felt was false information, yet MJ never sued VG over VG’s book “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”.

        The book contained rather salacious descriptions of MJ having sex with a minor, and VG outright called Michael Jackson a pedophile and child molester, yet MJ never took any action against the author or the publishers.

        MJ was happy to sue Victor Gutierrez over a “non-existent” video tape, yet failed to take any action over his defamatory book. That speaks volumes to me.

  • Andreas Moss

    Myles, there’s not a whole lot to address here, but DNA(sperm) isn’t found on victims if they don’t report it immediately, and none of these boys reported it right after. So examining them wouldn’t make a difference. It sounds like you might be one of them who think the claim is he raped the boys or something, but child molestation cases are usually a lot more subtle. It usually involves the victims being confused, brainwashed and manipulated, and sometimes it can sometimes take decades for them to really understand(or admit) they were molested.

    “Michael’s accusers admitted to lying about the accusations long after the trial.”

    No, neither the Arvizos, the Francias, nor the Chandlers ever admitted anything. There were however a few fake articles about Jordy Chandler admitting he lied right after MJ died in 2009, but they were not real, and only posted on shifty sites and blogs… although a surprising amount of people think they were real, so they had some effect.

    “All of your sources are false.”

    Please name just a couple.

    “By the way, I noticed that you care more about proving Michael to be a criminal then the well being of children itself.”

    Its both. Some people ask why there’s no sites for Jimmy Savile and Jerry Sandusky being guilty. Well, one reason is that Michael Jackson wasn’t ever found guilty in a court of law. He got away with it. Savile and Sandusky nobody doubts. Sandusky was found guilty and was thrown in jail. As you say the jury found in MJ not guilty in 2005, even though the jury never said they were sure. They were split and confused at best. They just didn’t find it beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, and when you are not sure you can’t vote guilty. You probably should give it a more honest look, and you’ll see its not as easy as you think.

  • Kat

    Fascinating video, thanks for sharing! Each time when I see Michael Jackson at about forty I feel horrified. I simply can’t understand how could anyone mutilate their face and bleach their skin like that. Seriously, how much self-loathing do you have to have to do to that to yourself? Unsurprisingly, most comments are negative. MJ floons like to think that lupus and vitiligo were to blame for his changing appearance. Like hell they were! I’m not even fully convinced he had either.

    • silverspirit

      You’re most welcome. I know what they say which I always laugh at. I keep asking what other human being on earth bleached himself total white because of supposed “vitiligo”? No response ever. Did you happen to read the response to that video? Love those arm chair experts who got their education out of a dumpster in the back of Walmart. Floons R Fun!

    • ShawntayUStay

      I agree with you Kat. Fans literally have to believe every single thing this guy said because if they didn’t, the lies would be too much to handle, both in quantity and in substance. But it’s pretty obvious that he wanted to no longer be Michael from Gary, Indiana. You have Dr Murray saying he bleached because he wanted to obscure his origins, wanting porcelain skin and The cops for tube after tube of Benoquin in his mansion — all procured by Murray. You have anecdotes about him retreating into the white world of old Hollywood movies, with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. He loved Liz Taylor and Shirley Temple. Of course the three non black kids and dying Prince’s hair blond for years.

      Fans say he didn’t want to be white and it was just the vitiligo. But vitiligo doesn’t explain the “European accoutrements” like silky wigs and a pinpoint nose. Sure he could have had body dysmorphia — he said to the Rabbi that he hated looking at himself because he thought he resembled a lizard — but I think if he wasn’t so obsessed with disappearing his Jackson facial features, he would have stopped before he destroyed his nose.

      I’m starting to think that the lupus and vitiligo diagnoses were cover ups manufactured by Dr Klein. He was known to be a Dr Feelgood for the rich and famous. I think he would have done anything for MJ to remain a patient — remember he hid MJ’s medical records from the cops during the 93 investigation. I think it became Klein’s pet project to turn a black man white just as much as it was MJ’s.

      • Pea

        I always look closely at that so-called “butterfly rash” that supposedly indicates lupus & wonder whether it’s just irritation due to all of those skin peel procedures he underwent. His autopsy didn’t reveal lupus, and yet fans want to say because the autopsy mentioned vitiligo, he must’ve had vitiligo. So, by their logic, he never had lupus. In fact, fans also like to say that the lupus & the vitiligo are linked. I’m not trying to be overly cynical, but I think he lied about every aspect of his “metamorphosis”. I agree with you & can imagine that Klein, who lied compulsively, in my opinion, would have no problem aiding in Jacko’s desire to look white under the guise of medical treatments. I think you’re on to something….

        • Aly Borntoolate

          First of all he has a name and it is not “jacko”.
          Second, I believe you are badly uninformed about his autopsy and about his physical problems.
          Third, you act like you examinated his body but you speak like you didn’t even read one single true line about this man in your life.
          Fourth, the negative energy that makes you hate this man as if he had done something to you must be some crazy stuff to deal with. Sorry.

          • Pea

            I’m “badly informed”? Instead of complaining, Aly, please provide your proofs on just where I’ve made a wrong turn. I’ll happily kowtow to you’re allegedly better evidence.

            Also, I don’t hate Jacko; as a former fan whose eyes were opened as to the darker side of his life, I have remained interested in his trials and woes. Should I have spurned such an interesting person I used to like just because I discovered he likely lied about most things? You may think so, but I don’t — Michael Jackson will always be fascinating.

            Stop whining, please.

      • Kat

        It’s beyond me why would anyone believe anything Jackson said. His whole life, or at least the life he led in public, was nothing but a smartly constructed lie that eventually fell apart when people had taken too much bullshit from him and his team. As for plastic surgery: I’m against it as such! I honestly think it makes you look worse, not better. Also, it can be addictive. You start with having one procedure and end up like MJ or Joan Rivers. Besides, I can’t imagine cutting up my face to have a face lift or cutting off half of my nose – it just makes me feel repulsed. And then there’s a difference between wanting a smaller nose and repeatedly slitting up your face and bleaching your entire skin to not look like a person of the race that you were born in.

        I remember reading in ‘Man Behind the Mask’ how Bob Jones thought Michael’s hate for his own people was unlike anything else he had seen in his life. I’ve often wondered, without finding any satisfying answers, why Jackson hated black people and women as much as he did. Like, where did that loathing come from?

        I’m not sure what to think about whether he had or hadn’t lupus. I might have to look into that more before making up my mind. Hater Helena from Vindicate Wacko wrote a lengthy entry about how vitiligo and lupus destroyed his looks. That poor woman actually believes he only had two surgeries in his life. I’m sure it’s still on her blog, but I won’t post a link. I know VindicateMJ links aren’t endorsed on this site. lol

        • dani

          Hello, yes I think MJ was a addict to surgery. But I just do not think he hated blacks, like Jones says. I mean think about it, most of his back musicans were black, Quincy Jones, Diana Ross, Berry Gordy, James Brown, Jackie Wilson and Sammy Davis all his friends or idols. Yes he had huge issues and yes was a total liar, yet I am not convinced he hated blacks, maybe himself as black, but not others.
          🙂

  • ShawntayUStay

    That video…lmao! MJ really butchered his face but the “what if” version of Michael Jackson at the end of the video is equally busted looking! I’ve seen “Jackson style” big noses in real life and they only get bigger and wider with age, so unfortunately MJ would have needed a rhinoplasty eventually. The Eurasian transvestite look was definitely the lesser of two evils, LOL.

    • silverspirit

      LMAO It’s a keeper. Whenever some Jacko fan claims he’s only had 2 surgeries on his nose to breathe. Break this baby out.

  • Neely

    One thing you’re definitely mistaken about….Francia most certainly DID testify that he was molested by MJ. I just finished reading his testimonial transcript. He absolutely DID claim molestation on a number of occasions in his testimony. He even once stated, “you mean when Michael Jackson touched my balls”? He used the word molestation quite liberally….unsettlingly so.

  • Neely

    Look, you don’t know a thing about me, but you need to understand that I am not a person who disrespects others by virtue of their stance on an issue….period. In my world that’s called maturity. You have no foundation, or provocation to attack me whatsoever. That is called bullying, with which I will not engage.

    • L72r

      I did not attack you. I stated you are a troll and a MJ hater which is obvious from your comments which are not accurate. You and your friend spread constant lies about MJ. It must never enters your head that you cannot hurt MJ because he is gone. You can hurt his children with your lies which only leads to cyber bullying of them. They have harmed NO one!

      • Pea

        L72r, please cut the nonsense. Neely is not a troll; you are. I have to apologize to her for even approving this comment.

        If you don’t like what’s being said, go read Vindicate MJ.

        • L72r

          Vindicate Michael is factual.

          • Pea

            No, it isn’t.

          • No, it isn’t.

        • Neely

          Thank you! I appreciate it!

      • L72r

        Neely, Nothing I said was disrespectful. The court record showed Jason Francia said under oath MJ never molested him. Most everything on this site came from old tabloid stories that have been disproved and this site just brings those old tabloids articles up over and over and ignores the facts. The consensus by even the most recent book about MJ was he never molested anyone. It was a very well researched book. You have a right to your opinion, but that is all it is. I hope you have a very nice day.

        • Neely

          You NEED to read the court record of Francia’s testimony. You obviously have not, or you wouldn’t be trying to argue a fact. Court records are not tabloid trash, and that’s exactly where I read Francia using the word molestation time, and time again. More specifically, he said it in graphic terms DIRECTLY TO MESEREAU!! Please link me to SOMETHING valid that states otherwise. I read it….first word, last word, and every word in between. Until you have done the same, please refrain from trying to argue this point with me.

          • L72r

            I have read the full court transcript ! Jason was caught in many lies during cross examination Jason originally said MJ only tickled him! Nothing else! The Jury due to the many contradiction did not view his testimony as credible. MJ was found NOT Guilty on ALL counts by all jurors! Matt Dredge who has a conservative radio show did a sequence of stories about the trial and how the witnesses were caught in lies repeatedly saying one thing when the DA questioned them and then under cross examination admitting they lied. Joseph Vogel wrote a article for the Huffington Post “The most shameful episode in Journalistic history” about how most of the media covering the 2005 trial only reported the direct examination of witnesses to make MJ look bad and intentionally failed to report the “cross examination” statements to the public, which proved he was not guilty. Vogel is an award winning Journalist BTW. You can believe anything you want but that does not make it true! I hope you have a nice day.

          • Neely

            Again, you must understand you know nothing about me or my opinion. The only point that was raised was the Francia testimony in my original comment. Remember that? If not, please refer back. I have very little use for journalism, award winning journalists, rag tabloids, etc. My interest is in court documents. I have found those here. You have not seen me mention anywhere, on any of my comments, that I thought MJ was guilty of the crimes in 2005. So, exactly what is it you’re trying to prove to ME? Are you even reading my comments? Or blindly lashing out? Because you NEED TO READ FRANCIA’S testimony for yourself and stop trying to argue with me about this point. I don’t care what journalist said what, or what awards they won, or media slant etc, etc, etc. I am reading the COURT TRANSCRIPTS!! That’s the last time I’m saying it.

  • Kat

    Wow, you feeling alright? I got the impression that a vein on your forehead must have exploded as your wrote that angry comment. Jason Francia never recanted what he said. Jackson had an interest in him right from the beginning when Blanca first started working for him and he asked her to show him a picture of her son, then about seven years old, and MJ called him ‘very handsome’. Jackson molested him on several occasions and later made a payment of about 2 million dollars to Blanca for it. We’re not trolls or haters, we’re merely people who follow the facts and look at thing realistically. The sooner you admit that MJ was a kiddie diddler and move on with your life the better for you, L72r.

    • L72r

      Blanca Francia admitted she had sold a story to Hard Copy who Diane Dimond worked for for $20,000 and she admitted under oath she made false allegation about Michael for money. Jason Francia in 2005 testified under oath that he was never molested! Sorry you refuse to accept the facts from the cross examination of witnesses in 2005! MJ was found Not Guilty because of all the lies the witnesses for the state were caught in. There have been many books that are well researched by Ethical Journalist that all say no evidence existed that MJ molested anyone.

      • Kat

        Blanca Francia was paid money by Hard Copy, but it was because she needed it. Diane Dimond revealed on her website that Blanca was struggling and scared, and was hiding from Anthony Pellicano (or something comparable to that, I don’t remember all the details now). She used the money to support herself. If you’d take the time to read her interview with Dimond you would see that what she said was true, money or no money. She didn’t make any false allegations. Jackson molested many children in her time of employment, Jason included. Jason never testified that he wasn’t molested! He broke down and asked to pause the examination, because talking about what happened was taking a toll on him. He said he needed a lot of therapy to deal with being molested by MJ.

  • Esmeralda Rokaj

    This comment is for the one who runs this website, hoping you’ll answer. Since you know so much and have such evidence, clear this for me; I have 22 questions for you and if you can answer to them with FACTUAL information good for you. Here we go:

    Questions about the 1993 allegations:

    1. If Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation in 1993, why was he not arrested and charged with a crime?

    2. If District Attorneys Sneddon and Garcetti had so much inculpatory evidence against Jackson, then why were they unable to secure an indictment from two independent grand juries,located in two different counties? (Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties.)

    3. If Michael Jackson “paid off” (meaning that he paid to cover something he did) the Chandlers, then why was he not arrested and charged with obstruction of justice?

    4. If Michael Jackson was guilty, then why didn’t he capitulate into Evan Chandler’s demand of a $20 million dollar film deal on August 4th, 1993? He could have avoided the entire media circus had he done so!

    5. Why did Michael Jackson fight to have the case tried in criminal court first (where
    Jackson could be sentenced to prison if convicted), while the Chandlers fought to have the case tried in civil court first (where Jackson could be ordered to pay millions if found liable)? Wouldn’t Jackson want to avoid criminal court at all costs?

    6. If the Chandlers didn’t pursue criminal charges because they were afraid of the media attention, then why did Evan Chandler begin ghost writing “All That Glitters” in the fall of 1993, with the intention of having his brother Ray circumvent the confidentiality agreement and publishing it under his own name? Wouldn’t publishing a tell-all book about the allegations bring MORE media attention to his family?

    7. If the Chandlers didn’t pursue criminal charges because they were afraid of the media attention, then why did Evan Chandler sue Sony Music in 1996 for the right to record a “rebuttal album” to Jackson’s “HIStory” called “EVANstory”? Wouldn’t
    releasing an album bring even MORE media attention to him?

    8. If Jackson was truly guilty, and Ray Chandler’s book “All That Glitters” had so much inculpatory evidence against Jackson, then why didn’t Sneddon subpoena him? Why did Mesereau subpoena Ray Chandler? Wouldn’t it have made more sense for the prosecution to subpoena Ray instead of the defense? Wouldn’t Jackson’s defense want to do everything to prevent Ray from testifying?

    9. And why didn’t Evan Chandler testify against the man who claimed abused his son? He could have been provided with enough security to rival the Secret Service if he was concerned about his safety!

    10. Why did Evan Chandler tell Dave Schwartz “if I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out”?If Evan truly believed that his son was abused by Jackson, wouldn’t there be no if’s, and’s, or but’s about whether or not Evan would go straight to the authorities and bring Jackson to justice? Why would he be concerned with “winning or losing”? Why would he have to check his story “inside out”?

    11. Jordan Chandler admitted to Dr. Richard Gardner that his only fear was that he would be cross-examined by Jackson’s attorneys. Why was Jordan Chandler so afraid of being cross-examined? If he had truly been abused by Jackson, and was being honest, why would he be afraid have his story scrutinized? Was he afraid
    that he would be exposed for “doing his part”? (He told the FBI in September 2004 that he had “done his part” in 1993. Read this post to get a complete summary and analysis of Jordan’s purported interview with Dr. Gardner on October 6th, 1993 : http://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/psych-interview-with-jordan-chandler/)

    12. Why did Jordan Chandler threaten to take legal action against Sneddon if he was subpoenaed to testify against Jackson in September 2004? Why didn’t Jordan perform his obligation to society and testify against Jackson to put him behind bars
    once and for all, so that Jackson couldn’t harm any other children?

    13. If Jackson was a serial child abuser, and abused many other children, then why did the police have to bully Jason Francia into finally claiming to be abused by Jackson? Why did they attempt to abuse Corey Feldman and other children into claiming abuse by Jackson?

    The questions about the 2005 case are far more complex:

    In the Statement of Probable Cause, dated November 17th,2003, Det. Paul Zelis described an interview he did with Star Arvizo, who claimed the following allegations against Michael (on pages 15, 23, & 50):

    “When asked, Star said Michael Jackson touched him inappropriately. The incident occurred when they were in a golf cart. Star was driving the golf cart and Michael was next to him. Michael then reached over and touched Star’s “testicles and penis” over his clothes with Michael’s left hand. He did not say anything to Michael and continued driving the golf cart.”

    Yet, Michael Jackson was never charged with molesting Star! Instead, when Tom Sneddon filed his initial felony complaint against Michael Jackson on December 18th, 2003, it consisted of the following allegations by Gavin, which allegedly occurred from February 7th through March 10th, 2003:

    7 counts of lewd acts upon a child (which Gavin Arvizo originally claimed happened to him BEFORE he and his family were “forced” to shoot the rebuttal video on February 20th, 2003)

    2 counts of administering an intoxicant

    However, in the grand jury indictment that was filed on April 21st, 2004, the dates of the alleged offenses shifted to February 20th through March 12th, 2003, and the charges were materially altered as follows:

    4 counts of lewd acts upon a child (which Gavin Arvizo now claims happened to him AFTER he and his family were “forced” to shoot the rebuttal video on February 20th, 2003)

    1 count of an attempted lewd act upon a child

    4 counts of administering an intoxicant

    1 count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion

    My questions based on this facts are:

    1.How do you explain the discrepancy in the alcohol and molestation charges between the initial felony complaint and the grand jury indictment?

    2. How do you explain the addition of the conspiracy charge, especially in light of the fact that the Arvizos went on numerous shopping sprees while at Neverland, and constantly asked to be returned to Neverland after leaving?

    3. Why wasn’t Michael Jackson charged with conspiracy in the initial complaint? Sneddon investigated Michael Jackson for almost 6 months before raiding Neverland in November 2003. Wouldn’t it had made sense for Sneddon to charge Jackson with conspiracy from the very beginning?

    4. During their alleged imprisonment at Neverland, the Arvizo family went on numerous shopping sprees, purchased expensive designer clothes, received massages and leg waxes, ate at fancy restaurants, and ran up a tab of $3,312.05! Why didn’t the Arvizo family notify the police during their shopping sprees?

    5. Why weren’t the 5 unindicted co-conspirators (Frank Cascio, Ronald Konitzer, Marc Schaffel, Dieter Wiesner, and Vincent Amen) charged for their roles in keeping the Arvizos trapped at Neverland and planning their banishment to Brazil, even after they refused immunity for their testimony against Michael Jackson?

    6. Why wasn’t Michael Jackson charged with molesting Star, in addition to Gavin?
    In the statement of probable cause, he claimed to have been molested while riding a golf cart. Wouldn’t Sneddon want to use as many accusers as possible against Jackson?

    7. Why did the start date of the alleged crimes suddenly shift by almost 2 weeks, and the end date shift by 2 days?

    8. Why would Michael Jackson begin to molest Gavin and Star only AFTER the documentary aired? Why didn’t he molest them between 2000 and 2002?

    9. Why would Michael Jackson begin to molest Gavin and Star AFTER he
    hired Mark Geragos in early February 2003? Why would he hire a lawyer
    to defend him for a crime that he had not committed yet?

    If Michael Jackson was guilty as this website claims, than answering these questions will be a piece of cake for you. Thank you.

    • This comment is for the one who runs this website, hoping you’ll answer. Since you know so much and have such evidence, clear this for me; I have 22 questions for you and if you can answer to them with FACTUAL information good for you. Here we go:

      Questions about the 1993 allegations:

      Not a problem. You won’t be happy with the answers as I feel you have already formed a view as to what the answers should be. If that’s not the case, I apologize. If it is the case, I’m leaving these answers here for those who are open minded enough to accept alternative reasons for what happened. The most important thing is to put equal focus on Michael Jackson, after all he paid the Chandlers over twenty million dollars and that can’t be explained away, and he paid the Francias two million dollars.

      Another point – nobody needs to defend Jackson’s accusers. That Jackson paid them rather than face them in court is a strong indication that they were telling the truth.

      1. If Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation in 1993, why was he not arrested and charged with a crime?

      Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles District Attorney and Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney in Santa Barbara announced on September 21st that they wouldn’t be filing child molestation charges against Michael Jackson because the primary alleged victim (Jordan Chandler) had decided not to testify, another alleged victim (Jason Francia) was in therapy and did not want to be involved in the case, and a third alleged victim had made a “general denial” of wrongdoing by Michael Jackson. No charges could be brought forward unless one of MJ’s victims was willing to testify.

      2. If District Attorneys Sneddon and Garcetti had so much inculpatory evidence against Jackson, then why were they unable to secure an indictment from two independent grand juries,located in two different counties? (Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties.)

      These were not indicting grand juries, but investigating grand juries.

      3. If Michael Jackson “paid off” (meaning that he paid to cover something he did) the Chandlers, then why was he not arrested and charged with obstruction of justice?

      The settlement was carefully worded so that it would not appear that Jackson was preventing the Chandlers from testifying in court. It makes sense that Jackson would have received either verbal, implied or some sort of written guarantee that they would not testify in order to protect his twenty million dollars plus settlement. What helped Jackson was that the Chandlers wanted money, and once they recived that they were not likely to pursue the issue further.

      Although the DAs said that they would change their minds about charging Jackson for child molestation should the primary alleged victim change his mind and decided to testify, Jackson knew that wasn’t going to happen. His lawyer Howard Weitzman, who was involved in putting together the settlement, said “It is the correct decision. Michael has steadfastly maintained his innocence. We believe it is over. For Michael it is over and he can now get on with his life.” and Jackson himself released a statemnt which said, in part, “I am thankful that the investigation has reached a conclusion.”

      4. If Michael Jackson was guilty, then why didn’t he capitulate into Evan Chandler’s demand of a $20 million dollar film deal on August 4th, 1993? He could have avoided the entire media circus had he done so!

      Quite simply, Jackson thought he could bluff his way out of it. He had Pellicano on his team to dig up dirt and threaten (or in the case of the Robsons at least pay off) witnesses. Jackson kept up that hubris right up until his genitals were photographed. He caved in a few days after that and offered the Chandlers twenty million dollars.

      5. Why did Michael Jackson fight to have the case tried in criminal court first (where
      Jackson could be sentenced to prison if convicted), while the Chandlers fought to have the case tried in civil court first (where Jackson could be ordered to pay millions if found liable)? Wouldn’t Jackson want to avoid criminal court at all costs?

      See above, Jackson thought he could get out of these accusations because of the “he said – he said” nature of the allegations up until then, and he knew the Chandlers were greedy so he could attempt to characterize the case as “extortion”. You also need to be reminded that a criminal case has a higher burden of proof than a civil case. In a criminal trial the bar is set high, beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in a civil trial the burden of proof needs only be more than fifty percent likely. Jackson, at that point (before the photographs of his genitals were taken) would have been far more confident that he could have put reasonable doubt in the mind of jurors. Remember too that Jackson’s motion included a request to delay the civil case for six years, in order to go past the statute of limitations.

      6. If the Chandlers didn’t pursue criminal charges because they were afraid of the media attention, then why did Evan Chandler begin ghost writing “All That Glitters” in the fall of 1993, with the intention of having his brother Ray circumvent the confidentiality agreement and publishing it under his own name? Wouldn’t publishing a tell-all book about the allegations bring MORE media attention to his family?

      You assume that the Chandlers didn’t pursue criminal charges because they were afraid of the media attenton. This is untrue. The stated reason for the Chandlers stopping their cooperation because of worries for their personal safety and the refusal of the prosecution to provide witness protection. Your question is moot.

      7. If the Chandlers didn’t pursue criminal charges because they were afraid of the media attention, then why did Evan Chandler sue Sony Music in 1996 for the right to record a “rebuttal album” to Jackson’s “HIStory” called “EVANstory”? Wouldn’t releasing an album bring even MORE media attention to him?

      See above.

      8. If Jackson was truly guilty, and Ray Chandler’s book “All That Glitters” had so much inculpatory evidence against Jackson, then why didn’t Sneddon subpoena him? Why did Mesereau subpoena Ray Chandler? Wouldn’t it have made more sense for the prosecution to subpoena Ray instead of the defense? Wouldn’t Jackson’s defense want to do everything to prevent Ray from testifying?

      You would need to ask Tom Sneddon, or as he’s dead now, Ron Zonen why the prosecution didn’t subpoena Ray Chandler. The defense subpoened Ray Chandler but wanted to keep his name and all the information he presented a secret. He agreed to present everything he had to the court in camera so the court could decide if any of the material was relevant to the case.

      9. And why didn’t Evan Chandler testify against the man who claimed abused his son? He could have been provided with enough security to rival the Secret Service if he was concerned about his safety!

      Can you show where it was planned to provide security to Evan Chandler should he have chosen to testify? That way I could answer your question more specifically. In general though, it’s easy to see that Evan Chandler was a greedy man who wasn’t interested in putting a child molester away but getting as much money for his son as possible.

      10. Why did Evan Chandler tell Dave Schwartz “if I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out”?If Evan truly believed that his son was abused by Jackson, wouldn’t there be no if’s, and’s, or but’s about whether or not Evan would go straight to the authorities and bring Jackson to justice? Why would he be concerned with “winning or losing”? Why would he have to check his story “inside out”?

      I suggest you read the transcript in it’s entirety. Rather than extortion (as edited excerpts seem to imply), it shows an anguished father who feels his son slipping away from him, seduced by celebrity and fame, urged on by a startstruck mother. He wants to get his son back by his side and punish his wife and Michael Jackson for trying to take his son away.

      11. Jordan Chandler admitted to Dr. Richard Gardner that his only fear was that he would be cross-examined by Jackson’s attorneys. Why was Jordan Chandler so afraid of being cross-examined? If he had truly been abused by Jackson, and was being honest, why would he be afraid have his story scrutinized? Was he afraid
      that he would be exposed for “doing his part”? (He told the FBI in September 2004 that he had “done his part” in 1993. Read this post to get a complete summary and analysis of Jordan’s purported interview with Dr. Gardner on October 6th, 1993 : https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/psych-interview-with-jordan-chandler/

      I don’t need to read somebody else’s analysis of information, I read the raw material and make up my own mind. As far as the cross-examination issue goes, it’s a non-issue and I’m surprised MJ fans have read anything into it.

      “Sometimes people, after experiences of this kind, develop different kinds of fears. You have no fears?”

      “Maybe of cross-examination but that’s all. I mean I have nothing to hide, it’s just the thought of it.”

      As Jordan says, he has nothing to hide, it’s just the thought of it. This is a 14-year-old boy, of course the thought of being cross-examined in court would be a fearful prospect. It would be fearful for anyone. Even MJ decided not to be cross-examined at his 2005 trial in spite of earlier promising Tom Mesereau he would be willing to do so.

      12. Why did Jordan Chandler threaten to take legal action against Sneddon if he was subpoenaed to testify against Jackson in September 2004? Why didn’t Jordan perform his obligation to society and testify against Jackson to put him behind bars once and for all, so that Jackson couldn’t harm any other children?

      Why do you assume that Jordan would care about that? Do you think that would prove Jordan was lying in 1993? He wasn’t lying. MJ paid him 15.3 million dollars.

      13. If Jackson was a serial child abuser, and abused many other children, then why did the police have to bully Jason Francia into finally claiming to be abused by Jackson? Why did they attempt to abuse Corey Feldman and other children into claiming abuse by Jackson?

      If you know about acquaintance molesters and their victims, you would know how diffifult it is to get those victims to disclose. This is nothing new, and has plagued investigators since time immemorial and, on the flip side, has allowed molesters to get away with their crimes easily for the same amount of time. Did Jason Francia say he had been bullied? No.

      The questions about the 2005 case are far more complex:

      In the Statement of Probable Cause, dated November 17th,2003, Det. Paul Zelis described an interview he did with Star Arvizo, who claimed the following allegations against Michael (on pages 15, 23, & 50):

      “When asked, Star said Michael Jackson touched him inappropriately. The incident occurred when they were in a golf cart. Star was driving the golf cart and Michael was next to him. Michael then reached over and touched Star’s “testicles and penis” over his clothes with Michael’s left hand. He did not say anything to Michael and continued driving the golf cart.”

      Yet, Michael Jackson was never charged with molesting Star! Instead, when Tom Sneddon filed his initial felony complaint against Michael Jackson on December 18th, 2003, it consisted of the following allegations by Gavin, which allegedly occurred from February 7th through March 10th, 2003:

      7 counts of lewd acts upon a child (which Gavin Arvizo originally claimed happened to him BEFORE he and his family were “forced” to shoot the rebuttal video on February 20th, 2003)

      2 counts of administering an intoxicant

      However, in the grand jury indictment that was filed on April 21st, 2004, the dates of the alleged offenses shifted to February 20th through March 12th, 2003, and the charges were materially altered as follows:

      4 counts of lewd acts upon a child (which Gavin Arvizo now claims happened to him AFTER he and his family were “forced” to shoot the rebuttal video on February 20th, 2003)

      1 count of an attempted lewd act upon a child

      4 counts of administering an intoxicant

      1 count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion

      My questions based on this facts are:

      1.How do you explain the discrepancy in the alcohol and molestation charges between the initial felony complaint and the grand jury indictment?

      2. How do you explain the addition of the conspiracy charge, especially in light of the fact that the Arvizos went on numerous shopping sprees while at Neverland, and constantly asked to be returned to Neverland after leaving?

      3. Why wasn’t Michael Jackson charged with conspiracy in the initial complaint? Sneddon investigated Michael Jackson for almost 6 months before raiding Neverland in November 2003. Wouldn’t it had made sense for Sneddon to charge Jackson with conspiracy from the very beginning?

      4. During their alleged imprisonment at Neverland, the Arvizo family went on numerous shopping sprees, purchased expensive designer clothes, received massages and leg waxes, ate at fancy restaurants, and ran up a tab of $3,312.05! Why didn’t the Arvizo family notify the police during their shopping sprees?

      5. Why weren’t the 5 unindicted co-conspirators (Frank Cascio, Ronald Konitzer, Marc Schaffel, Dieter Wiesner, and Vincent Amen) charged for their roles in keeping the Arvizos trapped at Neverland and planning their banishment to Brazil, even after they refused immunity for their testimony against Michael Jackson?

      6. Why wasn’t Michael Jackson charged with molesting Star, in addition to Gavin?
      In the statement of probable cause, he claimed to have been molested while riding a golf cart. Wouldn’t Sneddon want to use as many accusers as possible against Jackson?

      7. Why did the start date of the alleged crimes suddenly shift by almost 2 weeks, and the end date shift by 2 days?

      8. Why would Michael Jackson begin to molest Gavin and Star only AFTER the documentary aired? Why didn’t he molest them between 2000 and 2002?

      9. Why would Michael Jackson begin to molest Gavin and Star AFTER he hired Mark Geragos in early February 2003? Why would he hire a lawyer to defend him for a crime that he had not committed yet?

      I’m not sure why these are relevant. Did MJ molest Gavin? It boils down to you either believing Gavin (a proven liar) or Michael Jackson (a proven liar). I prefer to believe Gavin. You might prefer Michael Jackson. It’s up to you. The point is that the trial provided further proof that Michael Jackson was a pedophile and a child molester, so it was valuable in that respect.

      If Michael Jackson was guilty as this website claims, than answering these questions will be a piece of cake for you. Thank you.

      No problem.

    • This comment is for the one who runs this website, hoping you’ll answer. Since you know so much and have such evidence, clear this for me; I have 22 questions for you and if you can answer to them with FACTUAL information good for you. Here we go:

      Questions about the 1993 allegations:

      Not a problem. You won’t be happy with the answers as I feel you have already formed a view as to what the answers should be. If that’s not the case, I apologize. If it is the case, I’m leaving these answers here for those who are open minded enough to accept alternative reasons for what happened. The most important thing is to put equal focus on Michael Jackson, after all he paid the Chandlers over twenty million dollars and that can’t be explained away, and he paid the Francias two million dollars .

      Another point – nobody needs to defend Jackson’s accusers. That Jackson paid them rather than face them in court is a strong indication that they were telling the truth.

      1. If Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation in 1993, why was he not arrested and charged with a crime?

      Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles District Attorney and Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney in Santa Barbara announced on September 21st that they wouldn’t be filing child molestation charges against Michael Jackson because the primary alleged victim (Jordan Chandler) had decided not to testify, another alleged victim (Jason Francia) was in therapy and did not want to be involved in the case, and a third alleged victim had made a “general denial” of wrongdoing by Michael Jackson. No charges could be brought forward unless one of MJ’s victims was willing to testify.

      2. If District Attorneys Sneddon and Garcetti had so much inculpatory evidence against Jackson, then why were they unable to secure an indictment from two independent grand juries,located in two different counties? (Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties.)

      These were not indicting grand juries, but investigating grand juries. Even Jackson’s lawyer agreed;

      HOWARD WEITZMAN, Jackson Attorney: I did not believe the district attorney’s office in Santa Barbara County would ask this particular grand jury for an indictment, so we’re not surprised at all.

      CNN reported it was an investigating grand jury.

      CNN has previously reported the panel was never asked to render an indictment, and that no vote was taken to do so. The 19-member panel was used as in information gathering tool, compelling testimony from witnesses, including former Jackson valet Miko Brando, former Jackson private investigator Anthony Pellicano, and the mother of a boy who admitted to CNN to having slept with the entertainer in the same bed.

      3. If Michael Jackson “paid off” (meaning that he paid to cover something he did) the Chandlers, then why was he not arrested and charged with obstruction of justice?

      The settlement was carefully worded so that it would not appear that Jackson was preventing the Chandlers from testifying in court. It makes sense that Jackson would have received either verbal, implied or some sort of written guarantee that they would not testify in order to protect his twenty million dollars plus settlement. What helped Jackson was that the Chandlers wanted money, and once they received that they were not likely to pursue the issue further.

      Although the DAs said that they would change their minds about charging Jackson for child molestation should the primary alleged victim change his mind and decided to testify, Jackson knew that wasn’t going to happen. His lawyer Howard Weitzman, who was involved in putting together the settlement, said “It is the correct decision. Michael has steadfastly maintained his innocence. We believe it is over. For Michael it is over and he can now get on with his life.” and Jackson himself released a statement which said, in part, “I am thankful that the investigation has reached a conclusion.”

      4. If Michael Jackson was guilty, then why didn’t he capitulate into Evan Chandler’s demand of a $20 million dollar film deal on August 4th, 1993? He could have avoided the entire media circus had he done so!

      Quite simply, Jackson thought he could bluff his way out of it. He had Pellicano on his team to dig up dirt and threaten (or in the case of the Robsons at least pay off) witnesses. Jackson kept up that hubris right up until his genitals were photographed. He caved in a few days after that and offered the Chandlers twenty million dollars http://www.mjfacts.com/the-jordie-chandler-settlement-revisited/

      5. Why did Michael Jackson fight to have the case tried in criminal court first (where
      Jackson could be sentenced to prison if convicted), while the Chandlers fought to have the case tried in civil court first (where Jackson could be ordered to pay millions if found liable)? Wouldn’t Jackson want to avoid criminal court at all costs?

      See above, Jackson thought he could get out of these accusations because of the “he said – he said” nature of the allegations up until then, and he knew the Chandlers were greedy so he could attempt to characterize the case as “extortion”. You also need to be reminded that a criminal case has a higher burden of proof than a civil case. In a criminal trial the bar is set high, beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in a civil trial the burden of proof needs only be more than fifty percent likely. Jackson, at that point (before the photographs of his genitals were taken) would have been far more confident that he could have put reasonable doubt in the mind of jurors. Remember too that Jackson’s motion included a request to delay the civil case for six years, in order to go past the statute of limitations.

      6. If the Chandlers didn’t pursue criminal charges because they were afraid of the media attention, then why did Evan Chandler begin ghost writing “All That Glitters” in the fall of 1993, with the intention of having his brother Ray circumvent the confidentiality agreement and publishing it under his own name? Wouldn’t publishing a tell-all book about the allegations bring MORE media attention to his family?

      You assume that the Chandlers didn’t pursue criminal charges because they were afraid of the media attention. This is untrue. The stated reason for the Chandlers stopping their cooperation because of worries for their personal safety and the refusal of the prosecution to provide witness protection. My personal opinion is that they had their money and didn’t see any reason to proceed further. Your question is moot.

      7. If the Chandlers didn’t pursue criminal charges because they were afraid of the media attention, then why did Evan Chandler sue Sony Music in 1996 for the right to record a “rebuttal album” to Jackson’s “HIStory” called “EVANstory”? Wouldn’t releasing an album bring even MORE media attention to him?

      See above.

      8. If Jackson was truly guilty, and Ray Chandler’s book “All That Glitters” had so much inculpatory evidence against Jackson, then why didn’t Sneddon subpoena him? Why did Mesereau subpoena Ray Chandler? Wouldn’t it have made more sense for the prosecution to subpoena Ray instead of the defense? Wouldn’t Jackson’s defense want to do everything to prevent Ray from testifying?

      You would need to ask Tom Sneddon, or as he’s dead now, Ron Zonen why the prosecution didn’t subpoena Ray Chandler. The defense subpoenaed Ray Chandler but wanted to keep his name and all the information he presented a secret. He agreed to present everything he had to the court in camera so the court could decide if any of the material was relevant to the case http://www.mjfacts.com/raymond-chandler-subpoena-duces-tecum/

      9. And why didn’t Evan Chandler testify against the man who claimed abused his son? He could have been provided with enough security to rival the Secret Service if he was concerned about his safety!

      Can you show where it was planned to provide security to Evan Chandler should he have chosen to testify? That way I could answer your question more specifically. In general though, it’s easy to see that Evan Chandler was a greedy man who wasn’t interested in putting a child molester away but getting as much money for his son as possible.

      10. Why did Evan Chandler tell Dave Schwartz “if I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out”?If Evan truly believed that his son was abused by Jackson, wouldn’t there be no if’s, and’s, or but’s about whether or not Evan would go straight to the authorities and bring Jackson to justice? Why would he be concerned with “winning or losing”? Why would he have to check his story “inside out”?

      I suggest you read the transcript in it’s entirety. Rather than extortion (as edited excerpts seem to imply), it shows an anguished father who feels his son slipping away from him, seduced by celebrity and fame, urged on by a starstruck mother. He wants to get his son back by his side and punish his wife and Michael Jackson for trying to take his son away http://www.mjfacts.com/evan-chandler-phone-transcript-with-david-schwartz/

      11. Jordan Chandler admitted to Dr. Richard Gardner that his only fear was that he would be cross-examined by Jackson’s attorneys. Why was Jordan Chandler so afraid of being cross-examined? If he had truly been abused by Jackson, and was being honest, why would he be afraid have his story scrutinized? Was he afraid
      that he would be exposed for “doing his part”? (He told the FBI in September 2004 that he had “done his part” in 1993. Read this post to get a complete summary and analysis of Jordan’s purported interview with Dr. Gardner on October 6th, 1993 : https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/psych-interview-with-jordan-chandler/

      I don’t need to read somebody else’s analysis of information, I read the raw material and make up my own mind. As far as the cross-examination issue goes, it’s a non-issue and I’m surprised MJ fans have read anything into it.

      “Sometimes people, after experiences of this kind, develop different kinds of fears. You have no fears?”

      “Maybe of cross-examination but that’s all. I mean I have nothing to hide, it’s just the thought of it.”

      As Jordan says, he has nothing to hide, it’s just the thought of it. This is a 14-year-old boy, of course the thought of being cross-examined in court would be a fearful prospect. It would be fearful for anyone. Even MJ decided not to be cross-examined at his 2005 trial in spite of earlier promising Tom Mesereau he would be willing to do so.

      12. Why did Jordan Chandler threaten to take legal action against Sneddon if he was subpoenaed to testify against Jackson in September 2004? Why didn’t Jordan perform his obligation to society and testify against Jackson to put him behind bars once and for all, so that Jackson couldn’t harm any other children?

      Why do you assume that Jordan would care about “obligation to society”? Do you think that because he refused to testify in 2005, that would prove Jordan was lying in 1993? He wasn’t lying. MJ paid him 15.3 million dollars.

      13. If Jackson was a serial child abuser, and abused many other children, then why did the police have to bully Jason Francia into finally claiming to be abused by Jackson? Why did they attempt to abuse Corey Feldman and other children into claiming abuse by Jackson?

      If you know about acquaintance molesters and their victims, you would know how diffifult it is to get those victims to disclose. This is nothing new, and has plagued investigators since time immemorial and, on the flip side, has allowed molesters to get away with their crimes easily for the same amount of time. Did Jason Francia say he had been bullied? No.

      The questions about the 2005 case are far more complex:

      In the Statement of Probable Cause, dated November 17th,2003, Det. Paul Zelis described an interview he did with Star Arvizo, who claimed the following allegations against Michael (on pages 15, 23, & 50):

      “When asked, Star said Michael Jackson touched him inappropriately. The incident occurred when they were in a golf cart. Star was driving the golf cart and Michael was next to him. Michael then reached over and touched Star’s “testicles and penis” over his clothes with Michael’s left hand. He did not say anything to Michael and continued driving the golf cart.”

      Yet, Michael Jackson was never charged with molesting Star! Instead, when Tom Sneddon filed his initial felony complaint against Michael Jackson on December 18th, 2003, it consisted of the following allegations by Gavin, which allegedly occurred from February 7th through March 10th, 2003:

      7 counts of lewd acts upon a child (which Gavin Arvizo originally claimed happened to him BEFORE he and his family were “forced” to shoot the rebuttal video on February 20th, 2003)

      2 counts of administering an intoxicant

      However, in the grand jury indictment that was filed on April 21st, 2004, the dates of the alleged offenses shifted to February 20th through March 12th, 2003, and the charges were materially altered as follows:

      4 counts of lewd acts upon a child (which Gavin Arvizo now claims happened to him AFTER he and his family were “forced” to shoot the rebuttal video on February 20th, 2003)

      1 count of an attempted lewd act upon a child

      4 counts of administering an intoxicant

      1 count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion

      My questions based on this facts are:

      1.How do you explain the discrepancy in the alcohol and molestation charges between the initial felony complaint and the grand jury indictment?

      2. How do you explain the addition of the conspiracy charge, especially in light of the fact that the Arvizos went on numerous shopping sprees while at Neverland, and constantly asked to be returned to Neverland after leaving?

      3. Why wasn’t Michael Jackson charged with conspiracy in the initial complaint? Sneddon investigated Michael Jackson for almost 6 months before raiding Neverland in November 2003. Wouldn’t it had made sense for Sneddon to charge Jackson with conspiracy from the very beginning?

      4. During their alleged imprisonment at Neverland, the Arvizo family went on numerous shopping sprees, purchased expensive designer clothes, received massages and leg waxes, ate at fancy restaurants, and ran up a tab of $3,312.05! Why didn’t the Arvizo family notify the police during their shopping sprees?

      5. Why weren’t the 5 unindicted co-conspirators (Frank Cascio, Ronald Konitzer, Marc Schaffel, Dieter Wiesner, and Vincent Amen) charged for their roles in keeping the Arvizos trapped at Neverland and planning their banishment to Brazil, even after they refused immunity for their testimony against Michael Jackson?

      6. Why wasn’t Michael Jackson charged with molesting Star, in addition to Gavin?
      In the statement of probable cause, he claimed to have been molested while riding a golf cart. Wouldn’t Sneddon want to use as many accusers as possible against Jackson?

      7. Why did the start date of the alleged crimes suddenly shift by almost 2 weeks, and the end date shift by 2 days?

      8. Why would Michael Jackson begin to molest Gavin and Star only AFTER the documentary aired? Why didn’t he molest them between 2000 and 2002?

      9. Why would Michael Jackson begin to molest Gavin and Star AFTER he hired Mark Geragos in early February 2003? Why would he hire a lawyer to defend him for a crime that he had not committed yet?

      I haven’t studied the ins and outs and possible conflicts of the 2005 testimony of the Arvizos, and I don’t think many of the other writers here have either, which is why the Arvizo accusations aren’t quoted much on this site (the trial transcripts are available for anyone interested in finding out more http://www.mjfacts.com/2005-michael-jackson-molestation-trial-transcripts/ ) so I’m not sure why these are relevant to us.

      Did MJ molest Gavin? It boils down to you either believing Gavin (a proven liar) or Michael Jackson (a proven liar). I prefer to believe Gavin. You might prefer Michael Jackson. It’s up to you.

      Importantly, the trial provided further proof that Michael Jackson was a pedophile and a child molester, so it was valuable in that respect.

      If Michael Jackson was guilty as this website claims, than answering these questions will be a piece of cake for you. Thank you.

      No problem.

    • ShawntayUStay

      5. Why did Michael Jackson fight to have the case tried in criminal court first (where Jackson could be sentenced to prison if convicted), while the Chandlers fought to have the case tried in civil court first (where Jackson could be ordered to pay millions if found liable)? Wouldn’t Jackson want to avoid criminal court at all costs?

      I’m not understanding how this is really important. MJFacts is correct: the difference in the burden of proof of a criminal court and a civil court would more likely be better for MJ’s side than Jordie’s because, after all, it’s a famous celebrity versus a “nobody” little kid. Coupled with no physical evidence other than Jordie’s word, how many jurors would easily side with MJ? It’s too easy.

      But you and other fans seem think that choosing the civil route is so horrible and indicative of a “shakedown” of an innocent man, but it really isn’t. Because civil courts are in the business of taking away property rather than liberty, they get more leeway in allowing “inadmissible” evidence. But most importantly, Michael Jackson would have to testify, if subpoenaed, or he’d lose the case by default judgment. Jordie Chandler’s lawyer had been insistent on getting MJ to sit for his deposition yet MJ and his lawyers kept refusing and stalling. As a matter of fact, MJ settled the case for $15.3 million (plus a few mil to the Chandler adults and the lawyer fees) on the eve of his scheduled deposition.

      Some could argue that the civil case was a more level playing field for the chandlers to receive some sort of recognition of their injuries. Indeed, look at OJ Simpson: despite mountains of physical evidence and a history of beating and stalking his ex-wife, he was acquitted of murder. The civil suit brought by the family of Ron Goldman benefited from the fact that OJ Simpson couldn’t remain silent and refuse to testify like he did in the criminal case. OJ sat for his depo and all but admitted that he killed Ron and Nicole in a pathological fit of jealous rage. The family easily won a civil judgment.

      So what was MJ so afraid of? Why couldn’t he sit for his deposition and not plead the 5th, like he did 17 times in response to questions about his relationship with young boys in the Hayvenhurst bodyguard wrongful termination suit? He even refuse to answer similar questions in 1996 in the Neverland 5 lawsuit. What’s he hiding that he doesn’t want to answer? A criminal suit would have shielded him easily from such questions, no wonder he preferred it! No wonder he wanted to stay the civil case for six years — no worries about revealing his secrets!

      MJ should be thankful that the Chandlers were less interested in putting his child-molesting behind in prison and more interested in being financially compensated for what happened. It’s not a crime to want money.

      • Neely

        Hey ShawntayUStay,
        I wasn’t aware of these suits you mentioned in next to last paragraph. Do you happen to know if there are any transcripts or other legal documents I could read about either of the cases?
        Thank you!

        • ShawntayUStay

          Neely, there are no publicly available transcripts of those cases like there is with MJ’s 2005 case, unfortunately.

          The Hayvenhurst case was filed I believe sometime in 1993, and it was later dismissed because the guards had signed contracts that prohibited them from ever suing any Jackson. They — 5 bodyguards that worked at the Jackson family home in Encino — essentially said that they were fired because they knew too much about MJ’s relationship with boys (his “special friendships” started when he still lived at the Hayvenhurst home, including Emmanuel Lewis, Jonathan Spence, Sean Lennon, and James Safechuck). One claimed to have been asked to find and destroy a photograph of a naked young boy (on polygraph, he was shown to be telling the truth about having seen the photo but failed when asked if he really did destroy it). They were paid ~$100,000 for an interview on “Hard Copy”.

          Their lawyer helped the Chandler attorney, Larry Feldman, gather information in a quid pro quo that never materialized, but MJ sat for his deposition and refused to answer any questions about young boys.

          The Neverland 5 case involves a couple of witnesses you probably came across in reading the transcripts: Kassim Abdool, Adrian McManus, and Ralph Chacon, plus two others, Melanie Bagnall and Sandy Domz. Former Neverland employees, They claimed that they were subjected to threats, intimidation, and harassment by MJ’s special OSS agents he’d hired in the wake of the Chandler scandal, and ultimately wrongfully fired. Abdool and Chacon both claim to have seen MJ behaving inappropriately with young boys, esp Brett Barnes. I believe them.

          To pay for their lawsuit, they sold stores to the tabloids, which was probably not a good idea for credibility issues, and MJ counter sued them claiming they stole stuff from Neverland. The judge in the case refused to allow any evidence relating to child molestation, which was a blow to the Neverland 5 as it was the basis of why they claimed they were harassed. Ultimately, MJ won this case.

          There’s various books you can read and of course it’s written (biasedly, of course) about on fan sites.

          • Neely

            Ah, bummer. I really like court docs. It’s like a ridiculously long novel, in which you don’t have to realize the end is coming for quite a long time! 🙂
            Thank you so much for the response.

  • Aphrodite Jones is quite an interesting character. We critiqued her book here http://www.mjfacts.com/conspiracy/

    More importantly, after she read about Wade’s recent allegations she had this to say:

    “He was adamant that nothing had happened to him, but I will say, I re-read his testimony because when he first came out with those new allegations, I’m looking at his testimony and reading between the lines, part of me felt like he was maybe being TOO ADAMANT…that maybe there was something to what he was saying later, but that’s going inside he envelope you know what I mean? It’s reaching so far, it’s over-analyzing it to the point that I don’t know what to do with that. But on the surface, he was adamant that nothing happened and that is clear in the testimony that I read and in what I saw in court. So the only way to say is maybe there’s a glitch there is to say at some point as I was re-reading the testimony more recently this year, I thought….’WOW, he’s almost TOO adamant, like he’s TOO quick to say no.”

    She also expressed doubt over Michael Jackson’s innocence in 1993, which was surprising. She found June Chandler to be a compelling witness at the 2005 trial. Interesting, wouldn’t you agree?

    • L72r

      In Aphrodite Jones book The Michael Jackson Conspiracy she says June Chandler told the court in 2005 that she did not believe MJ did anything wrong to Jordan, she also told the court that Evan her first Ex Husband was Millions In debt when he sued Michael in 1993 over their son Jordie. She was married to Davd Swartz at that time and was going through a custody battle with Evan! June could not remember in court that Michael had sued the Chandlers for Extortion over the alleged abuse complaint of Jordie. She admitted that Evan wanted MJ to build a wing on his home before he sued MJ and that MJ had refused. She also said she never suspected any wrong doing by Michael concerning her son. Part of the settlement agreement in 1993 was that Michael would not pursue his Extortion complaint on Evan. June told the court that she had told the DA in 93 that Evan had said “Jordie knowing MJ was a wonderful means of him not ever having to worry for the rest of his life!” Jones indicated in her book It was clear that Evan Chandler and June Swartz saw MJ as a meal ticket for the rest of their life. Of course by now everyone knows Evan sued MJ after he refused to give Evan 20 Million to pay for Evans screen play Men in tights. It was clearly proven in court that the Arvizo’s were grifters and MJ never harmed the Arvizo boys. No evidence exist MJ harmed anyone. What ever Jones speculation was later is just that, she did not present that in her book and it is not evidence or proof of any wrong doing on behalf of MJ. Jones clearly stated MJ was innocent in the 2005 case!

      • What does all this have to do with whether Michael Jackson was a child molester or not? Are you suggesting that MJ paid money for “lies”, or was “extorted”? That doesn’t fit with the facts. The Chandlers sued Michael Jackson for having sex with their son Jordan Chandler, and Jackson paid them over twenty million dollars. It’s not difficult to understand.

  • silverspirit

    I stopped at your “media” blame. That’s a very old excuse that holds no water in reality.

  • ShawntayUStay

    Wade Robson saying he didn’t realize it was sexual abuse (“abuse” being the operative word) is not unusual, nor is it a “gotcha!” moment somehow proving he’s lying. He said he didn’t realize it was abuse because, according to him, it wasn’t “abusive”; MJ wasn’t forcing himself onto Wade — MJ’s not aggressive or violent — but instead, Wade was a willing participant.

    Wade stated in his declaration:

    “The most distressing thing for me is admitting to myself that it felt good. I feel overwhelming guilt and shame that I looked forward to being with Doe 1 sexually, because it makes me feel like I am responsible.” Page 4, paragraph 16:9-11

    He and MJ were friends, he loved MJ — how hard would it be for a kid like that to go along with what his superstar idol friend wanted to do?

    Why is this so hard for fans to get?

    Wade denying being touched on the stand proves what exactly? That he’s lying? How? One could easily argue that denied it because he didn’t want anyone to know what happened and he was protecting his father figure/mentor. Given what Wade’s said, I’d say that’s the only explanation.

  • I’m asking the reason behind it( like why did all this victims say they were molested and didn’t take it to the final stage).

    I’m not sure what you are asking. What do you mean by “the final stage”?

    I’m surprised that you don’t focus on the trial, but only on allegations that are NOT PROVEN to this day.

    They are proven. MJ paid the Chandlers over twenty million dollars, and the Francias around two million dollars. Michael Jackson, with all the resources at his disposal, is not going to pay liars any amount of money. He showed that time and time again by not settling frivolous or opportunistic lawsuits. He always fought those all the way.

    I was just thinking that I commented with the same questions on another website claiming that MJ was guilty. It’s been a year since when I did that and my comment it’s still waiting for approval! You found some better solution with your manipulative answers and I have to give you credit for that.

    I can’t speak for any other website, sorry. What makes you think my answers were “manipulative”? I’d like your thoughts on that.

    It takes real skills to convince people of something when what you’re saying is not actually convincing.

    I’m not trying to convince anybody of anything, I’m sorry if I came across like that. I urge everyone to read all they can with an open mind and form their own opinion about MJ. If you come to the conclusion he was truly innocent, that’s fine. It would be fair to allow me to have my opinion, wouldn’t it?

  • I’m sorry you weren’t happy with my answers, I tried hard to answer your questions as honestly as I could even though you accuse me of avoiding them. You make me sad.

    I would love to know why you think this site is unreliable. I would appreciate it if you could tell me any parts that aren’t factual. Looking forward to your feedback.

    P.S. The Youtube channel is not ours. We have tried many times to complain to them but as it is not in our personal name they will take no action. A pity, but what can we do?

  • How do you know Jordan Chandler wasn’t deposed?

  • Just one point here. I don’t understand how Jackson could argue on the one hand that there would have been a “lengthy trial”, yet also argue that the Chandlers were “liars” and “extortionists” on the other. A Motion of Summary Judgement would have taken care of the Chandlers, dismissing them efficiently, if they had no, or false, evidence to proffer.

    Would you agree with that assessment? Or do you believe the Chandlers had solid evidence (such as the matching description) against Jackson? I’d like to know your thoughts.

  • Yet MJ paid the Chandlers twenty million dollars.

    MJ was being painted by the Media as Guilty due to false stories which affected his career!

    Sorry I don’t understand the logic of this being a reason for MJ to pay the Chandlers a settlement. In fact, paying the settlement made him look more guilty.

  • The Arivzo boys and their mom were proven in court to be liars, they said one thing under direct examination by the DA and then contradicted themselves under Cross Examination.

    Michael Jackson was also a proven liar, so what? I don’t need to defend the Arvizos, however they have never been in trouble since that trial so although they weren’t saints, they certainly aren’t the incorrigible reprobates that fans try to paint them as. In fact, Gavin and his family are doing very well, I would suggest that they are doing better than the Jacksons – Michael Jackson is dead and, despite their wealth and ability to get as much counseling as they wanted, his two oldest children seem to be unhappy and bored, as evidenced by their various substance abuse problems. MJ also never allowed himself to be cross-examined in court (despite earlier promises he would), so in that respect the Arvizos were braver than MJ who wasn’t going to open himself up to the sort of criticism directed at the Arvizos.

    The trial showed how employees of MJ had stolen from him and sold stories they admitted were exaggerated or not true for money! The juicier the story the more money they were paid. It is called “pay check” journalism.

    I agree the checkbook journalism was atrocious, however if you dig in to these stories you will find some are true, and they show that Michael Jackson had an unhealthy obsession with boys. Yet more pieces of the jigsaw that show evidence that MJ was a pedophile and child molester.

    There was NO evidence against MJ in the 2005 trial and more than one Journalist has said that!

    There was plenty of evidence that MJ was a pedophile. Hundreds of one-on-one sleepovers with boys, naturist magazines with evidence of “bodily fluids” on them, gay sex books found in his bedroom, books full of pictures of naked boys and boys with erect penises, a huge quantity of heterosexual porn with just 9 of MJ’s fingerprints on them, boys who were paid huge sums of money from a man who didn’t traditionally settle lawsuits after they accused him of molestation, MJ’s obsessive calling and faxing to Wade Robson, the naked and semi naked photos of boys, the list is endless! Focus on what MJ did, it’s not a pretty picture unless you want to start making ridiculous excuses for his behavior.

    Then there are other people that knew MJ since childhood like Webster, Nichole Richie, Whoopie Goldberg’s children who only have good things to say about him, and what about all the thousands of children who were disabled and disadvantaged that visited Neverland who never said he harmed them.

    Just as sex offenders do not rape every woman who crosses their path, acquaintance molester do not molest every child that crosses their path, so your logic is irrational.

  • Pingback: Documents from Michael Jackson's 2005 Molestation trial - MJ Facts()

  • Aly Borntoolate

    I’m not here to say “you suck, get a life” because I would sound immature. But law proved him innocent so nobody needs your disturbing blog. I also don’t understand why you invest so much time and energy in proving a deceased music legend guilty after a judge already expressed himself in court, after the “victims” were proved liars by themselves as well, after the whole thing itself is full of holes, after almost nothing adds up, after seeing that all you own to accuse him is false, after making your tries look so desperate that they just can’t seem professional, after the FBI have confirmed that all the stuff the media have talked about (pornography, books, sites) is garbage, after seeing (because I bet you did) that many parts of the trial and of the examination weren’t regular but on the contrary they were favoring the accusers.

    The sad thing is that last week someone decided to invent something new to bash him just a couple of days before the anniversary of his death. Not only this is extremely disrespectful, it is also incredibly disgusting. Obviously the lawyers confirmed that the information was false the day after but apparently that didn’t stop the media from publishing something false again even though the source was totally unreliable.

    I’d like to say that you as well, as a source, are unreliable, misleading, not objective, unprofessional and disturbing. It would be amazing if you had some respect for his kids who just can’t live a normal life because of people like you. But I know that you don’t care about kids in general, that’s not your priority or at least it truly doesn’t seem like it is.

  • Why do you believe any of the writers on MJ Facts have a Bachelor’s Degree in English?

    Can you give an example of the “random bullshit about Michael Jackson and porn”? It’s difficult to know what you are talking about.

    • Yanii

      You do know she’s being sarcastic…right?