The Evidence Keeps Adding Up

To most people, there has been so much evidence now of Jackson’s predilection for young boys, it beggars belief that some rational, thoughtful people are still on the fence regarding his guilt. Even though we know that Jackson entertained different boys for at least 850 or more nights, owned books featuring photos of naked young boys, and paid a lot of money to boys who accused him of molestation, once we take into account the Halo Effect[1] and the fact that a lot of Jackson’s behaviour had an air of plausible deniability[2], it is easy for some to have residual doubts about whether Jackson is guilty or not.

It is now the end of 2013, a year in which many more signs pointing to Jackson’s guilt emerged. Some were high profile, others less so, but all add to the massive, undeniable jigsaw of Jackson behaviour that shows he could not have been anything but a pedophile.

Wade Robson

The first, and most explosive of course, was the realisation by Wade Robson that all that “love” that Jackson showed to him over seven years, when Wade was aged seven to fourteen years, was in fact sexual molestation. While still to be decided in the courts, Wade Robson’s claim is shocking in which it details the level of abuse suffered at the hands of Jackson. It alleges fondling, oral sex and also sodomy. To most, it would be surprising that sodomy is being alleged because we have never heard this claimed about Jackson before, but upon reflection it is not surprising at all.

To date, we have the detailed accounts of four boys who have been molested by, or had to endure overtures from, Jackson – Terry George, Jason Francia, Jordan Chandler and Wade Robson. I have put them in that order for a very good reason, and it is this: The closer Jackson became to a boy, and the longer he knew a boy, the further the abuse progressed. Terry George had Jackson talking about masturbation on the telephone with him; Jason Francia endured hugging, then kissing, then fondling of his genitals (disguised as tickling); Jordan detailed a steady progression from hugging to kissing to fondling to oral sex; and Wade, who knew Jackson the longest and was seemingly the closest to him, included all of that plus went further to include sodomy.

robson_claim.pdf robson_claim.pdf
Size : 1537.702 Kb
Type : pdf

 

So it’s not quite as odd as you would imagine. From what we know about acquaintance molesters they become more bold with their victims as time goes by. Jackson waited to see what he could get away with before progressing to the next level of intimacy. It is classic behaviour.

Plausible deniability? Jackson defenders insist that Wade Robson is only after money, and is lying about the abuse. Why Wade would ruin his career by claiming abuse from Jackson is unfathomable, and no amount of money would be sufficient to cover the shame and embarrassment of admitting to (or even lying about) being sodomized by a celebrity such as Jackson. Also take into account the fact that Wade’s claim rests on whether a judge will allow his court action to continue or not, and you have a very shaky foundation on which to base the assumption that Wade is greedy.

Conrad Murray

Secondly we have Conrad Murray, credited as “the doctor who killed Michael Jackson” by the fan community. While we won’t go in to the ins and outs of Murray’s trial, conviction or subsequent appeal as that is not the focus of this website, we will however note his comments in an interview he gave in November 2013 to Australian current affairs show 60 Minutes (a franchised version of the US stalwart).

Conrad Murray 60 Minutes interview

When presenter Liz Hayes asks Conrad Murray, “Do you think he was a paedophile?” he dramatically pauses for 15 seconds before replying: “I’m not prepared to answer that question, not now. And I tell you the reason why – because my interview with you is candid and honest, and I will not make up or fabricate anything.”

A most extraordinary reply, considering Murray had also told Liz Hayes he was a great friend to Jackson and they were close.

Not to be deterred, Liz Hayes presses on: “As a friend, someone that was his closest friend, I would have expected you to say “absolutely not”.”

“Well, sometimes expectations are not always satisfied,” Murray continues. “One thing I will tell you is this: I may have formed an impression of an individual based upon certain things I have seen or encountered.”

Ms Hayes was not going to be put off, after all, this is someone who knows Jackson very well and she doesn’t want this question left hanging. “The reason I’m pressing you is because by saying what you’re saying, you are deliberately muddying the waters here, because that’s what you’re doing – you’re leaving it unclear about your thoughts. Is that fair to Michael Jackson or do you have something that you know?”

Murray is measured in his response: “I’ll never be unfair to Michael and I’m not here to destroy Michael. You asked a question and I’m not prepared to answer – not now.”

We can only guess what Murray has seen or encountered, but we do know that Murray knew Jackson in Las Vegas during 2007 and 2008, and treated Jackson and his children when they lived there. Those who believe Jackson to be innocent would have expected someone close to Jackson to immediately give an emphatic denial to that question as so many (but not all) have in the past. We can glean an answer from Murray’s replies though. His very telling comment “I’m not here to destroy Michael” tells us everything we need to know. Would it destroy Jackson if Murray were to say “Absolutely not, Michael was not a pedophile”? No, that would, if anything, bolster Jackson’s reputation. The only conclusion is that yes, Murray thinks (because of things he had seen or encountered) Jackson is a pedophile, but isn’t prepared to talk about it at this time.

Check out  Jackson v. Paramount Pictures Corp. (1998) - Victor Gutierrez Slander Case

Plausible deniability? Jackson defenders insist that Murray doesn’t believe Jackson was a pedophile (or at best didn’t know Jackson well enough to say one way or another) and is deliberately leaving the issue hanging in the hope of gaining more money for new interviews or a book deal.

Aphrodite Jones

A name hardly known outside of circles that follow the allegations against Jackson, Aphrodite Jones became the pin-up girl of Jackson defenders after she wrote a book detailing how Jackson was “railroaded” during the 2005 trial. During the trial she was a reporter and she said herself that during the entire proceedings she was convinced that Jackson was guilty. It wasn’t until she had a meeting with fans at the gates of Neverland after the not guilty verdict that she had a “Road to Damascus” moment and changed her mind, vowing to write a book on the travesty of justice that Jackson had endured (never mind the not guilty verdict, nor the vast sums of money she imagined flowing into her coffers from Jackson fans eager to lap up something positive about their idol). That book, a mish mash of everything to divert attention away from Jackson’s obviously inappropriate behaviour with boys, is reviewed here. In any case, Mario Nitrini met Aphrodite and has this to say:

” … At a dinner house in March of 2006 on Ventura Blvd and Coldwater Canyon Blvd here in The San Fernando Valley, Aphrodite Jones told me POINT-BLANK, and emphatically stated that Michael Jackson was GUILTY of child molestation. … “

Enough history, you get the idea. We have shown that Aphrodite can speak out of both sides of her mouth, and she displayed that brilliantly in an interview with Jordan King on November 5th. After reiterating the unfairness of the 2005 trial, she made this extraordinary admission about the 1993 Chandler case:

Do I have doubts about the innocence in 1993? YES. I do. Why? Why….because I watched the testimony of June Chandler in the court in Santa Maria, Jordy Chandler’s mother, and was, how shall I put it? Ummmmm…unnerved by what she was saying. She was talking about Michael staying in the hotel room with Jordy, Michael sleeping over at her house with Jordy, about Michael crying if he couldn’t stay in the same room with Jordy. This is all part of testimony at the trial. It was very unnerving and I felt like he was in love with that boy and whether or not there was any more to it, obviously we’ll never know, but everything that his mother was testifying to, when I was reading between the lines, made me very uneasy.”

Now to you or I, this mightn’t seem extraordinary, in fact the vast majority of people who read it (or hear it) would nod their head in agreement, however in the world of MJ defenders, this is heresy. In that huddle of overly enthusiastic Jackson fandom, anything, absolutely anything which casts even a sliver of doubt upon Jackson’s motives with children is met with howls of outrage and shuddering feelings of anger. That it came from Aphrodite Jones added an extra sting to the slap, and MJ fans were left bewildered and confused.

Aphrodite went on to say “[June’s testimony] is a HUGE reason…. There couldn’t be a bigger reason. I sat inches away, feet away from Jordy Chandler’s mother and watched her testify for hours and hours and everything about her made me feel like she was a woman who was looking the other way. Everything about what she said.”

“Now, does that mean that I think that Michael really did anything? I don’t know. That’s all I’m saying. But I’m not willing to say he didn’t do that nor that I feel he did because I don’t know, but I will say I was shaken by June Chandler’s testimony.”

“I’m not here to debate what happened in 1993. Michael is dead. I don’t really know what happened. None of us I don’t think will ever know what happened. I think that will die with Jordy and his father who killed himself and the rest of that family, who do or do not know anything. I don’t know.”

So we have someone who is absolutely viewed as being in the Jackson defender camp expressing quite reasonable doubts about the innocence of Jackson in the case of Jordan Chandler. The Jackson fans may hate what she had to say, but it is the absolute best spin that can be put on the Chandler allegations.

Also interesting was this comment from Aphrodite on Wade Robson during the 2005 trial:

“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.”

While I do understand that Aphrodite Jones has been inconsistent in the past, it is encouraging that perhaps she is coming to understand certain things about how acquaintance molesters and their victims behave, and it is possible that Jackson is at least capable of molestation. One small step.

Check out  Evan Chandler Phone Transcript With David Schwartz

Plausible deniability? Aphrodite isn’t saying that she thinks Jackson is guilty, just that she has some “reservations”. Actually that makes her no different from most people, and if Ms Jones put two and two together (molestation allegations plus a huge payout after Jordan described Jackson’s erect penis) she would be a lot more sure of any questions she might have.

Darlene Craviotto

Don’t worry, I hadn’t heard about Darlene either, until someone suggested I read her book “An Agoraphobic’s Guide to Hollywood: How Michael Jackson Got Me Out of the House”. I just put that one on the backburner, to me it sounded like another ode to the brilliance that was Michael Jackson by another starstruck hanger on who had met Jackson briefly for a few moments (or worse, one who hadn’t met Jackson at all) and had ascribed some miracle of personal rebirth to him.

After having forgotten totally about it, I was recently stuck in a hotel room in LA awaiting a call for a meeting (which never eventuated anyway) and was down to the last item in my todo list – reading this book. I downloaded it with trepidation, but once I started reading I was pleasantly surprised. Not only surprised, but subsequently shocked.


See the book at Goodreads

Ms Craviotto is an Emmy award winning screenwriter who details how she was hired by Disney to write the screenplay for “Project M”, the secret movie project which was actually a Peter Pan film to be directed by Steven Spielberg and to star none other than Michael Jackson. She describes the process and meets Jackson several times, but we’ll fast forward to the last time she meets Jackson, late one Thursday night at his hotel.

Darlene is naturally confused. She is here for a business meeting and Michael Jackson has a young boy with him?

Darlene spends a couple of paragraphs describing a trick she learned when she was acting, where she could see a play from a different perspective – either as a member of the audience or one of the other actors – in order to critique her own performance. She is doing this while she gives a reading of the Peter Pan treatment to the meeting.

Darlene, as a mother herself, is deeply disturbed by what she has seen. A natural reaction of course. After a time the boy falls asleep.

Shortly after, Darlene leaves and promises to return to read the remainder of her treatment, Michael and his friend Buddy are left alone in the apartment with the boy.

The whole situation is totally disconcerting and dare I say it creepy. While certainly not proof of child molestation by Jackson, it is an extremely disturbing description of a young boy alone with Michael Jackson and another man late at night, with no sign of either the boys’ mother or father. Remember too that this story is set in 1990, years before any scandal about boys were public.

The author goes on to recount a story she had heard years before: a friend of hers worked in the office of a Hollywood music company, and the story was that Michael had had a relationship for years with one of the executives there. The man had been a mentor to Michael professionally, but he had also been much more. The office gossip was that the man had been molesting Michael since he was a young boy. It was on the down low, and people there kept it to themselves for fear of losing their jobs. Darlene speculates that this is why Jackson sees nothing wrong with a grown man having a relationship with a young boy.

Of course, this is purely speculation or even outrageous rumour, but it could be have some validity but bear in mind that boys who have been molested do not automatically become molesters themselves.

Plausible deniability? Quote by MJ fan: “What a sweet story! Mike was so kind to children!”
It could be construed as such by naive people.

All this adds to what we already know.

While none of this information actually proves Jackson was a child molester (of course, Wade’s case has yet to proceed to trial) in a beyond any sort of doubt sense, it certainly reinforces what we already know about him. It shows that Jackson was very interested in spending time with boys, that he had a lot of time alone with many boys in which he could have groomed and molested them in secrecy, that there were people around him who indulged him or turned a blind eye when it came to the time he spent with boys, that there were also others who were discomfited by his interactions with boys but didn’t have enough to go on to take any action regarding their suspicions, and that there are still those who, rather than looking at the big picture, can look at individual events or actions and add an element of plausible deniability in an attempt to make Jackson’s actions seem totally innocent to those who don’t look too closely at an accumulation of Jackson’s behaviour.

The documents from Wade Robson’s case, the comments from Conrad Murray and Aphrodite Jones as well as the excerpts from Darlene Craviotto’s book all show that Jackson’s behaviour was not above board or transparent with children. Jackson certainly never made any serious attempt to put himself at arm’s length from children so that his behaviour could be described as beyond reproach, Jackson always made sure there was some ambiguity in his more intimate interactions with children so that he could deny being inappropriate with them and for more impressionable people to believe that was so. Jackson was never serious about allaying suspicions about his relationships with children, and even just for that he should be condemned, because it leaves people asking some very unpleasant questions of the boys he befriended. Jackson never cared so much for his young friends, only for himself.

  • Ekalav Jahanz

    First of all Michael Jackson was proven innocent on all accounts. Second of all Jordan Chandler admitted he was lying. You are assuming Wade Robson is telling the truth and he might be, but who is to say Michael Jackson did it? Wade might have been abused by somebody else. And these are all assertions about Michael who none of y’all have ever met. We just read a bunch of paparazzi stuff called research but you can never judge a man unless you have heard him talk or preferably met him. Tabloids might say all kinds of stuff, like this blog makes so many assumptions about Michael Jackson’s character. How do you know who Michael Jackson truly was unless you watched his interviews? The only people close to him his brothers and parents say he was innocent and not interested in sex at all. Heck, Brooke Shields, the woman who he asked countless times for marriage, said Michael wasn’t into all that stuff. Brooke Shields, the person whose photos were all over Michael’s walls. We will never know what Michael Jackson did. He passionately denied everything, so innocent until proven guilty. Michael Jackson might have very well been a pedo but the evidence is very scarce

    • Hey Ekalav, I have to say your comment amused me no end at first, however when I thought about it for a while, it started to worry me.

      Why? Because I wonder how any adult with even below average IQ could actually believe what you’ve written.

      First of all Michael Jackson was proven innocent on all accounts.
      No, he wasn’t. There was only reasonable doubt. Most of the jurors believed he was a pedophile and child molester http://www.mjfacts.com/jurors/

      Second of all Jordan Chandler admitted he was lying.
      No, this is an Internet myth http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chandler.asp
      Jordan is forbidden under the terms of the settlement agreement to ever speak about Jackson or the molestation (even to deny it happened) http://www.mjfacts.com/the-settlement-document/

      And these are all assertions about Michael who none of y’all have ever met. We just read a bunch of paparazzi stuff called research but you can never judge a man unless you have heard him talk or preferably met him. Tabloids might say all kinds of stuff, like this blog makes so many assumptions about Michael Jackson’s character. How do you know who Michael Jackson truly was unless you watched his interviews?

      Most of the material on this site is from people who have met Michael Jackson and were close to him. This includes people like Jordan Chandler, Wade Robson and Jame Safechuck. These are three men who had intense relationships with MJ and spent a considerable amount of time alone with him. They are well placed to let us know about the real MJ, not some front that he wanted to present to us through soft interviews set up for PR reasons only.

      The simple fact is that MJ lied in most interviews. For instance, in his interview with Diane Sawyer she asked if it was true that books of naked boys were found in his home. MJ denied it, but it was later found that he did. He had even inscribed one of the books, so he couldn’t even say he didn’t know about them http://www.mjfacts.com/michael-jacksons-primetime-interview-with-diane-sawyer/

      The only people close to him his brothers and parents say he was innocent and not interested in sex at all. Heck, Brooke Shields, the woman who he asked countless times for marriage, said Michael wasn’t into all that stuff.
      If he wasn’t into sex, how do you explain the gay sex primer he owned? It was a folio sized book with photos, illustrations and text showing how to perform fellatio, anilingus and sodomy. He had several other books featuring photos of naked men. He owned a lot of pornographic magazines too, admittedly they weren’t for himself though as out of nearly 700 fingerprints on the magazines only 9 were his. He also had the aforementioned books of naked boys, plus naturist magazines which had fluorescing stains on the pages with photos of naked boys. In case you are wondering, fluorescing stains show up where bodily fluids have spilled – I’ll leave it up to you to guess what kind of bodily fluids may have been spilled on photos of naked boys http://www.mjfacts.com/mikey-you-let-me-down/ (NSFW)

      We will never know what Michael Jackson did.
      We do already. We have details from the five boys who he molested, including Wade http://www.mjfacts.com/wade-robson-petition/ and James http://www.mjfacts.com/mj-facts-exclusive-jimmy-safechuck-story/, plus the boy he had phone sex with http://www.mjfacts.com/terry-george-and-michael-jackson-the-real-story/

      He passionately denied everything
      No, he didn’t. A few half hearted denials was all he gave. And we know he was an inveterate liar, so even those denials are worthless.

      Michael Jackson might have very well been a pedo but the evidence is very scarce
      Read the links given in this comment, and look through the rest of this site. Just these items alone http://www.mjfacts.com/items-found-in-1993-pedophile-books-and-naked-photos/ show he was a pedophile.

      • Nya

        Oh okay thanks. I was making a much much more philosophical point but I guess I wasn’t clear enough. I will check out the information above and see if it has relevance. Thanks for your time.

  • Ali

    From Frank Cascio’s book:

    The bottom line: Michael’s interest in young boys had absolutely nothing to do with sex. I say this with the unassailable confidence of firsthand experience, the confidence of a young boy who slept in the same room as Michael hundreds of times, and with the absolute conviction of a man who saw Michael interact with thousands of kids. In all the years that I was close to him, I saw nothing that raised any red flags, not as a child and not as an adult. Michael may have been eccentric, but that didn’t make him criminal.

    http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-02/11mfm/11mfm20.html

    All these kids new him well and they never complained, quite to the contrary.

    Brett Barnes, Sean Lennon, Mark Ronson, Kelly Parker, Corey Feldman, Derek Emerson, Ryan Folsey. Bobby Newt, Mac Culkin, Kirean Culkin, Dakota Culkin, Quinn Culkin, Bryton McClure, Dave Dave, Emmanuel Lewis, Alexandra Martin, Kelly Parker, Princess Elizabeth and Prince Albert von Thurn und Taxis, Billy Ramirez, Karlee Barnes, Simone Jackson, Rashida Jones, Kidada Jones, Michael Gibb, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ahmad Etabad, Perly and Morly Qi Zhen, Paris Hilton, Nicky Hilton, Marie Tourelle, Tracy Dyer, Harriet Lester, Amy Agajanian, Sage Galesi, Lala Romero, Nisha Kataria, Roman Barett, Natalia Barrett, Brock Goldstein, Rhonda Ross,Chudney Ross, Nicole Grierson, Damon Stein, Megan Stein, Amanda Porter, Pudence Brando, Richard Matsura.

    They are all lying but greedy Evan ,who was accused by his own family and people who knew him for being greedy and only ”cared” about his son when he started hanging out with Jackson ,even Carrie Fisher said Chandler was strange, referring to him as “this freak”, saying Chandler told her in the privacy of a dental visit that “My son is VERY (unsettling smile, raised eyebrows, maybe even a lewd wink) good looking.. ,Gavin “my family is made of serial false accusers” Arvizo were telling the truth?

    Sorry, this is not the track record of a pedophile.

    Plus owning art books with naked children does not mean your’re a pedophile,mj was a serious fan of art and yes a lot of art books features nudity .only stupid people think nudity=porn and if it were the case everyone who owns european classic art books is a pedophile ?. and why you ignore the millions of real straight pornography MJ had?

    GIVE IT UP HATERS

    • Thanks for your comments Ali.

      I’m amazed that Frank Cascio slept in the same room as MJ for hundreds of nights. That’s utterly incredible. In spite of Frank’s dissembling, it further confirms that these sleepovers were suspect.

      Why would a grown man need boys in his bed for hundreds of nights? Let’s dissect that thought.

      Fans use MJ’s excuse, that he didn’t have a childhood, as a reason why there is nothing odd about this. That excuse presumes that MJ was a peer of the boys he slept with, that they were equal. Nothing is further from the truth. MJ proved that himself when he showed he took on a rather more dominant and parental role which is shown by a) the language he used – “I tuck them in and I put a little music on and when it’s story time I read a book.”, and b) his insistence on having his boy friends call him “Dad”.

      So no, MJ didn’t see himself as a peer of the boys he took to bed.

      MJ also didn’t need to sleep with boys (or even girls) to recapture his childhood. Childhood does not require sleepovers for over 1,500 nights with 6 different boys (Jonathan, Jimmy, Wade, Brett, Jordan and Omer). No child, ever, has done that over a span of 20 years, which brings us to another point. How long does it take to recapture a childhood anyway? 5 years? 10 years? Certainly not the length of time MJ spent. And MJ rarely spent a great deal of time with any child he didn’t eventually bed which shows us that sleepovers were the ultimate goal, not a small part of a whole. The sleepovers weren’t designed to “recapture his childhood”. They were designed to get young boys in his bed.

      Why then? Even the most myopic observer can see that it was for intimacy. How far you think that intimacy went would depend on how much of the truth about MJ you are prepared to take in. At the very minimum, it was an inappropriate bond between a grown man and young boys, boys who were far too immature to understand what that bond meant. While fans would consider these boys “lucky”, separated from their family and similar aged friends and peers to live in a fantasy construct where the lifestyle consisted of junk food, video games, movies and the company of a cloying adult male would have been a blow to their ongoing development and emotional wellbeing.

      At worst the sleepovers were a setup for molestation, with no outside supervision or oversight. While fans may be skeptical about MJ’s capability to perform sex acts on young boys, it has been well documented on these pages by those closest to him – siblings, employees, and even some of the boys themselves – exactly what MJ was capable of. He is the stereotypical “nice guy molester”, the one everyone looks at and says “Oh, he wouldn’t do that, he’s too kind!”.

      All these kids new him well and they never complained, quite to the contrary.

      What a silly argument. Firstly, we wouldn’t say that Mike Tyson can’t a rapist because he didn’t rape every women he spent time with. That would be absurd. Secondly, Wade Robson also kept his molestation a secret for years and even praised his abuser, something he has in common with most other victims of “nice guy” molesters.

      They are all lying but greedy Evan

      Do you think because Evan was greedy, MJ couldn’t possibly have molested his son? I would suggest the opposite, because MJ paid A LOT of money to keep the Chandler’s quiet (yes, yes, I know they could have testified in court, but they were greedy, remember?) and it worked. Why would MJ pay if nothing happened? He despatched Daniel Kapon and Joseph Bartullici, two false accusers, rapidly and efficiently because “nothing happened”.

      even Carrie Fisher said Chandler was strange

      Are you suggesting Carrie Fisher is reliable?

      Sorry, this is not the track record of a pedophile.

      This is not the track record of what you think is a pedophile. To those who have studied “nice guy” molesters, this is, sadly, precisely their track record. Just because the image you have in your head of a pedophile and the image you have in your head of MJ doesn’t match doesn’t mean that MJ was innocent. Far from it. At the very least MJ was guilty of using young boys for his own selfish needs. You can’t defend that.

      <emPlus owning art books with naked children does not mean your're a pedophile

      No it doesn’t, but it is strong proof MJ was one when you add it to his sleepovers with boys, his courting of young boys, the fact these books were found in his bedroom, the accusations from young boys, his lack of believable female romantic relationships, his refusal to be questioned by law enforcement over his relationships with young boys, his pleading the fifth over his relationships with young boys… should I go on?

      The truth is that Michael Jackson, at the very least, had an unhealthy interest in young boys and used them for his own selfish needs then lied about why he needed young boys around him constantly. Looks like you, and the rest of the fans, need to “give it up”.

      • Pea

        “At the very minimum, it was an inappropriate bond between a grown man and young boys, boys who were far too immature to understand what that bond meant. While fans would consider these boys “lucky”, separated from their family and similar aged friends and peers to live in a fantasy construct where the lifestyle consisted of junk food, video games, movies and the company of a cloying adult male would have been a blow to their ongoing development and emotional wellbeing.”

        The point you’ve made above is an excellent one that I had never even considered!

        Jacko’s admirers defend his sleepovers because they believe Jacko wasn’t a pedophile, and, therefore, no molestation would ever be possible; he was merely “breaking a norm” and being a “lovable”, “eccentric” weirdo trying to recapture his childhood through sleepovers with kids. In another comment, I expressed confusion over the logic that even if Jacko’s sleepovers weren’t a part of a pedophile’s MO and were nonsexual that they’d still “cause harm”. I couldn’t think of a reason.

        I now rescind my earlier position because your point completely rebuts that fan defense, in my opinion. I’ll explain…

        If we accept the fan position as true, and say (hypothetically speaking) that Jacko was absolutely innocent, it wouldn’t absolve Jacko of guilt. Instead, his bed-sharing would be a route to an emotional, rather than physical, intimacy — “sharing a love” wouldn’t have the sinister connotations of sex abuse — that could still cause great distress. One constant theme in Jacko’s allegedly sexual and nonsexual dealings with kids is that he replaced them and got “new friends”; that wouldn’t change even if he wasn’t a child molester. Being brought into a superstar’s world, given gifts and being spoiled, sharing especial secrets during pillow talk… all of that is too much for a young kid, and taking it away could reasonably cause PTSD, from which James Safechuck suffers.

        James is a perfect example of the larger tragedy of just being friends with such a messed up man. More so than the sexuality, it seems James was decimated by being best friends with Jacko and then being someone Jacko wasn’t at all interested in. It was a mind-fuck to suddenly lose the emotional bond. Crucial to understanding the psychological fallout would be Jacko’s so-called “manchildness” — a kid would connect to him as a peer but also look up to him as a father- or brother-figure. All of that dashed would arguably be double the loss.

        A reading of the Good Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s books about Jacko reveal a man who used kids as “drugs” — I thought that even when I was a fan, and it disturbed me. There’s no doubt Jacko threw kids away. Even Alfonso Ribeiro, who was never touched, remembered being dumped because he’d gotten too old!

        It’s quite pathetic when you consider that Jacko’s admirers seem to defend not only his bed-sharing (which was obviously sexual) but his discarding of boys for other boys. They say it’s merely the cyclical nature of childlike friendships (as Joy Robson tried to claim on the stand back in 2005 to explain Wade’s replacement) and that it’s no big deal if the kids feel bad. They even fault people like James for being hurt and denigrate him for being ungrateful, as you smartly pointed out. They’re just unwilling to see all of the damage Jacko did and could’ve done with his choices. He needed help, not children as friends.

    • ShawntayUStay

      Don’t you think it’s just even a tiny bit strange that you can name all those people who spent the night and/or slept in MJ’s bed as children? That’s one hell of a list for an allegedly innocent man-child! It’s even more strange that you think that helps him — even Anthony Pellicano screwed up in 1993 making two of MJ’s boys admit on tv that they slept with MJ, telling the whole world the thing MJ wanted kept secret!

      At the very least it demonstrates a person in need of psychiatric help because he’s so delusional and regressed; at worst…well it just further supports the allegations that MJ was compulsively attracted to kids (especially boys).

      And Frank Cascio’s book is filled with embellishments and half truths. He tried to convince the fans that MJ liked women but the whole of the discussion fit nearly on two printed pages, LMAO, the goal of which was trying to get us to not be suspicious of all the sleepovers MJ had with the Cascio boys — the women story came right in the center of his defense of them! Highly suspicious timing, don’t ya think?

  • The only “evidence” you have is that he slept in the same bed as other boys.

    That should be enough to raise a whole line of red flags for anyone, and it does for people who take off their celebrity tinted glasses.

    Nevertheless, there is also the gay sex manual he owned, the two books full of pictures of nude boys who were the same age as the boys he had in in his bed, his refusal to be interviewed by law enforcement over his relationships with young boys, his pleading the fifth over his relationships with young boys, the many employees who knew he was a pedophile, his sister who called him a pedophile, accusations from five boys, the huge volume of straight and gay porn he owned (the straight porn had only 9 fingerprints from MJ, but nearly 700 fingerprints from others), the lack of believable female romantic relationships plus his payments to boys to avoid lawsuits for molestation.

    You say frank cascio isn’t credibale but i’m sure you didn’t read his book, i’m like you also suspected a little about those sleepovers after the martin bashir documentary , but to really understand MJ’s mind you should read Cascio’s book.

    I’ve now read parts of Frank Cascio’s book (thanks for the link), and I was a bit suspicious of the way he tried to justify his own spending of so many nights in MJ’s bed by trying to say MJ was “into women”. It was absurd. I’m sorry, but Frank didn’t convince me of anything.

    Michael Jackson REALLY thoght he was 10 years old and wanted to act like peter pan

    You are talking about a man who made it to the pinnacle of the cutthroat music business, a man who many saw as a brilliant businessman. It sounds good while you are trying to excuse his little boy sleepovers, but falls flat when you need to describe the whole man – the ruthless businessman, the owner of porn, the drug addict, the lush, the manipulator.

    you paint him as some kind of mastermind criminal who pretends to be an asexual excentric and good man , the savour of children just for his public image while molesting little boys behind closed doors.

    Do I?

    Michael had to be the ultimate super inteligent sociopath to lie like this.

    he didn’t need to be super intelligent, and I don’t think he was. He could be manipulative, cunning, a liar and a charlatan though, and that doesn’t require intelligence, only cleverness.

    if he really was a pedophile and believed there is nothing wrong with molestation he would go on tv and say that there is nothing wrong with it and defend it like those creepy man boy association do.

    No, that’s what you think a pedophile would do. MJ was good at diverting attention away from the negative aspects of his life, and tried to make people pity him so he could get away with what he did. It obviously worked, you and thousands of others believe it.

    Plus i know that those associations had tried to enter in contact with him to gain acceptance in the mainstream but he found them creepy as any normal person who hates pedophiles find.

    Don’t be ridiculous. That never happened. Where did you hear that story from??

    Plus i think he was too religious and believed too much in moral to be gay . But he sure tried to be “pure” and mayeb had been a virgin.

    That’s even more ridiculous. He was human, and had the same sexual drive as every other Jackson – high.

  • So there is a “leader” who is adores by all his “chanichim” mostly teenagers, he’s a man ,is very nice guy,he’s studying history in college,28 years old, and he hangs out with teenagers and they all go to his house they sleep in his house some days to make the mission for the next Chazit. Well guess what if you guys of mj facts were in my town you would call the police and say that he’s abusing them?

    This is false equivalency. You are asking me to compare two scenarios based on incomplete data. Does this “leader” sleep one-on-one, night after night, with minors behind closed doors? Does he own pedophile books? Does he separate children from their parents purposely to get them alone? Does he buy minors extravagant gifts? Does he view children as “perfect beings” that “inspire him”?

    Not everyone who wants to spend time with children is a pedophile.

    • Jack Sintullo

      Shoot I had the same scenario with a former friend of mine who was 28. He hung around kids, boy scout leader, teacher, legal guardian to troubled kids, taught extra circular activities, and let kids sleep over at his place.

      I’m also the one who turned him in for suspicious behavior and I didn’t have nearly what anyone accusing MJ did. None of the kids said anything happened. The police said it definitely looked like something probably was occurring but that it was normal for the victims to not talk if they weren’t the ones to come forward. Long story short obviously me and my friend stopped talking until about a year later when he called me up and asked me to sign a legal document claiming I fabricated what I saw or he’d sue me. I told him to sue me because I hadn’t lied. He didn’t sue me which kind of cemented in my mind that me was guilty. About two years later he makes the local hometown’s headlines for all the wrong reasons with kids again and that time he went down in flames.

      All I am saying is I wouldn’t trust anyone who just really wants to help kids and has them sleeping over when they aren’t theirs. I wish we could but generally if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

  • Kat

    There’s also the evidence of multiple child molestation allegations against Jackson. That just changes everything. I’m sure the person you mentioned hasn’t been accused of sexual abuse by the young people who stay at his house. So for now he can be given trust and belief that he really just wants to help kids. With MJ, there were several allegations. The victims were found to be credible by experts, two times it resulted in million dollar settlements, and once he went to a criminal trial. After his passing two more people revealed the true nature of their relationship with Jackson when they were children. It’s either Michael Jackson is an extremely unlucky person who gets falsely accused of heinous, detestable acts or he really was a pedophile and a child molester.

    I found Frank Cascio’s book to be highly unbelievable in many places. It’s far from the best book written about MJ. In the places where Frank is honest Michael appears negatively, which isn’t surprising at all. I’m talking about his drug use, body dysmorphia, lies about Omer Bhatti being his son and Paris being his biological daughter conceived in the city if Paris, firing Frank, false marriages, and so on. I get the feeling Frank wanted to be open about the real Michael, but the loyalty that he has for him prevented him from being that. That’s because Frank was likely molested too. Him spending hundreds of nights with Michael, being jealous when Lisa Marie entered the picture, MJ calling him Applehead – all the signs are there. I also think that Frank is aware of many skeletons in MJ’s closet, that, as his right hand man and confidante he knows some dark secrets… Maybe when he’s ready he’ll reveal all that to the public.

  • Ali, I went in to looking at this with an open mind. Actually, I lie. I went into all this NOT wanting MJ to be a child molester. Unfortunately, as I looked everything I saw pointed to MJ being one. I tried to figure out an innocent reason how all the things could be put together – MJ’s pursuit of these boys, the porn, the child erotica, the sleepovers, both MJ’s silence and the lies he told, lots of things.

    Each time I looked at MJ’s behavior, I asked myself “Is this how an innocent man would behave?” and the answer, sadly, was always no. I say sadly because it means boys were abused.

    It’s quite sweet how you believe that evidence that has come out in the past may be invalidated – the truth is, every year more evidence comes out to cement his guilt http://www.mjfacts.com/michael-jackson-suspicions/, and nothing is invalidated.

    I wonder how much evidence is needed before fans see what MJ was? It’s bizarre how they keep making excuses for him.

  • Glenn Diestel

    He was at least a creepy dude

  • This is honestly deeply depressing. I don’t know what to say.

  • Jeanne D’Arc

    Hello there!
    First I must say this site is sadly interesting, and scrolling through it, I admit, makes me lose more and more hope that MJ’s truely innocent. You know I used to, and still like MJ a lot since I’m a little child, his musical genius has always inspired me somehow, and I improved my English a lot thanks to him, but what seriously lauched my suspicions on him very recently is not the fact that he used to stay with children all the time, no, because I always used to think : “Would that huge man superstar would really take the risk to keep frequenting children (boys especially) after all those events if he was really guilty?”
    What made me doubt profoundly is the whole book collection that was found in Neverland, that for instance, I do not consider as “Art” at all.
    But one thing still triggers my mind though and makes me keep on wishing nothing ever happened : Michael’s relationship with women.
    I don’t know if you’re aware of that, but Michael was utterly depressed when he learned back in 1986 that his all time absolute woman in the World was marrying another man than himself. He even talked about it in Moonwalker saying that he was disappointed because she had always been his friend, his mother, and his lover at the same time. You can see in this video how upset/angry he was actually : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9clZ-gKckM
    Watch the whole thing, it’s really worth it. That is what conducted him to write “Dirty Diana” by the way, that was in indeed, about her.
    If I’m writing all this to you right now, it is to know what’s your point of view on Michael’s feelings for women; do you believe Michael could have been interested in them, as well as being interested in children at the same time? Why was hetero-sexual porn found in his house if he was only into children? Do you believe Brooke Shields was lying when she claimed Michael had already proposed to her several times (to no avail) ?
    I really would like to know what you think about it.
    Anyway, thank you for taking the time reading my comment, and I bid you a good day =)

  • It very much is. I just wish I could convince my sister of the truth…

  • Mélanie

    Hello everybody ! I found a site that talks about Corey Feldman, maybe you read it? Feldman said Jackson did inappropriate things when they were friends, like watching naked books as a teenager.

    But he denied being abused by Jackson. In 2008, Feldman said that Jackson had wounded by dropping sharply because he had aged.

    “He did real damage in my life in general,” said Feldman. “The biggest thing Michael did for the children is to become friends with those in need, and then abandon them.”

    http://www.today.com/popculture/corey-feldman-does-michael-jackson-impression-limp-bizkit-show-6C10109864

    I am certain that Jackson abused Feldman ! but it will still probably take time before the light is made, if it was to be one day, which is not shown. The color of money, the quest for power, or fame have distorted the situation from the start. and in no way the Estate and the Jackson family will not allow the taint of scandal to ruin their source of easy income.

    • Interesting article Mélanie. Overall my impression is that MJ was grooming Corey but never took it all the way, possibly because he already had his hands full with other boys. That article led to another interview with Corey in 2008 which explains his relationship with MJ a bit better, and also gives a clue as to his bitterness toward MJ. Basically, he was dumped unceremoniously.

      It wasn’t Michael Jackson who molested me, but he did do real damage in my overall life. I was a 12-year-old boy who was hurt by his family and ignored by people at school. Michael would sit and talk to me for hours and he would listen. Then he would get bored. The biggest thing that Michael’s done to children is befriending the ones that are in need and then abandoning them. “Hey, I love you, I’m here for you, anything you need, you call me, I will be there for you.” Then the very next day, the number’s been changed. As a 12-year-old kid, that’s a pretty hard one to comprehend. That’s the karma he’s paying off now.

      So even though MJ may not have molested all children he befriended, he still damaged many of them emotionally.

      • Andreas

        This quote I got from the VindicateMJ site:

        It was also revealed in 2005 that Corey Feldman was interviewed in 1993 by Sgt. Deborah Linden and Detective Russ Birchim, and the tapes reveal the shameful behavior displayed by the police in Michael Jackson’s case. Although he completely denies any abuse, they keep pressuring him.

        While we obviously have to grant that Corey completely denied being molested by Jackson under the 1993 deposition, I’m sort of wondering about the bare basics here still..

        Like, why was Corey Feldman put in deposition at the police in 1993 to talk about Jackson to begin with?

        Could there have been an actual reason why Sgt. Deborah Linden and Detective Russ Birchim had brought him in to talk about Michael Jackson? Or are we just to assume it was completely random, and for no reason at all?

        If Linden and Birchim indeed pressured him over and over about Michael Jackson, like they wouldn’t take ‘no’ for an answer, could it be like several rumours has suggested, that Corey first in some kind of context really did say Michael Jackson did something to him but then very quickly recanted it? That is sort of my hunch, because I’m not sure why else he was put in deposition to talk about Michael Jackson.

        But to be fair, I’ve had trouble finding info on this. Perhaps Corey talks about this in his book and there is a good, sweet and plausible explanation… but until then I take it as a red flag.

        I also find some of the things Corey said in the 1993 interview very strange:

        “You don’t know how many times I have racked my brain and gone, ‘is there something I’m forgetting? Is there something that, you know, I’m thinking didn’t happen but it really did?’ If I could find something I would love to be able to tell you, but nothing happened.”

        Is it just me, or is this a quite bizarre way of explaining that someone didn’t molest them? If Michael Jackson didn’t molest him then he simply didn’t, and thats that, so why would he need to “rack his brain” many many times in case he’s forgetting something? (How many people that didn’t molest YOU do you keep questioning over and over if there’s something you’re forgetting?)

        Usually, people who’s experts at seeing if people lie, say its a typical sign if an answer is longdrawn and stalling, and answering a question with a question is another sign, instead of just short and immediate answer. I think Corey was obviously lying.

        • The Queen Of Swords

          I skimmed through the book online recently. He didn’t go into depth with regards to that. He simply states that he named his abusers to the Santa Barbara Police Department, and nothing was done. However, I listened to the recording, and it was stated only one man’s name was stated. “Rin Crimson” and “Ralph Kaufman” were listed in his book as code-names for his abuses. Could it be he only listed one name because one code-name is indeed a fictionalized Michael Jackson. I don’t know.
          But MJ and Feldman dressed alike (Feldman recieved glitter-gloves from him for Christmas), slept in his bedroom and had Feldman sleep over at Hayvenshurst, drank alcohol with him, showed him a book with naked persons of various ages and both genders, demanded adult-porn be present else he wouldn’t stay at his house…etc.

          You know, it’s not a “definetly”, but I wouldn’t be shocked if “Ron Crimson” was both Michael Jackson and John Grissom.

          “Ron Crimson” was physically-attractive and in his 20s. John Grissom was clearly in his 40s, balding, slightly heavy-set. In 1984 MJ was in his 20s and was actually “heartthrob beautiful”!

          “Ron” abused Corey when they were both under the influence of drugs, looking at X-rated material, and in beds. This is MJ’s MO.

          In “Coreyography”, MJ showed great care for how Corey’s money was handled, and who was his mangers, agents …etc. “Ron” in this book told him to divorce his parents, and in multiple interviews Corey says he even paid for it.
          In an interview Corey states that “Ron” took him to Disneyland and “on adventures”, and he escaped life with him. But in the book, Ron is NEVER painted in this positive way even partially. Michael Jackson was. And considering what we know of Michael Jackson taking Emmanuel Lewis and Jonnathan Spence to DisneyLand, I see it as a bit of a “Red Flag”.

          Oh, and he was DEFINETLY lying to the Police. His voical pitch range throughout it, his stuttering, his dragging out of his sentences, and his struggle forming his sentences show that he is lying.

          Corey was an physically/verbally/psychologically abused, neglected, and bullied kid. He worshipped MJ as a pre-teen, befriended him since then. It is understandable that in his grief, he doesn’t want to reveal who he really was — putting the legal obstacles aside.

          • Andreas

            I’ve read that part of the book now too. Yes, he just says Sgt. Deborah Linden asked him to come and ask some questions about Michael Jackson. There’s not even an attempt of an explanation why he was called in. Corey delivers no context in the book. Leaving another gap to explain.

            Corey said he named his real molester at the deposition but that they didn’t care about anyone else than Jackson. Interestingly, and assuming he was talking about John Grissom here, I found out that Grissom has a youtube channel with quite recently with a few vlogs. In one of Grissoms videos he says he and his wife got two children, but they were both taken away from them by the child service department. First one when their daughter was quite young, and their second child as soon as at the mother had it at the hospital. Grissom says he’s so angry, and claims he doesn’t understand why and has tried to sue them, sue the state, etc. He’s even been on some talk show to talk bout it… According to Grissom his children were taken from him because the state assumed “negligence”, but its quite possible its really the child molestation stuff that caught up with him. Thanks to Corey perhaps. So that the police didn’t care about any others than Jackson might not be true.

            But yes, about Michael Jackson. When I understood Corey had a series of sleepovers at Hayvenhurst with Jackson a lot of the confusing things for cleared up for me. For some reason I thought it was only at Neverland, and Neverland was bought by Michael when Corey was 17/18, and that seemed a bit late for a pedophile’s interest(although not impossible). I also thought their relationship was more fragmented, just like a select few sleepovers. There was several according to Corey, and it was a strong period like with other victims with Jackson. Things makes a lot more sense to me now. Corey was a lot younger when he hung around with Jackson basically. Around 13.. and Jackson was young too in his 20s. Corey seems very conflicted. Seems like he both hates and loves Jackson.

            May I ask you for your opinion on something, Queen? Now, I hope its okay that I ask, since you’ve been honest on here before about being a child abuse victim yourself.. I’m confused about some things about Corey.

            As you probably know, in 2013, Corey started going into a late Jackson-phase. He released a single called “Ascension Millennium”, and who he’s dressed at on the record cover is not a huge mystery.

            http://s.mxmcdn.net/images-storage/albums/9/3/9/1/0/1/30101939_500_500.jpg

            He also released a music video for the song dressed like Jackson, and the song itself might even come across as some half-arsed Jackson tribute, even though it could be debated if it sounds like a Jackson song, but it seems like Corey’s trying to the best of his abilities. What I wonder about is if there is some kind of explanation why an abuse victim could become “obsessed” with their abuser? Even years later when they’re adults themselves? Is that normal? And what could be a good explanation to why they do this? Is it a quest for “understanding” their abuser or something? I’m struggling with this.

            From the outside looking in you’d expect only pure hatred for your abuser, and nothing else. But from other examples I’ve seen its not that black/white. Still, I’m sure the average Jackson fan or defender might label Corey’s tribute more as proof that he actually wasn’t molested, so I think its an important question. Do you have any thoughts on that?

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Well, while every victim/survivor is their own unique human-being and each processes her/his own abuse differently (and sometimes it’s so repressed, it’s NEVER given much thought unless their is some kind of break-down!), I think I understand Corey.

            I was first sexually abused by a classmate when I was 5. My first abuser was another child — a taller, obese boy (who may have been older) who was a VERY violent bully. He basically “befriended”, groomed, and abused me before two negligent teachers found out and put a stop to it. They covered it all up. This caused a lot of heartache, turmoil, and pain for me. I plan to file a Civil Lawsuit against the school district and board of education, for this and other things I experienced by students and staff members when going to public school.

            Anyways, I feared my abuser yet felt sorry for him, wanted to help him, and initially didn’t want him to get into trouble. I was ENRAGED when I thought he was going to be punished, even though I knew what he did to me was wrong/bad, I hated it, and I was only submissive out of fear of him, fear of anyone finding out, and for some reason fear that I would be punished for it by my parents.

            I have since found out that this boy grew up to be a serial Sexual-Predator who targeted many more, was arrested/charged/convicted of abuse, and is STILL a fucking Psychopath. When I found this out all my sympathy that I ever had for him went away. I just feel sadness and rage when I think of him.

            Corey is going through something similar. Except his grief is going to make it harder for him to disclose it now. He still loves Javkson (most likely due to nostalgia and w hits-washing their friendship since his death), but resents him for what he may have done to him and how it negatively impacted his life.

            I want to stress that Emmanuel Lewis, Sean Lennon, Corey Feldman, Johnathan Spence, James Safechuck Jr., Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, Jordan Chandler, Eddie Cascio, Omer Bhatti, The youngest Cascio brother, Gavin Arvizo, and all the others, are ALL behaving like “typical victims/survivors”.
            (The only thing that’s odd to me about Corey is the degree to which he idolizes Jackson! But factoring the abuse and neglect he got from his parents, the bullying he got at school, and the sexual abuse he also got from John Grissom and Alphy Hoffman, and I think it can somewhat makes sense …)

          • Andreas

            I understand. Yes, Corey’s acting quite odd. He’s been so much back and forth over the years with Jackson that one have to question what is going on with him. What I found weirder is that his 2013 “imitating Jackson”-period actually did come right after then recent Wade Robson allegations, and possibly as some weird kind of “response”. I just don’t understand Corey. His book also has a lot of praising of Jackson, and it seems apparant he’s still a fan in some kind of way. He writes about Jackson in this elevated kind of way. I just sort of wonder if there’s a sense of sympathy for Jackson going on.

            I think with Jackson its the fact that his whole musical legacy is at stake too, because seperating the artist from his art can sometimes be difficult. Its not a small musical legacy at stake either. Its one of the all time biggest in history, and his music has meant a lot to a lot of people. I wonder if Corey don’t want to ruin Jacksons music by making people associate it with pedophilia (although I fear that will happen without his help anyway). We know Corey was a huge fan of MJ himself as a child.

            It actually is kind of a shame in one sense too, and I’m saying that as someone who’s never ever been interested in Jackson’s music. For me its just that I think in general truth is more important than, well, comfort. I don’t think we should cover up the crimes of our society’s heroes.

            I also suspect that if Jackson didn’t have three children that are very vulnerable to everything that might come out about Jackson there would be a lot more information out there. Perhaps victims and more people with information would be coming out with their story if it wasn’t for his kids. Perhaps Kathrine to a degree too. I really feel sorry for his kids, because they will have to endure a lot of things said about their father. They already are. Its obviously unfair that they have to suffer from something they had nothing at all to do with. He sort of left his kids to take the hit when he died. He should never have been allowed to have kids.

            I think you might be right about Corey perhaps blaming himself. Not just the book, but perhaps even more generally than that. I read that Jordan Chandler went through a phase of blaming himself too, according to his uncle. Jordan felt like he did something to perhaps trigger Jackson to want to molest him, or something to that effect. Jordan worried it could have been his own fault somehow, or that part of it could have been his fault at least. I’ve read thats quite typical of rape victims in general. They can go through deep periods of blaming themselves, having self-doubts about what happened and things of that nature. Things like that however, just like in your experience, is often evaporized if it comes out that the abuser had numerous victims. Then its obviously easier for the victim to understand its not their fault, when there’s a pattern beyond them, and that the abuser is entirely to blame for what happened to them.

            About your abusers and potential court cases I really wish you good luck, Queen. Its a shame its so difficult to prove sexual abuse. It seems like too many cases often gets acquitted because the burden of proof for such a serious crime is so high. They sort of have to be high too though, to be fair, as life’s are at stakes, but that makes it so complicated, since it obviously scares the majority victims from coming forward. On the flipside even cases that are acquitted can have an effect on the reputation of the abuser. Jackson might have been acquitted in 2005, but his life and reputation certainly went down the hill. I also think if the inner turmoil of keeping things like that secret is damning, so perhaps telling it might be good in it self, no matter the consequences.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Thank you for your kind words. I have blamed myself as well, and I was ignored the 1st time I disclosed when I was 7 (to a school-therapist; It was more like I was “confessing” to wrong-doing than disclosing though) and I was blamed when I disclosed at 10 to someone close to me. I only recently stopped blaming myself, sadly. Like in recent weeks, honestly.
            I have multiple witnesses of the last time that can be called into court though. That and his prison record.
            The Hospital case would be a bit harder to “prove”, ironically.
            I don’t want money. I just want to stand up for myself and the child that I was.

            As for Corey. Go to YouTube, type in “Corey Feldman” and then “childhood”. He blames himself completely in that video. Sad. And his words about “Ron” there prove my point that he is combining MJ & John Grissom in that character.

            Maybe Feldman is compartmentalizing his experiences with MJ. The “good” was his friend. The “bad” was just like his other abuses.

            It’s so disturbing to me that Latoya commented that MJ seemed annoyed of Feldman. But it shows what I have stated here. MJ NEVER even genuinely thought he loved or cared for most of those boys. If Taj is telling the truth about MJ’s involvement in bringing his abuse by a maternal uncle to light, it proves my point.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            MJ’s tarnished reputation is what escalated his drug use after 1993 and espescially after 2005. I’m certain of it. He’s a bonefied-Narsissist, of whom indirectly and directly threatened people’s lives over his disturbing secret. I don’t think he could handle things like his hundreds of nights alone with unrelated, pre-pubescent/pubescent boys in alarm-protected room, his Child-Erotica, his abuse of three of his “special friends”, his multiple payouts in the form of settlements, and his methods of “grooming” and “seduction” of boys, to be made public.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            While MJ is said to wanted a daughter (thus him carrying around dolls), I think he partially wanted to purchase male-children to sexually victimize so he had his friends sell their children to him, bascially. A Jackson family member even told the Police that he was grooming Blanket. Notice Paris is the only kid traumatized by his death.

          • I don’t believe for a moment that MJ did anything sexual with his children.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I don’t know. It wouldn’t shock me if he did or didn’t. I do remember a 1983 interview that was video-recorded where he was with Latoya. He talked about Asian-Indians being the most beautiful (I don’t mind this as this one of my four ancestries and I look VERY Indian :-D), and called them “my people”. There are rumors Prudence Soloman is Blanket’s mother and a “White” Bodyguard is Blanket’s dad. Blanket is half-Indian and could pass for full. A lot of MJ’s victims were “Brown” like Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia, Brett Barnes, and Gavin Arvizo. Not saying he did, but it’s a bit disturbing he purchased a child that would look like a lot of his “favorites”. Same with him dying Prince’s hair blonde, like Johnathan Spence, James Safechuck Jr., and Macaulay Culkin. Just weird. Again, not saying he did anything to these boys, but it wouldn’t shock me. Paris is also the most traumatized and effected by her father’s death, and sees the Child Sexual Abuse allegations as false and back-stabbing. No words from Prince or Blanket on Social-Media either mourning dad’s death or defending dad from multiple accusations from his victims & the media that was indeed a Sexual-Predator. I just find it weird. I’m not disagreeing. I just find it weird.

          • I don’t see any evidence whatsoever that MJ abused his kids.

            Blanket as far as I know is not on social media, and Prince recently wrote a sonnet for his Dad. Paris is very much into social media, to the extent that she is bullied quite a lot, which is sad.

            As for dying Prince’s hair, I agree that is weird but I think it’s more a case of MJ wanting a “perfect child” rather than anything to do with his pedophilia.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            The fact that he could have thought of “Blondism” in a boy as perfection has always been disturbing to me … He had absolutely no self-love at all. Joseph and his brothers would racially mock him as a boy, but there are quite a few people that are racially bullied, by same-race peers as children for certain racial phenotypical traits, that grow up and learn self-love.

          • Michele

            I was looking through the comments and I came across the accusation that MJ “molested his own children”.

            I asked for evidence supporting this claim. I don’t believe it whatsoever.

          • Guest

            To my knowledge, he did not. (Unless one if his kids suddenly says different).

            A few sources allegedly stated have stated to investigstors they thought he molested nephews and was grooming Bigi.

            Nothing further.

          • Michele

            I’m sure the “sources” were from the National Enquirer.

            Nothing further. Have a lovely evening mate 🙂

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I’m disappointed in Corey Feldman for his rant against Wade, whether he was abused by MJ or not. (He obviously was …) MJ at the very least drank liquor with him and exposed him to Adult-Porn. Feldman knows that in of itself is predatory behavior.
            I’m also dissappointed in Taj Jackson. It’s well-known in the Jackson family that MJ was a creep! Just ask Latoya and Jermaine.

          • Andreas

            I actually think I’ve figured out why Corey reacted the way he did with Wade, or at least have a theory.

            To quote Corey from an interview:

            I’m not able to name names. People are frustrated, people are angry, they want to know how is this happening, and they want answers — and they turn to me and they say, “Why don’t you be a man and stand up and name names and stop hiding and being a coward?” I have to deal with that, which is not pleasant, especially given the fact that I would love to name names. I’d love to be the first to do it. But unfortunately California conveniently enough has a statute of limitations that prevents that from happening. Because if I were to go and mention anybody’s name I would be the one that would be in legal problems and I’m the one that would be sued.

            So basically to sum it up. If he names his abusers(or Haims abusers) in public he can’t go forward against them due to statute of limitations, but they could still sue him for tarnishing their reputation. So he keeps quiet for these reasons. Now, there’s a catch with Corey however…

            If somebody came forward with a suit against one of these people [who molested me], I would certainly be more than happy to back them up. But that hasn’t happened.

            If this is correct then if someone else brought a case against his abusers he would (by his own ethics) testify that he was molested too as a witness. My hunch is that when Jackson died he decided to seal his secret, so when Wade(and James) suddenly appeared with post-death lawsuits it was very frustrating for him, hence the angry reaction.

            I’m not sure how civil courts work. If Wade’s lawyers could subpoena Corey Feldman… Or Culkin and others like Barnes and Bhatti. They definitely should.

            I think Taj might believe his father was innocent, at least it sounds like it… but I honestly don’t know whats going inside that family. I’m not sure how much they dicuss it. It could easily be a very taboo topic. Diane Dimond is certain they’re enablers who are just covering up for Michael, but I actually don’t know for sure.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I read that interview some time ago. You and I think alike. Feldman, no matter what anyone says about him, is a man that has some morals. He went up against MJ in 2005, when many of his victims and suspected-victims defended him. Granted, they were — and maybe still are — well-groomed. He went against MJ for Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia, and Gavin Arvizo in 2005 because they were what he called “small voices” and “powerless voices”.
            When MJ died he probably felt extreme sadness AND guilt because they were suppose to be friends forever but that book he may have been writing (he talks about writing a book on his “friendship” with MJ in 2003 & 2010; in “Coreyography” he says he and Haim always talked of coming forward one day in the future with their respective stories). But then Corey Haim died due to a drug-induced Pneumonia and he wanted to talk about Hollywood Abuse (they did to a lesser degree in “The Two Coreys”) — but couldn’t name ANYONE due to lawsuit threats and the very real danger of people like Charlie Sheen (who has made hits on people in the past and present, BTW). So he decided that instead of exposing MJ, his silence could be bought (Diane Diamond implied this and I ponder if it is true, to any degree) and he’d go on a campaign to white-wash MJ’s image. Here comes Wade (then James) and not only can he be exposed as a liar but he has a moral dilemma.

            Oh, I think MJ’s PedoHebephilia & Child Sexual Abuse is an open secret amongst Joe (an abuser himself), Katherine, and the Jackson siblings (excluding the half-siblings). Do their kids now? Well, I believe the nephews he may have abused know. I am a lil’ iffy on Taj because he had posted back and forth letters of his and MJ’s calling each other those creepy/weird nicknames MJ does with his “special friends”. But I’ll take Taj’s words, that MJ did nothing to him and only a maternal Uncle. But Joe, Katherine, Rebbie, Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Latoya, Marlon, Randy, and Janet know. Rebbie probably knows the least because she is the most estranged from her family, because of Joe.

          • Andreas

            Its possible the family knows. I just saw Kathrines interview on 60 Minutes and I thought her reaction seemed real enough for me to believe that she didn’t believe neither the Chandlers nor the Arvizos. But yes, yes… I know what La Toya said about the checks and her calling Michael a faggot and so on. My assumption would be she is in denial. That she perhaps somehow fear its true, but I’m sure Michael told her it was just greedy people who wanted money(or whatever) and that she believed him as a mother.

            I can understand however its very difficult for Kathrine to understand how Jackson would want to molest a child with a serious case of cancer, but if we look at it realistically in terms of pedophilia, its no weirder than an adult falling for another adult thats ill from cancer. Thats certainly not impossible. I think the important thing to remember is that while ‘everybody’ think of molesting a child as harming it, most pedophiles don’t see it that way. (Besides, the allegations of the actual molestation with Gavin happened long after his remission anyway..)

            Yeah, I tend to think Corey Feldman tries his best to be a stand up guy, and is concerned about pedophilia and sex predators in Hollywood and in showbiz. Simply because he was victim of it himself. He admits it has been a huge toll on him, so when he says he don’t want it to happen to other kids, I don’t see why I should doubt that. That would make perfect sense. Yes, he stood up for Gavin before the trial in 2005 in the media, and he was actually pending as a prosecution witness too, but I’m not sure why it didn’t happen, or what he was going to talk about. (There were a lot of witnesses that didn’t appear at that trial.)

            Whats your source on MJ grooming Blanket? Thats news to me.. And molesting other nephews? I know about the story of Jeremy Jackson. Not anyone else.

            Btw. I saw in an older post you thought Woody Allen is a sex abuser. Why do you think so? He’s one I’m leaning on thinking is innocent. Meaning the allegation against his daughter, I presume?

          • Kat

            Hey Andreas, I’m sorry about digressing from the subject, but I just wanted to know if you’ve finished the entry about the Arvizos that you were planning to write? Or has the idea been dropped? I’m just asking, because I did really want to read it.

          • Andreas

            Hey Kat. Thanks for the interest.. Yes, its still in works. Just delayed for several reasons I can’t go into. It will probably be multi-part due to its size. Probably four articles.. We’ll see if MJfacts (and Pea) will publish the whole thing. It will be available somewhere at some point either way, I’m sure. I don’t know when. Sorry.

            I’ve really tried to come to the bottom of the Arvizo saga. There’s been so much to cover, and its been spinning around my head for months now, so I’m looking forward to just get this thing done finally.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I can see why most don’t believe the Arvizos, but Feldman’s, Safechuck’s, and Carter’s statements hint they have have been telling the truth.

          • Kat

            OK, I see… Genius takes time, as they say. 🙂 Writing can be hard and meandering, especially if Michael Jackson is the subject. From learning about him, I’ve realized that there’s always more to discover – it’s inexhaustible. I also never finished reading the trial documents, because there were so many. I might start again though. Anyway, I’ll keep patiently waiting for your entries.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I saw that, and it rubbed off to me that Katherine was just in denial. She knew the truth.
            She had to walk out of the courtroom when they went over his “past bad behavior”.

            It’s a myth that most Pedophiles/Hebephiles don’t see it as wrong. To my understanding 1-5% of adult men are Pedophiles/Hebephiles. A considerable amount do not molest children. Also 50% of Child Sexual Abusers are Non-Pedophilic/Non-Hebephilic.
            Child Sexual Abusers are are like any other Sexual-Predator where their are high rates of personality disorders (like Narsissism to explain the “she/he wanted it” BS), substance abuse, mental illness, and misogyny. This is espescially true for Child Sexual Abusers — whether they are attracted or not.

            Radaronline (not 100% reliable) was my source for the nephews and grooming Blanket.

            Woody Allen was/is a sick pervert. He groomed and married his adopted daughter way before the allegations of him molesting his bio-daughter ever went to news. HUGE RED FLAG!!! Why do you believe a woman would falsely accuse her Mogul-Director dad of molesting her — with evidence to back it up datingbback years. Incestous-Molestation is very embarassing for children, and the shame is probably twice as heavy. Even his own son denounced as a Sexual-Predator who molested his sister.

          • Andreas

            Difficult to say for sure, yes. I think Kathrine was adviced to walk out under the Ralph Chacron testimony, because Chacron was a witness that claimed he actually saw Michael Jackson perform an actual sexual act on a child, but I thought she was present at all the others… At least thats my understanding.

            It’s a myth that most Pedophiles/Hebephiles don’t see it as wrong. […] Many Pedophilic/Hebephilic Abusers are just trying to rationalize their deviant behavior to others and themselves.

            I see. Well, to my understanding pedophilia originates from the increased white matter in the frontal cortex of the brain, which is a mutation that mixes signals of nurture and sexual attraction. If that is correct it would follow that pedophiles are struggling with feelings that to them are completely “natural”, and that they conflate them for some kind of instinctual “nurture”. To take care of the child.

            For a pedophile to consider it ‘wrong’ would then be from a societal point of view. Pedophiles sometimes learn and reluctantly accept their own nature is harmful for the child if they engage sexually with, but most don’t. I would still expect most of pedophiles to deny society’s view, and insists their “natural feelings” to be correct. Its sort of the ol’ Nietzschean virtue, isn’t it? To judge your morals after how well they mold your own will. A lot of people tend to do that. To me it makes sense that Jackson believed he didn’t really do anything wrong. To me this theory just clicks well with Michael Jackson because he paradoxically seemed to genuinly care about suffering children. Just my view of it though.. Feel free to disagree, of course. 🙂

            Gee, well, I just don’t know about Woody Allen. (I did open this can of worms now didn’t I?) I’ve been avoiding this topic a little because I’ve liked some of his movies, and I don’t want it to be true. I’ll admit as much.. so there might be some bias with me. Anyway, its not true at all he married his own adopted daughter. He married his ex-wife Mia Farrow’s adopted asian daughter Soon-Yi. Woody had NO part in Soon-Yi upbrining as a child, and she was in her 20s when he met her, and got together with her, meaning she wasn’t underage at all. I agree its a very weird situation though, unethical arguably and controversial.. BUT on the other hand, he’s STILL with Soon-Yi after all these decades, so it wasn’t any short lived “perversion” at least.

            I personally couldn’t consider it incestious, as he 1. wasn’t her biological father, 2. he didn’t have a part in her upbringing as a child and 3. because she was in her 20s. People simply get a bad vibe because it was an adoptive daughter of his ex-wife, but its still not incest as such. And as for the unethical part of Woody cheating on Mia Farrow, Mia cheated on him too, so its not one sided.

            The other part about his real daughter, well.. gosh. First off. Mia Farrow hated Woody Allen guts, and vice versa, it was a remarkably ugly marriage… Mia Farrow had many reasons to smear him and to hurt him, not least because she lost all contact with her adoptive daughter Soon-Yi. Mia hated Woody, and I also think Mia had some mental issues, and she had a rumor of saying things that wasn’t true. She didn’t want to share their common daughter with Woody.

            So, you see, this is the tricky part for me. False accusations actually does happen, and most frequently they happen in exactly these kinds of situations as we’ve seen with Woody and Mia. When there’s an incredibly ugly divorce and an enduring custody battle over a child. So I guess the alternative explanation is that Mia Farrow ‘taught’ their daughter she was abused. Mia actually did say it back then too, but nobody took it too seriously then, because Mia said all kinds of things about Woody Allen, some definitely not true. Its now when the daugher says it too that people don’t know what to believe, and its taken more seriously.

            I’ve read the open letter by his daugher, and I thought it was strong and I suppose convincing enough, but I think Woody Allen’s answer back was strong and convincing too. So it leaves me on the fence. There’s also the fact that there’s no other child sex allegations on Woody Allen. He always dated grown women. So I sort of hang on to the idea that he might have been falsely accused, although I’m not saying I’m certain.

            On the flipside, as I’ve seen my share of Woody Allen movies, and had a friend once that was a huge fan, so I know Woody Allen was very “intellectually fascinated” by Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, and in his movie Manhattan he explored the topic of being a bit older man who dated a 17 year old girl. Clearly his ‘reply’ to the critique of him starting to date Mia Farrow’s 20 year old adoptive daughter… I actually don’t know, but to me its still not obvious either way.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            False allegations do happen, and almost all of them happen during a custody battle. But I’ve read her open letter about her father and I do not think this woman was lying. Doesn’t he like Chris Tucker, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and Prince Albert have a connection to Jeffery Epstein, or is that another Hollywood Mogul I’m mixing him up with. Read her open-letter. I just don’t believe her mother put that in her head.

            As far as Pedophilia/Hebephilia. Quite a few Pedophiles/Hebephiles are disturbed and at disease from their attractions and fantasies. (This is different from POCD, though.) A Pedophile/Hebephile is most likely to affend if they have Personality Disorders, abuse substances, have at least one Mental Illness, and lack morals. Michael was a Narcopath (Narsisstic-Sociopath), abused ALOT of drugs and alcohol, was reported by a biographer to have been diagnosed with Schizoprenia as a pubescent/post-pubescent, and had absolutely no morals.
            While Pedophilia/Hebephilia occurs due to cross-wiring of White-Matter, this doesn’t mean they all think “it’s natural” and think rape & molestation is loving. Many din’t. Rather this means that instead of wanting to nurture children, they feel sexually aroused by children. Eek.
            Listen to the Glenda tapes, watch “Joe Jackson Exposed,

          • Andreas

            About Woody Allen, I’m not saying the daughter is “lying” in her open letter per say, it could very well be honest, but it could be her mother has told her since she was little that Woody did something horrible to her, so she believes it and have false memories. This has happened in other documented circumstances. Kids can get brainwashed from very early age and “remembers” things that didn’t happen. Woody Allen wrote an open letter back to her open letter, and I thought that was well written. My main reason for skepticism is that Mia had many reasons to hate Woody Allen and try to destroy him, plus that statistically custody battles over ugly divorces are the number 1 scenarios where false allegations happen. This is exactly that type of scenario. I’m not saying its impossible though. When I say I’m on the fence it means I’m not 100% convinced Woody was innocent either. But I’m leaning that way, although I’m honestly not sure if thats partially because I want him to innocent or if I’m being “objective” about it. But Mia Farrow has credibility issues, so its not unheard of to not swallow her story without questions.

            Another thing though. I find it unfortunate that the daughter starts her letter by asking the reader about their favorite Woody Allen movie, and follows up that before the reader answers know he raped his own daugher and so on and son. Like these two things should be seen as relatable? To me thats not a good sign. It seems constructed to smear his name and reputation. Someone like, say, Wade Robson I find a lot more nuanced and believable, because he doesn’t deny Michael Jackson’s talent in the process of his allegations. He instead confirms that he thinks Jackson was incredibly talented. He also admits Michael was a “troubled man”, that he had compassion for him, but that he indeed was a child sexual abuser, and that he thinks its the right thing to come forward about it. This rules out that Wade does this over hate.

            About pedophiles.

            Rather this means that instead of wanting to nurture children, they feel sexually attracted to and sexually aroused by children.

            But if the wiring in their brain mixes these signals, as the research suggests, it means they actually do conflate these feelings. They have real problems differantiating, because thats how their brain works. When they are honest with their feelings that what feels “right” to them, and they have no idea their brain isn’t working like it should. I don’t know if you’ve read the two interview books with Michael Jackson by Rabbi Schmuley? They’re full of Jackson talking about children, and to me he’s undenably worried and caring about suffering children. He sat up child care foundations, gave a lot of money, and spent a lot of his free time visiting orphanages and so on. To me it seems real, although I definitely can understand those who says it was just to deflect the child molestation rumours from him. But it all seems real to me. In some of the outtakes of the Bashir documentary he starts sulking about children that ends up doing school massacres and so on, and talks sobbingly about them just not being “loved” enough.. I think because of the way pedophile’s brain develop they mix the feelings of care and sexual attraction. Their brains are simply not functioning right.

            I don’t know if I consider Michael Jackson “mean spirited”. I’m sure had his bad days, but from my reading of him, I think most of his intense cutting out people from his life has more to do with paranoia. He didn’t know who to trust. I think when people in his staff started questioning him having little boys dressed like him around him all the time, he would start contemplating replacing them, but I think it was out of fear for the most part. Frank Cascio also explains in his book that Michael started to surround himself more and more with “yes”-people. People who would kiss his ass, and never challenge him. I don’t know about him being a sociopath (or a psychopath). I would definitely agree he’s a narcissist though, including all feelings of entitlement that comes along with it. He was also very superstious in many ways, which I think adds to him lacking rational skills. He told Rabbi Schmuley Omer Bhatti was like a gift from above, and it sounds like he meant it. Bizarre. The way he molested these children sexually also seems to indicate he was a “giver”. He seemed to want the victims to experience pleasure, more than himself. That probably adds to him not understanding how he was harming anyone. There was never any physical force involved. To a degree I think he “cared” about the children, at least as long as he was still interested in them. When they were ‘out of date’ however, or he found someone else, I suspect he cut some of them off.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I know what you’re saying. But I think it would be very hard for a mother to implant false memories of recent events inside a 7-year-old’s head — as opposed to a let’s say a two-to-four-year-old. I’ve read her open-letter and it was sincere — and quite sad and angry at various people. Supposedly Woody had to go to therapy for a while (before it was out in media) for have Pedophilic desires towards Dylan Farrow. Even her brother spoke out in her defense.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I have a hard time believing most Pedophiles/Hebephiles feel this way because a significant percentage are distressed by their attractions, thoughts, and fantasies. And many Pedophilic/Hebephilic Sexual-Predators will confess to knowing that what their doing is wrong, even if a significant percentage claim they think it is “loving”.

          • Andreas

            I have a hard time believing most Pedophiles/Hebephiles feel this way because a significant percentage are distressed by their attractions, thoughts, and fantasies.

            Sure, but they’re not living in a vacuum. They’re aware of that society and people at large are disgusted by it, and that if they’re outed as a pedophile their “life is over”, as MJ told Safechuck. Of course that makes pedophiles desires complex, because following their pursuit of being physical with children it obviously would be quite an extreme risk-or-reward scenario. They either manage to get away with it, or else its the end of their careers or perhaps even their life. (There’s quite a few butch guys out there who love to be the hero that smashes up the serial pedophile for good, even if that means them landing in jail for murder.)

            I suppose you’re saying that Jordans levitation story by Jackson was just him talking BS to ‘get his way’ with Jordan? Okay, its of course possible.. but I sort of think Jackson really meant it. That he really thought this way. That he considered people who saw that sex with children was fine are ‘unconditioned’, and that those who’s not are ‘conditioned’. I suspect Michael Jackson really meant that, but he understood that most people couldn’t understand it because of what he considered ‘ignorance’.

            But I’m not saying every child molester thinks so, but the type that Jackson and Sandusky was, or anyone involved with NAMBLA, I would label that way. At least.

            I read an interview with a pedophile that said he had understood he couldn’t initiate with children, through extensive therapy, but he still insisted that him loving and sexually desiring a child was a great and loving thing. This pedophile liked 4 year old little boys.

            About Woody Allen: Have you read his open letter back to Dylan?
            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?_r=0

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Pedophilic/Hebephilic Sexual Abusers do almost everything for their own gratification, as they are very Narsisstic and self-centered. Everything is about them in their minds, like other Sexual-Predators. A lot of things Jackson was accused of doing to boys seemed to me to be for his own gratification, specifically. Jordan’s claims include being made to masturbate Jackson, and suck his nipples while Jackson masturbated. Wade’s claims includes being manipulated into getting on all fours as Jackson masturbated to the sight (Horrible!), mutual fondling, mutual masturbation, mutual oral rape, and anal rape. This is all so gross to type, but shows that for Jackson a lot of this was about Jackson.
            He would also get some of them drunk and high in an attempt to abuse them if you believe Feldman, Arvizo, and Carter.
            I think in his case, MJ needed to convince himself he genuinely cared about kids so he could make-believe he was different from his own abusers. He’d never want to see himself like the adult-men who violated him, espescially Joe Jackson who he admitted to the Rabbi he feared and hated, and even vomited when seeing.

          • e would also get some of them drunk and high in an attempt to abuse them

            The alcohol and drugs were just giving boys what MJ thought they wanted. This “being naughty” is part of the grooming process by pedophiles which serve two purposes, to bring the abuser closer to the boys and to give them some leverage when keeping secrets — boys are less likely to disclose abuse if they think they will get into trouble for drinking or doing drugs.

            With younger boys, MJ gave them what they wanted including toys, video games, trips to Disneyland etc. It’s all part of the grooming process.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Yeah, I agree with you. Teen boys would think he was awesome and the coolest adult ever, and unfortunately the substances would lower the inhibitions as the Heterosexual Adult-Porn would sexually entice them. Horrible.

            Young boys would want the “innocent stuff” and could be more easily brainwashed.

            I remember he took Emmanuel Lewis, Johnathan Spence, and Corey Feldman to Disneyland though, and they were Pubescent at those times.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I thought you would’ve wanted to see this. This 1996 short-movie, music-video supports the point of view (I’m a bit iffy on it) regarding MJ believing he was in the right for acting on his PedoHebephilic urges, and society is in the wrong for viewing it as “immoral” and “evil”. In it, is the subtext that MJ thought Sneddon and the larger public were persecuting him for acting on his PedoHebephilia. The subtext can also go a bit deeper, with MJ portraying himself as an odd, dark, sinister character (he is symbolized by a crow in the beginning — which is usually portrayed as an evil animal in Fiction — and lives in a creepy mansion that states “Somewhere Else” as opposed to the town that is for “normal people” where it is “a great place to raise kids”) that still doesn’t mean to “hurt anybody” but does what he does “for fun” …

            Michael Jackson — “Ghosts”

            https://youtu.be/LIxgUMA9iwU

            It’s his creepiest video yet …

          • I’ve always considered that MJ’s video confession. Look at all the young boys he cast and put in the forefront, the adults think he’s a monster but the boys “love” him and think he’s cool. The evil Mayor, a representation of Sneddon who tried to take away his enjoyment with boys, gets annihilated so from then on MJ gets to do what he wants without interference. It’s MJ’s fantasy.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            It was so creepy. It’s like he was embracing it and rubbing it in our faces. People said he did the same thing with his “HIStory” promo where a young, blond boy shouts “Michael, I love you”. That promo was the first thing the public saw of him after the 1993 allegations.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            As a survivor I can tell you that everyone’s reactions to their abusers is different. If my father/step-father molested/raped me I’d hate him with a burning passion until the day I died and couldn’t care less about his talent. Wade was a Jackson fan from 2-years-old and has always said “You can think what you want. You can’t deny the guys’ talent”. There may be other Victims of Jackson out there who may genuinely hate him almost as much as Dylan hates her dad. And, IMO, Wade and James are partially doing these lawsuits to “expose” Jackson for who he was — which they have every right to do. That’s what Dylan’s letter was about. It was not a “smear campaign”. It was her truth, every bit as Wade’s TODAY interview was his. Dylan was stating what many have stated about the Entertainmnt Industry — supporting it is supporting the sexualization and victimization of Children.

          • Andreas

            No, I’m not saying a victim can’t be angry about their abuser being famous, wanting to ruin their success, or what have you… You are probably right people could react differently to that. Its not crazy that some victims could act like that. Its more that I’d find an account of not attacking Woody Allen as an artist in their first sentence less suspicious. Its because just goes hand in hand with the allegation being a smear campaign. If she said something like “Woody Allen is a great movie maker, and I don’t want to take that away from him… but there’s something you should know”, it’d hit me a LOT harder. Does that make sense?

            I’ve read a bit about the Woody Allen allegations today, and I still find myself a bit torn on what to believe. It could be either.

            Dr. John M. Leventhal, who was leading the investigation against Allen back then, and who interviewed Dylan Farrow nine times when she was a child, concluded Dylan was not telling the truth, saying she in the interviews had changed key facts several times and said she had “a rehearse quality”. Leventhal concluded: “We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements that were made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination.”

            According to Woody Allens reply in his open mail, Dylan’s brother Moses said: “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister. Of course Woody did not molest my sister. Dylan loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.” Woody Allens sister also claimed Mia at one point said “He took my daughter, now I’ll take his!”. And convenient enough, the allegations came right after Woody Allen started dating Mia’s adoptive daughter, not before.

            On the other hand, you’re right that a 7 year old is a bit old to be brainwashing. I didn’t know she was that old. I thought she was younger, but it still might be possible. I actually didn’t know there was an investigation back then. Maureen Orth has also written a pretty good piece on this defending Mia Farrow, with some pretty valid points that made me pause.. a little.

            So yep, I’m officially sort of torn on this.

            Even though I’m still leaning on him being innocent, I guess the ghost of doubt that haunts my mind is that I know Woody Allen was very much a fan of Vladimir Nabokov and his very famous Lolita book. I remember the book being mentioned many times in his Manhatten movie. Its not that bad in it self, as the book has made its rounds in intellectual literature circles, and is considered some kind of a classic by many, but it still looks shady being a fan of that book when you have a questionable molestation allegation against an underage girl on you.

            Oh well, lets take the rest of this debate over at WoodyAllenFacts.com, shall we…

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I understand you being torn. Even though I was born in the 1990s and not a huge-fan of MJ and deep-down believed he was a Sexual-Predator, apart of me didn’t want it to be true. I wish he really was an innocent man-child that was simply trying to relive his childhood to be more positive than what it was. But nope. I realized utter it fully to myself and others a few years before he died.
            I didn’t mean to get into a debate about Woody on MJFacts. Lol.

          • ShawntayUStay

            If I may insert my opinion about Woody Allen, I think your gut instinct is right, Andreas.

            It’s extremely clear to me that Dylan Farrow is the victim of parental alienation syndrome whereby her narcissistic mother Mia poisoned her against her father. Woody Allen so very obviously loved this kid. Mia’s motivation was simple: payback for him taking away her object/daughter, Soon-Yi, from her personally cultivated Rainbow Coalition of children. Mia Farrow fancies herself as a child savior so I’m not surprised she’d stoop so low. Not only that, Mia has also very clearly poisoned Ronan Farrow against Woody Allen, too. Those two kids, Dylan and Ronan, were the only kids Woody had with Mia and she, like any narcissist on the war path, used them. (Ironic for Mia to get so angry when she herself cheated with Frank Sinatra!)

            Dylan was 7. Unlike what some strangely believe, 7 years of age is very easily brainwashed by a parent. If adults can get sucked into cults and the like, why not a child manipulated at the hands of her parent? There was no evidence ever found, only the word of a woman scorned. I think that should be enough for most reasonable people to stop labeling Woody Allen a “pedophile”. His relationship with Soon-Yi was in the stars, not to mention completely legal. They’re still together as you pointed out. They have two daughters, neither of which have claimed abuse.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            His employees talk of him being VERY Antisemitic (Didn’t he collect Nazi stuff) also and VERY Xenophobic & mean-spirited towards them and anyone he didn’t want something out of. That’s the way his employees who knew him and lived at Hayvenshust & Neverland discribbed him. Besides his victims, they knew him best.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            MJ’s giving boys alcohol and weed, and showing them X-rated Adult-Pornography, tells me he didn’t want to “nurture” kids, as well. He had one goal, and one goal only — to molest boys.

            Many of Jackson’s employees have stated he was a mean-spirited, angry man that cared about nothing and no one, and only was nice to someone if he wanted something out of them. A few stated he didn’t care about the charities and it was for his PR image. Interesting. And I wonder how true that is. Because of his deathbed words I did actually think he thought he cared about children (of both genders) to some degree but still acted on fantasies because he was Narsissitic and selfish. Maybe I was wrong.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            As far as Latoya’s, Jermaine’s, and James’ words, I 100% believe Katherine knew.

            If she enabled her sexually-abusive husband and allowed him to molest/rape their children, and stood by and allowed Michael to be “pimped-out” by Joe to various Industry men (God, no wonder he hated his family!), why wouldn’t she enable her meal-ticket and “momma’s boy” Michael?

          • Michele

            Really? He molested his own son? What legit source do you have that confims that?

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I’m starting to wonder if Corey may have some undiagnosed mental-illness, like his mother has. He may not, but I wonder.

            He also seems like he is back on drugs ever since he had to discuss he and Haim’s abuse by Hollywood perverts.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I’m SO happy that Wade Robson’s son Koa Robson has helped him to see that MJ was preying on his innocence and sexually-exploiting him, not “loving” him. And, I think MJ knew that too, despite the BS he sprewed to them to get them to be compliant and the manipulation he used to keep them silent.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I looked up John Grissom, too, BTW. I’ve seen him in “Liscence To Drive”, “Dream A Little Dream”, and his YouTube channel. I definitely believe this man is one of Feldman’s abusers along with Alphy Hoffman. Those two I’m certain of.
            Michael Jackson is definetly another I definetly think was abusive to a pubescent Feldman. But until his movie based on “Coreyography” comes out (in which he’s hinted he may reveal the real names and identities of his and Haim’s abusers), we may never know for sure. I feel this movie-deal (along with Wade & James’ lawsuits) is why he stated what he did to Diane Diamond.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I’m VERY annoyed at Jackson’s fans using Corey as “proof” Jackson wasn’t a Child Sexual Abuser. (IMO, his Pedo-Books and his employee’s & James’ statements about Jackson’s Child-Porn proves Jackson was at the very least a PedoHebephile! And most Non-Offending Pedophiles/Hebephiles, usually don’t “tempt” themselves by being around unrelated children belonging to their gender-preference/age-preference!) Even though I do believe Corey was abused by Jackson, even if he wasn’t, that doesn’t prove anything. One person’s experience with another, doesn’t equate to everyone’s experience with that individual.

          • James’ statements about Jackson’s Child-Porn

            Which statements are those Queen?

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I remember James’ complaint containing an accusation that MJ gave him alcohol and showed him Homosexual Adult-Porn & Child-Porn featuring children masturbating in “The Hideout”.

          • That’s right, he did too, in his complaint. Although I believe the “child porn” would have been movies such as those favoured by pedophiles, coming of age movies (such as You Are Not Alone and Pelle the Conqueror) and naturist films.

        • Like, why was Corey Feldman put in deposition at the police in 1993 to talk about Jackson to begin with?

          Could there have been an actual reason why Sgt. Deborah Linden and Detective Russ Birchim had brought him in to talk about Michael Jackson? Or are we just to assume it was completely random, and for no reason at all?

          The police found Michael Jackson’s telephone index from the 1993 Neverland raid which contained the numbers of around 30 boys, and they tried to interview therm all. One could surmise that Corey’s number was in there.

      • Fudhux

        I find this weird that Feldman said that MJ did ” real damage ” in his life . I mean he left him and ended the friendship but is that real damage ?

        I wonder what he means by real damage ? There is probably more to it . Maybe it’s just because he was very young and that it affected him a lot . But really ? Can you be that hit over a friendship break up ?

        Also , does anyone know if Feldman actually slept in MJ’s bed ? That’s one of the signs that he might have been molested .

        • Andreas

          Oh yeah, back in the mid-80s Corey slept many times over with Michael Jackson in the same bedroom at Hayvenhurst, and sometimes in hotels. He has also admitted in a documentary by Martin Bashir(“Michael Jackson Secret Life”) that Jackson once demanded porn to be present when they went to bed. Michael once showed him a strange book with naked children with diseases. They had been drinking alcohol together as well alone. There were also trips together to Disneyland and stuff like that. He just never admitted any actual abuse by Jackson.

          Now, Martin Bashir was a bit sneaky with Corey Feldman.. because I think he told Corey they were shooting a special on Corey and his life, and they even supposedly filmed enough material to cover a whole special about Corey Feldman. Inside this Bashir finally managed to get Corey to talk about his relationship with Jackson, and it was here Corey eventually opened up about some of their relationship. The sleepovers, the alcohol, the porn and the nude children book. In the end Martin Bashir was only interested in this little segment, and thats only thing he used. He basically tricked Corey to talk about it.

        • Kat

          Personally I never thought Corey Feldman was molested by MJ. To me he was the one person that did say the truth when stating that MJ acted weirdly for a grown man, but didn’t do anything sexual to him. By acting weirdly I mean having an obsession with children, insisting on sleepovers and having adult-themed books lying around, but not actually abusing Corey.

          I think so because Corey has been open about being molested and pedophilia in Hollywood in general, so I don’t he would admit to being abused by one pedophile and then defend another. But then on the other hand I don’t really know a ton Coreys and Michaels relationship.

          Corey has certainly been saying both good and bad about MJ doing the years, while always being firm on not being molested by him. However he has said that he has had doubts (about Jackson’s lack of guilt) and I think also that he wouldn’t let his son sleep in one bed with a grown man.

          What Corey was referring to was likely Jackson cutting him off at a certain age, and Corey no longer being welcome to hang out with him after he had reached puberty. Corey has also said that Jackson’s obsession with children was so big that once they reached teenage years he lost interest in them and exchanged him for younger pals.

          • I’m with you Kat, for all the reasons you’ve stated. If anything happened Corey would have come out with it, yet he hasn’t.

          • Andreas

            I’m with you Kat, for all the reasons you’ve stated. If anything happened Corey would have come out with it, yet he hasn’t.

            Thats an odd conclusion considering Corey has revealed he had four abusers in showbiz when he was a child, but infamously has refused to reveal who these people are till this day. Everybody is egging on Corey to reveal who his abusers are.

            When Corey was 12-13 he was introduced to Jackson through Steven Spielberg, as he was a huge fan of MJ. He ended up continuously sleeping in bed with Jackson, dressing like him, dancing with him, going to Disneyland with him.. drinking alcohol together alone, being special friend to Jackson, someone he thought he could contact, and look after him — but suddenly ‘cut off’ when he was too old. Its a familiar pattern. Its of course the stereotype description of a Jackson victim.

            At this point I’m fairly certain he was molested by Jackson, its even obvious I would say, but each to their own and so on.

            There’s some sympathy and strange dependence towards Jackson from Corey that could seem cloudy, but we’ve seen the same from other victims of Jackson, so not even that is unique.

            Corey being an attentionseeker or not talented or whatever that has been said around here is fine to think.. but I don’t for the life of me understand the relevance, as it obviously is irrelevant to if he was molested by Jackson or not.

          • Kat

            Well yes, Corey has said that he was abused by very famous men and that pedophiles surrounded him ‘like vultures’ when he was fourteen and that Hollywood’s biggest kept secret is pedophilia… But he has remained adamant that he was never molested by Michael Jackson, and the strange thing is that I believe him.

            Unlike Macauley Culkin or Brett Barnes or Frank Cascio Corey actually seems credible when denying that anything sexual took place. The way he speaks about MJ in interviews makes me think that he got lucky – unlike other boys that Jackson befriended Corey got to experience a different side of him – that the two actually had something like a friendship, that Corey didn’t get used and then discarded like many others.

            Corey’s openess about the sexual abuse and the trauma it carried makes me think that he wouldn’t protect a molester or continue praising him; he’d just tell it like it is, considering he has already told so much without worrying how it will impact his carrier or how others see him. Also, with Corey there are no eye witnesses, no third parties claiming to see that something happened, as it is with many other suspected victims, so I don’t have that to go by.

            As for Woody Allen, I’m undecided. Dylan definitely seems believable, especially in her recounts of depression and substance abuse (these are not the consequences of false memories and couching, but of actual sexual abuse), but then Woody seems believable in not being a pedophile. Like, there is no evidence that he is into five year old girls. Also the arrangement of hooking up with the seventeen year old daughter (Sun-yi) to cover up molesting the seven year old (Dylan) is just… strange, to say the least. So yeah, don’t know about that one.

          • I’m also thinking about MJ’s legendary cautiousness with boys. Corey wasn’t “innocent” like MJ’s other boys, he knew that the “love” that MJ was trying to sell was really abuse, so MJ wouldn’t like to take a risk with him.

            Corey has also earlier spoken of MJ being his “place of happiness” which I translate to meaning that MJ knew of Corey’s other abuse. If MJ knew about it, he probably didn’t want to touch Corey as he may have viewed him as “sullied” plus like many pedophiles he may have been troubled that a boy had been “forced” into having sex and was sympathetic towards Corey for that reason.

          • Andreas

            But he has remained adamant that he was never molested by Michael Jackson, and the strange thing is that I believe him.(…) The way he speaks about MJ in interviews makes me think that he got lucky

            I used to think so too, actually. “Okay Corey, calm down I believe you…” Not anymore though. He clearly was molested. I have no doubt. If you look more closely a lot of the things he has said, and the way he has acted towards Jackson makes anything close to sense if he wasn’t molested.

            Like the clip where he says Jackson was so innocent that he couldn’t even swear around him. Thats obviously not true, because Martin Bashir tricked him into telling Jackson and him drank alcohol and saw porn together, and in 2005 he said Neverland was not a place for children. It contradicts his first comment. Meaning Corey lied. There’s many examples like that.

            Then there’s the fact that Michael wanted to stop his book, and claimed he would sue Corey, because he thought it was about him and their relationship. Michael was threatning with a lawsuit. His deposition is full of stallings and ramblings that makes it quite obvious he is hiding something. There’s not a lot of options what that could be. He of course was molested, but wouldn’t disclose it.

            Corey didn’t get used and then discarded like many others.

            He was discarded by Jackson. That much he has said many times. When he was 14-15 Jackson just broke Corey off, and Corey said he was extremely traumatized by that. The question is if Michael molested him beforehand. I think it makes more sense to be so traumatized if he felt used by Jackson. I also think his whole Jackson obsession clearly shows he has his inner demons to struggle with about Jackson. I really don’t question this anymore at all.

          • Kat

            That’s all fine and all – valid points I suppose… But how do you reconcile Corey’s frankness about sexual abuse in Hollywood and not hiding being molested by multiple men or some sort of pedophile ring with pretending that nothing happened between him and MJ, when it actually did? Unlike other victims Corey was never too well groomed to think that abuse was love, nor does he seem to think of experiences as shameful or damaging to an actor’s career.

            It doesn’t really fit together with him protecting Michael and still being under the impression that his devious actions were loving, or that the two were best buddies. Or that he would think there’s shame in admitting that something sexual did happen.

          • Andreas

            how do you reconcile Corey’s frankness about sexual abuse in Hollywood and not hiding being molested by multiple men or some sort of pedophile ring with pretending that nothing happened between him and MJ, when it actually did?

            When he’s been best buddies with MJ at the time when he was 13, had a period sleepovers, and Corey explaning that he’s been molested by not one person, but several people, saying pedophilia is the big secret in Hollywood, but won’t mention names, obviously someone would push him on if this someone is Michael Jackson. Jackson is the one person people know about with child molestation allegations over him, after all. Nobody knows who Jon Grissom is, Corey’s personal assistant when he was a child actor, one of his other abusers, so nobody asks about him.

            If a victim isn’t ready to disclose he or she isn’t ready, so when pushed for an answer a denial isn’t too weird. Its the only thing they can do. What do think they should say? “I have no comment”? “Maybe, but I’m not telling”? “I’ll tell you when I’m ready”? You obviously can’t say that. Denial is the only option if you’re not ready to disclose it. Or would you expect Corey to casually on a TV show drop that Jackson molested him?

            In 2005 Corey came out and defended the victim, and again, he said Neverland wasn’t a place for children. Why? Because he knew Jackson was a pedophile. It was a warning for people not to send their kids to Jackson. The police found mails at Marc Schaffels computer documenting Jackson’s people were talking about how to deal with Corey. Michael obviously was worried about Corey.

            Why he won’t disclose Jackson is not a bad question, or why he is protecting/defending him, but I don’t see it any differently than with Brett Barnes or Frank Cascio or Macaulay Culkin or pre-Wade Robson. Its the same thing in my opinion. I don’t think Corey wants to be the person that buries Jackson, and he has some sympathy to Jackson, conflicted feelings and so on.

            When Diane Dimond egged on him on twitter, Corey wanted e-mail contact with Diane, because as he put it, he felt their roads would cross quite soon. Why? Because he still has untold things to say about Michael. I’m honestly not sure why this isn’t obvious to you people? Its not exactly rocket science or anything.. its clear as day he was molested by Jackson. Its the only logical answer that fits the bill. 🙂

            PS: Shawntay. Hey. I see your comment. I guess my comments to Kat covers your questions too. I feel like I’m repeating myself from the conversations with Queens Of Swords too.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Then there’s the fact that Michael wanted to stop his book, and claimed he would sue Corey, because he thought it was about him and their relationship. Michael was threatning with a lawsuit.

            Well to be fair, MJ also said the same thing to Lisa Marie Presley, namely, don’t talk about me in public. She promised she wouldn’t and likewise, he did the same. She only breached her end of the bargain when she saw him saying stuff about her: “All bets are off, buddy.” was her quote.

            MJ was notoriously private and use confidentiality agreements even with fans who came to visit Neverland. I doubt they had an abuse story to tell! So, given the ubiquitous use of privacy contracts plus Corey Feldman’s own words that nothing ever happened besides those two (relatively minor) incidents, I think it’s safe to say nothing can be gleaned from MJ’s alleged legal threat on Feldman.

          • Andreas

            Here’s what Corey said: “Michael had some paranoid delusion that I had some ill-fated intentions to write some sort of book about him, which was categorically untrue. What happened next was basically, the way I perceived it, is that he threatened my life.”
            http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0058002/

            I’m sure Michael wanted to control his image, like you say, but I doubt he THREATENED most people’s life of people if they entered and left Neverland. You can’t mean such a harsh reaction from Jackson is comparable to Lisa Marie and Michael agreeing not talk about eachother in public? Honestly? I don’t see any connections.

            I’m still sort of baffled that this isn’t obvious.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            It’s obvious to anyone that has researched Corey’s statements regarding MJ from 1993 until today, that MJ started grooming Corey when he was 12, had sleepovers between him and Feldman at Hayvenshurst/Feldman’s house/Hotels, introduced him to alcohol & demanded porn be at his house when MJ visited, most likely at least attempted to — if not succeeding in molesting him, and “threw him away” like Sean Lennon & James Safechuck when he showed advanced signs of puberty. For Goodness sakes, he threatened this man’s life when he thought he was writing a book on their “friendship” back in 2001. It’s painfully obvious Corey was one of his victims. Not stating that Feldman wasn’t victimized by John Grissom & Alphy Hoffman, but I honestly think MJ was one of his victimizers as well. But like Brett Barnes and Frank Cascio, he defends him now.

            I like Ricky Segall a bit more because while he denies Michael ever abused him, he stated specifically that this was his own experience. Unlike Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, Taj Jackson, Frank Cascio and Corey Feldman he never denied someone else’s experiences. Sean Lennon was like this until very recently, as well. I think Wade’s & James’ accusation were apart of what inspired him to make that video (not saying he was or wasn’t abused by Michael).

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I found it laughable when Feldman insisted MJ didn’t curse, or abuse substances. Almost all the other boys state he cursed, drank alcohol, and smoked weed in some combination — even someone like Frank Cascio.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Non-Pedophilic/Non-Hebephilic Child Sexual Abusers exist, and Woody can also be one of them. My first abuser (who continued abusing children into adolescence & adulthood) was one of them.

          • I wonder if Corey is close to putting an end to the speculation…

            https://twitter.com/Corey_Feldman/status/777983321695326208

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I thought I was the only one that thought the “close friend” of Haim’s that will go on a Primetime Television to say everything could be Feldman … Whether it’s him or not, I hope this man/woman is kept safe. Charlie Sheen is dangerous and has ordered hits on multiple people … His latest adult-female victim’s accusations include that he ordered a hit on her ex-husband and she fears he may do the same to her …

          • ShawntayUStay

            At this point I’m fairly certain he was molested by Jackson, its even obvious I would say, but each to their own and so on.

            Really? What evidence can you proffer that would support this conclusion, Andreas? I mean, you’re free to have this opinion but I’ve yet to see anything presented that weighs more heavily than Corey Feldman’s own words that while he was abused by powerful men in Hollywood, MJ was absolutely not one of them.

            Kat is correct, in my opinion. He’s been exceedingly vocal, almost to the point where I personally wonder if he’s milking it. So he has little incentive not to name MJ if he was indeed one of his abusers. Especially now that MJ is dead. Corey likes to lament about him being muzzled because of SOL concerns and him being used for libel — which would not even be relevant because despite alleged statute of limitation concerns, those men would have to prove what he said is false, i.e. they aren’t abusers, and that Feldman was saying these obviously false things maliciously. (So for me, it begs the question: What is Corey waiting for? A pay off from these guys? He keeps dangling unnamed men on a stick but he doesn’t do a damned thing!)

            Instead, Corey runs the opposite direction, embracing not only MJ, but also his image, which he has copied since…forever. Did he do this with his other abusers? I mean if this is his thing, we should see hints of the others, right? The most logical answer is that this highly outspoken abuse survivor wasn’t abused by Michael Jackson.

        • Lots of people have been damaged by MJ. He had a habit of making people think they were the bestest friends ever, only later to have MJ dump them unceremoniously when he was bored with them or he couldn’t get him what he wanted.He would just change his phone number and instruct his people not to allow that person access any more.

          It’s a pattern seen with boys and adults alike. That can really hurt people, they come away confused and pained. Many people react by continuing to live in hope that their “best friend” will come back to them and continue to speak glowingly of MJ even though he has moved on and probably forgotten about them entirely. Some show flashes of bitterness as Corey has done (you can also see this behavior in MJ’s brother Jermaine) but they always come back to their hope that MJ will show them some love again.

          Even though MJ is dead, Corey feels a loyalty to him for whatever reason.

  • The Queen Of Swords

    I’m a little creeped out. So a journalist just wrote an article stating that a slightly-off female Jackson family member (Latoya Jackson) warned her that MJ & his associates would murder “Dee Dee” Jackson because apparently she was wanted to expose MJ as a Child Sexual Abuser, after he inquired about a male child close to “Dee Dee” and her family. This was a month before her murder.

    Now, while MJ has indirectly and directly threatened numerous people — Adrian McManus, Blanca Francia, one of the Jackson brothers who talked to Santa Babara Police, Corey Feldman …etc., I was just hoping she was saying BS, and that Dee Dee was murdered as a result of Domestic Violence like most female murder victims. So I looked up details about her murderer, and found out he was only dating her for three months when she was murdered (beaten, chocked, put in the water to look like she drowned). If there indeed had been a hit on this woman, surely the hit would have been ordered within months of the murder. Creepy. This same murderer was VERY interconnected in Hollywood. I don’t know. I hope it was a Domestic dispute between a newly-formed couple and not something even more sinister. Plus, a hit an would surely know how to kill and dispose a dead body in a place that is not on their own property, so the murder does not connect back to them nor any of their accomplices.

    • The Queen Of Swords

      To clarify my statement, I do not think MJ is to blame for Dee Dee’s death. Her words were just disturbing, because he may have indeed wanted this woman dead — even if, as I think, he had nothing to do with her murder. Just clearing this up.

  • Pingback: How Celebrity Culture Prevents us from Seeing Rape Culture (A Couple of Stories I Haven’t Told) – Emily Holding()

  • The Queen Of Swords

    I agree with you 100%. Atleast you searched for, and gradually over time realized the truth.

    As a survivor of Child Sexual Abuse, I knew MJ was a Child Sexual Abuser since I was 10 in 2003, but I only fully admitted to myself a few years before he died.

    And yes, I believe he was one of the most successfully conning, lying, self-centered, deceitful, manipulative, Narsisstic, Psychopathic, Child-Molesters that ever existed.
    I just hope Wade Robson, James Safechuck Jr., and their lawyers are successful at proving it — for their sakes, so that other victims could feel free to speak their own truths, and so that it can longer be denied by fanatics and Mainstream-Media.

  • The Queen Of Swords

    I find it SO ironic that Feldman (whether one of his abusers was MJ or not) says he is standing against Child-Molesters & sexual exploitation in Hollywood, but boosts up MJ (probably one of the biggest Industry-Abusers of all time) and exploits willing-women with that “Cory’s Angels” bullshit. If memory serves me correct that a rip-off of creepy, Woman-Beating, Child-Born-watching, Child-Molesting, Charlie Sheen’s group for exploiting women. You know the same “Huge Hollywood Star” (in Ham’s own words on “The Two Cores”) who first raped him on the set of “Lucas”.

    Nice job Corey, you’re setting a great example for your son.

    • The Queen Of Swords

      The person who is REALLY doing something (yes, I know Feldman is an advocate to abolish the statue of limitations in the state of California) to help stop Hollywood-Abuse is ironically … WADE ROBSON!

      https://www.google.com/amp/www.people.com/people/article/amp/0,,21030601,00.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

      (Read the article! His lawyer states he also wants to get to the bottom of how MJ Productions & MJJ Ventures operated as a Child Sexual Abuse Ring, so that the World can put a stop to this in the Industry and make sure this never happens again, to protect children in the future.)

      • The Queen Of Swords

        Can’t believe I forgot Feldman was born the Summer of 1971, and therefore can’t due to “The Statue Of Limitations” in California which ended for him when he turned 27 in 1998. Santa Barbara Police fucked him over.

  • The Queen Of Swords

    Johnathan’s bio-dad was dead, and he never really liked his step-dad. He may have even disliked his step-dad. MJ would have viewed this poor boy as “easy prey”. 🙁

  • I think MJ was inappropriate with Corey, but I don’t believe he molested him. For one thing, Corey is a bit of an attention whore and he could get plenty of attention saying MJ molested him but he hasn’t said anything like that.

  • Thank you so much for sharing Mezza.

    It can be hard when you first come to terms with MJ’s true nature, if there is anything you want to talk about feel free to leave more comments.

  • The Queen Of Swords

    As soon as MJJ Productions & MJJ Ventures are found liable in Wade’s childhood-victimization at the hands of MJ she’ll talk about how much she initially believed the man was a PedoHebephilic-Predator, and that the only accuser she didn’t believe was Gavin Arvizo — despite the fact he never filed a Civil Lawsuit or took money from the Media in exchange for an interview. Heck, she’ll write another book — but this time one about how the Mainstream-Media didn’t report evidence he was a PedoHebephilic-Abuser … I can see it now.

    • As soon as MJJ Productions & MJJ Ventures are found liable in Wade’s childhood-victimization at the hands of MJ

      That is not a definite. It’s a complex case that needs to go to the jury to be legally proved.

      • The Queen Of Swords

        Yeah, I forgot about that. I saw that they wanted a Jury trial in the recent complaint.
        Wade wants an Australia trial and since Non-Americans tend to be less celebrity-obsessed I think he stands a better chance IF that happens. If it’s in California, then I don’t know …

        • Wade can’t have a trial in Australia, not sure what gave you that idea. The trial (if it goes ahead) will happen at the Santa Monica Courthouse unless it gets changed to a different Los Angeles one.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I read that he wanted it there, when we found out he got new lawyers and wanted MJ’s victims that are gagged to be un-gagged. I thought that sounded a bit ridiculous and probably impoosible, but that it was something his new lawyers requested.

          • No, his lawyers have never said they want the trial in Australia. They have requested that people be released from confidentiality agreements.

      • Mezza

        I hope he gets the witnesses to back him and especially more than the ones from 2005, because they can use testimony’s on every single one of them. i hope he has found more men to come forward.

        • The Queen Of Swords

          I don’t know how true this is or not. But I read some parts of Diane Diamond’s “Be careful Who You Love”. It was stated there were some concerned Security Guards from the arpartment building/condo that “The Hideout” was located at. Apparently these men saw a small young, Wade going back and forth between MJ’s place and Joy’s Hotel room late, late at night …

          … It’s too bad you can’t sue your parents.

          If true, I hope his lawyer can find out their names and call them into court.

          Also, if true, Joy is P.O.S. She would have had to know what was going on. Why would a grown man demand to sleep with your little boy for a few hours a night?

          • Apparently these men saw a small young, Wade going back and forth between MJ’s place and Joy’s Hotel room late, late at night …

            That is confirmed by Joy Robson herself. When MJ finished work late at night he would call up Joy and ask her to deliver Wade to his Westwood condo across the street from her hotel.

            http://www.mjfacts.com/how-michael-jackson-called-up-and-had-a-boy-delivered-to-his-door/

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Do you think — unlike June Chandler, Blanca Francia, Janet Arvizo, and Mrs. Safechuck — that after a while Joy Robson not only knew but let it go on to benefit Wade’s future career in the Entertainment Industry? (I mean reading one thing on here made me also question the mother of Brett Barnes.) I also read in that book of a distraught father who was abused by his uncle as a boy but kept it secret from his parents for 30 years and thought MJ molested his son, but when threatened with not being able to see his son, he made peace with his ex and MJ. I’ve seen others online apply this to Wade & his parents. If true, it may explain apart of the reason Wade’s victimization contributed to his father’s stress and anxiety — and ultimately his suicide.

          • Do you think Joy Robson not only knew but let it go on to benefit Wade’s future career in the Entertainment Industry?

            I believe it would have been hard for her to ignore obvious red flags, but in the court documents it states that Joy was duped into trusting MJ so make of that what you will.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I watched a doc on MJ where there were claims that mothers often asked him to help jump-start their talented kid’s careers. Only the parents of boys were responded to, of course. And Diane & Victor argued that frustrated stage-parents were practically “offering their kid up” after many unsuccessful attempts to get into the Entertainment Industry. It kind of makes sense, because I don’t believe the moms (and dads) could all be so stupid. I genuninely believe June & Janet were naive, but for some reason I have a hard time believing Joy was completely naive. Even her stressing MJ was not like other men didn’t convince me. Like you stated — too many “red flags”!
            Hopefully for Wade’s sake I’m wrong.

        • The Queen Of Swords

          I heard (not sure how true this is) that Wade and his lawyers have been contacted by several men that have been gagged by MJ. Again, not sure how true this is.

        • First, the case has to make it past summary judgment. It’s entirely possible this won’t even make it to trial stage (although I am expecting it to).

  • The Queen Of Swords

    Jordan said he victimized not only James, Wade, and Brett but also Macaulay. Multiple employees also accused him of molesting Macaulay which is why the Defense called him to testify at the 2005 trial. Same with Wade and Brett, which is why I find it weird so many people are shocked by Wade’s allegations.

    • Mezza

      It is MJs game and that stupid song ‘money’. It was the best PR move. I bought it. I don’t now

  • The Queen Of Swords

    Yeah, that video was profoundly disturbing and deeply unsettling.

  • The Queen Of Swords

    What did you think of that video when you were still in denial about Jackson and defensive of him? Did it help you to “wake up”?

    • Mezza

      Well I am probably a bit unique. I am 34 now so when I was 10 or was when Black or white came out and for about a year as a 10 year old I was pretty into MJ, then those Jordie allegations came out and i remember watching that on TV, and then within a year of that happening I started to get into Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Offspring and the sorts and I wasn’t a ‘fan’ of MJ. Sure he wasn’t around but I was drooling over Nick Carter from Backstreet boys and Kurt Cobain. And then the news got weirder and weirder, I got into dance music and I really didn’t hear anything about Jackson again unless he was doing weird shit like protesting in NY and then the trial hit and I thought he was probably innocent and then he was found not guilty. I saw the 60 minutes interviews as well when I was younger so I kinda lived through it all but it never made an impression on me. Hell, I had not even heard any of Off the Wall and didn’t know it existed until a year and a half ago. It wasn’t till I started studying media at uni last year that my complete interest in MJ grew so I have never ever thought of MJ as a god and I always wanted to see if he was treated unfairly in the media or if he was super weird so I wasn’t completely glittered up.

      Once I started hanging round die hard MJ fans they convinced me of his innocence and then I believed for a good 6 months that he was innocent. But I always had a niggle.

      I that 60 minutes I saw a man that was high as fuck who was saying stupid shit. I thought his whole ‘cops wiped walls with shit or ‘doo doo’ as he says was rubbish but I was also not looking at his videos at the time and breaking them apart. I was just looking at the ‘whole’ picture TBH and I think that is what 95% of the population does.

      I don’t think it is until you start to watch and read everything about him in academic articles, interviews with his staff and friends, look at the allegations, watch interviews with him, read biographies etc till you get the full picture of what this guy was. To the casual MJ listener, he just looks like a guy that was a little weird, people were trying to grab him for money, was a great entertainer and was a massive humanitarian and human rights fighter. It isn’t until you get into it more that you start to see the discrepancies between what he says, what people say about him, what people are accusing him of and how he acts and then you start to pick him up

      Anyway, that is my 2 cents on it all. I think now that he is dead and as time, more men come forward the world will ultimately wake up. It just won’t be a Jimmy Saville type thing when 300 people accuse him all at once and everyone hates Jimmy. MJ probably didn’t molest 300 people, it seems like to me he actually got into full on relationships with these kids compared to Saville that just got his rocks off with everyone. To me, MJ fell in love and was a ‘nice’ molester, Jimmy was just a vile one that wasn’t nice.

      • The Queen Of Swords

        I defiantly think there are differences between someone like MJ and a Jimmy Savile. Quite a bit. But from my knowledge MJ was abusing multiple boys during the same time periods. In 1993, you had Wade, Macaulay, Brett, Garcia, and Jordan.

        Michael was a Sexual-Predator, or at least developed “friendships” with pre-pubescent/pubescent boys, since 1974 — making him an abuser of boys of 35 years! He went nearly 20 years without the public knowing and more than 30 years without getting charged with a sex-crime!!!

        I don’t think 300 victims will come out like in the Jimmy Savile case for one reason and one reason only: Jimmy Savioe abused only girls, to my knowledge. Michael Jackson abused only boys. Boys/Men have a harder time admitting to themselves, much more other people, that they were victims. Being a victim is hard for Male survivors to admit in general, but when the perpetrator(s) are male, it’s even 10X harder than if it were a girl/woman (where they might brag about it as a sexual conquest, only to later realize it was molestation/rape).

        • ShawntayUStay

          “Garcia”…that’s from Diane Dimond’s book. Her investigative skills leave a lot to be desired so I’m hesitant on calling “Garcia” a victim. There just needs to be a bit more independent corroboration. It could be the mysterious “David Martinez” that came out in the Marc Schaffel financial trial in 2006, but that would be speculation as we don’t even know for sure if David was a real person, let alone a victim!

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I saw a 1993 article that listed only Macaulay and a “Santa Barbara boy named Garcia”. I thought it was more reliable because it’s so old.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Diane Dimond claimed it was in some police reports that an unnamed source provided her in 1993. She copied them down by hand. There is another error in her “notes” as well, namely whether MJ performed fellatio on Jordie Chandler before the World Movie Awards. Jordie never alleged any oral stuff happened until after they returned from Monaco.

            So again, I’m skeptical of anything that comes from Diane Dimond.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I could unstand why. Lol.

          • Mezza

            I take everything I read with a grain of salt tbh, I just don’t trust ‘journalists’ these days so I just go with my gut, read everything and make up my own mind.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Mezza…from Twitter, right? You still think RazorFist’s video is up to par now that you’ve “seen the light”? 😉

            The “hater” journalists should be viewed with a critical eye, especially now that you agree with them. Strangely enough! Diane is the bottom of the barrel, unless you consider Radar Online.

          • Mezza

            I think he made good points but i think he skipped a lot of stuff and it was biased and It just took me a while. What you guys don’t realise is that for about 3 months prior I was following your every move/ comment on twitter and listening and was completely confused. MJ fans are fanatics man, they draw you in. I have deleted my twitter account because once you turn, you cant go back to them. They are scary fanatical tbh. sorry for giving anyone shit, I just needed all the dots to connect in the right place and they have now.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            There was a guy that used to have a Twitter account he partially used to debate fanatics. (I never talked to him. I only know of him.) He was a former fanatic. Anyways, I heard this individual did “go back”. I guess, he was out of his comfort zone. 🙁

          • Mezza

            Personally I think he is faaaaaaar more rational then other MJ fans. He thinks things through more but he is missing the final thing tbh. He thinks that MJ is far too smart have let a boy accuse him and basically if he had done it then he would never have heard a thing about it.

            What he is missing is that MJ was an arrogant mofo. He is so close!

          • Mezza

            I actually feel for some of the completely fanatical fans. I think they actually think he is god and have shrines in their houses for him. I also think they use Mj as a way to escape maybe their lives and their loneliness.

            Once the rest of the guys start to come forward and it is plain as day ( I mean without the sequins and glitter lol), I fear that you might see some either stay completely in denial, some that might actually commit suicide or some that will have to go into therapy. i mean they can’t think straight.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I agree with you on all of this. It’s very disturbing.
            I do think some use him for “escapism”. Definently.
            (12 killed themselves when MJ died, BTW!!!)

          • Mezza

            100%

          • 12 killed themselves when MJ died

            I never believed that, there was no proof it ever happened.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I would hope so. But the messed up thing is that based on his some of his Stans’ behaviors, would anyone actually be shocked? I’m not talking about people — who may or may not label themselves “fans” — of whom like his music, admire his talent, and believe he was an innocent man-child. I’m talking about the Stans that have shrines dedicated to him in their homes, and harass and bully victims and anyone else that goes against what they believe of a man they don’t know, never met, and yet still idolize.

          • FreeThinker888

            I mostly feel like I don’t need to write anything because you say it all just like I would! LOL (y)

          • Mezza

            Hahaha! You and I are the same person… Mental doppelganger!

          • Mezza

            I will look at everything with a critical eye. I purchased Raymond Chandlers book a couple days ago so will give it a read. TBH once you wake up it is all so damn obvious!

          • ShawntayUStay

            Curious to know your take on Ray Chandler. Personally, I find him icky. He’s said some very strange things in defense of his family. I also think he — understandably — has painted his brother in a too positive light. Still, the book is valuable because it’s one of the only books solely about the 1993 scandal! And from the perspective of not kissing MJ’s powdered white ass! LOL

          • The Queen Of Swords

            This was not directed at me but I have to answer. Lol. I had the same exact opinion of Ray Chandler. Very unlikable. Only, I never read his book. I would like to read it one day, though.

          • Mezza

            tbh because i was so in the ‘Pro MJ’ gang I have not read or seen much about the Chandler family at all. Only seen from pro MJ’s side. I saw a video of him the other day on youtube where he talks about how he released his book around the trial because he didn’t know that kids were still sleeping with MJ and they thought they would’ve been warned off.

            In the video I felt he came accross fine but we will see. I am interested to read about Evan because from all pro-Jackson sites he sounds like the devil himself lol.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Didn’t even physically assault his son with a heavy object like a dumbbell (not sure if that’s how it’s spelled) and Jordan legally emancipated him because Evan was getting greedy?

          • Mezza

            Can you give me a few good things that would now be worthwhile for me to watch/ read now that I have ‘switched’ so to speak that I may not have come across earlier?

          • Mezza

            I am following you, MJ facts and pea now on twitter lol. I just have a new one with a new name. I just need to get my confidence up and get my facts straight until I confront the people that for the past 6 months or so have been my twitter friends. They will lose their shit lol

      • The Queen Of Swords

        I think people don’t like focusing on facts.

        You have a man that never had a believable relationship with any other older adolescent or adult, “befriended” boys of the same age-groups and with similar phenotypes since he was a 15-year-old boy and this went on for 35 more years, often slept in the same bed as them admittedly, collected Child-Erotica, had a nude photo of one of his “special friends”, had his rooms filled with Adult Heterosexual-Porn, Alchohal, and Drugs where his “special friends” could casually find them, paid one family $20 Million in an out-of-court settlement, paid another family $2.4 Million, and was publicly accused of Child Sexual Abuse five times.

        I think people just don’t want to see what’s there.

        • Mezza

          I think you also overestimate the care factor that most people have towards MJ. I think 97% of the world knows that MJ died and that is about it and it depends where you live. for the past 10 years I have divided myself between New Zealand and Australia and i am a big entertainment new follower. I heard about his death and that was shocking and then I heard about the Conrad Murray trial and he was found guilty and then I heard something about the family suing AEG but never heard the outcome of it. I never ever read anywhere about Jimmy or Wade accusing MJ. I found that out while i was doing research. Before that i thought it was Jordie who he paid off and we never heard from again and then the Arviso family and he was found not guilty. If you are not involved in MJ’s comings and goings you have no idea what is going on. Bieber, Rihanna, Beyonce and co take over the news. MJ doesn’t. If you are not involved you just get snippets here and there but people just moved on and didn’t think about it and because he was found not guilty in 2005 and Jordie happened way earlier noone has batted an eyelid. For example, I would have no idea what has happened with Prince’s estate or Robin Williams or Bowie after they died because i haven’t been following it. I just happened to fall into MJ because of the uni course i was going and as fate would have it he showed up on the right of my Youtube when I was looking up 9/11 stuff for media research.

          People are so pessimistic these days about media as well. Noone believes anything about it and they might hear something, shrug it off and move on with their life. People are getting that much information so fast that they don’t register. And you have to think the last 8 years or so it has been all about the financial crash, ISIS, and wars so that has consumed peoples mind far more.

          I would be interested to see how many people actually took notice of that RadarOnline thing that came out in June. That seemed to spread worldwide.

          When I read the comments on most of the news sites about Radar or this latest news article that didn’t even hit Aus or NZ news sites mind you they all just think Wade is either out for money or MJ is dead and why are they suing him. They all seem to think it looks sus. Maybe once Wade wins his case and the news goes round the world people might take notice but I think people are pretty burnt out about MJ TBH.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I know most Non-Americans couldn’t care less about Celeberity Gossip. Lol. But amongst most people I’ve talked in the U.S. (My family is not from her, but I was born and raised here), this stuff is common knowledge but it’s almost overlooked or ignored.

          • Mezza

            OK, yeah well it is probably different in the US then. I think people outside of US just think he is a weird guy, that could’ve been a creep, paid off a kid, won a court case, could dance and entertain brilliantly and grabbed his crotch a lot lol

    • Mezza

      I jur realized the video I talked about was totally not the one I was talking about LOL. Well Sean’s video was one of the things that kind of tugged at me. This guy has nothing to gain from lying. He is richer than all the kids combined. I live mighty boosh and I thought it was played magnificently and it totally makes sense. He really dug the knife in with the boy books on the shelf haha…. You can tell he has obviously done some serious research on MJ himself.

      • The Queen Of Swords

        I wondered if he saw MJ’s twisted “Boy Books” and numerous dolls, when he visited Hayvenshurst & Neverland during 1983-1990.

        • Mezza

          Maybe, or he has done his research. Do you believe he was a victim?

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Sean may have been a victim, and he may not have been. MJ was a selfish man that would cut off boys if he couldn’t groom them to his will or right when they showed strong signs of puberty. Sean was one of MJ’s “friends” from 1983-1990, and slept over at Hayvenshurst. Not saying he was a victim, but I can’t see MJ spending 7 years with an unrelated boy unless he was victimizing them. Look at how quickly he cut off Terry George when he thought he couldn’t victimize him.

          • Mezza

            I picked up a while ago about Katherine saying that ‘Michael has gotten all quiet now, he never ISED to be that quiet’ and it really stuck with me. He talks about how his dad bullied him and he had pimples and that is why he was quiet, but it could also be because he realized that he was sexually attracted to children and spent years in complete agony over this. i mean I can’t imagine realizing one day being a peophole and you know it’s wrong and frowned upon and maybe terry Richardson was one of his first forays into it all.

            Also I’ve been thinking about MJs songs. Like ‘who is it’, that could have been about one of the boys he was in love with finding a girlfriend or whatever. Same with ‘keep it in the closet’ being about his secret love affairs with boys or about his hiddine pedophilia and that is why he needed to make the song so incredibly sexual.

            I was also thinking about his manifesto and when it was written and how he didn’t want to be Michael from the Jackson 5 anymore, and how he had to train and train, maybe it was his way of trying to escape the person he had become. Usually people with deep seated issues are he ones that become the most famous and the most passionate. He tallks about escapism in one of his interviews and how he didn’t like the ‘reality’ of his life. I really think of you look at his work in the context of his ‘affliction’ you can really read a lot into his pain.

            Also I noticed that the people he idolized were either gay or seemed to marry very very young brides or had allegations of pedophilia behind them.maybe studying people like that made him believe that because other geniuses did it and he was so strange that it was OK for him to do it.

            It’s amazing given his almost angelic voice and his ability to write such spectacular music was like this vampirish quality. I know vampires aren’t real but how they talk about vampires having beautiful faces, beautiful smells to draw their victims in. He possessed qualities given by god or biology or whatever you believe to draw people in.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I agree with you about his voice and his music. I always thought he had one of the best singing voices. He could talk and sing at many different tones. Have you heard “2,000 Watts”?

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

            I don’t think it was him realizing he was a Pedophile that made him quiet. He was “befriending” boys since he was 15-years-old in 1974 — if not before.

            Rodney Allen-Rippy speaking on MJ in “Michael Jackson’s Secret Childhood”:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBKq2gb9I7k

            Ricky Segall Speaking on Michael Jackson:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDIuN4T6rQk

            The 1974 American Music Awards Wheere MJ Met Rodney & Ricky:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6o-IE8y0zU

            His shyness was said to have to do with him not believing he deserved his fame. But MJ was Narcissistic so I somewhat doubt this. Maybe it had to do with his own messed up childhood.

            Joe Jackson Exposed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5L6MVYWJJ4

            Pedophiles (usually male) realize their attraction to pre-pubescent kids when they are 12-14 years-old, and usually start abusing at that time if they are an Offending-Pedophile.

            The Pedophilic Brain:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB6zwvBtDK8

          • The Queen Of Swords

            “Keep It In The Closet” was supposedly his reply to his fans asking if he was gay or not — with him replying that he was not attracted to adult-men, but adult-women, and that it was all kept secret. But knowing everything we know, yes, I thought of the boys he victimized and told to keep quiet — like Jordan talking about MJ describing the abuse as a “box of secrets” that was just between them.

      • The Queen Of Swords

        I think another thing is Sean Lennon wasn’t really making any allegations in a civil or criminal court. He wanted to tell a story personal to him, through Art. I have seen many Artists who were Abused and/or Neglected as a child tell their own stories through their Art. He was no different in that regard, even though he stated the “Bubbles” represented ALL of the boys Jackson “befriended”.

        • Mezza

          Personally I don’t believe Macaulay, Sean or Corey were victims. I think they were too powerful annd well known I might be totally wrong and my opinion may change as I know more but for now I don’t think so. I also believe MJ was the luckiest molester on the planet because of Gavin because IMO that was a shakdown.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I’m not sure of Sean being a victim. He may have been doing the video for Wade and James because he believes them.
            Child Actors are not “powerful”. They are particularly vulnerable because they want to continue their careers. MJ used that with Wade and James, in telling them “Both of our careers and lives will be over”.
            Multiple Neverland employees stated they saw MJ abusing Wade, Macaulay and Brett — thus their testimony at the 2005 trial for the Defense to counter those claims. James, Wade, Macaulay, and Brett were all named by Jordan as boys MJ engaged in mutual masturbation with and that would masturbate themselves in front of him. I am sure out of the three Macaulay was DEFINETLY a victim, more so than Feldman or Lennon.

        • Mezza

          Unless he was really that arrogant and he did it after the fact. But the evidence in the trial to me points to no. There were a lot of inconsistencies.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I was just referring to Sean just making a song+music video combination, and not making allegations like Jordan, Jason, Gavin, Wade and James.

  • Mezza

    What are your opinions on Karen Faye? Completely groomed? Completely unaware? Or covering?

    I’ll have to have a look on this website for Karen Faye stuff. Sorry it is taking me time to get through it.

    • The Queen Of Swords

      Most them around him knew and covered for him for whatever reasons. I remember a woman that was a make-up artist stating she saw him looking at a Child-Porn magazine back in 1978. There’s a chance this women may have at least had “a feeling”, if she didn’t outright know …

    • I don’t know much about Karen Faye. She does seem to like attention though, and spends a lot of time answering fan questions.

      • Mezza

        Personally I think she is totally and completely groomed, completely in love with him and from what o have read she also stayed on the other aides of the hotels she stayed in though while he was touring and doing press she must have seen him in bed consistently with multiple boys. She would be a brilliant witness on the stand actually.

        • I’m not sure how much MJ’s employees were permitted access to his inner sanctum, I doubt he would have allowed them to see him doing anything too suspicious with boys. That he shared his bed with boys he admitted himself, so that’s hardly bombshell evidence. The pivotal evidence will come from Wade and James themselves and the rest of the witnesses will be just to support their claims.

      • Mezza

        Can you imagine the information they could get out of her on cross examination? If she tells the truth that is.

  • Mezza

    Do any legal people know or who are aware of the case a of jimmy and wade know why moving forward they can’t combine their cases? Would that not mean more strength, less paperwork and less legal fees?

    • The Queen Of Swords

      I don’t know. A “Class Action Lawsuit” makes much more sense. But the first lawyers seemed sloppy and ignorant about how to go about these cases. Wade’s was approved first, so my thinking is that these new lawyers may combine the suits if James’ lawsuit is approved. Or maybe they are doing this separately because they are afraid of losing both cases at once like what happened back in 2005 trial.

    • I think they have. Wade’s new lawyers are now representing Jimmy too. Jimmy’s new complaint has some shocking revelations in it.

      http://www.contentplace.net/msf/Safechuck_v_MJJ-Second_Amended_Complaint-Conformed.pdf

      • Mezza

        Awesome. I am glad they are each others strength. Wonder if we will see Jordie testify though he might still be silenced by the contract signed in 1994. However maybe because they are suing the companies and not MJ he will be able to be a witness..

        • From my understanding of the confidentiality provisions in the settlement agreement Jordan can only testify if he is subpoenaed, and even then I’m not sure if he can only testify in a criminal case and not in a civil case. I’m going to check.

          • Mezza

            Threaten, that is what they would do.

            This issue bullshit, especially now that Jackson is dead.

            The good thing is that because of so much leaking of information regarding the settlement over the years and also the leaking of depositions, psychological assessments and the sort they might have something to play with. In saying that I’m not a lawyer so I’m not sure if that information would be admisable in court.

            I can’t remember if June or Evan were part of that settlement document as well. Could June come in or are the entire family locked up re: civil cases? I’m guessing because June received cash she is part of the settlement so can’t speak. I need to read more.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Yes, Evan & June were both gagged and awarded $1,000,000 each.
            I’m glad Jordan forgave June. As someone else on here typed before, “she wasn’t the worst of them”. I do believe she was just extremely naive and in-denial because she too had been groomed by MJ.

          • Mezza

            How do you know he forgave her?

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I think Diane Diamond or some other journalist wrote an article and included it.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            We do know for sure (thanks to MJ’s Stans that stalk and harass 5 of his victims) that he has a wife now. Maybe he also has a child and wanted his mother to meet him/her or he realizes how much his mother does love him because he could never be without his own child?

          • Fans have stalked the Chandlers and obtained photos of June and Jordy together at family gatherings, which they have posted online. That isn’t proof positive that he has forgiven her, but considering that in testimony at the 2005 trial June said she hadn’t spoken with Jordan for 11 years we can assume that they have kissed and made up if they are spending time together.

          • Mezza

            poor cat, they need to leave him alone. I mean really, being stalked for being sexually abused is wrong on every single level possible.

          • Mezza

            Thanks for that mjfacts 🙂

  • The Queen Of Swords

    Only persons ignorant of Law & Wade’s and James’ complaints could wonder why MJJ Productions & MJJ Ventures could be sued. They obviously want to remain ignorant, instead of doing research.

  • Mezza

    I guess this will be hard to prove.

  • Mezza

    Once you wake up it is just sooooooo obvious! That is what amazed me. Defending him was difficult. Why? Because he did it ans you didn’t want to know it. But now, man I am so clear and free’d from trying to defend it. I actually don’t feel sad at all. I was a bit shocked (I said devestated but more shocked) once I realized because god damn it is clear as mud. It feels sooooo freeing for me. I just want to scream at people. You guys have a frustrating job and I commend you.

  • The Queen Of Swords

    I honestly don’t understand how people like Aphrodite and Corey Feldman (If he showed him porn and drank alchohal with him, he surely atleast knows MJ was a most likely a pervert; I believe more than that happened but Feldman isn’t going to admit it to the World anytime soon) can know this man was a PedoHebephile, and yet defend him and slander his accusers for profit. Then again, men that we know were most likely his victims — Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, and Frank Cascio (he even helped MJ groom/seduce Gavin, if you believe Gavin) — did it, and in Brett’s case still does.

    It was stated multiple times that Corey Haim feared naming his superstar-actor abuser because no one would believe him and he would be out-casted from the Entertainment Industry. Well, Feldman’s doing that to Wade (Child-Dancer; Cherographer; Song-Writer; Song-Producer; Music Video-Director; Movie-Director) & James (Former Child-Star). That’s what the whole Entertainment Industry is doing to these men. When did catchy-songs and dance-moves become more important than children — and the adults they become.

  • The Queen Of Swords

    Unrelated to MJ, but I thought some of you might be VERY interested in reading this: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1163763360365802&id=191532664255548

    • Mélanie

      This link is very interesting! In fact at the time of the trial of Michael Jackson, Corey said that MJ made him watch porn. Is it this ? Then Michael is dead and he tried to claim that Michael was a saint. I have no doubt that Corey Feldman was abused but finally Feldman is not very honest either !

      • The Queen Of Swords

        Feldman was no doubt a victim of a Mentally Ill, Drug-Addicted, Verbally/Emotionally/Psychologically/Physically abusive mother, a neglectful father, school-bullies, and sexually-perverted Hebephiles/Ephebpphiles … but I sometimes wonder if he became Narsissistic and untruthful partially as a result of all this.

        Yes, Corey stated MJ showed him porn and that they drank together at the time of the trial.

        • ShawntayUStay

          Corey didn’t say MJ showed him porn. He said he was shown a book of venereal diseases with various infected genitalia. I think you’re confusing the stories. Corey Feldman claimed MJ allegedly said he’d only sleep over if he could bring porn.

          Unless I’m missing something, when did he say MJ showed him pornography?

          • The Queen Of Swords

            No you are correct and I meant to correct that commented, but had other things I was doing simultaneously and was somewhat in a rush. I will edit it to correct the error.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            No you are correct and I meant to correct that commented, but had other things I was doing simultaneously and was somewhat in a rush. I will edit it to correct the error.

          • Andreas

            Corey is getting stranger by the minute.

            Just five days ago (20th September) he came on a show, and for whatever reason he actually was asked quite directly about his stance on Jackson and pedophilia.

            Corey states that:
            1. Jackson never touched him.
            2. Jackson never touched anybody.
            3. That he was the “only person” who took that stance back in 1993.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1X-6cjfLX4
            (Around the 7 minute mark)

            Its true he did protect Jackson in 1993. This is referring to the depositions with the police. In his book he actually explains he eagerly called Jackson after he had been to the police, almost like he proudly wanted to explain to Jackson that he had been loyal to him. Corey explains Michael was very pleased to hear Corey had defended him, and as a result he invited him for three days to Neverland.

            (“Oh you didn’t say I was a pedophile!? Oh thank you thank you! Come on over to my place! Lets celebrate and cheer to that!”)

            Corey Haims was brought along on this trip.

            What Corey neglects to mention in the recent interview however is that he was far less defensive of Jackson around the time of the 2005 case. Then he said he had a “sickening realization” about their relationship looking back, and he revealed some aspects about their relationship to Martin Bashir, and not least, for a while was actually set up to testify against Jackson at the trial.. no less!

            http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0064545/

            Why Corey never ended up testifying is difficult to say, and its unclear what he was even going to talk about. At minimum he would be able to say Michael gave him alcohol when he was underage, as that was a minor charge against Jackson at the trial, although a term like “sickening realization” would probably mean even more than that.

            Their second fall-out story is actually quite interesting. They were both in New York on 11th September 2001, right at the time of the twin tower attacks, pretty nearby too (as far as I understand it), and Jackson, as a result of thinking Corey was writing a book about him, something Corey told him wasn’t true, had instructed his people to not let Corey on his bus out of town.

            Meaning Michael quite coldly wanted to leave Corey out in the dust-sky of the town on 11th September. In Corey’s words he claimed Michael ‘left him out there to die’, as there was no other ride for him at the time there. Very strange, as Jackson also had threatened his life about the supposed book about him earlier that day, or day before. This occurrence was back in 2001, and as far as I understand it they didn’t have any friendly contact after that.

            When Corey in 2005 heard about the new molestation charge, his tone has now shifted towards their relationship, and thats when he went to the media and defended the children(unlike what he does now, seemingly), and he said Neverland wasn’t a place for children. He also would say some damning things about Michael in Bashirs second documentary.. as we know.

            As there was found mails on Mark Schaffels computers where they discussed Corey’s comments in the media about Jackson, I suspect Michael, or someone on his behalf, contacted Corey.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            The Procesution never called him because they feared the Defense would bring up the 1993 tapes where he stated “nothing happened”. He could have been used by both the Procescution and the Defense at that trial, honestly.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I honestly wonder if he is going through a nervous breakdown and/or back on drugs (and probably has been for some time), as a result of having to discuss those points in his life publically, perhaps because he is keeping a few things secret — with no intent on revealing them. Just my guess.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            And I honestly think he is afraid that Wade & James will publically do what the parents of Jordan, Jason, and Gavin never did — and that’s prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson was not only a PedoHebephile, but a Child-Molester, through a trial. (Well, 2005 Jurors said they believed MJ was a serial Child-Molester that abused other boys — which most likely included Wade, Brett, and Macaulay — and that he probably Gavin …) He is afraid because if Wade & James prove beyond a reasonable doubt in civil trials that MJ was a Sexual-Predator, he’ll be dismissed as a liar and his current career as a MJ Impersonator will be gone.
            I can’t believe he’d risk his credibility to not only protect the legacy of a deceased man he KNOWS was probably a sexually abusive-PedoHebephile, but to defend a deceased man who threatened his own life when he was alive (if it isn’t because he is indeed taking money from the Jackson Estate, like Diane Diamond alleged).

          • ShawntayUStay

            “I can’t believe he’d risk his credibility to not only protect the legacy
            of a deceased man he KNOWS was probably a sexually
            abusive-PedoHebephile, but to defend a deceased man who threatened his
            own life when he was alive (if it isn’t because he is indeed taking
            money from the Jackson Estate, like Diane Diamond alleged).”

            Queen, how do you know Corey knows MJ was a child molester? He hasn’t said anything that would suggest he even thinks MJ was a pedophile/child molester. He’s routinely denied ever being a victim of MJ, even under questioning in 1993! This young man, at the time of his police interview, so thoroughly denied anything happened and yet named his own abusers easily. He even suggests he’d be one of the guys that would rat MJ out if he actually experienced some — yet he did not because there was nothing.

            Also, I think this is important to note, Corey Feldman — besides being a D-list celebrity has-been — is a Michael Jackson fan. So he has no problem defending MJ, even as an alleged abuse survivor. Many fans are just like him, actually.

            And he never received any death threat. That was his own arrogant interpretation. Michael Jackson doesn’t threaten people with bodily harm. When has there ever been evidence of that? Corey Feldman is full of shit. SMH

          • The Queen Of Swords

            He was a victim. I’m sure looking back he knows a man befriending, offering alcohol, and sleeping over with little boys is not “normal”. That’s not even including MJ demanding porn to be present or he wasn’t staying over at his house. This is just common-sense. He has to get it, as an adult, and in 2005, I think he did.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            In that comment I never actually stated that MJ sexually abused Feldman. Only that, that relationship wasn’t “normal” and Feldman knew it as recent as 2005, therefore he knows this man was most likely a PedoHebephilic Groomer/Abuser …

          • Andreas

            Yes, I think there’s another element to it too.

            Michael Jackson has a lot of obsessed fans, and they’re very vocal online doing their SJW attics for Jackson. Brett Barnes for example has both twittter and fb-accounts, where he once in a while says some ‘beautiful’ stuff about his deceased friend. If you look at his pages he’s being glorified and cheered on by the fans constantly.. He gets treated like a true king for protecting Jackson. The fans are also convinced he’s telling the truth, and the ‘real deal’, and not backstabbing Jackson for money like the evil Wade Robson and James Safechuck are. They adore Brett for this, and I think Brett by consequence has been seduced more and more into playing this role. He’s sort of trapped in it now if he ever wants to ‘change his mind’.

            I sort of see Corey Feldman similiarly. I see MJ fans are swarming him as well for being a protector of Jackson. Corey has sensed he will be loved for saying Michael was innocent. There’s a strange request out there for Michael Jackson to be innocent, that he was this misunderstood pure soul that in a Jesus-like fashion was ‘killed’ by humanity. Its a bit weird because thats obviously not the real MJ at all. But the appeal for that version of Jackson seems large.

            Corey has understood this, I think. I starting to doubt he’s strong enough to come forward about any of his victims. I mean, if his molesters are big folks in Hollywood(including Jackson or not) I understand it seems daunting to go against them, but come on.. Jon Grissom? He’s a nobody. He has no ties in the industry at all. Why couldn’t Corey at least out him, now when he’s into his 40s…?

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Yes, I’ve seen this. It’s disturbing.
            Corey was an unloved child, who I think loves being loved by Jackson fans. If he doesn’t get his career back atleast he has them. That’s his thought patterns.

            It’s also one thing to believe Jackson was completely innocent, but itit’s another thing to deify him like his fans do. It’s actually dehumanizing of Jackson, but Jackson did this himself. He made himself seem Christ-like, preformed on stage trying to imitate Jesus, and believed he could heal children. He deified himself. (I’ve heard his biographer wrote that Jackson was diagnosed as Schizophrenic when he was underage, which may explain this and his extreme Paranoia.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I’m not sure Brett will ever disclose. According to Jordan, MJ himself basically stated Brett loved him the most.
            Plus, coming to terms with the fact of abuse can be terrifying to certain victims. Questions like “Why didn’t mommy/daddy protect me? Did they really love me?” can come up for some victims whose victimizes had unlimited access to them. Britt’s parents also knew of accusations Jackson was molesting their boy … and nothing changed. That has to be hard on Brett.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            California has the strictest Libel Laws in the U.S.
            I can understand why he won’t even reveal John Grissom.

          • ShawntayUStay

            ” I mean, if his molesters are big folks in Hollywood(including Jackson or not) I understand it seems daunting to go against them, but come on…Jon Grissom? He’s a nobody. He has no ties in the industry at all. Why couldn’t Corey at least out him, now when he’s into his 40s…?”

            Hmmm, maybe you’re answering your own question! Jon Grissom is a nobody, which is likely the precise reason Corey doesn’t give a crap about exposing him. He’s not famous; it won’t garner the same amount of attention.

            My conspiracy theory? Corey Feldman likes to do things in a cyclical manner. Whenever the coffers are dry, there’s Corey on some show doing some promotion for a D-list project he’s working on, and he’s talking about his abuse at the hands of an alleged Hollywood pedophile ring. He never names names, instead choosing to dangle the threat of media exposure over the heads of these alleged Hollywood bigshots so they can send him a check to stay quiet.

            He never ceases to stop talking about Corey Haim, too (much to the disgust of Haim’s relatives), because it covers his shamelessness in a cloak of nobility because everyone knows Corey Haim died of a drug overdose after a life filled with despair and uncast off demons. It’s pathetic and sad. Corey Feldman knows exactly why he does it…and it ain’t for abuse survivors! It’s for money and attention.

          • ShawntayUStay

            First of all, what the hell is Corey Feldman wearing, oh my God! LMAO. I fear a Bruce Jenner gender bender 2.0 situation in his near future.

            “Their second fall-out story is actually quite interesting. They were both in New York on 11th September 2001, right at the time of the twin tower attacks, pretty nearby too (as far as I understand it), and Jackson, as a result of thinking Corey was writing a book about him, something Corey told him wasn’t true, had instructed his people to not let Corey on his bus out of town.

            Meaning Michael quite coldly wanted to leave Corey out in the dust-sky of the town on 11th September. In Corey’s words he claimed Michael ‘left him out there to die’, as there was no other ride for him at the time there. Very strange, as Jackson also had threatened his life about the supposed book about him
            earlier that day, or day before. This occurrence was back in 2001, and as far as I understand it they didn’t have any friendly contact after that.”

            Hmmm. Based upon my reading of the whole 9/11 thing, the alleged threatening of Corey’s life and MJ’s refusal to let Corey Feldman be bused out of New York are not two separate things. They are one in the same. Corey appears to suggest that as a result of MJ being allegedly pissed off about the book, he refused Corey’s admission onto the bus. Because of the terrorist attacks, this refusal was tantamount to threatening his life.

            https://jgtwo.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/feldmanjackson-feud-the-plot-thickens/

            Corey seemed to be so upset by this snub that he wrote the song “Megalo Man” with these lyrics: “I believed in your words/I believed in your lies/But in September in New York/You left me to die.”

            It’s pretty clear, therefore, that the alleged death threat this putz is referring to is due to him being left in New York.

            Also interesting, yet again, is how although Corey will oscillate in his feelings toward MJ, he has never once called MJ one of his abusers. Ever. I mean, you talk about “clear as day” — this is simply more evidence that Corey wasn’t a victim of MJ.
            Corey Feldman is obviously an attention whore and obsessed with his past glory days (and not to mention Michael Jackson), who apparently wets his finger to test which way the wind is blowing, bending his narrative to whatever is the most expedient and will get him maximum exposure. That being said — he’s yet to call MJ out for child molesting.

          • Andreas

            No, I’m not convinced him leaving Corey out in NY and him threatening him is the same thing.

            Corey:
            “Michael had some paranoid delusion that I had some ill-fated intentions to write some sort of book about him, which was categorically untrue. What happened next was basically, the way I perceived it, is that he threatened my life.”

            I don’t see how him leaving Corey “out to die” means to threaten his life. On 10th September he explained he was seperated from his female friend, and brought by two guards of Jackson and was placed in a dressing room for an hour. When he put his head outside the door and asked when Michael showed up, he was told to “stay inside the room”. He said he felt like an hostage. Michael finally came and was very upset with him, and Michael even made him see Kathrine and talk to her. It seemed serious. Jackson would then abruptly leave him, and a crowd of security guards stopped Corey from following Jackson. Corey then realized there wasn’t any passed for him to come backstage that night. This was also the last time he ever spoke to Michael.

            Then the day later 11th September happened and he was refused to come on Jackson’s bus. Although Jermaine let him on it, but told him not to tell Michael. So yes, I think these are two different things. Furthermore they also document that Michael was very angry and upset because he thought Corey was going to write a book about him. What damning info did Corey have on Michael? Fill the blanks.

            Yes, Megalo Man was written about Jackson. Jackson legally wanted to stop that song too.

            Also interesting, yet again, is how although Corey will oscillate in his feelings toward MJ, he has never once called MJ one of his abusers. Ever. I mean, you talk about “clear as day” — this is simply more evidence that Corey wasn’t a victim of MJ.

            What I read out of the situation is that Michael was scared about something about their relationship being publiziced. Could it just be the book with the sick children, the alcohol or whatever the deal was with the porn(the exact thing Bashir tricked out of him)? Well, if you insist, but I personally think its because he was a victim. I’m not sure if Corey at this point had started to out that he had been molested as a kid by people in the business, but if he had then that might have been Michael’s worry, and an explanation why he was acting that way.

            Yes, to me its quite clear he was molested by Jackson when he a youngster, that’s the only thing that makes sense to me, but I also said each to their own. If you don’t, then fine.

            For the record, I don’t agree he’s any more of an “attentionwhore” than any other person in Hollywood. If he is then they all are, I’d say. He recently made an album and appeared on the Today Show? Okay, so does artists all the time. Its called promoting. If he’s good or bad at what he does is probably subjective. Even if I did agree he was an attentionwhore I still don’t see any relevance to if he was molested or not.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I completely agree, but I refuse to back-and-forth on the issue, especially if respect won’t be mutual in the discussion between individuals with differing opinions — which unfortunately happens alot online and quite a few times here in my humble opinion.

            I’ll follow you & MJFacts on Discus and social media, but I’m done commenting on MJFacts.com. I feel that on here, there’s are only certain patterns of thought that are excepted and that’s it. I’m constantly thinking, re-evaluating, and growing everyday, when it comes to various subjects, topics, events, and persons so that doesn’t sit well with me at all. (Like I stated before, my opinions on MJ were like most here until very recently.)

            To all the owner of this site and to all the writers, thank you all for making this website and your Twitter accounts, and fighting for the victims of MJ, survivors of Acquaintance-Molestation, and children in general. Whether any of the 5 men that accused MJ of abuse know this website exists or not, I’m sure they would appreciate it.

            Later. 🙂

          • ShawntayUStay

            When has anyone been disrespectful? Surely not myself. I mean, I disagree with a lot of what you have said for the main reason some of it has been proffered without sufficient support.

            It’s not personal, though.

            I feel that on here, there’s are only certain patterns of thought that
            are excepted and that’s it. I’m constantly thinking, re-evaluating, and
            growing everyday, when it comes to various subjects, topics, events, and
            persons so that doesn’t sit well with me at all.

            Says who? You? I know you are young but in life, there will always be people who will disagree with you, and sometimes harshly. You need to have a stiffer upper lip! It’ll get you nowhere if you want everyone to think you’re right all the time. You’ll see.

            Good luck in your endeavors. 🙂

          • Andreas

            I’m sorry to hear that, Queen, but thanks for your insightful contributions.. and I wish you good luck! I was thinking about throwing in the towel about discussing Corey Feldman too. I’m done debating him I think. Its was just what makes sense to me personally. I don’t care all that much if anyone sees it differently. Not the most important topic in the world either, I suppose.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I don’t mind differences of opinions and debates. That’s healthy and normal.
            I don’t like feeling like multiple individuals are being condescending towards me because my opinions differ, or I have facts (i.e. Pedophilia & The Brain; The average number of victims that an Adult-Male PedoHebephilic-Abuser that preys on boys has before getting caught; The reality Jackson abused multiple boys at once and simply saw them as objects to possess until they got “too old”; The possibility Feldman is just another Emmanuel Lewis, Sean Lennon, Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, Frank Casio …etc.) that doesn’t fit into their view of
            the world, people, and Jackson. That doesn’t feel fair or right.
            Thank you for your kind words.

          • Hi QoS, I’m concerned about the allegations you’ve made: that multiple individuals are being condescending towards you; and that on here only certain patterns of thought are accepted.

            On the first point, I can see people disagreeing with you but I can’t see condescension. Can you give me an example? If it’s one of my comments I can assure you it was never my intention to talk down to you. I’m sure it was nobody else’s intention either.

            As to the second point, that simply is not true. We encourage debate and differing opinions. We only lightly moderate the comments section and allow nearly every single comment through. Without diverse opinions being allowed to flourish this site would become boring, and eventually wither and die. Nobody wants to see that happening apart from fans.

            It’s important to understand that we won’t all agree on every single topic, and to realise that’s a good thing. Don’t be upset if you have an alternative view and others won’t subscribe to it. Everyone will still welcome you. Nothing said here is personal, it’s just active minds exploring. We’ve had a few blowups over various subjects among the commenters and we are all still here 🙂

            If you have truly decided to leave, thanks for your contributions and good luck. Otherwise looking forward to more of your contributions.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            One example goes back to when I brought up Pedophilia & the human brain.
            But really, I’d rather not get into this. I’d rather not focus on what may or may not be intentionally negative. I just don’t like any form of negativity or confrontation. And I think someone individuals may think I’m trying to confront them, when I’m not.
            Thank you for making this website and allowing me to post here. 🙂

          • ShawntayUStay

            The death threat was clearly MJ’s refusal to bus Corey Feldman out of New York after 9/11. There was a terrorist attack so it would make sense (using the term extremely loosely here) he’d be afraid in the aftermath. Look at the words he’s using: “basically”, “the way I perceived it”…this is not an objective evaluation; it’s his own perception, and it’s likely any random person on the street looking at the same information may not “basically” “perceive” the situation of him staying in NY on 9/11 as a death threat like Corey says it.

            Corey’s biggest gripe, the gripe that inspired “Megalo Man”, was being left in New York! “But in September in New York/You left me to die” — that can’t be any clearer.

            “Could it just be the book with the sick children, the alcohol or
            whatever the deal was with the porn(the exact thing Bashir tricked out
            of him)?”

            It wasn’t a book with sick children! It was a book of veneral diseases — sexually transmitted diseases — showing the genitals of adults. Not children. Don’t know why this is being repeated because it’s a false premise.

            At the end of the day, Michael Jackson has every right not to want a book published about him. He was the same way with Latoya’s book, even though she said nothing bad about him at all, and the worst would’ve been her telling everyone he was a victim of abuse! He was just that way, which is why I felt the need to mention Lisa Marie Presley, and the confidentiality agreements he even had guests and fans sign when they visited Neverland. I mean you can speculate all you want about the nature of Corey’s anticipated prose about MJ, but there hasn’t been and, likely never will be, any evidence MJ molested Corey Feldman. And if it’s clear to you that the opposite is true, you haven’t supported it, unfortunately.

            Corey Feldman is an attention whore. There are gradients of desperation in Hollywood. An A lister can afford to be private, while D and F-listers must show their proverbial ass any chance they get just to pay the light bill. LOL.

            No need to defend his morality, Andreas. 😉

          • The Queen Of Swords

            MJ did tell Corey that he wouldn’t stay at or sleep over unless he had Pornographic Magazines available though.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I know. That’s what I just said.

  • The Queen Of Swords

    I have to state this here, because I can’t anywhere else.

    Does anyone find the claim that the accusers, Media & LAPD were just trying to bring MJ down solely because he was “Black” and in the name of “White” Supremacy annoying. I state this as a partially Afro-descent person that is more than educated on histories and persecution of Afro-descent peoples in Africa, Asia, The Americas, and Europe.

    1) June Chung (her Maiden name) is a Blasian woman from St. Vincent, and Evan Chandler was an American-Jewish man.
    Blanca Francia was a Castiza from a South American country.
    The Arvizos were Mexican Mestizos.

    Only accusers from after MJ’s 2009 death were “White” (Wade Robson is a White-Austrailian and James Safechuck is a White-American.

    2) If LAPD & the Media wanted to bring down a celeberity “Black”-Male with false accusations, why would they use the accusation of Child-Molestation. Very, very, very few Celeberities — “Black” or Non-“Black” — have been legally accused of Child-Molestation.

    3) This argument ignores all the evidence that MJ was indeed a PedoHebephile and a Child Sexual Abuser.

    Are those that think this just following MJ’s lead, as he is the one who helped plant the idea of a White-Suprremacist conspiracy against him through multiple interviews and songs.

  • Mélanie

    Paris Jackson is close to Corey Feldman according to the article below, it must be very flattered, and therefore never testify against MJ …. Manipulation?

    http://www.contactmusic.net/corey-feldman/news/corey-feldman-reaches-out-to-paris-jackson_5400602

    • Is Paris smart enough to manipulate people like that? Possibly, I don’t know much about her. She doesn’t seem to think of the consequences of her actions much, for instance when she commented positively on a tattoo of MJ captioned “He Touched so Many” she was surprised she got slammed by fans.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/71cc93b6e655f716de9ee541a5e8a618d80498aec1c3164ce625ef8607cd9ea2.png

      • Mélanie

        Oh yes, I do not know the history of Paris with the fans !! Maybe she likes finally cause? Where else it’s just stupid…

      • Mezza

        Personally, I think the girl is 18, doesn’t know herself AT all and just follows the crowd. She is now a ‘model’ which is so cliche, changes her fashion and ideas to suit whomever she is around and follows the crowd and what’s popular to comment on. That is my take on her.

        I feel for her. Totally weird upbringing into a chaotic world where drugs and booze and idiotic leeches are everywhere. I hope she makes it to her 30s because if there is anyone that will lose it, it will be her.

        I definitely think she is MJs biological child as well as Blanket. However I think Prince is Klein’s.

        She is really erratic and is a complete drama queen and I can so see her going down a Lisa Marie path though she loves the light and fame more. She will marry this Snoddy guy super young, gets divorced, ends up with a Bieber (or whoever is famous at the time), they suck her dry and then she ends up with someone else if she makes it that far.

        So cliche and boring really.

        • ShawntayUStay

          Paris Jackson has a mental illness. Look up “borderline personality disorder”. It explains her suicide attempt, her constantly changing self image (including her need to tattoo herself), her “boyfriend du jour” relationships, the idolization of her father as Michael Jackson the artist (behavior similar to any fan), her attempts to appeal to nameless, faceless people online, and emotional reactions when they online “bully” her, etc etc.

          She’s going no where fast. She’ll probably release a sex tape in the near future, or die prematurely. She’s not even in school, is she?

          “I definitely think she is MJs biological child as well as Blanket. However I think Prince is Klein’s.”

          Um, no, LOL. He has no biological children. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Two white kids and a Hispanic kid. That’s what Tom Mesereau said, confirming what we could already see with our own eyes. Not sure why it isn’t obvious?

          • Mélanie

            I totally agree with you, MJ has no biological children, Prince is the son of Klein and Debbie Rowe, Paris is the daughter of Debbie Rowe, some thought that Mark Lester was the father, “I have done donate my sperm to Michael so that he can have children, and I believe Paris is my daughter, “he told the British Sunday newspaper News of the World. Longtime friend of Jackson, Mark Lester is godfather to Paris and two other children of the singer. Mr. Lester, already father of four, said the strong resemblance between his 15 year old daughter Harriet and Paris, both “pale blue eyes.” But nothing confirms that Lester is the father of Paris.
            Regarding Blanket, nothing is known of its origins. I am wary of what Thomas Mesereau said ….
            Unfortunately, the strange life that MJ was conducted, has affected her children. Paris lives like in a thriller between reality and fiction. She thwarts see in danger because she can not live her story. She is looking obsessively legitimacy in its existence. I think it is more to be pitied than blamed.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Yes, I heard Mark Lester was Paris’ bio-father, though nothing confirms this as fact.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Agreed, except I think Blanket most likely is Prudence Soloman’s son making him half-South Asian (Prudence Soloman is Indo-South African). I’ve heard his father is a “White”-British friend of MJ’s. Not sure how true that is. But Blanket does kind of look like Prudence Soloman.

            Tom Mesereau stated Prince, Paris, and Blanket were not blood-Jacksons? Interesting …

          • ShawntayUStay

            I have no clue who Blanket’s father or mother is. Rumor said the surrogate was a Mexican nurse named Helena, but I don’t know if she was the egg donor or not. But Mesereau implied that Blanket was Hispanic, not Indian. And although it’s possible Prudence Solomon could’ve given MJ one of her eggs, she doesn’t seem like the type to give away her child. That’s big Debbie Rowe’s thing because she never wanted to be a mother. But how many well-adjusted classy women would knowingly have a child without, well, knowing them.

            Oh, and Matt Fiddes claimed he was a sperm donor and Blanket may be his bio kid. He was MJ’s bodyguard at one point. I just don’t know about it…

            Was he trying to say MJ was Asexual? What happened to trying to prove that MJ was a Gynephilic, Adult-vagina-loving,
            Adult-Heterosexual-Porn-loving man? I never heard of an Asexual person with MJ’s Adult-Heterosexual Porn, Adult-Homosexual Porn, and Homosexual-Pedophilic/Homosexual-Hebephilic Erotica collection … Nor have I ever heard of a normal Teenager/Adult owning ANY form of Child-Erotica …

            No, Mesereau wasn’t implying anything about MJ’s sexuality. He simply was referencing the race of MJ’s children along the lines of MJ being a person of the world, having no cultural, religious, or racial boundaries. Something like that. So it was brought up in a completely neutral context.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Yeah I heard Blanket’s bio-dad was a “White”-British bodyguard of MJ’s. Not sure if the name was the same as the name you gave, but it might have been.

            Debbie Rowe seems like a woman with a few Personality Disorders herself. She gave her eggs to an accused Child Sexual Abuser who had at least two out-of-court settlements. She didn’t want Prince or Paris, after MJ died, but, reportedly, thought she’d look bad if she didn’t atleast pretend she did at some point. Yuck! How could any women give her eggs to that Child-Abusing bastard? Really, all of the donors — male and female — are lacking something for basically selling this man their children.

          • Michele

            It’s intersting you said, “Paris Jackson has a mental illness”.

            Did you see her medical records?

            No, you didn’t.

            Are you a psychiatrist?

            I certainly hope not.

            Am I a psychiatrist or trained doctor to give that type of diagnosis?

            No, I am not. That’s why I don’t give definitive mental illness diagnosis. Based on your post,(which included nothing factual) I am curious as to why you are attacking Paris Jackson? Its all good and dandy to talk about MJ, but to give his a daughter a mental illness? I’m not exactly sure what goes on in your world, but grow up.

        • The Queen Of Swords

          I think it’s rather sad all of what Paris is going through. I do think she is a drama-queen and loves the attention, but either way it’s all sad because she will have to come to term’s with MJ’s PedoHebephilia & Child-Molesting one day in the future.

          I think she had a very strong connection to Michel Jackson, loves him dearly, and will view him as a father no matter what.
          With that said, I will state that there is no way Paris is Michael’s daughter. Yes, a few Half-“Black” kids come out “White”-Passing. But this is largely because their “Black” parent is heavily admixed. MJ in my guess was mostly of West African/West-Central African descent. Add to that the fact that she doesn’t resemble MJ nor any of his family members facially at all. (Most, though not all, “White”-Passing “White”/”Black” Biracials will at least have facial features or hair textures reminsiscent of their “Black” parent, and the reverse is true for medium-brown “Black”/”White” Biracials). Blanket’s bio-mom is rumored to be MJ’s long-time friend Indo-South African Prudence Soloman. Blanket looks a lot like her so this may be true.
          MJ didn’t want biological kids — not just because he was self-hating due to his father’s and older brother’s racialized-bullying — but

          • Mezza

            Well I will have to disagree with you about the biology and I know most people disagree with me but I think Paris and blanket are MJs kids. Both have his bone structure, both have his smile and blanket has his eyes and Paris walks like him. I might be totally wrong but thats what i think. Prince on the other hand I think is Arnold Klein’s. We might never know the truth but I’m sure the first thing that happened after MJs death were DNA tests.

            As to the kids, I really feel for them and to be honest, unless a huge amount of people come forward they will probably never believe he molested them as they have been round the Jackson family their whole lives. They have had a seriously hard upbringing and I hope they will have some sense of normalcy as they grow up and become adults. I wish them nothing but happiness, peace and luck. I don’t think they will ever get it but my hope is they get some. It is not their fault they were bought into this world with a famous dad and likely a child molester.

            Regarding whether MJ was afraid of being attracted to them and didn’t want them to look like his dad is all speculation in my eyes.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            Well, Katherine Jackson did everything to stop DNA tests after MJ’s death.
            That and the fact that all of the other Jackson men’s half-“Black” children came out in-between.
            Paris refered to the Jackson’s as her “colored”, “kind of family” once, and is currently dating a White-Supremacist who loves the Confederate flag. Not saying she cannot have an African-American father because of this, but it adds to the view that she isn’t MJ’s bio-daughter and knows it, like her brother who has got in trouble for race-related comments as well.

            I do feel for his kids, and think they may never fully come to terms with it. But I do feel some day MJ will be exposed fully for what he was. I believe there will be more accusers. Some of the kids he abused are not yet out of their 20s yet. I think more will come forward.

            The reasons why he didn’t want biological kids or African-American kids like himself can only be speculated. But based on his behavior and that of other victims of Domestic Violence … and also the behavior patterns of other offending-Pedophiles/Hebephiles, I believe there is some truth to it.

          • Mezza

            Again, I’ll have to disagree with you about their biology but I understand why you don’t and I am the minority in this.
            1. The confederate flag tattoo that snoddy has is part of a pantera album cover. Who knows what he meant by it. He got it a number of years ago, he may not have known the meaning behind the flag or thought about what it meant and just loved the album. Or he could he racist buy personally I’m going for the ‘loved the album’ because if he was gat racist it makes no sense that he would date the daughter of a very iconic black man. I’m going to give him the benefit of doubt. He is young.
            2. I’ve never heard Paris say anything about her ‘coloured’ family or anything like that in rude way.
            3. Again, who knows about DNA testing, if I was a child who was continually speculated not to be the biological child of the Jacksons I would wanna know. They couldn’t have done it at any time without Katherine’s permission.
            4. One of my closest friends husbands did a genetics degree at university and I asked him about the 3 kids. He said looking at Paris and prince with a black father but who isn’t extremely dark and a very light blonde mother could easily have a kid that looks like Paris or prince. Again I personally think that Prince is Arnold’s. He said that the chances of having 3 light kids like Paris would be slim but considering we don’t know anything about blankets mother it could easily happen. All the Jackson kids had children with black women and hence most of them have ended up darker though when I look at Tarryl you see how light he is. He had a child with a jet black half Asian lady and their son is blonde with wavy hair. Genetics are mad man. Tj and his wife’s daughter are darker but one of them has dead straight hair. tJs hair is very very curly, his wife’s is dead straight. His child is pretty light skinnedbwith dead straight hair.

            Anyway we will see about the DNA. This is my opinion and I respect that people don’t agree with me ansbthat is fine.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I respect your opinion, even if I disagree. 🙂

            The Jackson men aren’t faithful men or stable. Lol. Many of them have children with multiple women — including Non-“Black” women. Of these Biracial/Multiracial Jacksons, not one looks solely identical to the mother’s “race”, but mixed-race. And most of these Biracial/Multiracial Jacksons look like members of the Jackson family.

            I know genetics are tricky. I am more Afro-descent than South Asian-descent, European-descent, or East Asian-descent, yet I never looked like a full-“Black” person despite the fact that none of my parents are Non-“Black” but of Multiracial descent. I looked like a full-East Asian as a small child with bone-straight hair, a light complexion, and slanted eyes. Now I look South Asian with curly hair.
            But I just don’t believe MJ used his own sperm. I believed besides Arnold Klein and Debbie Rowe of whom he used as donors for Prince and Paris, he used his long-time female friend Prudence Soloman and a male adult-friend as donors for Blanket. None of his kids look like Jacksons.

          • ShawntayUStay

            But let’s be real here. Michael Jackson had always and forever maintained he would never have his own children, that he’d always adopt. He’s maintained this stance since at least the early 1980s. We can speculate as to why a perfectly normal-seeming, attractive man in his early 20s would make such a declaration (likely because he was gay and was repulsed by the thought of having sex with a woman), but he made it.

            Brooke Shields, for instance, said MJ wanted to get married to her and they could adopt children. She declined, of course. I’m of the opinion that in 1994 when he married Lisa Marie Presley, he said they were going to have a baby more for the media than for reality, since he just beat the child molestation allegations. It was perfect for him that Lisa Marie already had two kids of her own. Remember the line in “They Don’t Care About Us” where he says “I have a wife and two children who love me” or something like that, which is interesting given the theme of the song. It was a cover, a ploy.

            I also believe LMP declined to have his babies because, as she even said, it would be a custody nightmare — MJ was crazy, LOL. And at this same time, while Lisa Marie was dragging her feet, he was asking Debbie Rowe who would act as a brood mare using another person’s sperm. So if that was the type of arrangement he sought with Debbie (and ultimately the one he’d use for all his kids, i.e. a surrogate), how’s to say that wasn’t the actual arrangement he had in mind with Lisa Marie? She’d be the birth mother and he’d find the equally impressive sperm? In my estimation, this goes well with his past statements.

            In Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s book, MJ quite clearly said he’d adopt over marrying and having children. Again, it’s repetition at this point, don’t you think? Even Dr. Conrad Murray said MJ told him those kids weren’t his biologically, and he wanted no connection between his kids and his own family.

            I guess I’m just a little confused why there are fans who want to continue to insist those are his real kids. Why? They aren’t and it really doesn’t matter at this point. As we can see in the Bashir documentary, MJ gave two different versions for Blanket’s provenance. That’s because he was lying about it.

          • FreeThinker888

            AMEN!

          • Mezza

            I know I’m the minority and that is fine but I still believe Paris is his kid, prince is Arnold’s and blanket is most likely his though I could be persuaded because I and the rest of the world doesn’t know who the mother is.

            I think we will never know the truth tbh unless ones comes out later and says something but why cause a shitstorm. Families of fathers or mothers could try to sue for money etc.

            I don’t really know how that all goes. Again I think paris is MJs biological child through pictures I’ve seen, the way she tweets about it, has talked about it and likes things on Instagram. She is 18 now, would be easy as pie to get a DNA test.

          • Who knows what he meant by it. He got it a number of years ago, he may not have known the meaning behind the flag or thought about what it meant and just loved the album.

            This is what Michael Snoddy said about the tattoo:

            “I am from the South, and I know that we don’t have the best history, but no matter where you are from or what skin you are in, be proud of who you are and where you came from.”

            Snoddy also added that it was also a reference to a Pantera album cover. Pantera bassist Rex Brown explained:

            The Confederate flag is on the back cover of [1996’s] The Great Southern Trendkill. That was the “Southern” part of it. There were still states that had that on their state flags. Nowadays it’s forbidden to use it. It’s not so politically correct. But it had nothing to do with racism. None of us were like that. It was just a tie-in to the artwork on the back cover. Even back then, I said, “This is not the way to go.” Lynyrd Skynyrd used one for years and still do. Now people confuse it with racism and hatred. That’s not what this band is about at all; quite the opposite. But it’s the only thing I would say in the P.C. days that I have any regrets about.

            All that being said, and in spite of any accusations that may be leveled at him for getting inked with the flag in the past, Snoddy has decided to cover up the tattoo. I wonder what convinced him that it wasn’t harmless as he always made it out to be? One reason could be that it’s better to stay on the good side of the chick that’s inheriting millions of dollars.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dd97e0af5f871e6bdfc5e17e7467ff42c25b81affa8a91b48ea55fdb3cdfd14c.png

          • Mezza

            I saw her instastory yesterday I think it was and. He talked about the tattoo and said he is from the south, loves he south but he has learnt from Paris family and others the meaning behind it and has decided to cover it. I can image how much shit he got for it!

          • ShawntayUStay

            Recent evidence shows that the origins of Pedophilia & Hebephilia are Bio-Neurological rather than Psycho-Sexual.

            Link the the peer-reviewed studies, please?

            I highly doubt bio-neurological origins would explain why adults want to have sex with children. What’s the point of that? And if that’s the case, what do you do with people who had no choice in their make-up? There are tons of ethical issues with those explanations. I do realize, as well, there is a shift towards biological/genetic theories of origin given the popularity other rare sexualities have had with these arguments (whether they’ve been unequivocally proven or not seems to matter very little), but I think pedophiles, it’s safe to say, are made, not born.

          • Andreas

            I highly doubt bio-neurological origins would explain why adults want to have sex with children. What’s the point of that?

            Evolutionary theory, at least the one brought by Darwin, and not the one brought by long-time-defunct Lamarck, doesn’t always work in the sense of evolution being a “success history” where every feature is supposed to have a positive meaning.

            Quite the opposite. Most mutations in an individual are usually bad, and only a select few mutations seem to demonstrate an advantage of the individual, although the few who does often get very significant, like the development of the eye or the feather. Plus, many of the features of evolution that has end up having a survival feature with an advantage can often come with weird by-products that often has no function, or even bad bi-functions. So there’s at least open two slots for pedophilia to come from genetics.

            That said I don’t know what pedophilia is for sure. There’s so much contention between the experts, and different theories up in the air, but I certainly don’t rule out that genetics can play a part.

            And if that’s the case, what do you do with people who had no choice in their make-up? There are tons of ethical issues with those explanations.

            So..? Does the ethical issues that come up make it wrong? Are you saying we should just pretend its a choice for the practical reasons?

            And even if its not biological and genetical, lets say just a result by upbringng/nurture, I can’t see how that makes pedophilia a choice? I couldn’t imagine anyone choosing to become a pedophile. Some people are simply sexually attracted by children, and thats all they know.

          • ShawntayUStay

            You clearly misunderstood what I’m saying. I’m saying that I do not think that a biological reason is the reason pedophilia exists. She always implies it’s the only reason, the most likely reason, without proffering anything remotely peer-reviewed or unbiased. It reads as a zero-sum game whereby a pedophile cannot be a victim of sexual abuse which may have left an indelible mark on his psycho-sexual development because that would, by her logic (and others), mean victims of sexual abuse will always have to fear they will become sexually attracted to children. That’s my point; that’s why I asked for peer-reviewed studies to look at myself. I do not believe — and have yet to be convinced otherwise — that pedophilia will ever be proven to be merely a manifestation of some aberrant neurological wiring, or the result of messed up genes.

            As for mutations, you are incorrect. Most mutations are silent and have no effect on the individual or the population in which they are found. So I’m not sure what you are saying, to be honest. My point when I said “What’s the point of that?” — meaning what is the point of adults being sexually attracted to children (especially non-viable prepubescent children) — still stands. There is no reason for that “trait”, assuming for a second that it’s remotely genetic and that hasn’t been proven, to exist, especially if it’s homosexual pedophilia. Now it’s true that deleterious/”bad” genetic mutations can exist at very low levels in a population inside heterozygotes, the mutation being effectively silenced by the dominant, advantageous allele. Or even if the mutation doesn’t cause a drop in fitness. So in pedophilia’s case, first one would need to locate the gene in which the pedophilia trait exists on or mutated from and confirm that it is indeed heritable. That hasn’t been done. Second, one would need to then tell me whether it’s riding on the genetic coattails of heterozygotes, or if it’s somehow “advantageous enough” that it hasn’t been wiped out by natural selection. If it’s the latter, demonstrate to me how it doesn’t reduce fitness to want to have sexual relations exclusively with non-viable children — sexual relations, don’t forget, that can physically damage the body parts of these children and/or are completely purposeless, such as in homosexual pedophilia.

            “So..? Does the ethical issues that come up make it wrong? Are you saying
            we should just pretend its a choice for the practical reasons?”

            It doesn’t make it wrong, although I’m sure it is wrong. Have yet to see a compelling argument; still waiting for that. But I bring up ethical reasons because of the push toward biological arguments for complex human behaviors, especially ones that are deviant and have been labeled criminal. What to do with these individuals? I personally feel the push is more of a “shifting blame” kind of thing; instead of examining what societal ills/family ills may be causing deviant behavior, we slap a “nature label” on it to make ourselves feel better. Louis Theroux’s doc “A Place for Pedophiles” is a perfect illustration of an ethical dilemma if we decide to close down any (apparently) politically incorrect discussion of pedophilia being possibly the result of age- and psyche-inappropriate sexual experiences and trauma, and instead just say it’s the result of neurological cross-wiring and misfirings. If they couldn’t help it, would it be unjust to institutionalize an otherwise completely normal individual? Read: ethical dilemma.

            And while I’m here, the argument about men getting their “nurture for children” wire crisscrossed with their “sexual desire” wire is ridiculous, in my opinion, because men are not even highly nurturing toward children! Is there even a wire to crisscross that would cause such a disturbance as the intense, OCD-like attraction to children? This level of attraction is above and beyond more unstable than what is seen in normal heterosexual and homosexual men. So that argument is pretty specious at this point…in my opinion.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            I respect your opinion, even if I disagree. Hopefully more and more studies will be done on this topic.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Why respect my opinion if you disagree? It matters not to me. I’m much more interested to know why you disagree/why I could be wrong, and your proofs as to that position, than whether you respect my viewpoint. In this instance, respectfully disagreeing brings us no closer to any kind of understanding.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            My typed answer above (which may not have been approved yet, due to editing it), explained why I disagreed.

          • Andreas

            My point when I said “What’s the point of that?” — meaning what is the point of adults being sexually attracted to children (especially non-viable prepubescent children) — still stands.

            But that was my entire point! Mutations are completely random. They do not have a point or a purpose or any plan. Most mutations are shown not to have positive attributes at all. Natural selection just picks up on a few mutations if there is a survival advantage. Any ‘bad’ silent mutations can still come along even if being attracted to children makes little sense in terms of reproduction or ability to survive. Also, many features that actually do have advantages can come along with by-products that has a purpose.

            Its a very common mistake to think everything in nature and evolution needs to have a purpose, but many things come as byproducts.

            I don’t argue that pedophilia must come from heritage, all I’m saying is that you can’t reject that it could be just because there wouldn’t be any evolutionary purpose to it. Thats all I’m saying here.

            And while I’m here, the argument about men getting their “nurture for children” wire crisscrossed with their “sexual desire” wire is ridiculous, in my opinion, because men are not even highly nurturing toward children!

            What… Men can’t be nurturing towards children? 🙂
            What men do you meet, Shawntay? They of course can be. I know plenty. The wire is supposedly an exceeding amount of white matter in the brain that crosses these signals, according to James Cantor’s research on pedophile brains.

            I actually do think this theory fits very well with especially Michael Jackson. To me it seems like Jackson really cared for children, and I suspect this is the reason for all the controversy why people don’t understand how he could be a pedophile and a child molester. He just don’t seem “evil” enough for them to be capable of being one.

            Most people naturally think of child molestation as something “evil”, and therefore only something someone “evil” could do. I do think Jackson’s brain mixed signals of nurture and attraction, and I think this is the case with many pedophiles. Hence why many pedophile victims are confused by their abuse, because it probably never seemed ill-intended to them, which obscures things, especially for a child. Ken Lannings reports of child molestation cases says the majority of child molesters are “nice guy molesters”, so its not just the odd few that are. Pedophiles often cares for children. Its a problematic dillemma. I respect it if you think differently though, and I don’t want a 1000 post debate here, but thats where I’m at.

            I bring up ethical reasons because of the push toward biological arguments for complex human behaviors, especially ones that are deviant and have been labeled criminal. I personally feel the push is more of a “shifting blame” kind of thing; instead of examining what societal ills/family ills may be causing deviant behavior, we slap a “nature label” on it to make ourselves feel better.

            I do sympathize with your worries, but I think sort of the opposite. We tend to HOPE its societal because then we can perhaps fix the problem, and we would also conveniently have someone to blame. However, if a serial killer is shown to have some kind of abnormal brain its a lot more scary, because then we can’t just blame teachers and bad parents or violent movies or video games, which is a lot more comfortable. Especially for opportunistic people with a political agenda already. If some people are born with a brain incapable of feeling empathy for example, or have ‘psychopathic traits’ simply by nature, there’s no reason to “feel better” about it being genetical, because its obviously a far more hopeless scenario, as there is less we can do about it and we now have nobody to blame.

            If they couldn’t help it, would it be unjust to institutionalize an otherwise completely normal individual? Read: ethical dilemma.

            Yes.. This is a reoccuring question asked in determinism-debates too. The answer isn’t too difficult, really. I think its clear that serial child molesters and serial killers should still be locked up, even if the responsibility isn’t theirs. You’d still need to protect potential victims, right?

            Besides, if it was all 100% societal/parental influence would locking the child molester up be more ‘just’ somehow? They would be just as dangerous for children in either case.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Andreas, just to correct you: there is no such thing as a “bad” silent mutation. A silent mutation, like I said previously, has no effect on the individual. For example, a single nucleotide change still results in the exact same amino acid seen in the non-mutated sequence. So let’s not begin on a false premise. 😉

            Also, mutations are random, but natural selection, and therefore evolution, absolutely has a purpose, which is to produce the most fit form/trait needed to survive in a given environment without too much unnecessary consumption of energy to produce the most fit form/trait.

            A trait like pedophilia, if genetic, would have to confer some benefit on fitness to be passed on from generation to generation. Or simply be hidden in heterozygous genotypes where it would not show itself unless 2 heterozygous individuals mated and somehow produced offspring homozygous for this trait. And seeing that pedophilia is deleterious, especially homosexual pedophilia, the homozygous individual expressing the pedophilia trait would likely not pass on the gene, either because low or no reproduction occurs for whatever reason (would be the case in homosexual pedophilia and cases of exclusive type pedophilia) including incarceration or “preventative treatments” such as chemical castration.

            As I said before, you have to first demonstrate it’s actually a heritable or genetic trait, followed by why it would increase fitness. I personally can’t imagine why it would increase fitness, so I’m not warm on a genetic explanation for a highly complex, yet extremely specific, human behavior such as pedophilia!

            As for my quip about men and nurturing children, I was comparing it to females. So in comparison, it’s way lower. The crisscrossed wiring argument would have more salience if we were discussing the origins of female pedophilia (Which was found to exist!). It doesn’t really work for men, in my opinion, because of the level of sexual interest for children seen in pedophiles is far greater than the level of nurturing seen in men.

            Your point about “nice guy molesters” doesn’t explain all variation in pedophiles, or rather, those men who are diagnosed using DSM criteria for pedophilia. “Nice guy molesters tend to be pedophiles, but not all pedophiles are nice guy molesters” would be my point for you to consider. But you are right about Michael Jackson being a nice guy molester pedophile.

            So, at any rate, would the nurture/desire crisscrossed wire theory really be the be-all, end-all explanation for pedophilia these “experts” are claiming it as being? One opposite case is enough to torpedo a hypothesis, according to Einstein. I’d say back to the drawing board, Cantor! LOL.

            “Besides, if it was all 100% societal/parental influence would locking the child molester up be more ‘just’ somehow?”

            No, my point is the same one made by human rights leaders: why punish someone for a trait they have no control over? There’s a push to normalize pedophilia (why??) by saying it’s an inborn sexual orientation and they should be integrated into society so they do not become so ostracized that it makes them want to act on their nature and offend. Of course, no time is taken to ponder why this paraphilia should warrant the “born this way” seal-of-approval while another equally disgusting, pointless paraphilia like zoophilia isn’t offered the same consideration! (Although I wouldn’t be surprised if human rights activists aren’t working on that one, too. :-/ )

            I’m curious as to why you are hesitant to accept the notion pedophilia is more likely the result of environmental factors rather than biological/genetic factors?

          • The Queen Of Swords

            This was along the lines of what I thought on this disturbing issue. Pedophilia/Hebephilia is not what I think any human-being would coose, but being a Child Sexual Abuser (whether the abuser is a Pedophile/Hebephile or not) is a choice. Abusing is always a choice.

          • The Queen Of Swords

            My tablet won’t let me link anything at the moment, but I have provided two links on this subject in the past, and there are many more.

            I think Pedophiles/Hebephiles are born, not made. But I think Child Sexual Abusers (50% are Pedophiles/Hebephiles; 50% are not Pedophilic/Hebephilic) can be made, and weren’t exactly born. Everything is still a choice, and not even all Pedophiles/ahebephiles ever committ Child Sexual Abuse.

            I don’t know if that would make sense to everyone else. But if most victims survivors are female while most abusers are male, most male survivors never sexually-victimizers do not victimize others at any point during their life, on average only around 30% of abusers were sexually-abused during childhood — which is around the same percentage for average Americans, and only 11% of Non-Offending Pedophiles/Hebephiles were sexually-victimized as children, I think it’s safe to say there are many other factors for a sexual-victimizer of children other than past victimization — like Pedophilia/Hebephilia, Personality Disorders, Substance-Abuse, Mental Illness …etc.
            This is just my opinion.

          • Mezza

            I can’t give you a link because I don’t know enough but I was talking to my counsellor some weeks back about MJ and she said that pedophilia is a born with thing and that is why it is very very hard to ever ‘treat’ pedophiles in any way and they are a constant risk to society and have to be kept tabs on. She felt really sorry for them as it is something they are born with like some males and some females being attracted to the same sex etc. Then there are people for whom molesting is a power play etc and she said for them they are treatable because there are other issues at play that are causing the behavior.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Your counselor is clearly of the “pedophilia is a sexual preference” school of thought. There’s no proof yet that that is true. There is no reason why it would be true. The brains of gays and heterosexuals react differently from those of gay and heterosexual pedophiles, when presented with their preferred sexual stimuli. Pedophiles’ reaction is stronger and more intense. It activates more of the reward centers.

            A compelling argument was proffered that pedophilia is just one result of many stemming from an OCD-like predisposition. The environment, therefore, shaped some individuals to become pedophiles. Perhaps in a different environment, these same individuals could’ve had another compulsive problem. Pedophilia is a paraphilia after all; a fetish as it’s defined.

            At any rate, at the core, these individuals seem to extremely sensitive to stimuli, above and beyond what is seen in normal people, and react much more strongly to it. It would therefore follow, in my opinion, environmental factors, such as sexual abuse and/or age inappropriate trauma that was never properly treated, could be a large part of why they fixate on children. This sensitivity would explain why most abuse victims don’t necessarily become abusers: not all are equally sensitive and some are more resilient to trauma.

          • Mezza

            Yeah I don’t know the first think about pedophiles and it is just what she relayed to me. Tbh all that stuff creeps me out so I’m not one to research that stuff. I’ll take your word for it.

          • Mélanie

            MJ was regressive: It has “maybe” had sex with adults (men or women) who have not been satisfactory (he could experience such that occasion a sense of humiliation). They then turned to the children, partners seemed more accessible to him, and with whom he found a sense of power and control. He tried to self-justify his conduct by claiming to educate the child.

  • yaso

    Why some people’ comments are deleted?! I noticed that recently, there was someone who posted a lot lately (don’t remember her username) but her comments are deleted?!

    • That was Mezza, she deleted her Disqus account which caused all her comments to disappear. I know one other regular commenter did the same, they have re-joined Disqus but their old comments remain deleted even though their new comments show up.

      It’s a pity comments are deleted like that, they leave many gaps in the flow of conversations. It’s a personal choice for people to make as to whether they want comments to remain or be deleted and their decision needs to be respected.

      • yaso

        Thanks for clarifying 🙂

      • Mezza

        Sorry peeps, I didn’t realise if I deleted my account it would actually remove comments. I’m sure I ticked something that said my comments would turn into ‘guest’ but maybe it only just does this for initial posts and not replies???

        I just started up an account today to ask about the Wade stuff. I will make sure that I don’t delete my account this time so comments don’t get wiped. I just needed some time off MJ to gather my thoughts a bit.

        What it has bought me is more clarity and an even more confidence in my feelings that MJ was a molester.

        Though Wade going back to work has made my support for him waver a bit. Very stupid to put in your claim that you can’t work anymore and in this business and then be posting and getting photographed on social media working. Eek. Silly man.

      • Mezza

        I’d love to know every suit or claim that has ever been filled against Jackson over the years. It must be a thousand at least.

  • Mélanie

    Michael Jackson has deceived the whole world, I will never question the child molestation charges against him. Wade had emotional breakdowns and it is at that moment he felt that he had two choices. whether he lived in the shadow of his assailant or whether he remained standing in the light. MJ paid several million dollars to have abused children, it might be easy to prove using photos and descriptions. I hope that justice will be done next year.

  • Mélanie

    Here’s an article about MJ and Corey Feldman..entre other ..
    http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-et-ct-young-artist-awards/

  • Mezza

    I didn’t get this notification! It wasn’t till I just followed you that I saw this. Thank you 🙂

    I just needed a break from it all.

  • The Queen Of Swords

    Someone stated that they believed Wade was suing out of retaliation.
    I believe he is suing partially out of retaliation as well, but I also believe that like many others Wade is upset by MJ’s image being white-washed after his death & wants to expose him to the World as a PedoHebephilic Child Sexual Abuser, and maybe since he is a dad now he wants to protect kids. His first lawyer said he is a caring dad who is self-analyzing. Maybe he feels even moreso than many of the others that he HAS to expose MJ because he testified for the defense in the 2005 trial of which MJ was acquitted of all charges.

  • Mélanie

    Hello, do you know this Bartucci case ?
    https://casetext.com/case/bartucci-v-jackson-2

    • Hilal Alsameraaii

      I gave it a read, it was very shocking. But Diane Dimond has given reasons in her book as to why the story may be false.

      • Mélanie

        Thank you for your response Hilal, Diane Dimond is an honest person, she knows the difference between the true and the false. Pity that his books are not translated into French, I’d love to read them; Finally, this site allows me to ask questions and get answers, thank you to you.

    • Joseph Bartucci is crazy. This case was denied — one of Jackson’s employees and a friend both said they saw Michael Jackson in California at the time he was supposed to be in New Orleans. While it may be possible that these two people lied about Jackson’s whereabouts at the time of the alleged offenses, what Bartucci said Jackson did to him is so far-fetched and ridiculous we can dismiss him easily.

      In spite of what some may claim, it is incredibly difficult to make false claims against a celebrity; doubly difficult to make false claims against a star of Jackson’s caliber and the resources he had. False claims such as this one by Bartucci highlight how powerful the Chandler story was.

      • Mélanie

        Yes these charges are too exaggerated and ridiculous, the procedure of MJ was not the one described by Joseph Bartucci. Indeed, the Chandler case gave some ideas …. And I fully agree, it is impossible to accuse MJ with false stories. The real business not having even been acknowledged. But the fabricated charges reinforce the idea that all complaints are necessarily false. This is the big problem rooted in the heads of delirious fans who can no longer separate the wheat from the chaff.

        • Fans like to use these false accusers as proof that it was easy to accuse MJ — and they are right. It was easy.

          What was difficult was winning against MJ if you had a less than solid case against him. That’s why should their cases survive summary judgment due to legal technicalities, Wade and James have a good shot at winning.

          • Mélanie

            Yes I think the same as you! to accuse MJ needed and always proof beyond a reasonable doubt, he always had very good lawyers to defend in all circumstances. I really wish Wade and James win hands with the niceties which you speak. their lawyers have much perspective to anticipate conjuring tricks and all acquaintances, compromise and compromise more than doubtful that are sure.

    • Mezza

      I’d love to know every case bought against Jackson ever. Must be at least 1000 of them.

      • Mélanie

        Mezza Obviously MJ was accused of wrong things! But these were immediately contradicted and proven slanderous. However, to stop the Chandler case MJ paid his accusers, this is the first proof of his guilt, you do not pay, not to face a trial when one is innocent! So you should never underestimate how much the power of fame can twist any situation. But somehow recognize or not pedophilia Jackson is a matter between himself and his conscience …. It is generally considered that the passionate viol, contradicts the basic rules of logic, those that any sensible man in possession of his reason, will be able to exercise. The problem is that, at the same time, the passionate uses these rules but somehow upside … Children with MJ abused were traumatized not only by Jackson but also by their accomplices Parents’ unconscious “acts of the singer. The bond between Jackson and families was very strong, always it is found in all cases of pedophiles seducing, it is a constant, Jackson is not unique, and that’s why the psychiatrist who follow when therapies can talk skillfully and lambdas people like me can understand. It’s very interesting, it reminds me of the kind of bond that united a guru to his follower in cults. It’s as strong and harmful to the parents and their child. Jackson taught me things I could better understand the complexity of these situations, when a seductive pedophile infiltrates a family, the family gives him absolute confidence, just as indoctrinated fans do. Except maybe for them it’s even worse, because they saw on stage, ie far. Some even have not seen at all. But they can judge the victims and their relatives to major injuries reinforcements. There are fans to complain about the abuser and defend, something they would not do if their neighbors had done the same to their children.
        At the 2005 trial there were three ways to give a verdict: guilty, not guilty, and innocent – MJ was not guilty but not innocent.
        I think all children molested by Jackson have the right to be recognized as victims. But maybe the fans have also decided that those kids were very happy with it and after all they were so lucky to have been able to live with the King of Pop!
        The right question to ask was: Is it normal to correctly draw the erect penis of a man “shy and modest,” when you have only 13 years old? Of course not. Who can accurately draw the erect penis of a friend who is not intimate?
        All legal documents highlight the unhealthy appetites and interests of Jackson. They provide the hard evidence that he was interested in children as sexual beings.
        Michael Jackson was a star whose fame had immunized civilized constraints of real life, a spoiled millionaire unable to moderate and control his sexual impulses. It was screened in life and now his estate is trying to protect his legacy and win a fortune greedily as the GM.
        Facts are facts and Jackson was a pedophile psychopath. He knew manipulate families, as well as it did with its medics, and others, to get what he wanted. Fans should check with psychologists who treated the little victims, rather than invent all sorts of conspiracies that wildest one another. it’s impressive as in the testimonies of professional psychology include Jackson!

        It is sad that the world honors the artist and condoning the aggressor. “All handsets MJ albums are not worth the physical and mental health of one child.”

        • Mezza

          Sorry that was just a general ‘I wonder how many lawsuits’ not focused on one area, just generally.

          • Mélanie

            Mezza ok no worries 🙂

      • I don’t believe there were ever that many.

        The ones that immediately come to mind are:

        Two for molestation – Jordan Chandler* and Joseph Bartucci.

        A couple for plagiarism – Crystal Cartier for Dangerous and Manu Dibango* for Wanna Be Startin Something.

        Mickey Fine Pharmacy* for non-payment of a $100,000(!) bill for drugs and bleaching cream.

        One from Marcel Avram* for breach of contract over the Millenium concerts.

        Darien Dash* and Prescient Corp* for unpaid fees over refinancing his massive debt.

        John Landis* for his share of the profits from the Thriller video.

        Marc Schaffel* for money which was loaned to MJ and was never repaid.

        A family that sued MJ for organising to have their sick grandmother kicked out of the hospital room he wanted.

        Dr Sebi who claimed he treated MJ for painkiller addiction and was never paid.

        Sheikh Abdulla bin Hamad Al Khalifa* who financed MJ’s move (and life) in Bahrain after the trial but wanted that money repaid after MJ reneged on a deal to record an album for the sheikh’s record label.

        Billie Jean Jackson sued for child support.

        Former manager Raymone Bain sued for unpaid fees.

        (The ones marked * were lost by MJ)

        I’m sure there were many letters of demand sent to his lawyers too!

  • Mélanie

    It would be a pleasure, thank you in advance 🙂

  • Mélanie

    Thank you infinitely Hilal, the prosecution Bartucci is strange indeed, it has very doubtful antecedents, and I do not think Jackson would be taken to a young man of 18, even if he does not parraissait age, MJ loved prepubescent boys. On the other hand, I can not imagine that he could kidnap and torture, an adult !!! No Jackson never acted that way, he took the time to seduce his young victims before abusing them.

  • Mélanie

    Do you know Billy Gilman? In France some journalists have argued that he was the new “special friend” of MJ. (I do not know if this is true) – It was a beautiful little blond child with blue eyes, after singing on the “Today Show” he received a call from Jackson asking him to be part of the 30th birthday at Madison Square Garden New York, September 7, 2001. Billy, 12, then participated in 2001 in the 2 concerts of Michael Jackson for his 30-year career, he has interpreted the manifestation Ben title. He also participated in the recording of the song What More Can I Give MJ, he was also part of charity concerts United We Stand, alongside Michael Jackson, by interpreting other artists with the song What More Can I Give .

    http://turnto10.com/news/videos/where-are-they-now-country-star-billy-gilman

    In November 2014 – Billy reveals his homosexuality in a personal video, explaining the difficulties of assuming his sexuality in the country industry.

  • Hilal Alsameraaii

    Has anybody read Stacy Brown’s article on the NY Post? http://nypost.com/2013/10/13/inside-look-at-the-broke-jealous-jacksons/

    He says that around 2003, the Jackson family lost a civil suit which resulted in items being confiscated from them. These items included cancelled cheques that Michael Jackson made to families of abuse victims and letters from Katherine Jackson calling Michael a faggot. I was shocked when I first read it, but I began to wonder why the police didn’t find them in 1993. Maybe Jackson had them hidden, similar to how he got a bodyguard to destroy a polaroid that he had at Hayvenhurst, but I don’t get why he would want the polaroid destroyed but the letters and cancelled cheques hidden. I also don’t get why the creditors from the civil suit wouldn’t report this if it were true, maybe Jackson got wind of it and paid them to keep it quiet.

    I don’t even know if Stacy Brown a credible source.

    • Andreas

      Jackson had an amazing list of giving out gifts and checks to a lot of families, mostly (or perhaps always) with little boys he befriended. Houses, cars, vacations, shoppingsprees and so on.. He was a generous guy in general though, or at least so one could argue, so I don’t think the police could easily just point at a check and say its hush money for child molestation, even if they did have reasons for suspicion. He was quite a giving person otherwise too, it seems.

      The police needed someone to come forward about Jackson, but that proved to be difficult, because very few did. For reasons we can have opinions about. Its important to note that the Chandler case only became public because things went out of Evan Chandlers control. What would have happened if the psychiatrist Mathis Abrams hadn’t reported it(as he was obliged by law to do) there’s dissent about, but either way you see it the whole thing most likely would have been resolved in some way outside the public eye, as that never was in the Chandlers interest, and definitely not Michael’s.

      The police sort of had to get Jackson the way with a confronting victim, and not by accusing him of molesting children without the victim admitting to it. Furthermore, if a family had accepted checks or gifts for hush money its also unlikely they would disclose it later. You know, logically speaking,

  • Mezza

    @mjfacts:disqus you might want to look up the news right now

    This must have been what Fifaldi was talking about on Gurveys law podcast a couple weeks ago.

    http://www.tmz.com/2016/10/25/michael-jackson-lawsuit-child-sexual-abuse/

    • I think it is what he was talking about.

      I’m not convinced about this one yet, although it appears there are several receipts. Are those checks real I wonder?

      I’m a bit suspicious of the photo supplied, it looks like 2 hands on the girl’s shoulder.

      Here is the full complaint http://www.contentplace.net/FM/CombinedComplaint.pdf.

      Here are some receipts that were posted http://www.contentplace.net/FM/Photos.pdf

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9b7d9d998d4f344edb32d3c3b4c9d0818a9b8416113b2dcabdcc66036cca55fc.png

      • Mezza

        I didn’t notice that hand. That is definitely suss.

        Time will tell.

      • Mezza

        I have to be honest I think its also suss it is a girl and there have never been anything about girls since day one and this comes out a few months after Murrays claims of MJ re: Harriet and Emma Watson.

      • Andreas

        First it looks like that way, I agree. However, the more I look at that hand the more I sort of see that it could be just perspective playing the mind a trick, and that it could just be one hand after all. A couple of his fingers are just more darkly lit because of the light, and one of those fingers have an odd placing. Looking closely its that finger that makes it confusing.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1b7edf3d53a5be87199e4616950586a5eb3fda96faa66dde5c8f86e6b68ef6e2.png

      • ShawntayUStay

        I second what Andreas said: it’s his hand; those are MJ’s fingers. It’s not a Photoshopped image or anything. LOL

        “I’m not convinced about this one yet, although it appears there are several receipts. Are those checks real I wonder?”

        Why aren’t you convinced? I mean, she has more persuasive evidence than some of the accusers that we know of already, like Gavin Arvizo. It’s a little shocking that she’s a girl instead of a boy, but if we think about it, she actually helps with understanding some of the more strange puzzle pieces that were a little harder to fit together. Like his ownership of the child erotica photography book “In Search of Young Beauty” by Charles DuBois Hodges, which shows young girls predominately, including their naked breasts, and his collection of “Barely Legal” and other “teen girl” themed pornography. The explanation that he had these specific types of materials just to groom boys was never really satisfactory, in my opinion. Plus, MJ was attracted to substantially younger women like Brooke Shields and Tatum O’Neal.

        I think he still preferred boys, though; the time span of this woman’s allegations overlaps with his grooming/molesting of James Safechuck and allegedly Jonathan Spence.

        I wonder if the media will take more notice of these allegations because she’s a female than they did with respect to Wade and James. The public tends to trust women’s abuse allegations much more.

        What tickles me about it all is how the fans use to defend MJ against allegations that he liked boys by saying “MJ also loved girls, and they had sleepovers with him too!”, and they’d write long posts about the topic, like on the Rhythm of the Tide blog for example. So what can these use now? Clearly, no kid was safe. I think my mind will explode from irony if I hear any defense of MJ against this woman that is along the lines of “You know she’s lying; MJ only hanged out with boys!”……..LMAO.

        • Andreas

          Convicted pedophile and child molester Dr. Earl Bradley had 103 child victims… 102 girls and 1 boy. So things like that are possible. If she was a boy-ish ‘tomboy’ too its easier to accept.

          My money is on Kellie Parker. The anonymous accuser says she was abused on the set of Moonwalker, and Parker had a role in the Moonwalker production, and there’s pictures of her on set with Michael. There’s other pictures of Jackson holding hands with her, and she is wearing a fedora hat on one picture, and despite long hair could arguably be described as “tomboy”‘ish. Parker in an interview claims she knew was very close with him for years. You can read more about her here:

          http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/did-jackson-only-befriend-young-boys/

          Ironically this is michaeljacksonallegations.com attempting to prove he did hang out with girls too. I guess this means the site may have been right about something after all. Not sure if that was what they wanted to be right about though… but hey, they probably should take what they can get at this point…

          Kellie Parker’s voice is even in the infamous Moonwalker arcade game, when Jackson rescues the little girls, and you hear “Michael!”. Thats supposedly her voice. She’s also one of the main characters in the actual Moonwalker film.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I originally thought Vince Finaldi mentioned the whole tomboy thing to add credibility to what is, honestly, a far fetched notion of a female victim. Michael Jackson interested in lady parts? No way. But, he did in fact say he liked tomboys (if he was to like a girl) to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in his book. I keep thinking about what he said to James about women, and what he’s said about them in the Rabbi’s book, and with this new allegation — if true — he must prefer girls to actual women. Conrad Murray said so, too: he had a crush on Emma Watson since the first Harry Potter movie. He even said, long ago in an interview, that India’s child bride thing wasn’t such a horrible notion, as in “it’s their cultural practice, no harm done” kind of thing.

            I don’t think it’s Kellie Parker for the simple fact she’s given interviews and is well-known among fans as a supporter, thus why would she be an anonymous Jane Doe? James Safechuck is a private citizen, too, but he didn’t file as an anonymous accuser; obviously Wade Robson wouldn’t file anonymously either. I’m thinking this is an individual that no one knows about. Her allegations lead toward that direction as well. She was simply a sightseer who got to meet MJ, not a child actress. The suit didn’t say she had a role in the film, either, just that she visited the set as a guest. Lawsuits have to state all surrounding facts, and if it was Kellie Parker, we could’ve gleaned that from the document.

            “Ironically this is michaeljacksonallegations.com
            attempting to prove he did hang out with girls too. I guess this means the site may have been right about something after all. Not sure if that was what they wanted to be right about though… but hey, they probably should take what they can get at this point…”

            LMAO! 🙂

            That picture in the link of MJ holding hands with that girl just has a really creepy overtone now, doesn’t it? I mean, all of his interactions with kids of both sexes now have to be carefully re-evaluated. He always seemed so possessive, that picture demonstrates it. Is that Harriet Lester? Conrad Murray said he wanted to marry her.

            Fans’ use of girls as a rebuttal to his homosexual pedophilia is completely moot at this point, barring a complete vetting of Jane Doe and finding her to be lying. It’s all so utterly hilarious! They should’ve woke up and realized MJ’s obviously compulsive need to bed children was suspect, regardless of the sex of the kid (usually boys). They acted as if the infrequent girl guests nullified his pedo ways and made everything kosher. SMH.

            Speaking of which, Jane Doe didn’t allege bed sharing. Maybe it’s implied?

          • I mean, all of his interactions with kids of both sexes now have to be carefully re-evaluated.

            I’ve never read this page, but it was linked from the page @andreas_moss wrote about. It lists 60(?) girls MJ supposedly befriended.

            http://rhythmofthetide.com/michael-jacksons-female-kid-friends/

          • Andreas

            I looked through that page today actually. It lists a number of girls Jackson befriended or just had contact with once or more. Of the one’s that this accuser could be Lala Romero she’s another possible candidate, but not as strong as Kellie Parker… Others to look into: Natalia Barrett, Amanda Porter, Nicole Richie, Allison V Smith, Marielle Tourelle or Sky Ferreira. Some of them admitted to sleeping in bed with Jackson as kids, and some had some other smaller similarities.

            I personally think its most likely Kellie Parker. She fits the bill. Similarities between Kellie Parker and the accuser, I’ve noticed:

            1. Both are from California, and seemingly around the same age.

            2. The accuser said she was abused at Hayvenhurst, Neverland, Smooth Criminal shoot, Moonwalker shoot. Kellie Parker has been confirmed involved at all places, and worked on the Moonwalker film alone with Jackson for months. Delayed production even.

            3. Kellie working directly for Jackson also connects her to suing the companies MJ ran, which the lawsuit is about. If she was just an outside girl dropping by on the set, she wouldn’t be able to sue the companies. She must have worked for Jackson for the lawsuit that any co-workers were responsible to make any sense. I’m not sure how Jackson would be able to molest her on set if she was just a guest either, it seems more likely it would be possible with someone who was there with him over a period, like Kellie, but who knows… I suppose she could have been a guest.

            3. The tomboy connection. “She was an extreme tomboy when he first met her. He may have believed she was a boy at first,” ~ Vince Finaldi, to a newspaper.

            The complaint from the accuser also uses the word “tomboy” once.

            Look at this quote by Kellie Parker:
            “The look that I have in the video[Moonwalker], tomboy with the messy braids, was exactly how I went in for the audition. I was never a girly-girl, and it was sort of my niche that set me apart from at the other girls. I was a toughie, always wanting to be one of the boys. I think that is maybe what caught Michael’s eye. I was fairly raw, not very polished.”

            This quote by the way also implies Jackson handpicked Kellie Parker for the role.

            4. Kellie Parker kept contact with Jackson until she turned 15/puberty, with sleepovers, dressing alike and the whole nine yards… and so seems to be the story with the accuser too. Parker also is interviewed in Neverland after Jackson died, and shows the interviewer the secret closet and seems very familiar with the bedroom area, and Neverland in general. She had been there quite a bit.

            5. The accuser seem to have connected her emotional unstability and unability to continue work with her abuse with Michael Jackson in September 2016. Kellie Parker seems to have no recent activity since on social media, although granted there’s earlier praising of Jackson and the past there, so there has been a sudden change of heart (if she’s the accuser). Parker also seemed to have no new work since 2014 according to her resume on IMDB.

            My chips are all on Kellie, but if someone can refute that it could be her… then great too, I suppose. There could be someone we don’t know, true, someone perhaps completely under the radar… but of the confirmed girls from that page and who seemed to have somewhat stable contact with Jackson over many years, Kellie Parker or possibly Lala Romero are the known ones.

          • ShawntayUStay

            The accuser was born February 2, 1974. Was Kellie? That would be a simple check before counting your chickens before they hatch, so to speak.

            Also, there is no mention of the accuser being an actress. Just a simple sightseer who got to meet MJ in 1986. The suit would’ve absolutely mentioned if the accuser was an actress and if she was hired to be in Moonwalker, rather than just being a guest on the set. That’s an important point because of the role of the companies being an alleged protector of kids, like Wade was an employee who should’ve been “protected” from MJ if the companies had taken “reasonable safeguards”.

            I doubt highly it’s her.

          • ShawntayUStay

            It’s also likely not Lala Romero because she was 5, according to her, when she watched MJ, Latoya, and Tatiana Thumbtzen on the set of “The Way You Make Me Feel”. This accuser was 12 in 1986. That video was in 1987.

          • Pea

            “I personally think its most likely Kellie Parker. She fits the bill. … My chips are all on Kellie, but if someone can refute that it could be her… then great too, I suppose.”

            Unfortunately, you’ve just lost all your chips!

            I searched for reference to Jacko’s “Moonwalker” in a newspaper article database and discovered Kelley Parker’s age (correct spelling is KELLEY).

            According a January 15, 1989 article called, “THE BEST OF MICHAEL JACKSON – All – 94 minutes of ‘Moonwalker’ video are sure to please fans” in The Dallas Morning News, Kelley Parker was 12-years-old at publish date:

            “Badder’: A recreation of the Bad video, but using 8- to 10-year-old children in all the roles. Brandon Adams, 9, is a sensation in the Jackson part. […]

            Jackson’s friends here are children — played by Brandon Adams, 12-year-old Kellie (sic) Parker and the ubiquitous Sean Lennon, 13, who apparently plays himself. Tellingly, Jackson also plays himself in this spectacle. As you watch the beatific smile that appears on Jackson’s face as he interacts with the kids, you realize this may be where he’s most comfortable. And happy.

            A simple checking of the other kids’ birth dates demonstrated the article was a reasonably robust documentation of their ages: Brandon Adams was born Aug 1979, making him, in Jan 89, 9-years-old; Sean Lennon was born Oct 1975 — he would turn 14 that year but in January, he was still 13-years-old.

            This would’ve made Kelley born sometime in 1976 after January 15 or prior to that date in 1977 — also possible is that she was born in the month of January in 1977 but “aged up” because her birthday was soon.

            This article on Lipstick Alley (http://www.lipstickalley.com/showthread.php/548568-Kellie-Parker-from-Moonwalker-speaks-about-her-friendship-with-MJ ), a Q&A with Kelley, quoted her as saying she was living in Huntington Beach, Calif., at the time. Searching that info with her approximate DOB, I found she was born Jan 28, 1977.

            So, in sum, she is too young to be the accuser. It’s not Kelley Parker.

            (Also, as Shawntay pointed out, had it been an actress working on a film also produced by MJJ Productions, I’m sure Manly, Stewart & Finaldi would’ve added it to their narrative.)

          • Andreas

            Yes, I actually did calculate that there’s a 2 year age gap between Kellie and the accuser. You are correct about that, Pea. I sort of expected someone to pick up on that.

            (She’s listed as Kellie on IMDB, btw. She uses both Kelley and Kellie it seems.)

            You have to keep in mind though that if this person wanted to be anonymous the lawyers could have obscured the facts a tiny bit in respect to hiding her identity. Same goes with hiding she was an actress. What would be the point in just hiding the name, but saying she’s a child actress that worked with Jackson, or give the exact date of her age? People would easily guess its her. If you want to keep your client anonymous, you don’t just obscure the name. You obscure the leads a bit too.

            As I said she’s still “around the same age”, and matches the descriptions almost a bit too good otherwise. Thats how I gathered it.

            They do mention Jackson molested her at both the Smooth Criminal video, and the Moonwalker video.. and at Hayvenhurst and Neverland. Kellie worked closely with Jackson coincidently at both of Moonwalker and Smooth Criminal for months and months seperated with Jackson, and kept in close contact later. There’s also the ‘tomboy’ connection.

            Although I grant she’s not the only tomboy in existence.

          • ShawntayUStay

            So…in spite of evidence to the contrary that definitively proves it’s not Kelley Parker, you still believe it’s her.

            I’m surprised you didn’t wonder if it was Corey Feldman in drag. Smh.

          • Andreas

            Hehe, no this time its not Corey I promise. 🙂
            Yes, I still think its her, but please Shawntay, stop making every single disagreement personal. Let it go sometimes.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Not trying to make it “personal” but you honestly leave me scratching my head at the insistence with which you hold a point. It’s like a dog with a damned bone! You can’t just simply expect me, Shawntay, to bite my tongue! And thanks for conceding what I already suspected: “I’m at least not trying to come off as an arrogant know-it-all that can’t be wrong about anything, I just fail NATURALLY at it, OK?” We finally agree on something, LOL. I think the problem is you sometimes seem work backwards logically from a preformed conclusion and you don’t want to give it up. Mentioning Corey Feldman was just exhibit A…LOL. 😉

            Anyway, Pea already has shown that Kelley Parker’s date of birth is January 28, 1977, this information coming from a public records search website. The accuser’s date of birth is February 21, 1974. We are not talking about a 1-2 year age difference, but an almost three year age difference. This could not be more clear, Andreas. It’s not the same person.

            As for the, frankly, ridiculous idea the lawyers somehow falsified the document with a fake birth date and omissions about her being an actress, think about it logically. First off, the anonymous filing is for legal purposes to protect her identity, and only her name is the really significant identifier here. How many people were born in February 1974 or lived in Southern California? Tons! Those aren’t unique identifiers like an actual name would be. Same goes for the fact the corporations are named as Does 1 and 2. Plus, the judge is reading these exact papers; what good will it do to misstate facts?

            Secondly, and most importantly, the whole argument proffered by Manly, Stewart, and Finaldi is that MJJ Ventures/MJJ Productions violated their duty of care relationship with these kids and didn’t protect them from a dangerous sexual predator but instead, directly or indirectly, put them in harm’s way. Wouldn’t the nexus between the sexual abuse and the companies’ liability for it be much stronger if Jane Doe was an actress hired by MJJ Productions to be in Moonwalker, rather than a kid who visited the set? Indeed, the lawsuit accuses defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2 of “orchestrat[ing], facilitat[ing] and enabl[ing] the sexual abuse of Plaintiff by MICHAEL JACKSON by assisting in the grooming process” which included the following: buying gifts, chaperoning her to see MJ, sending letters, notes, and gifts to her (via MJJ secretaries), setting up meetings between her and MJ, isolating her with MJ for extended periods of time, and booking/paying accommodations for her and MJ.

            Also it states “As a minor guest of MICHAEL JACKSON and DOE 1 and DOE 2, where MICHAEL JACKSON was employed and worked, Plaintiff was under MICHAEL JACKSON’s, DOE 1, and DOE 2′ direct supervision, care and control…”. As you can very well see there is no mention of a relationship with the MJJ companies that extended to the accuser being a paid employee. She was a guest of MJ’s and only because he used those companies/company employees to interact with her, there is allegedly a duty of care owed to her. That would not be the case if she was Kelley Parker, hired to be a kid actor in Moonwalker. She’d then be like Wade Robson, and remember, the judge accepted his argument that he was hired by MJJ Productions/MJJ Ventures so he could be closer to MJ so MJ could molest him.

            Another thing is, look at the known pictures of MJ with Kelley Parker around the time of the Moonwalker film, and compare them with the accuser’s photo. MJ’s face looks completely different. His plastic surgery is nearly as good a date indicator as the rings in a tree stump! Jane Doe’s picture is mid-80s MJ, the interim between his darker skinned, thin nose, short Jheri-curled hair Thriller look and his cafe-au-lait complected, long Jheri-curl mullet of the Bad era. Plus, Kelley was a pale blonde — clearly of a lighter skintone than MJ — while the accuser’s and MJ’s skin both photographed the same color thereabout, indicating she’s likely not a pale white girl but perhaps a darker skinned nonblack or biracial individual. Basically, it’s not Kelley Parker. I can guarantee you.

            “Parker in my opinion matches the best on the list. If its not her, then it must be someone that nobody has even noticed existed, and must have kept an extremely low profile. I mean, LaCienega’s work on that female children friend list was VERY extensive and VERY generous with listing of girls Jackson supposedly hang out with. It includes almost anybody he met.”

            LOL, just because the fanatic LaCienega/Rhythm of the Tide created a long list doesn’t mean that list is the be-all, end-all! She is but a fan viewing things from a distance with no intimate knowledge of MJ’s life, despite her and many other fans’ claims to the contrary. So I wouldn’t rest any part of an argument on this list.

            “But lets face it, he didn’t do that to his male boy victims. Jackson didn’t think that way. Quite the opposite. He held hands with them in public, and got them to dress like him and so on. But you know, who knows, maybe Jackson would take more precaution if it was a girl, and keep her more secret. Its possible.”

            I think he probably did keep this hidden from view. It’s much easier to get away with befriending little boys if you pretend to be a stunted man-child that didn’t have a childhood, than it is to be a grown man hanging out with a young girl.

          • Andreas

            Not trying to make it “personal”

            Err. Yeah… about that… Sigh. :-/

            I think the problem is you sometimes seem work backwards logically from a preformed conclusion and you don’t want to give it up.

            Well, I thought the exact same thing about you, if I’m honest, although I’ve just kept it to myself. I never seen you changed your mind about anything either, Shawntay. You have an initial and often strong bold opinion about something, and then its never ever changed. At least not in debate. I’ve never seen you concede to a single minor point on anything ever. I’ve always gathered you must have some strong pride in being an expert on Jackson-stuff, and granted you do know a lot, so I suppose its a long way to admitting you are wrong about anything. I get that if thats the case. When I disagree with you however, and we do on a lot it seems, I usually just let it slide, or just stop answering before things get personal, because it seems it always does with you. It doesn’t matter to me all that much. Yes, unfortunately you do seem to make things personal and even mildly hostile often, bordering on to insulting, just for a mere difference in opinion usually, which is a bit disappointing, because it usually makes any rational pure debate about ideas in themselves where things isn’t about losing face, pride or whatever far more difficult. Its a very irrational way of debating in my opinion, and when you do that it also makes sense why you never seem to be able go back on anything either. You probably couldn’t.

            My post was just about who this accuser is, and that I thought there are many similarities to Parker, and I still think there is. You disagree, which is of course fine, but it was just my impression. No harm done, I would assume. I’ve conceded that it could be someone else however. I’ve conceded it might not be her. And I’ve even layed out clear things that would convince me 100% its not her. I’m not sure how that is still arrogant. I thought I was keeping an open mind, but seemingly not.

            I re-read Pea’s post, and yes, in an interview with Kellie she said her age at the Moonwalker film, indicating she was two years older than this present accuser. That was my own gathering too, as I’ve said many times now.

            Yes, you do think its ridiculous that an anonymous accuser would have some of her information held back and obscuring the age. To me though, realistically, it would be quite absurd if Parker was the accuser and wanted to stay anonymous in her lawsuit, but then her lawyers would still say she was the child actress in Moonwalker, making it clear-text to anyone that its her. Same could be argued with the birth dates. It would seem quite counter-intuitive to me to do that. Still, I admit I have no experience how anonymous lawsuits are filed. Its a unique situation. If Culkin was the one doing the lawsuit and wanted to do it anonymously, would you expect him to still list himself as the child actor in Home Alone too? I would assume they’d obscure it. A lot.

            So no, Shawntay. This isn’t about me being right, honestly, even if you seem to think so. I simply still think it looks like it could be her based on the other information the accuser and Parker having in common. The comments about the tomboy-stuff, Jackson personally handpicking Parker for the role, her having connections to Neverland/Hayvenhurst/Smooth Criminal/Moonwalker, etc. I wish we could just leave it at that, but I guess thats impossible.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Look, Andreas. It’s not personal, at least from my perspective. I can’t stress that enough. I don’t know you personally so how could it be? I only know your arguments, your points. That’s it. Those are your feelings that it’s personal, not mine. I only care about your debate, nothing else. So apologies if you are feeling salty. LOL. Perhaps I misunderstood your “arrogant know-it-all” quip. I thought you were serious (albeit in a humorous way).

            “Well, I thought the exact same thing about you, if I’m honest, although I’ve just kept it to myself. I never seen you changed your mind about anything either, Shawntay. You have an initial and often strong bold opinion about something, and then its never ever changed. At least not
            in debate. I’ve never seen you concede to a single minor point on anything ever”

            Really, that’s funny! And I wouldn’t have a problem if you told me so, either. FYI. As to conceding to points, with respect to Michael Jackson debates on here, I’ve simply never came across any point in opposition to my original argument that is worth conceding to, i.e. that is more correct than my point. Present me with some and I will readily submit to it, as I’ve said many times in the past. But, I never work backward because I know that’s what is called “weak sense critical thinking”, a big no-no for someone trained in science like myself. I only talk about stuff I can reliably be certain of and can be objectively verified. And I’m not a Michael Jackson expert by any means. Nor have I claimed so.

            “Yes, unfortunately you do seem to make things personal and even mildly hostile often, bordering on to insulting, just for a mere difference in opinion usually, which is a bit disappointing, because it usually makes
            any rational pure debate about ideas in themselves where things isn’t about losing face, pride or whatever far more difficult. Its a very irrational way of debating in my opinion, and when you do that it also makes sense why you never seem to be able go back on anything either.
            You probably couldn’t.”

            Again, it’s not hostile or personal or insulting from my perspective because I’m not saying it from those places. That’s your own interpretation! Perhaps I can be sarcastic and snarky, but it would depend on your level of sensitivity. It ain’t hostile, though. Anyway, as for rational debate/saving face, I’m sensing a bit of a speck-plank situation here. I’m reading a description of you, in my opinion, not me. All one needs to do is look at the debates about Gavin Arvizo, Corey Feldman, Tom Mesereau. Silent mutations, too. Now it’s this Kelley Parker thing. In the face of some fact that disproves unequivocally — or to be conservative, disproves to a reasonable degree of certainty that we as observers can know — your hypothesis, which seems to be based on speculation IMO, you double down and fit evidence to suit your narrative. Many people do that, fine, but you seem way too smart to do that. I’d love if you can recall any time I’ve done the same thing, i.e. hold a position in the face of evidence to the contrary. I have zero problem being wrong, as I’ve said numerous times throughout my time on MJFacts.

            I only ask you pointed questions because I’m trying to get why you think that way, and if there is anything behind it (i.e. facts) that I should take into consideration, but you more often than not just walk away.

            But back to the point, it’s not personal. Ever. Yes, I’m a bit spicy and snarky — can’t help it — and admittedly I have pet peeve about people I feel hold onto stuff in the face of objective facts. I’ve never called you names and wouldn’t.

            ” I simply still think it looks like it could be her based on the other information the accuser and Parker having in common. The comments about the tomboy-stuff, Jackson personally handpicking Parker for the role, her having connections to Neverland/Hayvenhurst/Smooth Criminal/Moonwalker, etc. I wish we could just leave it at that, but I guess thats impossible”

            But it’s not her, Andreas. Why do you keep saying it in the face of a birth date that is three years prior and in a different month? You’d have to prove that it’s allowable in legal papers to fabricate dates of birth. Or the fact she’s clearly a brown-skinned individual, not a white blonde? Or that she’s referred to in the lawsuit as a “guest” of MJ’s, rather than an employee hired by MJJ Productions for Moonwalker? Again, you’d need to prove it’s okay to change surrounding facts in a lawsuit to preserve anonymity. They’d more likely just redact than change things. So, these are facts, not speculation. So my thing is — for the life of me — I cannot understand why you continue to hold onto this idea???

          • Pea

            “As I said she’s still “around the same age”, and matches the descriptions otherwise.”

            I know you were under some impression that you’d made a big step toward “cracking the case” as to this accuser’s identity, but the simplest check was whether Kelley Parker’s age was equivalent. It was not.

            As I’d found, Kelley Parker was born January 28, 1977: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2SZN-SCD

            Here’s a Facebook post from Jan 28, 2010, in which Kelley mentions she’d been enjoying her birthday that day: https://www.facebook.com/kelley.parker.52/posts/308256670069

            (These confirmed dates back up the information in that news story I pasted in my earlier comment.)

            Alternately, this unknown accuser was born February 21, 1974. The two are not “around the same age”: Kelley is a full 3 years younger — not “1-to-2” as you’ve been saying. In order to deny the relevance of their differing DOBs and ages, you’d have to prove anonymity would extend beyond just using “Jane Doe” and to giving a false birth date, too. Based on my research, it seems to extend only to names, and that, in and of itself, is sometimes a point of litigation, as it can violate a defendant’s 6th Amendment right to face their accuser.

            Also, the accuser’s accurate age is an integral part of the facts of the case, and it is mentioned repeatedly in the document. If it was Kelley, the alleged abuse would’ve taken place from age 9 to 12; what would’ve been the point of making her 12-15 when Jacko was known to prefer prepubescents? Furthermore, Kelley didn’t even know Jacko in 1986 (and this unknown accuser has a letter dated to Sept 1986)! She first met him in 1987 when she was 10 — they began filming in February of that year.

            Another point of difference is that the accuser and Kelley are their heights and skin color. Kelley is shorter, blond, and light-skinned, whereas the accuser is taller, with brown hair and dark skin — the skin on her arms is close to the color of Jacko’s face:

            http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2glKXInB1Ao/UdgjlYGtQTI/AAAAAAAAJgs/iwbPtXhY-E8/s400/Kelley+Parker+candid+1.jpg

            http://stuffpoint.com/michael-jackson/image/275749-michael-jackson-michael-jackson-and-little-girl.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/96295d08b36af552a7706d1749af0b31f55eb9a5d29c76faff56caf902576c20.png

            Finally — and quite incidentally! — I already know the name of the accuser. Sorry, it’s not Kelley….

  • Mezza

    OMG I just turned on my mezza twitter account haha…. I dont know how you putvup with it.

  • Continued from:

    https://twitter.com/Kristin_Pan/status/790202476054061056

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sp7pkf

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sp7ukq

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sp807c

    • “A molestation story that was supposed to have taken place in a double bed in the LA apartment where there was no bed at all”

    So I revisited the documents and the story is set in an apartment in Wilshire. Now this is what Blanca Francia said about that apartment
    23 Like —
    24 kind of an apartment, suite. Called it “The
    25 Hideout.”
    26 Q. Where was that; do you know?
    27 A. I know it’s on Wilshire. 4981
    2 Q. Okay. Was there a bed at that residence?
    3 A. No.
    4 Q. Never?
    5 A. Never.
    6 Q. The whole time that you were cleaning there?
    7 A. Yeah.

    That was the Century City apartment she was talking about.

    • > True, and I’d like to see the explanation for that at trial. I don’t imagine that soon after meeting MJ that Joy would have left her child alone with MJ while she went somewhere else for a week.

    Now seriously what kind of explanation do you expect?

    Onepossible explanation Wade could give is that he has been able to start doing small jobs due to successful therapy.

    • > If Chantal was asleep, or nobody else was within earshot, MJ would have no problem having conversations like that. I’m not sure why you find that so unbelievable.

    It’s not just conversations it’s physical as well. The likelihood that she knew nothing is virtually zero.

    We’ll have to agree to disagree that Chantal fell asleep at some time over two days.

    • > Twisting nothing – I repeat, I’d like to see how he explains those minor jobs at trial.

    Again what explanation could you expect?

    Another explanation could be that as these minor jobs have nothing to do with the Hollywood entertainment industry (in which he struggled due to his anxiety brought on by his realization of the truth) he felt comfortable doing them.Who knows though? I’m sure you will scoff at any explanation no matter how reasonable.

    • > “lawyers changed the dates in their story” – please tell me the specific pages and lines in the separate court documents where this was shown to happen so that I can see it for myself. I have no idea what you mean, I haven’t noticed any discrepancies.

    So this is the judge’s ruling in which Robson’s lawyers gave a false date and it was debunked with the help of an e-mail. https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/16e893f7-cb8d-488b-9b09-d35207848ae7

    There is no evidence the lawyers changed any dates in that document.

    •> Wade Robson’s lawyers have never said he had repressed memory. And yes, I agreed with you that Wade chose to deliberately lie in 2005, however the deliberate lying was a result of MJ’s brainwashing. I don’t know what you mean when you say “tampering story,” you will need to elaborate.

    The very first explanation that was considered was repressed memory but it was quickly discarded. http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.de/2013/05/the-sworn-testimony-that-will-come-back.html In the judge’s ruling you can see the older version contains only one incident of alleged witness tampering in the 1990s. https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/16e893f7-cb8d-488b-9b09-d35207848ae7 The rest of the story that was set in 2005 was added later on.

    There was never a claim of repressed memory. I still don’t see what you are getting at with a “tampering story”. You will need to elaborate.

    • > You make it sound as if it is uncommon for acquaintance molesters and their victims to behave like this. It isn’t. http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
    Wade Robson recognized the experience as a loving one because that was what he was groomed by MJ to think of it as. It’s not unusual or strange in the world of MJ type pedophiles, even if you disbelieve it and don’t find it credible.

    This kind of testimony will most likely be presented but it has nothing to do with understanding what abuse is and grasping its nature. Again why would a person of reasonable intelligence not realize after sleeping with a woman that they’ve had similar experiences before and that those were illegal?

    I didn’t say he didn’t realize they were illegal.He said he doesn’t believe he was abused. Is that hard to grasp? I can explain more thoroughly if you like.

    • Kristin

      • I now set up an account. I dont mind using disqus there was just a delay.
      Yes, I know that was her testimony but I recall some further testimony
      where she had confused the two. I will look for it, but in any case it’s
      irrelevant because she left MJ’s employ before the Robsons ever stayed
      at Westwood. No-one else testified there was no bed.

      I had a look at google earth and apparently westwood, mid-wilshire and
      century city are neighborhoods in LA and Wilshire Boulevard is a street
      that runs through all of them. So century city and Wilshire are not even
      contradictory. And it gets even more ambiguous from here because
      century city and westwood overlap in the area that wilshire boulevard
      runs through. Now the only way to reconcile all of these statements is
      to locate the condo in that small area that overlaps.

      The trip that they took was supposed to have taken place in May of 1990 according to Joy and Francia left only in 1991.

      • One possible explanation Wade could give is that he has been able to start doing small jobs due to successful therapy.

      That’s not an explanation for denying any kind of employment.

      • We’ll have to agree to disagree that Chantal fell asleep at some time over two days.

      That’s just far from realistic being in the same bed and noticing no movement, no noise, no nothing. Come on.

      • There is no evidence the lawyers changed any dates in that document.

      The judge noticed that the dates they had given to match the deadline
      must have been false due to the e-mail that talks about a legal matter
      coming up.

      •The very first explanation that was considered was repressed memory but
      it was quickly discarded. http://charlesthomsonjournalis… In the
      judge’s ruling you can see the older version contains only one incident
      of alleged witness tampering in the 1990s. https://files.acrobat.com/a/pr… The rest of the story that was set in 2005 was added later on.

      There was never a claim of repressed memory. I still don’t see what you
      are getting at with a “tampering story”. You will need to elaborate.

      Again when TMZ broke the story it quoted lawyers that explained the
      testimony with the help of repressed memory which psychologists scoffed
      at in the media. I mean the crime of witness tampering in 05 was also a
      later addition.

      • I didn’t say he didn’t realize they were illegal.He said he doesn’t
      believe he was abused. Is that hard to grasp? I can explain more
      thoroughly if you like.

      Its just barely realistic to have sex with your wife and then not make
      the connection and that is already a stretch. Even in the ruling I
      posted the judge made a finding that Robson knew what abuse was by 2009
      however I don’t know what that finding is based on.

  • CandyC

    In regards to latest accuser, although I’m surprised that it’s a woman, since I was convinced Michael was solely interested in boys, where there is smoke there is definitely fire. I don’t find it impossible that he was interested in females, recall the Soleil Moon Frye story and what was in my opinion, his innappropriate canoodling with Sage Galesi, also I think there was a story about his alleged interest in Brandi Jackson, I could be wrong however. Despite the latest accuser being female I’m still sure he was predominately interested in boys. I don’t how people are still convinced Michael is innocent or even are still on the fence, it’s too suspicious.

    I don’t believe the latest accuser is Kellie Parker, I highly doubt it at least… I wonder why the alleged victim chose to remain anonymous though when the male accusers all come out publicly, I don’t blame her though, the fans can be so vicious. It will be interesting how this story develops and if it potentially encourages other possible victims to come forward.

    MJfacts, I encourage you to write an article on the latest female victim if you have time, no pressure though! 🙂

    • Pea

      Candy, in my opinion, it’s still self-evident that Jacko absolutely preferred boys, although it is amusing to see fans shush the “He liked girls, too!” refrain at the moment. Based on the available evidence, he was a boy-lover, and if this accuser is telling the truth (so far, the evidence she’s provided is interesting but thin), it would seem to me that she is merely an exception to his rule. For instance, even if Jacko was a homosexual pedophile, it is not hard to believe that, while his primary interest was in boys, he could also molest a girl. After all, a girl is at least still a child; if he was with a man, that man is still male. The metric would also suggest that since women are neither children nor male, he would not be with women, which appears to be the case.

      Also, if Jacko was afraid to confront his homosexuality, which I believe was a dominant part of the etiology of his pedophilia, being with a young girl would be “less scary” than being with an adult woman. Based on the appearance of this accuser, she looked athletic, slim, and flat-chested. The lawyers underscored that she was a “tomboy” — Jacko had expressed a preference for that type of female to the Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.

      He also wrote a song for BAD called “Tomboy” back in 1985, which didn’t make the cut. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Odl_Y2rK-Q

      She said that the body she was born, it was wrong kind
      She wears black, red and all that, to hide who she is inside

      Tomboy, tomboy, tomboy, you are accepted the way you’re
      There’s no one, to tell you otherwise, keep your head up high
      Tomboy, tomboy, tomboy, you are moon you are a star
      You shine to peoples lives, bring back the the hope and a smiles

      There’s no one, to tell you can’t
      Because you can if you want
      No one can let you down and tell you can’t
      To be that you feel in your heart

      (Not sure how accurate those lyrics are, lol, but it almost seems as if he’s encouraging the “tomboy” to be a boy, which he preferred anyway!)

      “I don’t believe the latest accuser is Kelley (or Kellie) Parker”

      It’s not. That isn’t her name — I happened to discover her identity, and I can imagine the speculation her name would inspire! Fans are waiting to find out who she is, and I believe they are stalkers, but I don’t believe she should remain anonymous nor should she be allowed to remain anonymous. All of that hiding, while understandable, is a bit absurd when you’re trying to take money from Jacko’s purchased children.

      • Mezza

        I understand the hiding. She may have children who are at school that she wants to protect and doesn’t want bullied or may/will have seen the viciousness in the way that the other victims were treated. I totally understand her need for privacy. I think she will be more viciously attacked then the guys because she is the lone wolf so to speak.

        I have to be honest though, the timing of Conrad’s revelations and then this claim seems quite suspicious to me.

        On the one hand his book may have given her the strength to come forward, on the other hand it could also give her an idea to put in a claim for cash.

        Just my 2 cents.

        • TheLibranQueenOfSwords

          According to her complaint it was Robson & Robson’s fourth amended complaint that gave her the courage to come forward. It was stated September 2016 was the first time she ever thoroughly thought about her abuse by Jackson and the Businesses & connected the dots to her present state. (She was in therapy for a while.) It also states Jackson threatened her with harm if she ever told anyone anything & that Frank DiLeo threatened her with injury.

          If genuine (which I believe), her hiding may be due to lingering fears & new similar fears oof Jackson Stans.

          About Conrad’s book, it was said in an interview with LA News station that Jane Doe does believe Jackson abused more girls & wanted them to come forward which was why she was saying anything.

      • Kat

        I didn’t doubt that there will be more people coming out with allegations against MJ, however did not expect the newest one to be female. So I’m undecided for now and just waiting to see how this develops.

        Jackson clearly had a strong, perhaps exclusive preference for boys. Most pedophiles have gender/age preferences, as is well-documented. That does not mean that a kid that didn’t fit the wanted criteria couldn’t have been molested. A sex abuser will choose their victims based on factors such as desirability and vulnerability, and if a desirable victim (a boy) is not around a vulnerable victim (a girl) can fall prey to the abuser. Also, pedophiles are attracted to children primarily because of their youth not gender, which makes me think that a pedo may go after a child even if they’re not the gender that they would typically choose.

        On the other hand, it took this woman a really long time to tell about what happened to her, which adds to the doubt factor, because it’s easier for a female survivor to reveal victimisation. Also, I think she claimed a full-on forced intercourse with Jackson? That I would say is out of character for a molester who brainwashed his victims to believe their relationship was an expression of mutual love.

        • Pea

          I agree, Kat. I hate to say my doubts hinge on the sex of this accuser, but it would be false to deny it. Ironically, Jacko’s Wackos seem to almost insist that this could have been a possibility, since Jacko did befriend girls (something they claim “haters” always ignored), but also say it has to be a scam simply because it’s a deviation from his usual boys only pattern!

          In sum, this accuser has likely sent most in a tailspin of disbelief and confusion.

          While I am waiting to see more evidence, I wonder if this girl, being between the ages of 12-15 during the alleged abuse, was more a victim of statutory rape than actual CSA? To me, if it was that she believed Jacko were her “boyfriend” — a superstar boyfriend, trés chic! — it could be the reason she kept the notes, the checks, etc.; perhaps she was obsessed like any female fangirl would be and wanted to keep everything given to her by her “lover”.

          • Kat

            Yes, some Jackson devotees think this is almost a good thing, because apparently it makes him less of a pedophile and more of a heterosexual. And that he didn’t just have unhealthy, boundary crossing relationships with boys, he had them with girls too! And yet they still deny he ever did anything inappropriate/criminal. I’m not sure how any of that is logical, LOL.

            Perhaps if she would release a personal statement that would illustrate her experience it would be helpful to estimate if she’s telling the truth or not. Like a lot of people, I was convinced by reading Jordie Chandler’s interview with the psychologist and watching Wade Robson speak with Matt Lauer.

            If this person was in her teens during the alleged abuse it unfortunately doesn’t make her more believable for me. If we consider MJ’s misogyny and loathing of most women, I’d had to wonder what he saw in a developing girl that was quickly approaching womanhood. :/

        • TheLibranQueenOfSwords

          From what I saw of her claims of sexual exploitation she wasn’t claiming that the abuse was forced — more along the lines of a perverted “seduction” (Ugh!). The lines in the complaint & Finaldi’s words in interviews spoke of daily phonecalls lasting hours, letters & notes, gifts, jewelry, “plaintiff was a minor child and therefore not able to give valid, legal consent”, and (in addition to “Hayvenshurst”, “the sets of Moonwalker & Smooth Criminal”, ” “The Universal Sheraton Hotel”, “Lorimar (?) Studios”, “the back seat of his car”, ” Neverland”, “The Hideout” …etc.) the claim Vince spoke of the Businesses booking various Hotel rooms (Horrible!) for the two gave this impression. This victim also claimed she had a jacket he gave to her after posing in it for an album cover (“Bad” jacket?). So I think the claim was more of a Hebephilic “seduction” (yuck!).

          But yes, I do think that if she wants to continue to pursue this, it would help for her legal team to release a statement from her. It would help clarify everything for others, in my opinion. Maybe even an interview but with the accused’s face being blocked & her voice being altered, if she wanted to.

          But aside from that she was claiming that she didn’t nesscarily connect her victimization to her present emotional unraveling until early September 2016 (when Wade’s complaint was amended for the fourth time & media circulated what it stated regarding the Businesses). From the complaint & Vince Finaldi’s interviews on the subject, I’m inclined to believe if abused she may have been groomed to believe Jackson was her “boyfriend” (which fits with the M.O. of grooming victims to believe the abuse was an expression of mutual love). Finaldi also claimed that Jane Doe was “controlled” by Jackson & that the money was given not only as compensation but “to retain control over her”. I’ve noticed alot of females groomed & abused in the way in which she alleges, and at the ages she alleges, are way more reluctant to believe that their “relationships” were abusive & that their older “boyfriends” were indeed abusers. Maybe that was the case for Jane Doe as well. In an interview with a Los Angeles news channel Finaldi it was stated she was “a new mother” & was only coming forward to “bring other [female?] victims out of the shadows”. So, if true, her ” connecting the dots” between past victimization & emotional instability was very recent and motivation to say something was very time-specific.

          Another part of her allegations was that before, during, and after the abuse-period Jackson threatened her with harm “if she ever told anyone anything”, “told her she’d get in trouble with law enforcement and go to jail”, “forced her to promise she’d never tell anyone anything”, and that she was threatened with injury by Frank DiLeo (who worked for Jackson). This would intimidate & frighten a victim, but coming from someone as powerful as Jackson, I could see where that fear could even last decades. Considering many individuals speaking about threats & intimidation from Jackson employees or Jackson himself, I can see this part happening.

      • CandyC

        I agree with you Pea, Michael was definitely mostly interested in boys, there is little evidence of him being interested in girls, yet a plethora for boys. I never knew Michael had a demo called “Tomboy”, I believe his music can be quite telling, for instance the songs Stranger in Moscow and Speechless, the former written when the 1993 allegations first become public and the latter written for Michaels interest in a 14 year old boy I believe? And Speechless is such a romantic song… makes you wonder if there is a hidden meaning behind many of his songs.

        As for the female accusers identity, do you think it will be made public eventually? I’m curious about who it is, although admittedly I find the boys a little more believable, I think her evidence is quite solid.

        • Pea

          Candy, I think the identity of this accuser cannot (and should not!) remain secret for long. It’s just a matter of time; in fact, I am a little offended that anyone thinks they should be allowed to go into court and level a very public charge against a dead person, for potentially millions of dollars, all the while using a “Doe” appellation. Excuse me, but my sense of fairness is a bit ruffled.

          It’s like people asking for government cheese — I didn’t want to give much legitimacy to Tom Mesereau’s quip, “Why work when you can sue Michael Jackson?”, but the more people who emerge, even if each are telling the truth, the more it looks like the kind of monetary free-for-all that would rival the mess of Prince’s or James Brown’s Estates….

          If I seem a bit harsh on this accuser, I will add that I feel the same way, generally speaking, about Wade Robson. One of my old friends in Jacko emailed me shortly after Wade came forward; she pointedly stated that he was amoral, having defended Jacko for years, and that he had already gotten his rewards while Jacko was alive. At the time, I thought that was a tough assessment, but now I can’t help but wonder if this is a “money grab”, so to speak — using a past illicit affair to secure funds, a form of blackmail or extortion.

          I’m not saying that is the case, but I have my doubts that pure intentions are behind some of this.

          • Michael Jeffrey

            I agree totally to that.She shouldn’t remain secret,otherwise she is not really believable.The men didn’t do that either & they faced more hate than she ever will.She is even celebrated by some very sick Jackson fans as a proof that Jackson was heterosexual.

          • CandyC

            Is that true Michael? People are actually “celebrating” her coming out with these allegations as proof of MJ’s supposed heterosexuality? What a disgrace.

            The amount of mental gymnastics the fans must do would be astonishing, as I know how the fan logic works (if you can call it that) I understand it. However I don’t see how someone can honestly believe that an alleged liaison with an underage girl looks any better than a boy. What is wrong with some people?

          • Melissa

            What are you serious? I’ve seen fans disgusted at her!

          • CandyC

            Of course they would be.

    • Fudhux

      I was surprised too ! A woman I mean ,MJ doesn’t like women ?! . That’s what I thought until now. But with that new accuser I am just wondering . Like Kat said , some pedophiles like children regardless of their gender , it’s the youth that they like . But this new story is kin of weird . Because that’s the only female that has accused Mj , ever , and apparently the grooming process was not very long ? I can be wrong .

      I really wonder who this is . And that’s something that’s weird abot the story . We know most people that hanged out with MJ , but this one girl , no one seems to know who she is … We shall see . I don’t know if she will stay anonymous .

      And like Pea said , it’s evident that MJ preferred boys . I agree with that.
      There is not a lot of info about this case so…

  • BrendaS

    Years ago when I said Michael (allegedly) abused little girls, I was met with a solid wall of Michael only abused boys. I never thought the allegations would be as bad as the boys. I haven’t wrapped my mind around that yet. I don’t think the girl is Kellie. Reading old articles from 2009, she had nothing but glowing things to say about Michael. She said some peculiar things in light of the recent allegations, like how her mother trusted Michael enough to allow her to go to Neverland alone, how she and Michael spent a lot of one on one time rehearsing, and when asked about the accusations, she said Michael would never harm a child instead of saying he wouldn’t sexually molest a child. And she had her mini me outfits, too. When I think about all the little blond haired girls around that age around Michael … it was in our face the whole time and we never saw it. If the Estate doesn’t shut this down quickly, this could turn into a Cosby thing. When the girls realize that they weren’t alone ….

    • LibranQueenOfSwords

      I honestly did start pondering of he abused female-children some time ago, but didn’t believe what Conrad stated because he denied MJ’s abuse of boys and seemed to think abuse og girls was OK.

      Heres Ahmed Eletab confirming as far back as 2005 MJ molested/raped girls: http://www.today.com/id/7587547/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/jackson-witness-arrested-sex-minor/#.WBanfWt5mK0

      The girls is not Kellie (though their entire friendship, bed-sharing, hand-holding, and her saying she kept their friendship “private” sets off alarms). This girls has olive skin and brown hair. Kellie was very fair-skinned and blonde as a girl.

      Jackson thanking Jane Doe for “entertaining” Ryan White makes me think that this girl may have been in the Entertainment Industry to some degree or another.

      Nicole Riche had interesting things to say about Jackson in 2003, as well. Saying he didn’t molest her (no one thought he abused girls back then), but may have molested others:

      • Pea

        “Heres Ahmad Eletab confirming as far back as 2005 MJ molested/raped girls: [link]”

        How, from that article, did you come to the conclusion that Jacko “molested” and “raped” girls? The actual quote is:

        Police say the girl told them Elatab bragged he had been at Jackson’s house and had seen the pop star seduce a girl. Elatab told police the sex was consensual, authorities said, and he denied saying that he saw Jackson seduce a girl.

        The word used was “seduce”. While it is interesting Elatab denied telling that story, let’s not jump the gun here and say crimes were committed right in front of his eyes.

    • LibranQueenOfSwords

      Of course my reply to BrendaS would get marked as “spam” … Figures …
      I only returned here to make that comment regarding this topic being brought up in Media before with regards to what Ahmed Elatab said to a teenage girl about witnessing Jackson “seduce” a girl …

      • LibranQueenOfSwords

        The words of deranged fans and defenders of a PedoHebephilic-Child Sexual Abuser aren’t being censored, and yet a survivor of Child Sexual Abuse is being censored … on a website that claims to be an advocate for Child Sexual Abuse survivors to boot. Just … Wow!

        Later.

    • LibranQueenOfSwords

      Yes, this girl wasn’t fair-skinned, blonde-haired, Kellie, but an olive-skinned, Brunette. I agree that a lot of things regarding MJ’s friendship with Kellie Parker raise red flags, but that’s another story.

      He befriended quite a few girls actually, and a few admitted to sleeping in his bed over the years. It’s scary thinking some of them may have been victimized like Jordan, Jason, Wade, and James were. Gosh!

  • LibranQueenOfSwords

    LGBTQ persons reading MJFacts.com: Please note that comments connecting Homosexual-Pedophilia (same-sex Pre-Pubescents) and Homosexual-Hebephilia (same-sex attraction to Pubescents) to Homosexual-Androphilia (the Teleiophilic attraction of adult-men to other adult-men) are fully allowed here. I see it constantly, as have other readers who do not comment here.
    My comment dismantling that extremely homophobic claim marked as “spam”.

    My defense of Jane Doe is apparently not allowed here, but it’s perfectly fine to think that someone that seemingly knew MJ as a pubescent child would fake checks, could fake those letters with MJJ Productions company logo on them, and bring in a fake “Bad” jacket just to file a false claim for money. Jane Doe has more physical evidence than any other MJ accuser, yet you guys still doubt her. Why? Is it because some of you believe

  • Fudhux

    Do you know what kind of proof she has ? Because besides she checks I didn’t see anything. I don’t know if her case is strong because she has thin evidence ( from what I saw )

    • I’ve spoken with someone and I now know there is a lot more proof, but unfortunately I’m not allowed to share 🙁

      I’m sure the information I heard will come out over time, and we can all make a better judgement on this claim.

      • ShawntayUStay

        So, are you saying she’s legitimate? As in, MJ really did molest her? And if so, do you think she’s an exception to the rule about him preferring boys? I know pedophiles can molest outside their preferred type.

        • MJ molesting her? Only she and MJ know that for sure (and MJ is dead), but she could be convincing enough for most people (or more importantly, a jury) to believe her. As far as contact etc. goes, they knew each other very well, the proof of that is indisputable. She was not some random fan who happened to bump into MJ. I wish I could say more but I can’t.

          I’m beginning to think this woman is more legitimate. It’s feasible MJ molested outside his preferred type (which would rule Gavin Arvizo in for those who believe he wasn’t molested for the sole reason that he wasn’t “the same” as MJ’s other victims lol), and it’s not unprecedented for pedophiles, whatever their attraction, to molest children of both genders.

          I just never thought MJ would be interested in girls, but I’m open-minded enough to at least consider that he was.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Interesting. So it’s more close than the single picture and the checks suggest? I’m wondering if this was only early in his “pedo career” that he tried girls, and then he solidified his attraction to boys.

            I think it’s perfectly legitimate to not immediately think he was sexually interested in girls. Besides what appeared to be photo ops with the kids of friends/business associates, we never saw him gallivanting around with female children like he did with his special friends. We can’t speculate about things we ourselves haven’t at least observed! Nor did any witness ever suggest he had an attraction to young girls. Norma Staikos called them his “little boyfriends”! While it’s certainly possible he just hid girls from view, until other information comes forward, I’m more inclined to believe that the lack of staff seeing girls, these same people making the comments about his inclination for boys, etc, is due to the fact that this female accuser was an exception rather than the rule. (Of course, it’s also possible people are more likely to notice suspicious interest for boys by a male…but who knows.)

            As for Gavin Arvizo, I would be hesitant to use an accuser with more evidence supporting her claims to prop up Gavin, LOL, who had very little (if any). And there’s more reasons to question his claim than the fact he wasn’t a special friend; that would be too simplistic, in my opinion. Besides, it seems like this accuser was more of a “special friend” than him, as well! So… not so similar. But we shall agree to disagree. 🙂

          • Yes, much closer than those may suggest.

            I think that’s an acceptable theory, that he may have experimented with boys and girls at the start, then decided he preferred boys more. It’s true too that we hardly saw him parading around girls like he did boys, but then again there are scant public photographs of MJ with one of his “under the radar” boys, Jonathan Spence.

            As for Gavin, read what I wrote. I said those that use it as a sole reason 😉

          • CandyC

            You should also note, MJfacts, that a grown man parading around and flying around the world with an underage girl looks much more suspicious than a man with a boy, but that’s not to say what he did was appropriate — so that could be why we almost always only saw him with boys, it was easier for him to feign that he was just “reliving his childhood” through them, whereas a female child… well that wouldn’t be as believable.

          • Hilal Alsameraaii

            I read on Rhythm of the Tide a story from Jermaine Jackson’s book. He said that in 1971, the family found thirteen-year-old Michael sleeping in a crib with his infant niece Stacee Brown. I don’t know if that gives the theory of him experimenting with girls a bit more ground, but it’s interesting to note.

            Stacee Brown the first person on this list: http://rhythmofthetide.com/michael-jacksons-female-kid-friends/

            I was surprised to find that Jackson’s obsessions could have been even earlier than Rodney Allen Rippy.

          • Fudhux

            Just sleeping in the crib with his infant niece is not strong proof or weird . Especially since MJ had an age range that he was interested in . I mean a 13 year old staying in a bed with a toddler is not supspicious , at least to me.

          • BrendaS

            The girls were hidden from view to a certain extent. Soleil Moon Frye tells how she was at an event with Michael, Elizabeth Taylor, and Kidada Jones but only Michael and Elizabeth are featured in the press photos. I know several instances where girls were shielded from the press. I don’t know what it meant. Like I said, I haven’t been able to wrap my mind around the depth of the allegations. Looking back there are so many suspicious behaviors. Everyone was so sure Michael was either gay (attracted to adult males) or potentially an abuser of young boys, they gave Michael free rein with their daughters. During Rolf Harris trial, his victim told how he would come to her home and go directly upstairs and molest her. How long is the list of people who gave Michael the same opportunity which hopefully he didn’t take advantage of: the Jones girls, Lena Horne granddaughters, Lala Romero (her parents placed her sleeping in Michael lap), Anka’s daughters. Phil Collins just said where there’s smoke there could be fire yet said he had no problem sending his daughters to play. What about the publicist daughter? Wasn’t there a story where Michael payed attention to her when she was around eleven but sent Bubbles to her birthday party when she turned fifteen?

          • ShawntayUStay

            What do you mean “shielded from the press”? As in, Michael said “Don’t let these girls be photographed?” Hmm, but he didn’t do that with his boys. There could be a completely innocent explanation for the alleged “shielding”, in my opinion.

            “Looking back there are so many suspicious behaviors. Everyone was so sure Michael was either gay (attracted to adult males) or potentially an abuser of young boys, they gave Michael free rein with their daughters.”

            I understand. But we don’t have enough evidence right now to conclude whether girls were as “unsafe” around MJ as young boys were. The lion’s share of accusers were boys; no woman besides this new one has ever said anything. Sure, there could be female victims lurking in the shadows, but as someone here already rightly pointed out, females are taught they can tell and are seen as more believable. So if that is statistically true, yet most of Michael’s accusers were boys, I’d be inclined to believe that the probability of having equal amount of girl victims as boy victims is less likely.

            And just how many girls do we actually know of claimed they had one-on-one sleepovers with MJ? Is it a lot or a little? I’m just saying: if his victims tended to be “special friends” (and if this woman is to be believed, she apparently had a “special friend”-type relationship with MJ), most of the girls we know about were not likely his victims. I still believe MJ was a boy-lover, and no evidence has been shown yet to dispel that belief.

          • Pea

            “So if that is statistically true, yet most of Michael’s accusers were boys, I’d be inclined to believe that the probability of having equal amount of girl victims as boy victims is less likely.”

            That’s such a great point — basic math rules out a fleet of Jacko-diddled girls hiding in the shadows. It’s not merely the fact that girls speak out about abuse in far greater numbers than boys, but also that Jacko’s employees never noted a girl he was singularly interested in. Could they have simply missed them? I don’t think so. I would think people would be more suspicious of a grown man surrounding himself with young girls than with young boys — that very fact is how Jacko could claim his lack of a childhood justified private sleepovers and public hand-holding with boys.

            In other words, I simply see no great need — nor am I in any hurry — to go over each encounter/photo Jacko had with a female child to see if the telltale signs of a pedophile’s interest were evident. (Sure, his overwrought kissing and hugging of Sage Galesi on the set of “Black or White” could easily be interpreted as foreplay, but that would just be your “dirty mind” talking, right?!)

            As a clarification, this is not to say that Jacko couldn’t have found some girl children “attractive”, for lack of a better word. If Conrad Murray is to be believed, and I believe his claims, Jacko wanted Emma Watson as a “child bride”. For instance, Jacko was interviewed in the UK magazine “Blues and Soul” back in 1979, and he said the following:

            That’s what I like so much about travelling. You can see the systems that other countries adopt and you come to realise that America is not always right. We say we’re right, they say they’re right. You really don’t get a clear picture until you leave the United States. You realise that there are other cultures than your own and you feel small and insignificant. Like in India. I was amazed to find out a thirty year old man could marry a ten year old girl.

            We weren’t raised that way, so we look at it weirdly. But there, it’s been happening for centuries and the parents are quite willing to give up their child.

            It’s very telling that Jacko, who’d eventually be accused 6 times of pedophilia, would choose that example to underscore the reality of cultural relativism….

            “And just how many girls do we actually know of claimed they had one-on-one sleepovers with MJ? Is it a lot or a little?”

            According to Robert Wegener, who worked at Neverland from October 1991 to October 1993, his estimate, out of an off-the-cuff quantification of 100 children, Jacko slept with only one girl child. Jesus Salas said in 2005 that, while he was working in the main house, all of the kids who visited/stayed in Jacko’s room were boys. Yes, there are anecdotes from unabused girls who slept in Jacko’s room, so it wasn’t that it never occurred. But that his lowly employees failed to pick up on those incidents suggest they were rare.

          • Michael Jeffrey

            I personally did my own research on Michael Jackson and girls, just like with the boys-it was an intensive one.I found a few girls who Jackson befriended.Some of them had sleepovers,but it is not known how many sleepovers those girls had. Let’s say it was only 2 nights? Would that be creepy? No.200 nights would be a different story and that’s what I mean.The information out there on girls is very little and we only have such quotes of Neverland employees.I personally think Jackson was into boys and if he was into adults,they were male as well.Just compare the awful hetero S&M porn to the loving,human photographs of men and you have the result.I’ve seen Jackson being close to so MANY boys…But still,he could have had a few girl victims too.

          • BrendaS

            I like what you said. Nobody knows but MJ and her. However, we have 1) what Conrad Murray said about Michael wanting to marry Harriet Lester and/or Emma Watson. And 2) we have what happened when Michael (allegedly) started kissing twelve year old Tatum in her bedroom. According to her, “For all my passionate crushes on people like Dustin Hoffman, I was twelve and not at all ready for a real-life encounter. So I said, I can’t.” And now 3) what this accuser has said. It’s not proof of anything but it’s enough to make one wonder.

          • Michael Jeffrey

            I think Murray is not believable (regarding all the things he claims) He even said that Harriet was 12 in 2009 (and MJ wanted to marry her during this is it),but Harriet was almost 16 in 2009. He can’t even get that right. Plus,in the book (in general) he lies a lot,claims impossible things. I think Murray is just broke and needs money (tries to get it through scandals in his book).

      • Fudhux

        Oh ok , that would be interesting to see if that info is realised . I hope so . Do you have the name of the woman or just general info on the case ?

        • I already knew the first name of the new accuser, but only because a friend deduced it last week.

          • Mezza

            Did you recognize the name?

          • No, she is totally unknown.

  • ShawntayUStay

    Who’s connecting homosexual pedophilia with homosexuality (by definition, the attraction to age appropriate members of one’s own sex)?

    ” 90% of the boys/men that sexually-abuse boys — whether they are
    Pedophilic/Hebephilic Child Sexual Abusers or
    Non-Pedophilic/Non-Hebephilic Child Sexual Abusers — are
    Heterosexual-Gynephiles.”

    Where did you get that statistic from? Let’s use a bit of logic. Why would pedophiles attracted to underaged males be heterosexual-gynephiles (God, these terms! Gynephile? This is improper use of the Greek suffix -philia!)? Does that make any conceivable sense? Sure, for the sake of hiding their deviant preference for children, a pedophile may claim he’s heterosexual. But that does not mean that he is actually a heterosexual. After all, even before the wholesale acceptance of homosexuality, gay men married women and tortured themselves by having to hide their true self behind a mask of heterosexuality. Why would that not be any different for pedophiles or any other person deviating from what is considered normal? Also, tell me why it is considered completely fine to connect heterosexuality with child molesters/pedophiles, but it’s not okay for anyone to make a connection between homosexuality and child molesters/pedophiles? Both are incorrect, yet it’s apparently only politically allowable to do the former rather than the later? Again, where did you get that statistic from? No doubt a biased source. The fact is people attracted to adults are not the same as people attracted to kids (or inanimate objects, or animals, or any other deviant interest). Another fact is both heterosexuals and homosexuals can molest a child; no one group has a strong hold on that crime.

  • Kat

    I wouldn’t connect homosexuality with a sexual attraction to children; adult men who are attracted to other men have a close to zero chance of ever experiencing attraction/interest in prepubescant male children. The overwhelming majority of people never in their lifetime experience attraction to children, that’s why it’s considered to be so difficult to relate to a child molester, to see things from their perspective, etc.

    I can’t speak for everyone, but personally I don’t think MJ was gay or straight; his marriages were passionless and ultimately fake, the stories about gay hookups are unconvincing. The porn found at his house doesn’t mean much in my opinion unless he had real life relationships with adult men and women. From what I know he was just a pedophile – which functions similarly to a normal sexual orientation except that liking children in that way is not a normal thing. Pedophiles who molest toddlers might go after either a boy or a girl, but those who abuse older kids will almost always have a gender preference. That’s not to say that they are heterosexual or gay, they are still attracted to children primarily because they are children.

    I haven’t seen any evidence of him being attracted to anyone else apart from pre-adolscent boys who all looked similar, and that’s why I am currently doubting the newest person who claims sexual abuse. Somehow I didn’t find her story very believable and no girl before has been singled out as a potential victim by law enforcement, whereas Wade Robson and James Safechuck were named as probable victims almost instantly after the original accusations broke out. Furthermore females are more likely to lie about molestation/rape, while a man claiming sexual abuse when it didn’t happen is extremely rare. In the view of all that I would like to learn more about this person and her case to make up my mind – not at all because I’m a homophobe.

    • TheLibranQueenOfSwords

      You know, over the years Ive seen individuals that were convinced MJ only had attractions to children of both genders (they were of the opinion he never had interest in adults of either gender), but with an obvious preference for male children.
      After my research I’m leaning on that opinion too now.

      On False Allegations in the U.S. : Only 2-8% of all Rape Allegations are false & only 4% of CSA Allegations are false — which when you take away allegations brought in the middle of a custody battle lowers to 0.6%. So CSA overall isn’t a lied about crime, even if females are more likely than males to lie about sexual exploitation (though both a woman and a man lying about sexual exploitation is very rare).

    • TheLibranQueenOfSwords

      She did have a January 1994 letter pertaining to a criminal investigation into Child Abuse claims (typed by the same woman that was questioning the other kids — about 30 kids were questioned).

  • CandyC

    MJfacts, I tried searching for your general comments section but couldn’t find it so I decided to just post this comment on this page… I was browsing YouTube and found this supposed last phone call of Michael, it doesn’t seem totally believable, but either way I found it sad. Here’s the link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ycyEL1mGSd0 — curious about others opinions on it.

    • Fudhux

      I watched it . But I was wondering the whole time , is this real ? It doesn’t sound like him . Sounds more like someone who is trying to imitate him Do you know where they got that recording from ?

      • CandyC

        I agree Fudhux, it doesn’t sound like him but rather someone trying to imitate him. I wouldn’t have a clue as to where they got the recording from but it’s a hoax.

    • I found it totally unbelievable. The source is supposedly Wikileaks, but nothing Michael Jackson related has ever appeared on Wikileaks. If this were real, and was sourced from Wikileaks, it wouldn’t only appear on a Youtube profile whose only two videos are this one and another titled “Ten Worst Catwalk Fails”, it would be everywhere in the media. It appears to be some fan’s twisted idea of why MJ died — a conspiracy concocted ‘above government level’ to murder him — rather than the real reason, which was an overdose of prescription drugs as a result of carelessness. I’m calling fake.

      • CandyC

        Good points there MJfacts, the conspiracies about the illuminati particularly are a little… unconvincing.

  • I don’t know. What is Frank Cascio’s cousin’s name?

  • ShawntayUStay

    You said: “The girls were hidden from view to a certain extent.” Which girls? All girls or just the ones you mentioned previously? And how do you know anyone was “shielded” or “hidden” anyway? And is this “shielding” innocent or nefarious? In my opinion, it seems more like a supposition of yours than fact, unless I’m missing something??

    No, the comment wasn’t insensitive. It’s a fact. Female victims, on average, disclose more readily than male victims. Male victims disclose less especially if the abuser is the same sex, such as in this case. That there have been at least 3 credible male accusers, I’d say, following statistics, they represent a larger number of other alleged male victims of MJ.

    I’m not saying she’s lying, either. I’m just wondering if we should all be up in arms worrying about all the girls he’s molested because now supposedly Michael Jackson’s a girl-lover pedophile, too. That appears to be the reaction of some, and I can’t understand why. There’s little evidence as of yet, so where’s the caution? That’s what I meant about “equal numbers”.

    “What did his letter say, YOU are MAKING me love you? The caps were to show how the wording was trying to make a child responsible for an adult.”

    I get what you’re implying but it’s incorrect. That’s just Michael’s handwriting. He’s always mixed upper and lower cased letters together in his words. Just check many of his handwritten notes, letters, etc. So there’s no hidden meaning.

  • Pea

    “Robert Wegener only worked the night shift for a few months. And one potential victim is more than enough.”

    No, no — what I said earlier was correct. I own Robert Wegner’s book; he worked for three years at Neverland before having to leave due to a back injury (it was a slip-and-fall at the Ranch). Given the duration of his employment, I find his 99:1 boy/girl sleepover ratio a credible reflection of Jacko’s preferences.

    Here’s part of Wegner’s interview with Dateline NBC:

    Mankiewicz: “During the three years that you worked for Michael Jackson, how many children spent the night in his bedroom?”

    Wegner: “I can’t tell you how many children. I can tell you how many times. Now it’s in excess of this and I’m being conservative, it was a hundred. Now that doesn’t mean 100 children—”

    Mankiewicz: “Could have been the same child a number of times.”

    Wegner: “Right.”

    Mankiewicz: “Of those children how many were boys and how many were girls?”

    Wegner: “To my knowledge I think he had one female girl in there one time, the rest were all boys.”

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5906855/ns/dateline_nbc-newsmakers/t/new-details-about-jackson-case/#.WCDmICS7XDc

    Not sure where you’re getting “only a few months” working night shift from…. That’s just not accurate. The title of his book is “My Three Years Working for Michael Jackson”!

    As for one potential girl being more than enough, enough for what? While I know there was a retrospective treatment of Jacko’s relations with boys when Jordie Chandler emerged (so, in that sense, your motives at least have precedent), the point being made was that if 99:1 boy/girl is a reasonably reliable figure (repeated by Jesus Salas, too!), one would need to be a bit careful in speculating which past girl he could’ve “abused” — the chances are slim that he molested anyone and suggest that this woman, if honest, was a special case.

    A week back we had someone here insisting the woman was Kelley Parker, simply because she was around Jacko! I find that irresponsible.

    “Regarding Sage, Conrad Murray’s comments about five year olds darken everything.”

    Huh? What are you referring to? I don’t recall reading anything like that….

    “Because of the abuse allegations, I didn’t think about the girls as potential victims.”

    I still don’t. Unless this woman comes out with more evidence, I am okay with not giving the scant girls Jacko surrounded himself with any deep consideration.

  • ShawntayUStay

    Um…this is what you said:

    “The caps were to show how the wording was trying to make a child responsible for an adult.”

    You see? You were, in fact, making a point based on a false premise, that being the caps were used somehow for emphasis by MJ to brainwash this kid into accepting responsibility for abuse. Do indeed research his penmanship.

    You said “girls were shielded to a certain extent” based on…what? First you’d have to establish MJ was around girls to the same degree he was with his special boy friends — since you are now claiming to be basing your supposition on Bob Jones and his knowledge of “boy shielding”. You mention Soleil Moon Frye and Kidada Jones only, so how is it “girls were shielded to a certain extent” when you are just using these specific two as an example of some long standing habit of his with girls plural?

    Why run with something that’s not yet based on solid evidence? Where’s the caution? Nowhere, apparently.

  • ShawntayUStay

    The basic reading of the facts in the complaint don’t support the idea it was a cousin of Frank Cascio. He’s from the East Coast; the complaint said she was a resident of California at all times relevant. She met MJ at Hayvenhurst while sightseeing with her family; it doesn’t say she met MJ through her “cousin” Frank. I’m pretty sure that detail would’ve made it in the complaint if it were true, especially given the “child procurement ring/those close to MJ helped him get kids” idea the lawyers are trying the argue.

  • CandyC

    Good point about Conrad Murrays statements, I believe you are referring to his comments about how Michael was interested in his own God-daughter? I believe Murray knows a lot, but his reputation is tarnished so people are not going to take him seriously.

    But interesting correlation there to do with Sage, when you connect the dots it does appear telling. It also has been speculated he had an interested in 11 year old Emma Watson, but I view that claim with scepticism.

    I still agree with Pea though, I’m not going to give deep consideration to girls possibly being victims, but if more proof becomes public I might reconsider, but for now the evidence points to him being almost solely interested in boys, unfortunately.

  • Pea

    “He may have worked there for years but he only worked the night shift for a few months.”

    According to Wegner, when he first came on to the Ranch as an employee, he worked the graveyard shift. Yes, that tenure lasted 6 months (p. 20, 71). However, to my point — and not to yours — Wegner clarifies that, during that 6-month period, 10-20 kids slept in Jacko’s bedroom (p. 72); it is a bit further down on that same page where Wegner notes that in his entire three year employment, Jacko slept with 100 children total (by his estimation).

    As he’d repeated in his interviews, he’d only saw one girl that he could remember. Out of 100 kids. When considering the Law of Large Numbers, in which the larger the sample, the closer it is to the mean (i.e., reality), Jacko’s 99:1 boy:girl ratio would very likely hold after more sleepovers than Wegner (or Jesus Salas) was able to see. All in all, with Jacko using sleepovers as part of his MO, Wegner’s approximation is a very good reason for me not to deeply consider all of the girls that we — and apparently his employees! — could not see.

    “I’m okay with you not giving any deep consideration to the girls, too.”

    Good, because I won’t.

  • Melissa

    I think the reason is the fact many people equate being gay with pedophilia. I even recall a discussion among fans, one of them said fans should fight the allegations than the simple gay rumors, even if he wasn’t gay at least it wasn’t a crime, and one of them claimed the fact people mock him being gay because of the young boys. They don’t know there’s no such a thing as heterosexual pedophile or gay pedophile. Heteros and Homos have relations with consenting adults. Pedophiles simply like children, regardless the gender.

    In fact girls were seen at Neverland but he never traveled with one!

    • ShawntayUStay

      There is such thing as a homosexual or heterosexual pedophile. The homo or hetero label defines the gender preference of the pedophile. There are also bisexual pedophiles who equally like female and make children. Most pedophiles have pretty strong gender preferences, especially if they like older children.

      That being said, homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual pedophiles are completely different from regular people who are sexually attracted to age appropriate peers (whether they are straight, gay, or bi).

      • Melissa

        Yeah I guess you’re right, the funny thing is I say exactly the same thing to people who say being gay or straight is having sex with a same-sex person or different -sex person. But people knows already the gender they like before their first sexual experience.
        I said what I said because someone talked to a specialist and to him being gay or straight is different to being pedophile.

        • ShawntayUStay

          The specialist is correct, but there’s absolutely nothing wrong or inaccurate about using the modifiers “homosexual”, “heterosexual”, and “bisexual” to describe the type of pedophilia.

        • Kat

          I agree, Melissa, experts on child sexual abuse don’t use terms such as ‘homosexual pedophile’ or ‘heterosexual pedophile’, hence I don’t feel equipped to use them either. I think the main reason is because people who study pedophiles and ways in which their brains function concede that they are attracted to children because they are in the state of not having reached puberty yet, not because of their gender. It’s debatable of course, but the studies that I’m familiar with say just that.

          Another factor is that being straight, gay or bi falls into the normal category of human sexuality according to modern notions. Pedophilia is considered a deviation from the norm, therefore it is not the same as a regular sexual orientation.

          • Pea

            If we want to go really far to the left and bag as many “PC” gold coins as possible, we can use the term “pedosexual” — modified politely, of course, with “male-attracted” or “female-attracted”. This was used in at least one journal article, which definitely means it’s legit! The problem is, unfortunately, that it wrongly turns a paraphilia into a sexual orientation. It simply won’t do if accuracy is important (and it is in the sciences and language).

            Alternately, one could just use “pedophile” without any overly wordy modifiers or politically incorrect terms. But it wouldn’t be precise — it ignores the fact pedophiles absolutely have gender preferences.

            The use of “boylover” and “girllover” are both accurate and precise, but some may feel uncomfortable with terms that seem to romanticize criminality.

            For me, I’ll continue to use “heterosexual”, “homosexual”, and “bisexual” to describe pedophiles. It’s accurate, precise, and it’s used in scientific literature by the most prominent pedophile researchers. In my view the debate over terms is pointless; anyone who has a problem with that should have more faith in laypeople’s ability to differentiate between a slur and scientific language; then, they should remove the stick and the bug!

          • Kat

            My qualm is mainly about that many acknowledge that the attraction and interest that pedophiles experience is based on the age and youth of their desired sexual partners. If we, people with normal sexuality, are attracted to others and choose mates mainly because of their gender, then pedophiles seek out those that fit a certain age bracket. Once a child passes a certain age and maturation begins he or she is no longer wanted. Because of that I have reservations about applying modifiers such ‘homo’ or ‘hetero’ to a pedophile. They aren’t precise, IMO. And, if labels like ‘gay pedophile’ are used people can start to wrongly associate homosexuality with pedophilia, when studies show no connection between the two. Personally, I’d rather describe someone like Michael Jackson as a pedophile with an attraction to pre-teen boys.

            Just out of curiosity – who uses heterosexual and homosexual when talking about pedophilia? I’d like to familiarise myself with those studies, because the information that I’ve read doesn’t contain these terms. Below is an article, I think it’s fairly recent, about how being gay and being a pedophile are two separate things and that labels like heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual cannot be pointedly applied to pedophiles.

            http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

          • ShawntayUStay

            Political correctness advances neither knowledge nor truth.

            If gender of the child was meaningless, the DSM wouldn’t ask clinicians to specify if the individual was attracted to “males, females, or both”. But actually the gender is very important because the different types of pedophilia respond differently to treatment. Also, the etiology of homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual pedophiles, as well as the numerical distribution of these forms of the mental illness, can be different.

            So to forgo accurate and precise definitions, as Pea pointed out, harms not only simple cataloging and census, but also research and understanding, with only the perceived benefit of protecting the feelings of a minority population. What we really should be doing is destigmatizing words so words will not be used politically to hinder progress. They are simply words, after all, not people.

  • Michael Jeffrey

    MJ showed the boy books to this boy:
    https://michaeljacksonandtheboys.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/michael-jackson-and-michael-jacobshagen-1995-2000/
    For those of you,who haven’t checked out that story yet.

  • It wouldn’t be her then.

  • Michael Jeffrey

    A question to the owner of MJFacts,hope to receive an answer.
    I want to change my website adress into “michaeljacksonandtheboys.com” only. I know how that works and that isn’t a big deal,but I have a little question.If I will change it,will the links of my posts automatically change itself? Like at the moment it is:
    https://michaeljacksonandtheboys.wordpress.com/2016/05/11/michael-jackson-sean-lennon-1984-unknown/
    Will that link to Sean’s post automatically change (the .wordpress. disappears and it’s then only michaeljacksonandtheboys.com in the link)?
    And: If I do it and people type in,in Google:sean lennon and michael jackson & find that article which still includes the .wordpress. in the link,will that automatically lead to the post under the new adress (michaeljacksonandtheboys.com)or will the post be not available anymore??
    Thanks for an answer. (I think you also had a blog first,that’s why I am asking.)

    • Pea

      Since your blog is hosted at WordPress.com, all you have to do is set the new domain as your “primary domain” — your old .wordpress.com address will simply redirect to the new domain. No posts will be lost or rendered inaccessible.

      https://en.support.wordpress.com/domains/

      • Michael Jeffrey

        thank you,Pea.

    • I see Pea has answered your question Michael, but I have a question for you: why on earth are you using exactly the same theme as this website? I know we don’t “own” that theme, but considering there are thousands of WordPress themes out there it looks like you want to mimic mjfacts.com

      I suggest you get another theme to differentiate your site from this one more clearly.

      • Michael Jeffrey

        I don’t mimic your page at all.I will look for another one if you want to..I just tried many themes and most of them didn’t look good at all. So I ended up with this one but yeah I also thought that this might be not the greatest idea…

        • Pea

          Themes are notoriously hard to pick out, it’s true — in fact, I assisted mjfacts in selecting the “Plane” theme for this website. Have you considered the “Twenty Sixteen” theme? It seems like it would work well.

          https://theme.wordpress.com/themes/twentysixteen/

          Themes usually don’t work straight out the box. All it takes is a bit of imagination, reorganizing, and tweaking of the content’s appearance to make a theme behave. In my opinion, using “Plane” doesn’t immediately make your website look more professional than it did. Truthfully, some of your content — while much of it does appear “original” — is similar enough to mjfacts.com to the point someone could consider your website to be a “redoing” of it. Considering that mjfacts is neither free nor inexpensive to maintain, it’s reasonable for it to want to maintain at least some aesthetic individuality as now one of two Jacko-truth websites out there.

          Standing out as an individual author with a different theme (read: platform) to match would actually benefit you! 🙂

          • Michael Jeffrey

            But is that really because I mimic MJFacts? I don’t see how I do it.Of course some topics are similar,but isn’t that because of the whole subject? I mean I have to write about the boys.. that’s not copying MJFacts, that is because it is the main topic of the whole MJ case.I have to write about the sleepovers as well.But at least you said that most posts of my page appears to be original-thank you for that :-). I am a bit confused,because 90% of my website was my own work.. Even most of the boys (besides of Jonathan & Jimmy) was my OWN WORK. I do like MJFacts,but I am not workshipping it aka copying it because I find it so amazing.
            Thanks your time Pea, I will check that theme out. (Most of these themes are sadly not good).After all,you guys have to admit that most of my work is my own :-(. Soon my article about Jane Doe is out,I doubt I copied that and while MJFacts helped me a lot, I also did some research which might be helpful for you (Jacobshagen’s post).

          • ShawntayUStay

            I was shocked when I clicked on the link to your site when you posted it towards Candy. It looked sooo similar. Even had a stand alone homepage just like MJFacts. Then, your “MJ’s bed” post is seriously written like a mash up between both of the bed posts — “By Invitation Only” and “One on One Sleepovers” — on MJFacts. For instance, look at the openings of yours and MJFacts’s posts; both use the idea of a “myth”. Come on…you can’t suggest that’s not a similarity! I’m not saying it’s nefarious copying but it’s really similar.

            Furthermore, I know you say you never read DSSL, but the gay post is a copy of the video that copied her site, using three identical photos she created herself — that’s her content the video stole. So it’s similar allegedly by no intention of your own but you did still appear to copy the content/organization of another’s work (i.e. the video), so it’s not surprising MJFacts would have concerns. Especially given the wholesale copy paste of notes about how many times Wade Robson slept in MJ’s bed MJFacts created simply for their own use. That was never officially published, just used in a Disqus comment. You credited MJFacts (but with no hyperlink back to the source) but with no permission granted when this whole blog is copyrighted (check the bottom for the copyright notice). You’re supposed to get permission before using anything posted verbatim. Just an FYI.

            I agree with Pea; you shouldn’t use a similar theme and similar organization. It only makes your site look like a very poorly written facsimile when you’ve done pretty decent research for your more original content!

          • Michael Jeffrey

            Yes it is similar,no question.But it won’t be similar anymore,once I have pulished my other articles.That “MJ’s Bed” will also contain stories of women etc-it won’t be like MJFacts.If you go to pro-Jackson blogs,they also all have a hompage.Plus,MJFacts has the sections:Michael Jackson articles,james safechuck,wade robson and jordan chandler.Mine are very different.MJ’s bed is a section,not an article.
            I have written about other child friends than MJFacts.
            If it is such a problem that I used it for Wade’s sleepovers,I will delete it (even though I gave credit).I never thought that it would be such a problem,because I actually thought that our main goal is that people believe Wade Robson.
            Yes,I have taken info out of a video?What’s the problem with that? The article was still work.
            I think it is very unfair to judge me when I am just in the beginning with my website.I have spent weekends researching for my website-probably not because I am copying.Give me 3 months and you will see that my posts will be more than different.

        • I don’t want a big argument Michael, because the content of your site is valuable (you have some very solid research on there, and so far I’ve allowed you free reign to promote your site here in the comments section) but you are mimicking the look of the mjfacts.com site. I can’t figure out why, because there are thousands of WordPress templates out there that you could choose from.

          You stress that your site is different, so why do you want to look like us? It’s just weird.

  • Michael Jeffrey
  • CandyC

    Like I said in my previous reply, Michael, the fans worry about him being gay, in my opinion because they want desperately for him to be heterosexual and for the PR image he created to be reality. Which makes sense since most of the fans are female, they want to protect the image they hold on to, the facadè MJ created for everyone.

    I only just finished reading your article on Jane Doe and all the other young girls that were in Mj’s life, it was interesting and you must do a fair bit of research as I learnt some new info from that article, you’re a good writer. I understand how it might not make sense that people didn’t notice his interest in a young girl — but as I said before I believe, it looks worse for an older guy to be hanging around a young girl, so it’s possible he kept it much more of a secret and never went public with it, like he did with his boys. His employees were hushed also, as always.

    That letter was upsetting, I remember reading an article on it a few years ago, Nicole was completely ostracised while her brothers were given all the attention, poor girl. Not surprising however.

    But yes, I know where you’re coming from in regards to her allegations not making sense, but heck not much made sense in MJ’s life, he is a bit of a mystery. I won’t dismiss her claims altogether but I still believe he liked boys more, so far the evidence proves that.

    • Michael Jeffrey

      I worked on it together with an online friend of mine and yes it surprised me as well! He liked boys more , no doubt,but do you believe Jane Doe was molested?

      • CandyC

        Do I believe her? Well, it wouldn’t be fair for me to say a definite yes or a no, at the moment what I can say is I am not sure. “Jane Doe” does appear to have a good amount of evidence that backs up her claims but time will only tell how legitimate she is.

        Do you have a private contact form on your website, Michael? You should get one as I’m interested in talking to you about something.

  • CandyC

    The email is not working but never mind.

  • BrendaS

    Is my comment still waiting for the moderator?

    • Pea

      Your comments were in spam — I rescued them. The metric Disqus uses must be pretty sensitive: more than one link or several shorter comments in succession seem to trigger its sensors.

  • Pea

    Not sure what you’re talking about, Brenda?

    • BrendaS

      Someone posted that Michael asked Brandi to sleepovers. I think their wording was even stronger. I was asking for the source of the information i.e. article, website, YouTube …. or was it an assumption because she spent time at Neverland?

      Has anyone written anything about Michael’s connection to some of the men mentioned in the Amy Berg documentary? It doesn’t mean he was guilty or anything but the timing of the events in the documentary make me wonder. When did Michael change managers, buy Neverland?

  • Kate

    Well, George Michael passed away last month. He had hardly been seen at all lately. Being an 80s kid, I once viewed him as a pop icon to rival MJ, Madonna and Prince. Now there’s only Madonna still with us.

    I don’t know if this story has been shown here? It’s quite interesting, about the interest GM had in the 2005 trial. And also a meeting he had with MJ in the mid 80s to discuss a proposed duet.

    http://www.guyspy.com/an-evening-with-george-michael-jackson/

    I know that they may have been rivals but it surprised me that George didn’t seem very supportive of MJ at all during the trial. George of course had his own issues, some arrests, and problems with the tabloid media. I also think that he must have been a music fan of MJ in the 80s. At any rate, the ‘Control’ LP by Janet Jackson was one of his favorites. So I figured that George should have been able to sympathize with MJ’s situation.

    But apparently not in 2005 when the verdict was announced. His reaction is recorded thus: ‘“No, f***ing way! I don’t f***ing believe it. This is a travesty. Just how many people have been paid off?”

    The one thing I have doubt over – Freddie Mercury supposedly pressuring MJ to come out of the closet. Freddie may have been flamboyant but irl he was supposed to be a very private person.

    When MJ died in 2009 George is quoted as saying “(Jackson’s death) was sad and a bit surreal, too. Jackson’s influence on the industry was massive and he made some incredible albums, especially in the ’80s. But I do feel there was some lost potential there. Maybe that level of celebrity simply puts a stop to any musical brilliance.” Perhaps trying to be diplomatic?

    But in support of the article: some news items from the mid 80s appear to confirm that a duet was planned. Sources cited were a CBS Records executive and George himself talking about it. The description of Frank DiLeo also seems accurate – he was known to sometimes speak for MJ who would be sitting quietly by him. Another source says that George told him ‘“he had come close to doing a song with Michael Jackson – but when they met with their respective managers he said Michael never once looked him in the eye and in the end the project never came to fruition.’

    Even though he was white, GM had some following in the black community because of his soulful voice and funky hits. So some of the MJ fans who just recently found this story are freaking out.

    George of course had his own issues with his personal life. However, he wasn’t messing around with any minors like MJ could have been. If anything George was going for older men and possibly looking for some kind of ‘father figure’ because of lack of a very close relationship with his own father when he was growing up. George was too promiscuous and had other bad habits but those things are really quite common for young pop performers – groupies and partying. Jackson 5 were doing all that – except for Michael, and the reason given was that he was ‘too shy’ and had this supposedly ‘Peter Pan’ personality.

    Although exclusively gay in his later years GM was still identifying himself as bi in the 1980s and claimed that he was still having physical relationships with women.

    Some MJ fans were even saying that maybe MJ was rude to George because George was trying to hit on him (lol). Extremely unlikely. At that time I think that GM was too professional and career focused for anything to happen like that.

    I do wonder though… with George being a very good looking young man in the 80s MJ was avoiding eye contact with him because he didn’t want to feel attracted? I can conceive that.

    You can’t get anywhere trying to discuss this with MJ fans though. I get so tired of the ‘stans’ being so defensive and not allowing any criticism of the smallest kind about their idol. Why do they have to be so defensive if there was really nothing wrong? They have pinned topics like ‘The Ladies In Michael’s Life’ and this makes me feel kinda sick… but some even make up erotic MJ fan fiction. All just fantasy. They are the strangest fan base ever but it’s all kind of sad really.

    • Melissa

      Yeah I read this on Lipstickalley. They like to imagine MJ being hited by both men and women. But God forbid someone sugesting he hited on a man. Also, even if MJ was gay, he was raised a JW. This, along being a black family (it’s said they’re more homophobic than whites, correct me if I’m wrong) would be a no-no.

      • Kate

        They are so childish in that part of forum. I also don’t know why they have to say that MJ was the greatest of all time as if nobody else mattered. It’s not very gracious, it’s disrespectful and not the way I talk about the artists who I admire. I can be objective enough to realise that he did have talent. But he threw away most of what he had. I had to edit my above comment because I didn’t want to be taken as racist and it’s not what I intended. Lipstickalley is a forum for the African American community but I’m sure there are other message boards that are not specific ethnicity where people carry on just the same… We’re supposed to believe that everyone is lying except for Michael Jackson. But I have lost a lot of respect for the Jackson family because most of them seem to be liars and not trustworthy.

        • Naticzka Henry

          Kate, you say u can be objective, but you don’t sound like it. First I’m not Michael’s blind fan, in fact I was never fanboy/fangirl, never had Jackson poster in my room or even a CD or his record until his death – after I bought Thriller- but just like the rest of the world, I knew he was great artist, I danced to his music at my parties coz his songs were soundtrack of our lives & I respect him as an artist. So I’m actually objective & not biased one way or the other. I just respect him as singer, dancer, composer & performer & I think he should be respected for this. So first – what u meant by ”he threw most of what he had away”. He didnt threw anything, how could u say this abt someone who changed entire music industry- the way video clips are made, dancing, singing, composing etc? He achieved the greatest success with Thriller ever in music history; So just coz u are unable to separate his personal life from his professional life or coz he couldnt top this success later, doesnt mean he threw his talent. Sorry, but its ignorant statement, if he did, he would be nothing& as a pro, in show business industry he was not ”nothing”, also he deserved it in a way many of todays stars, big names dont, coz Michael worked hard for all of this since the age of 5 – & that may be part of his tragedy. Sure all the controversy in his personal life, later tainted his legacy, but if we are here discussing the allegations leave his professional/musical side alone, coz that cant be deny if u really know the facts from producers, musicians who worked with Michael- he was great artist, performer, dancer, singer.

        • Naticzka Henry

          Now, going back to real topic of this site- sexual abuse allegations- do I believe all these stuff& that the Jacksons are not trustworthy? First, dont expect family so huge in music industry, so famous, to tell you all their secrets, of course they are not telling all the truth, show me one famous person who is? Even non-famous? Would u like to talk abt yr dirty laundry in public?! They had enough of this with La Toya famous book. Truth is, we all have skeletons in our closet, we just not famous enough for the world to care abt it. So first public should also get off its high horse. And yes, this is/was horrible part of Michael’s&Jacksons lives coz its in fact so easy, especially in internet era, to manipulate the public by gossip to believe most vicious stuff.

          I read all documents/watched interviews abt Michael’s case & here is my opinion, its really a cliche, but its the only one objective conclusion we could reach : we will never know the truth, simple as that. And thats why even many things on this site I dont agree with, coz many things here is also gossip or assumption. Many ppl in these cases/court documents say ”we think that happen, he said this, he saw that” – but these are words, not hard evidence, so I can’t simply start to offending Michael in horrible manner some ppl do, u know ”Wacko Jacko” what is this? Will it cost u that much to just call him Michael? He wasnt found guilty, he deserves respect it is ” innocent until proven guilty” yet with Michael like with many other famous ppl it is always the opposite. But my main doubts are: like I said many accounts by witnesses were later proven false or they changed it, many are only opinion what others think abt Michael or what they hear, plus it is known in psychology there is smth like false memories – they can be invented by outside influences like convincing parents when parents want money. There were many cases like that, watch movie ”The Hunt” 2012 by Thomas Vinterberg its exactly abt this topic- teacher accused of sexually abusing children & its false accusation in the movie – showing how these type of accusations can destroy life of innocent person& how kids can be manipulated, coz they can! Many ppl believe child cant be evil or liar or manipulated but truth is- children can! And yes, some parents are greedy enough to go after money & we had many cases when some horrible ppl went after celebs money just coz they rich&famous. In fact for all the arguments against Jackson, like this one- that this is some kind of a proof of his guilt that he payed in 1993 – we can make arguments in defense of Michael, that the payoff is actually a proof of the boy&his family lying, coz tell me what victim& especially parents of that child would agree to go with money instead of justice for their kid? It’s like they sayin : ”pay me, then I will go away” & they did exactly that! Secondly, all that stuff these kids talked abt how Michel abused them, they didnt speak until late & fact is children were alone with Michael so truth is, it is actually possible nothing happened & later like I said, kid was easily manipulated by his parents who put false memories in his head – and yes, this is horrible, but possible as much as Michael being guilty, so see, this is being objective : seeing that anything is possible coz all ppl are capable of lies, manipulation, doing horrible things, coz we are all humans&humans made mistakes. But my bottom line is this : on this site, they wrote many Michael’s fans see him as a victim, and he is not vicitm. Wrong- one way or the other, he is actually a victim. He had masscared life, worked since 5 yrs old, majority here probably were born into middle class family with fence, nice house, car&laptop, not one of u had to work since age of 5 to get out of the ghetto of Gary, Indiana. Imagine this : lost childhood, never normal childhood, media frenzy&scrutiny since day 1 – coz Mike was a lead singer in Jacksons 5, was the youngest one and bourden was on his shoulders! You can see by his work, art&interviews he was extremely sensitive- that was huge difference between Michael & his siblings, they endured all of this better, coz they were older, Michael started since 5, he didnt know normal life! He was in brutal industry since forever, chased by press, mocked, abused by his own father& even on this site they claim there is info some big executive sexually abused Michael when he was a child- this is simply too much for any young psyche, especially someone so sensitive like Michael, so how he is not a victim? This is the real tragedy here- he is a victim : of the industry, his own parents, or ppl who abused him. Do u watch tv show Criminal Minds? They tell stories abt serial killers, rapists, pedos etc&but explain perfectly why these ppl are the way they are, nothing is without a reson on this planet. And IF Michael did commit these crimes, he still also was a victim, many victims are offenders later in life. But my personal opinion : I dont believe he was child molester. Coz all of these things I wrote here, coz there is not real hard evidence & what ppl dont get – they judge Michael by their own normal standards, what they know& that is not fair, coz we all had normal life&childhood, Michael didnt! – thats what u dont understand here. So we cant even imagine his situation or fully understand it! For him, it was totally possible to love & wanting to be around children all the time in pure way, coz he tried to experienced a childhood he never had&how u do it without being like a kid and around kids? So we just cant possible judge him fairly, coz we didnt live like him, didnt think like him, we were normal& he was not since at least 5 yrs old- working hard to earn money! Childhood shapes us the most, u can mock all the psychology stuff but even on this site u write how important is child psyche & Michael as a child had completely destroyed psyche as well! So again – yes he was a victim – of his father, ppl in the industry, his all life. Again my last words: I dont know if he is guilty or not, but I dont believe it more than I do believe it, even for a reason that Michael was great artist and they say, to be that kind of an artist, with extraordinary level of sensitivity u have to be a good man& when I watch interviews I dont see a bad man, sorry, even if tried. I simply understand complexity of this. World is not black or white, its grey, complex and there are two sides-or more- to every story. We will never know the truth. Only truth here is yes- Michael was also a victim, since he was a child. Could he be an abuser? It is possible, but we dont know. Only 1 sure thing in Michael Jacksons story is that his life – no matter how u look at it- was a tragedy.

      • No Google

        (it’s said they’re more homophobic than whites, correct me if I’m wrong

        You’re wrong. Black people are no more homophobic than whites, who actually create anti gay laws.

    • Thanks Kate, I’d forgotten that interview.

      The comments were interesting too, with one poster “CEThom” suggesting that George “thought Michael Jackson was a paedophile because he’d heard a rumour he was gay.” Of course this is nonsense, as another poster pointed out “CEThom, you really think that George Michael, the openly gay singer, holds the homophobic opinion that gay men are paedophiles?”

      Do you think that MJ might have been attracted to men too? I’ve had this discussion before but I’m not totally convinced.

      • Michele

        Hello. Sorry, this is way off topic of this thread, but can you tell me where I can find evidence/sources that confirms Michael Jackson was possibly doing heroin? I know he did have scaring on his buttocks, but the doctors that I have watched all say it was from demerol injections. Thank you 🙂

        • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

          Hey no comment is really off topic here..I will just sum up some of the talks we have here…

          MJ liked scripts…Maybe in his mind (and at least fans) if a doctor gives it you cannot be addicted….There are far harder legal scripts than heroin…MJ was addicted to something about 100 times as strong but it was Doc given so fans still push that he could have never been addicted..People do not understand when you go to rehab it is called Drug Dependence treatment and while dependence happens with those types of drugs)it is expected to during long term use) you must take higher doses for it to work, a good pain doctor will titered up slowly not so fast that you are non functional.
          Believe it or not you can function on these meds. for pain control for life if done reasonably…Dependence is just a nice work for junkie or addict..there is no difference. Dependence fans like to say was as far as MJ got but they do not know the mg micrograms he was on, they do not want to believe he enjoyed being high..All part of that wholesome image ya know.

          With MJ I am pretty sure he knew he was an addict but told himself he would die without the drug, and that may even be true depending on what dose he was on if he was forced to withdrawal…And he may have been in horrible pain but you do not take so much that you are almost not breathing that is beyond pain control and is into suicide. I wonder if MJ ever really withdrew from any of the drugs and while I have no issue if he took them for pain or panic his doctors competed on who would give him more.

          Heroin is a wimp drug when you start getting into fent ( the drug that killed prince as well) Now PHillp seymour Hoffman died from Heroin despite being rich but I suspect that has more to do from his old days being a poor actor struggling and he remembered that whole high with fondness..Sometimes drugs like that just hit the person in the pysche and it is a specific one they crave.

          MJ was too rich to depend on cut heroin and the high would be much better with fent patches and morphine IVs. He certainly was heavily addicted to that..The buttock scarring if true points to MJ getting IM injections constantly.. Heroin addicts skin pop but MOST IV it (slam is street slang) in the vein….I think perhaps MJ wanted it IVed and the doctor may have lied about the scarring.Sure he might have had some but if you want a catch a high you slam…Simple

          BTW if users want to hide injections when their veins are starting to fall apart they resort to between the toes and in the webbing of the fingers if they are going to try and hide markes..That would not be slamming it would be popping but there is no other way if every vien in the body is half collasps..

          So short answer MJ did scripts but far harder than H.

          • Michele

            Oh there’s no doubt about it MJ had an addiction. Most fans would deny he wasn’t a drug addict, but sadly his tolerance got so high, the narcotics he took would knock most people on their buns. Even the people I know who overdosed on heroin or whatever drugs I don’t like to call people drug addicts. I think it comes with a stigma. But, that’s my opinion. Oh yeah, some people think taking narcotics can make them perform better haha. Or some it might make them a zombie.

            I suppose when people say he did heroin, which is illegal vs. a script there is a difference in that regard. I like to stick to facts. I’ve never heard of him doing heroin, so I wanted to see if there was a legit source.

            Thank you for your respectful comment 🙂

  • dani

    Hello there, I realize that you posted this a while ago, but I hope you are still around:)
    I do really like your ideas, and honesty. Thing is with Jackson, I believe for one he was not that smart/intelligent, I actually think he was pretty clueless. I do not think he has to be some extreme of either a total mastermind evil genius or Christ himself. Although yes that creates this enigma about him that I find confusing but I think there is a middle ground to him.

    I do not believe he was guilty of sex crimes but much more guilty of manipulation for emotional needs and yes that harmed kids. I do think MJ was a music genius/talent and I like his art/dance performance, but as a human being he was lacking to a large degree.

    To me really I doubt he had this special “knowledge” on how to get the world to fall in love with him as you say. I think he was just being his weird self and people responded to it, due to his levels of insecurity and strangeness, which as many will say is “pretty cool for a rock star”

    It is entirely understandable that the “world at large” just saw a vulnerable, charismatic type of artist and were pulled in by it, not to mention the world knew him since his was a baby really. Not many child stars become MEGA super NOVA stars in adult hood like MJ.. I have been doing a lot of reading of what charisma means and how it comes about in people and the overall consensus is it comes out due to some extreme lack or true security and extreme vulnerability in oneself. (think Judy Garland, Monroe, Clinton ect) I also think charismatic types are the best manipulators, but they were abused in some way deep in their pasts. SO they try and get their needs met by having people love them somehow even if it is not love in a classic sense.

    I do not think it was some plan by Jackson to do that at all. Please remember, not too long after thriller was out and then his next album Bad was released, the press was very nasty to him, and he lost tons of fans due to his miscalculations of facial surgery/skin and style. SO he was not able to be the evil genius there at all.

    I never bought his shyness nor his Peter Pan crazy stuff. He was a drug addicted rock star, who lied and was too rich and powerful for his own good. Not too much different from any other type of rocker/star at all.

    He did have some unique things about him though, I will admit. I just really really doubt he was an evil genius and got the world into a frenzy by some deep seated plan. Its was chance, luck, talent and hard work that got him loved, but his persona I think was mostly fake, but how many stars give the world their true self’s really?? Its all razzel dazzle in hollywood and we cannot really expect any of them to be totally honest with us and tell us everything can we?

    MJ was damaged goods from the get go, and perhaps that is what people saw beneath his glamour, I do not know. I sometimes think myself, that I can see some sort of deep hurt or pain in his doe like eyes, that seem very empty bottomless or should I say seemed very traumatized? Eyes are said to be window to the soul. Maybe others have seen it as well, and somehow wanted to protect him, hug him or do whatever he asked because of this vulnerable side to him. Perhaps that is what is making you think he conned all his employees, collaborators, Drs and so on. Could be.

    I will admit I sense this in a way but not in interviews just more in his performances, like he is NEEDING to be loved by these fans desperately , no matter how silly/fake the love is, as if he is trying so hard to be accepted, to give himself some sort of validation. No matter how empty he was that kinda love was NEVER gonna fill him up, and this is why I think he needed kids for emotional support, which was unhealthy either way.

    Remember as well he was like 8-9 singing in strip clubs, and was in the same room as his brothers as they had sex with groupies. I think this messed up his sexuality in a huge way. That is way to young to witness that stuff.

    I still love the art not the artist. Never met him, and doubt I would have liked him as a grown up adult human being at all, but who knows really. His persona was all fantasy as things go in showbiz.

    It is interesting that you say Karen Faye was “chosen” because she was in love with him or starstruck. I do suppose many could get seduced into his world, that sort of fame and power would probably be really intoxicating and attractive to many, just being around a superstar like MJ would leave most people in a haze/daze… But would you say Quincy Jones was starstruck, how about Liz Taylor or Liza Or hepburn? I really doubt that.

    Anyway I hope that all made sense I am kinda in a hurry.

    Take care
    Dani

  • Dani Vanbuskirk-Beil

    I have been really liking reading the old conversations on this site.
    As things around the web about all the things that now make MJ look even more guilty. I have to ask this much (and it is a real question) I am fan of his (the music not the man) So, I have heard some of this as an “excuse” on some of the fanatics boards, and I would like to address it here if I may and I hope someone here, could help me fit this in my mind..
    If Michael Jackson was a excellent media manipulator (yes he was) and he had any sort of intelligence, if he went after children why did he want to go after kids in 1st world countries? I have been reading about pedo rings and such and it seems if someone was rich and powerful like Mj, why did he not prey on the most vulnerable in 2nd and 3rd world countries, where we never would have heard about any victim..I do realize he could have perhaps enjoyed the “high risks” associated with abusing an American or Aussie kid..What does anyone think about this claim?..That if MJ was smart he would never have tried this in a system like the USA. easy enough to find his half latino looking prey in Brazil or what not..If anyone could perhaps address this, and I do hope you guys realize that I am open to being convinced that MJ did more than emotionally abuse these children..Appreciate any response to this..
    Danielle

    • Hildur

      I believe that MJ wasn’t interested in that simply because he wanted more from the children than just sexual acts. He wanted to have relationships with them. I have also been reading about pedophiles and many of them actually don’t commit particular violent sexual abuse, instead they go through this long process of manipulating and grooming the children and gaining their trust before they eventually start to sexually abuse them. MJ would have these long “relationships” with children, often for many years with each boy. He wouldn’t be able to go to let’s say Brazil and have a long time relationship with a child because of his career. About using vulnerability, he did pick his children very carefully in terms of them often having absent parents or weak relations to their parents. Michael stated in a tape (I think it was a conversation with Glenda Stein) that he could right away tell what kind of relation a child has to his father, by observing if they would hug or if the child would say “I love you dad” and so on (this wasn’t of course a conversation about child molestation but very revealing isn’t it?). And besides, we only know about the American children he molested because they were able to tell their stories. We have absolutely no idea what he did when he was travelling and that’s a very scary thought.

      • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

        Indeed it is scary..You are correct MJ was never going to force himself aggressively on to a kid…He would wine and dine them, take them on exp trips to impress them..Love bomb them etc.

        I def believe Jordy and it is clear that MJ made Jordan feel as if it was Jordan’s fault/choice to go further and further…In some ways he gave Jordan some power by allowing Jordan to dictate what was allowed and what was not..Making the boy even more confused in the end.

        As you say he wanted to have a relationship with these kids at least in the short term..Are you of the opinion that MJ felt any real love or affection for these kids? I am on the fence there but I realize MJ knew what he was doing was wrong and it was clear by Jordan’s eval that MJ had done those mind-games more than once before…Meaning in my gut I think MJ liked to mess with their heads and it was not all about bonding at all.

        I have listened to the Glenda tapes more than once..From what I recall of them, it was not MJ saying that he could tell anything about other parents..He was saying that JOE never hugged or kissed him..That (I believe he said GORDY did when JOe would not) MJ was going on how his father was very affectionate with his Love child Joh Vanni but refused to to hug any of his other kids..Yes MJ sounded hurt but again he never ever got over that and blamed most of his life on Joe..I am long past believing that excuse…Even though fans stop at nothing (nor does Tmez) to remind you of his “horrid” childhood. And plea with emotions as if that is some excuse…SMH

  • BrendaS

    Did anyone see the July 24th National Enquirer about Michael’s nudist magazines? Vincent Amen is the source. According to the article, items were given to him including the magazine before the raid in Neverland. Wasn’t he Frank’s friend? What do you think he knows?

    • Andreas Moss

      Very interesting! Do you have the full article somewhere? Couldn’t find it.

      Vincent Amen was one of the 6 alleged co-conspirators at the 2003 spectacle around the Arvizos. Yes, he was a childhood friend of Frank Cascio hired by frank to work on the chaos around the Arvizos after the Bashir documentary. The conspirators were kidnapping, exploiting and attempting to get the Arvizo family to move to to an isolate part of Brazil, and Vincent played a part in that scheme, although I personally think he didn’t really knew 100% what he was part of. Its difficult to say.

      Vincent actually did crack down before the 2005 trial too, to Frank Cascio’s dismay. He went to the police and confessed about what he had been part of, but he asked for immunity so we don’t know what he actually said. Supposedly it didn’t match completely with the overall story of the prosecution, so they didn’t use him as a witness. Its unknown what he said that didn’t match.

      Its interesting he’s opening up to what he saw while at Neverland. I’m sure he’s not on friendly foot with Cascio anymore if he’s exposing stuff like that to the journalists.

      • Christine

        You really believe that? They did not seem kidnapped to the people who interacted with and observed them around town as they shopped, dined, and got pampered at the salon on MJ’s dime. They didn’t seem kidnapped to all of the wait staff at Neverland either. In fact, it was said the family was overstepping their boundaries in and with the house. It was also stated that they left and returned many times, including all the way to their own house and back.

        They were ungrateful and were taking advantage of the situation- and of MJ’s kindness (as they had done, and attempted to do, with other situations and celebs. That is fact!). MJ and his workers were tired of it and wanted the family to leave. He was also avoiding them- something that Gavin actually caught him doing. Something that embarrassed Gavin, hurt his feelings, and probably made him angry. Seems like you’re simply taking the word of the mother- a proven con artist. A whole family of con artists actually.

        • Andreas Moss

          They did not seem kidnapped to the people who interacted with and observed them around town as they shopped, dined, and got pampered at the salon on MJ’s dime.

          Not really what happened though. They were not allowed to leave the Neverland ranch by anyone, and they were going to be sent to Brazil against their will. There was a last period of five days right before being sent off to Brazil where they were kept imprisoned and guarded in a motel in Calabasas(an hour drive away from Neverland) and one of those five days they were in shopping malls to buy suitcases and some clothes because they weren’t even allowed to go home to their own apartment to get their own stuff. It was that extreme, yes. The receipts for this so called “shopping spree” was given in to the Jackson defense to build an alternative narrative that they had been shopping on Jacksons money implying they were free to come and go from the ranch as they pleased. If you were to look at the receipts however (and they were evidence at the trial) they would show that one date when they were shopping while in Calabasas.

          They didn’t seem kidnapped to all of the wait staff at Neverland either.

          Actually yes, a lot of the people working for Jackson came forward to the police testifying what the Arvizos were saying was indeed true. Ranch manager Jesus Salas, one of the security guards Brian Barron, maid Maria Gomez, hired Pr-consultant Anne Marie Kite, Rudy Provencio who worked with one of the alleged co-conspirators, Jackson’s bodyguard Christopher Carter and others. Even Vincent Amen, one of the alleged co-conspirators broke down and went to the police admitting what he had been part of.

          It was also stated that they left and returned many times, including all the way to their own house and back.

          They escaped two times, yes, first time by ranch manager Jesus Salas in the middle of the night. He testified he was very worried about the family so he helped them get out of the ranch(who according to security guard Brian Barron was not allowed to leave, there was posters in the guard booths). They were brought back by Jacksons people all the times, and several people testified it caused an extreme riot when it was understood they had escaped.

          He was also avoiding them- something that Gavin actually caught him doing. Something that embarrassed Gavin, hurt his feelings, and probably made him angry.

          You’re mixing up seperate things that happened in the past between Gavin and Michael with what happened in the relevant time when they were held in Neverland after the chaos of the Bashir documentary. At that time Jesus Salas, Christopher Carter and others would testify both Gavin and his brother Star was staying in Jackson’s bedroom almost every single night. Most of the time they were with Jackson in the relevant time.

          • Michele

            I will say there odd things going on, however, what is the reasoning for Janet never calling the police, never screamed for help at the nail salon that she and her children were being held against their will, and the most obvious disturbing fact was Janet did never made the attempt to run to the FBI( I believe it was) a few blocks away from the nail salon. She claims to have “escaped” Neverland three times without her children. (They were supposedly there against their will) I would make every attempt to get out of there with my children. I believe there was a fence that was easily accessible to get out of.

            I would have to look over the employee’s testimonies that claimed “the family was held against their will”, this has nothing to do with anyone being a “fan”. I don’t know any mother who wouldn’t make an attempt to save herself and her children. Sorry.

          • Andreas

            I will say there odd things going on, however, what is the reasoning for Janet never calling the police, never screamed for help at the nail salon that she and her children were being held against their will, and the most obvious disturbing fact was Janet did never made the attempt to run to the FBI( I believe it was) a few blocks away from the nail salon.

            Yes, why Janet didn’t call the police was arguably the most troubling part to explain. The jury seemed to put a lot of weight on that.

            Well, she did call for help to several people, just not to the police directly. At one point she called Louise Palanker and said she was held captive and told her to call the police, but Palanker didn’t end up calling the police either. Janet’s boyfriend Jay Jackson did call the police. Obviously the police finally got involved in the end too, an investigation was done and they believed her based on all the evidence they found supporting her story.

            She claims to have “escaped” Neverland three times without her children. (They were supposedly there against their will) I would make every attempt to get out of there with my children.

            Hm. Have you read much into this story? The first escape was with the children. After the third and last time she managed to get the children away from Neverland.

            I believe there was a fence that was easily accessible to get out of.

            Haha, okay.. right.

            Well, if you don’t believe their story I’d be very curious to know what you think happened and what the family was doing there then? They were at Neverland for at least 2 months, and they were not in the guest logs otherwise well-documented. What do you think happened?

          • Michele

            Oh, I forgot to mention that although street drugs are illegal, so is doctor shopping, which MJ clearly did. This post isn’t related to the Arvizo family, but I can get to that. I like to be fair and see the grey area.

          • Michele

            I would have to read the trial scripts again and then compare it to what the people said how they were held against their will. I thought the police interview was when someone called CPS about Gavin’s relationship with MJ. That was on February 20th of 2003. I haven’t read the trial scripts, but I actually vaguely remember when her boyfriend called the police. Do you remember the time frame?

          • Andreas

            I thought the police interview was when someone called CPS about Gavin’s relationship with MJ.

            Both Gloria Allred and Carol Lieberman (plus one the teachers at Gavin’s school) all reported concerns about Gavin to the police and the child services yes. As a result of the airing of the Bashir documentary, you know the segment. The police looked briefly into it but actually closed the investigation quite quickly… (So much for the theory Sneddon & co were over-eager to get Jackson no matter what, huh?)

            The investigation was later re-opened again after Stan Katz and Larry Feldman deemed Gavin a likely victim. Then Janet would tell them about the conspiracy too. Then that was investigated as well, and they found all sorts of things proving what she said at a locked office at one of Jackson’s private investigators Janet had mentioned. Surveillance tapes of the family, taped phone conversations, documents proving they were going to be sent to Brazil, etc etc. It was quite insane.

            I haven’t read the trial scripts, but I actually vaguely remember when her boyfriend called the police. Do you remember the time frame?

            Jay called the police right before they escaped the first time. So somewhere between 8th-12th of February. He didn’t understand why they didn’t come home for over a week, as they were just supposed to go to Miami for a weekend. He noticed Janet would hang up on him all the time and seem distressed.

            The thing with Jay and the police sort of crashed with that they escaped the first time, so he would have to tell the police they had come home. Janet didn’t really share much information with her boyfriend (and stayed away from him) because she said Jackson’s people threatened something bad would happen to Jay and her parents if she told them anything. After the third escape she would tell him everything, but he already knew something was wrong because he saw how distressed and panicking she was.

          • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

            Many abused women NEVER call the police they are frozen in fear until a gun is pointed at their face..I have met tons of em. PTSD is real and the mind does not think clearly when in a panic you are NOT rational unless you have heavy training (military or police)…Take it from someone who knows…We still cannot really explain Stockholm syndrome and that makes no sense either…Are suffers of that all BSing too? One cannot say what you would do in any given situation each persons minds do the best that they can in any given moment…NOBODY acts the same in any situations so stop trying to act as if you would do this or that or SHE should of done this or that..YOU DO NOT KNOW…When you have a locked and loaded gun in your face then come back and tell me what you did or SHOULD have done…You will never know until you have exp it. Victim blaming at its finest. 7 boys still not enough for you huh…It matters not to me if any believe Gavin or not but I find it odd how one man named MJ could have sexual relationships with some boys and act the same way with another yet that one is trashed to the heavens…SMH

            I have no dog in this fight but I am sick and tired of the blame game on a poor abused family…They never asked for money and their story makes sense if looked at in a whole combined with all the others (and the ones we DO NOT even know about)

          • Michele

            We could go back and forth, but anything I point out, I highly doubt you would put it into consideration. Who knows, maybe you would. I wasn’t there and neither were you, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

            But the comments like, “haha yeah right” about the dimensions of the fence, is maybe saying I’m an idiot for believing that. I’m not going to look it up to prove my point, but from what I remember, it wasn’t exactly totally impossible to get out of there.

            Star or Gavin, I can’t remember which one said it, but they claim they had no concept of time as there were no clocks. On cross, TM pointed out the clocks around Neveland, including the big flower clock. Then the story became they were always wrong. But, I will say you have a way of coming back and throwing out some good points. Thanks for all the info you shared.

          • Andreas

            We could go back and forth, but anything I point out, I highly doubt you would put it into consideration. Who knows, maybe you would.

            Yes, I do consider things people write. I did for example not know the Barely Legal magazine Star was asked about was evidence put in by the proseuction and not by the defense. If thats the case. I’d have to look more into it though.

            Plus I directly asked you what you think happened in that time period? Why were the Arvizos there in the first place? If you honestly don’t believe their story I’d be curious what you think actually happened. You said you agreed some odd things happened, so that means you’re not saying they were totally lying. So what did they lie about? What didn’t they lie about?

            But the comments like, “haha yeah right” about the dimensions of the fence, is maybe saying I’m an idiot for believing that. I’m not going to look it up to prove my point, but from what I remember, it wasn’t exactly totally impossible to get out of there.

            No no.. there’s this documentary called «Neverland: An Untold Story» or something like that and it showed a picture of that fence. Not sure if thats your source, but the reason I laughed is partially because some of the objections to the Arvizo’s story are so silly its difficult to know what to say. Have you actually read Janet Arvizos testimony, Michele? If not, why not make yourself familiar with the the actual accusations and not parodies of it? Especially if you’re writing about it in some fashion, as I understand you are?

            Star or Gavin, I can’t remember which one said it, but they claim they had no concept of time as there were no clocks. On cross, TM pointed out the clocks around Neveland, including the big flower clock. Then the story became all the clocks were always wrong.

            Its possible they said things like dates and clocks were held back from them in that period, I’m not sure its true or bad excuses because they didn’t remember dates, believe what you want, but I honestly don’t see why it matters. Janet Arvizo remembered all the dates when important things happened and the police knew all the dates. I know all the dates. There’s no mystery about the dates things happened in that period.

          • Michele

            I did watch Larry Nimmer’s documentary regarding Neverland. I guess I can’t really state all the facts 100%, as I haven’t read most of it in a long time. My first task writing my research paper, is to collect as much information as possible. I have to read the thousands of transcripts again, to make sure everything is correct. I can answer the questions of why they were there, and what happened, after I read over the transcripts again. I just remember quite a few things that stuck out in my mind. For example, WHY did Janet Arvizo think the MJ and camp want to take them away in a hot air balloon? I’m not saying she is lying, but where is the logic in that? My following question doesn’t mean I think the victims are lying, but can you name ONE victim that said they were molested that didn’t request money. ONE victim that went to the police FIRST. I’m not saying MJ is 100% innocent. I’m also not saying I think all of them are lying. I’m not some fan in denial. I’ve said that it is possible things could have happened. I don’t think ALL MJ’s fans think the same regarding Tom Sneddon. I’m just throwing that out there. He was doing his job and following up on a possible molestation case. I have seen people even on this site say it’s hard to believe their story. (That’s not saying the family are liars).

          • Andreas

            For example, WHY did Janet Arvizo think the MJ and camp want to take them away in a hot air balloon? I’m not saying she is lying, but where is the logic in that?

            I haven’t been able to find the original comment Janet said that. (Although I haven’t looked too hard to be honest, as I find this bit unimportant and a bit silly, but I know its a common “criticism”..)

            It seems like Tom Mesereau took it from transcripts from Janet’s depositions (or something pre-trial at least), and he brought it up at the trial while cross-examining her. According to Diane Dimond’s book the whole room started laughing when it was brought up, and Janet’s been mocked for that comment ever since.

            Logic? From what I gather Janet while at Neverland couldn’t get to her kids. She asked to see them several times, but they were with Michael and out of her reach. At least Star and Gavin were with Michael, not Davellin. If I were to guess this comment was in the later part of the stay when she was at her most unstable and probably thought Michael could be taking the children away from her. She may have been a bit paranoid. I haven’t seen the context of her original comment.

            When Mesereau asked her about the hot air balloon she said that would be one of the ways Michael could take the children away outside her notice. Its a silly comment, yeah, but not a central part of the story to put it mildly. Just something she seemed to have said at some point before the trial and the defense blowing it up and out of proportions to make fun of her and her story. Jackson actually did have hot air balloons at Neverland though.

            My following question doesn’t mean I think the victims are lying, but can you name ONE victim that said they were molested that didn’t request money. ONE victim that went to the police FIRST.

            Well, the Arvizos didn’t request money from Michael. They stated several times they didn’t want his money. They never used an opportunity to sell their story to media either. It was a criminal trial not a civil trial, so therefore no money in the pot.

            They didn’t go to the police first though, but they didn’t go to lawyer Bill Dickerman to get money from Jackson, but to stop further showings of the Bashir documentary (Gavin was being teased at school) and to get their belongings back from Jackson, as they had stolen it and stored it away. The police got involved after Larry Feldman sent Gavin to a psychologist because he suspected he might have been molested by Jackson, and the psychologist (Stan Katz) reported it to authorities because he deemed Gavin a probable victim.

          • Michele

            Had the prosecution won their case, the Arvizo’s would have had a better chance at a civil trial. I think the only case that has some merit is JC. But, that is my opinion.

          • Andreas

            Well, they could have just skipped the criminal case then, because in civil lawsuits there’s not as high scrutiny on reasonable doubt. Its supposedly a lot easier to win for the accuser (at least thats what I hear). Jackson has a history of being pretty easy on payouts as well. I personally think Michael ideally would have done it already outside court again if he could choose. Even after losing the criminal trial they could have done a civil trial, yet they never did, despite Tom Mesereau and Scott Ross insisting they at one point would. Sorry, it never happened — and it seems like they never will.

            Those who speculate they do seems to be basing it on past events, yes. Like Janet being a welfarefraud and the JCPenney case.

            Yup, Untold Story Of Neverland was made after the trial. I actually have it on DVD here and it says 2010 on the back.

          • Michele

            Andreas- I am at the portion of my paper, where I need to get into the Arvizo testimonies/family.

            Do you still want me to tell you what I think they were doing? Just thought. If you are interested, I would be happy to share.
            Thanks,
            Michele

          • Andreas

            Hehe, yes, I asked you three times why you think the Arvizos were at Neverland for 2 months. The kids were out of school in this period, which is not normal, right? And most of their allegations are backed up by not just statements but hard evidence.

            (For example Janet claimed her phone conversations were recorded, and the police found tapes with the conversations in Bradley Millers office, the family claimed they were followed and videotaped on the streets, and the police found said video tapes… and thats just the tip of the iceberg…)

            For me its one thing to hang yourself up on certain alleged inconsistencies in their story, or their alleged lack of credibility on things in their past. Thats what Arvizo critics always do, right?

            OK. Not saying thats not a quite valid way to go about, at least if you know little of the details involved in the case, don’t worry.. I get that, fine — but for ME to doubt their story you actually have to give a cohesive alternative explaination to what “really happened”. Why they were there in the first place, why they were there so long, what actually happened to them if it wasn’t a conspiracy. I’ve never seen one and at this point I don’t think I will ever see one. Thats why I asked you.

            If you want to try to give one I’ll definitely commend you for your bravery.

            What is your paper about by the way, Michele? Is it about the child molestation cases surrounding Jackson in general?

          • Michele

            Well, I do agree, most critics of the Arvizo family always go to lack of credibility. I’m really not that intelligent, so I wouldn’t ever go off what I say, but it doesnt hurt to try haha. I am taking a criminal justice course. We had to pick a criminal case, and research every last detail. We have to come to the conclusion of what contributed to the acquittal of the defendant, eveidence, witnesses etc.

            I would approach my theory in a professional manner, as I don’t want to offend any of the victims, prosecutors, and defense team.

            You are very smart so I will do my best 🙂

          • Andreas

            Well, you certainly didn’t pick the easiest case to write about, thats for sure. Its quite a task time to read the testimonies of the 2005 case. The trial lasted around 5-6 months… and like, 100 witnesses or something(too lazy to check). I think the mere size of going through even a portion of it makes most people go “Okay, life’s too short — I’m out.”

            I’d recommend reading Janet Arvizo’s and Gavin Arvizo’s testimonies though. If you don’t and you just go straight to some MJ vindication source instead you’ll only get selected parts of contention(and filtered through pro-Jackson explanations) and not the full story.

            No, you don’t have to have comprehensive interpretations. I was actually simply asking you why you thought the Arvizos were even in Neverland at the relevant time. It sounded like you had read Aphrodite Jones book, seen some documentaries and so on, so I figured you must have had some kind of impression already. From what it sounds like you haven’t given it much thought. (Thats fine.)

            But yes, sure, by all means, if you do end up reading yourself up on the case this is the place to share your unfiltered impressions.

          • Michele

            I read through all the thousands of pages of each and every witness for the 2005 trial. That was months ago, but I need to do it all over again. I go to sites that have documents, although I checked out MJ vindication, and it seems like a battle between these two sites. I’m starting to remember the testimonies, including the Arvizo family. I would like to put everything together before I give my interpretation of what happened. I hope you are doing good 🙂

          • Andreas

            Okay, thats cool Michele.

            Please don’t be afraid to be honest. To me it sounds a bit like you don’t believe the Arvizos so far, thats okay if you end up continuing to believe that, but I’d still very much like to hear your reasons. Especially if you’re going to dive into the testimonies. Happy reading then.

          • Michele

            Well, I just don’t want to offend you if I don’t believe them. I do feel compassionate towards Janet, as I know first hand what abuse can do. But, I guess it just throws me off with the welfare fraud and all. The prosecution in opening statements did mention that, and they did say everyone makes mistakes. Which, we all do. Do you mind if I ask why your passionate about the conspiracy theory?

            I’m not an attorney, but I think the prosecution would have had a better chance of convicting him with the molestation and giving alcohol to minors without the conspiracy charge. MJ has been accused of molestation before, so it would be more believable without the conspiracy charges. You all are very intelligent. I can tell by the way you process things and your grammar. If you can deal with my crappy writing, I will be happy to give you my opinion haha.

            I’m half way through Janet’s testimony so far.

          • Michele

            Are you interested in the molestation portion or the conspiracy? Or both? I’m going to go off the transcripts, and then put forth my interpretation of it. (As that is what I have to do for class)

          • Michele

            I watched the Untold Story of Neverland, the property had split rail fences. It’s towards the end of the video. (On YouTube). I watched the one that had the jury foreman in it. It looks like there was stuff added to it one already made after the trial?

          • Pea

            “I did for example not know the Barely Legal magazine Star was asked about was evidence put in by the proseuction and not by the defense. If thats the case. I’d have to look more into it though.”

            Yes, it is the case. I went ahead and looked into it since it was mentioned in our dialoguing here, and it was People’s 86, a photograph of the open black Samsonite briefcase and the porn mags inside them. It wasn’t the Defense’s exhibit — Mesereau just showed Star the photograph again.

            Recall that the Defense didn’t want any “erotic materials” entered into as evidence of, as the Prosecution called it, “Intent, Plan, Scheme and Motive”. He wouldn’t have just thrown out a Barely Legal magazine to trip Star up because he wouldn’t have wanted the jury to see any porn. In the transcripts, Mez objected to People’s 86 as not being relevant, among other things; the Judge overruled him.

            Yes, Star claimed quite unequivocally that the porn mags depicted in the photo were what he’d seen. Of course, we know now that at least one of the magazines — Barely Legal Aug 2003 — was not time-relevant. You mentioned elsewhere that “tricking” Star was one of Mesereau’s “low points”. It wasn’t, simply because Star’d said more than once that he’d seen it; had he not, it wouldn’t have been let in (at one point, Judge Melville didn’t think Sneddon had established proper foundation but, upon asking Star again, they proceeded as planned).

            At any rate, if one wanted to assume Star was “confused” (I wouldn’t, but for argument’s sake), the only other legitimate option in my mind was Sneddon’s dog-with-a-bone tunnel vision. The cops examined the mags enough to photo them, to get them numbered, and to submit them as evidence, so I cannot reasonably assume that Sneddon & Co. did not realize that at least one magazine displayed prominently enough to see its date had the wrong date. I just think he didn’t give a damn. He was very prepared to continue on without getting a proper foundation. He was sloppy and way too eager, and, assuming Star was “confused”, set one of his chief witnesses up to be made into a liar.

            All options are not very favorable.

            You can read about it on PDF pages 113-116: https://www.mjfacts.com/transcripts/Court_Transcript_3_07_2005.pdf

          • Andreas

            Okay, right, thanks Pea. Yes, its correct I thought this was Mesereau picking up a few issues too late Barely Legal magazine and tricking Star into saying that was the one. If that was the case it would have been a ‘low point’ in my opinion. That would have been very sneaky of him.

            If Mesereau really talked about an issue that was in evidence it would make things different though. I have little choice but agree with you there. I would stand corrected too, yes. That is indeed curious, but beyond just Star though. Thats also on the prosecution for putting in wrong evidence.

            While I have been writing about the 2005 case I haven’t actually gotten to this part so I haven’t researched this in-out yet. There was a lot of witnesses involved both from the forensic experts and people on the raid finding them, and the defense threw a lot of objections on many things. Still its my understanding they found fingerprints by both Gavin, Star and Michael in one or more of the magazines in that exact black suitcase with magazines. That part is still not disputable to my understanding.

            And even if you’re skeptical of the fingerprints(for whatever possible reason, as I don’t know your opinion on it Pea) you have to concede the two boys still identified a locked black suitcase with porn magazines in Jackson’s inner chamber and it would show to be correct — the police found it, and it was indeed full of porn magazines. Right? That is still something even if there’s a Barely Legal magazine in the evidence that does not belong there (and Star may or may not have been confused about it).

            If you’re going to argue Gavin and Star lied about ever being in that suitcase and seeing the pornmagazines I dare to say it would open up far more questions how they knew about it. Especially if their fingerprints was on magazines in there. And its still kind of impressive by Star to guess Michael owned Barely Legal magazines, one wrong issue or not, if he never actually saw the insides of the suitcase. Thats a lot of lucky guesses at least.

            As for the too-late-issue I remember someone(I can’t remember who at the moment) noted that when one subscribes to magazines you usually get issues months in advance. That could have been a possible explanation if it was just a month or two — however if the magazine was an August 2003 edition and they were there in February/March 2003 thats a lot of months between… So I’m really not sure about this one. I don’t think I recall ever hearing Sneddon, Zonen or anyone in prosecution comment on it either.

          • Pea

            The “argument” that a subscriber would get multiple magazine issues in advance is even too specious for you. 😉 It simply does not work like that. I’ve never heard of any magazine giving issues in advance, and I’ve subscribed to my fair share.

            That was just sloppy-ass police work by arrogant eager beavers with vendettas.

            As for the fingerprints, I have no problem acknowledging that those boys touched porn magazines at Neverland. Two employees testified to seeing Star, from memory, with porn mags (not to mention both were caught jerking off to the film variety of their own accord, too — ewww!). Additionally Jacko seemed to have a lot of Barely Legal mags for some reason. Therefore, there need to be no reliance on coincidence for me to believe that Star saw, could identify, and touched Barely Legal magazines in that briefcase while maintaining no molestation occurred upon any Arvizo boy. They do not contradict.

            It was self-evident that they rambled, were running amok, and got into things, including Jacko’s things. Fingerprint forensics cannot tell the age of a fingerprint anyway (at least at that time), so, being Jacko’s mags, recovering his fingerprints mean nothing. Recovering their fingerprints, too, is very weak circumstantial evidence of their claim of being shown skin mags by Jacko, given the other evidence of their behavior at the Ranch.

          • Andreas

            The “argument” that a subscriber would get multiple magazine issues in advance is even too specious for you. 😉 It simply does not work like that. I’ve never heard of any magazine giving issues in advance, and I’ve subscribed to my fair share.

            Sure. I am not an avid subscriber of magazines so I just have to trust what others say though. I do remember as a kid when I subscribed to some comics, Nintendo magazines or whatever that they would come weeks in my mail before I’d see them in stores, so I could certainly accept a month in advance. Two issues is stretching it…, not sure, a grey zone perhaps? But 6-7 issues months in advance is difficult to defend yes. Not even supercelebs get 6-7 issues of magazines in advance. 🙂

            Unless access to timemachines and such.

            Its interesting learning about this, because I suddenly get that crazy William Wagner guy. At least a little. People here may have seen it — there’s a video of him on youtube pissed off and foaming at the mouth claiming Tom Sneddon should be put in jail. He claims Sneddon planted the fingerprints either in deposition or at the Grand Jury to frame Jackson. He may still be a bit insane, but at least I can see some merit to what he was talking about now. The police did mess something up. I’m not sure if it was the August issue of Barely Legal the fingerprints was on though unfortunately. If Stars and Gavins fingerprints was on porn magazines found in Jackson’s room that in my opinion trumps that Star may have mixed up an issue. It means they were probably in it.

            This may have been sloppy police work, yes. But if thats the case though I’m not sure if Star’s the one who should be given a hard time but the police-people responsible for collecting the magazines from the suitcase. They could simply have collected content that had been filled with new issues since Star and Gavin left, and didn’t consider the possibility that material collected after Gavin and Star left could hurt the case. T-Mez certainly found an exploit in that at least.

            As for the rest Pea, it sounds like you’re suggesting Gavin and Star looked at porn magazines, perhaps even from Jackson’s suitcase, but you think it could have been from their own reckless behavior and not encouraged by Jackson? Or are you saying Jackson may have encouraged them to look at the porn magazines in the briefcase, but that you still don’t think thats necessarily proof he molested Gavin?

            If the latter I’d be surprised that a child molester(as you of course think he was) could show underage boys pornography and give them alcohol, and that you yet still remain doubtful its grooming behavior? If a childmolester was grooming a child wouldn’t that indicate sexual interest? Is that really jumping to conclusions?

            If the former. Well, I see the «amok» behavior you mention not as much their common normal self, but very much connected to the unstable situation after the Calabasas trip from 2 Mars. It was a crazy situation for them. They had been trapped inside a motel room for almost a week, their home was resigned, all their stuff taken away, and the Brazil trip was suddenly in limbo, they were signed out of school. They had nothing at that point. No roots, nothing. I can understand they would go a bit crazy. Janet was now guarded in her guest unit with no more contact with the children, and Michael took over their custody and would be with them all day. As Ron Zonen noted, and backed up by the testimony like maid Kiki Fornier, Jackson actually seemed to encourage that kind of behavior from his underage visitors. «No rules», «boyhood», etc. It was in this period Gavin was allegedly molested too, which in my opinion suits the bill.

          • Pea

            Alright, I think we’ve now established that the future issues “issue” is dubious, not to mention Star already helped confirm that he couldn’t have seen magazines that weren’t published. 😉

            Like I said before, I can fault the cops instead of Star, although he was adamant he’d seen what he was presented. But when you read the exchange, Sneddon’s initial concept of “adequate foundation” was to ask a couple vague questions and have Star look at People’s 86 seemingly briefly, so perhaps the boy was not “connecting”. On the flip side, they put it up on the projector screen, so must’ve Star got a decent enough look to allow him to say yea or nay, and he did continue to suggest he had seen the magazine until Mesereau called him out.

            I don’t know. It certainly is not impossible that the Prosecution manufactured fingerprints, as Wagener claimed, to aid in the family’s story — it is called, in police circles, “tightening up the case”. They seemed desperate for a conviction. Sneddon said, “We got him! We got him!” when Jacko was arrested — ew. They never found the underwear the Arvizo boys claimed Jacko stole, but tried to get some random guy’s pair sitting around in Jacko’s hamper admitted into evidence. That’s so irrelevant. And then the cocaine evidence. Star claimed initially that he saw cocaine at Neverland. Then — voila! — they supposedly found non-metabolized cocaine on a part of Jacko’s underwear that was seized way after the family was at Neverland (they’d made two cuttings from the same undies, but only one cutting had the cocaine). I used to believe that was legitimate, but, now, I am not so sure…. I won’t say it was “planted” because I have no evidence that it was. However, I can’t think of a logical reason why Jacko would get cocaine powder into his underwear and only one part of it — and I believe it was cocaine on the cutting that had the bloodstain, which makes no sense to me. Needless to say, Star dropped that detail, and the cocaine undies were barred as evidence.

            American cops tighten cases all the time, and innocent people are also put in jail using weak circumstantial evidence. That the Santa Barbara team was fine with submitting as evidence what essentially was a “recreation” of the original magazines in that briefcase, and getting one of their chief witnesses, Star Arvizo, to falsely vouch its accuracy is seriously problematic in its implications. It says a lot about what they were willing to do to win.

            Of course, that is also why they lost.

            “As for the rest Pea, it sounds like you’re suggesting Gavin and Star looked at porn magazines, perhaps even from Jackson’s suitcase, but you think it could have been from their own reckless behavior and not encouraged by Jackson? Or are you saying Jackson may have encouraged them to look at the porn magazines in the briefcase, but that you still don’t think thats necessarily proof he molested Gavin?”

            I’m not saying the latter, although I disagree with your opinion that a pedophile must act once a kid has been shown pornography. The lynchpin of that argument seems to be “pedophile”, but they don’t molest everyone, and Gavin and Star never made it seem like they were aroused by any imagery anyway (disregarding the jerking off that Rijo saw) when it involved Michael Jackson. Gavin himself made it seem, in his testimony, that Jacko’s view of porn was that it was silly, not erotic. Therefore, I can’t get down with your reasoning, even if Jacko was a pedophile.

            Yes, I am saying the former: given that the porn was available within a grown man’s home and they were having a run of the place, they got into it. Being pubescent boys with functional body parts, they were interested in it. There’s nothing but their own (inconsistent) words that suggest Jacko egged them on. Those fingerprints are moot, especially since they weren’t on the same pages as the Jacko fingerprint recovered.

            I also demur on the claim they weren’t wild on their own or that they were merely “acting out”. According to Chris Tucker, the boys ran amok on the set of “Rush Hour” and the crew wanted them gone. That predated Michael Jackson. Even before the Calabasas trip, according to Chris Carter, the behavior of the Arvizo boys was getting on the nerves of the Cascio family. So even if Jacko’s NL policy was to allow kids to be kids (Chris Tucker didn’t penalize the boys for being wild on that set — he thought they were just being kids), he did not turn good Arvizo boys into bad Arvizo boys who looked at porno mags.

            In short, yes, I still don’t think fingerprints present on porn and no molestation are incompatible.

          • Michele

            If I may, ask a stupid question, please. IF, Sneddon took out the Barely Magazine during the grand jury proceedings, why wouldn’t he use a porn magazine that had a date that wasn’t already published? That’s the part that was confusing to me. If you look at the transcripts, Star clearly said when he was being questioned by the prosecution, the magazine was the one MJ showed him. He was very adamant about that. I’m not saying he wasn’t lying, but it was indeed odd he said on cross he didn’t mean that exact one. Just my stupid damn opinion.

          • Pea

            Michele, I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say. Can you clarify? 🙂

          • Michele

            Of course, I will try and clarify. I’ve never broken the law, besides speeding tickets, lol, so I’m not sure how a grand jury works. Do they have ALL the evidence shown? Let’s use this scenario………The slim chance the police found the Barely Legal magazine(the one that was dated many months after the Arvizo family left. Magazine dated August 2003.) in MJ’s briefcase with Star and Gavin’s fingerprints on it. It would make sense that their fingerprints would be on it. In this scenario………IF the prosecution was trying to fabricate evidence, because fingerprints were not found on any of the porn, (which would be almost impossible to prove MJ groomed them with porn magazines) why wouldn’t they bring out magazines during the grand jury that was dated before the time the Arvizo’s were there? Because I think I’m failing to mention something, is it true the Barely Legal magazine was shown during the grand jury before it was processed for fingerprints and Gavin touched it to show that was the one?

            Ugh, your very smart Pea, and I’m trying to explain it on your level( as I’m no where near as intelligent as you), but I don’t think I’m doing a very good job.

          • Michele

            The police raided MJ’s house on December 18th, 2003. It’s obviously almost impossible Star and Gavin could have touched the Barely Legal magazine from August, considering they left in March. I think your one of the ones that is on the same page as me. I’m having a tough time believing anything they say.

            I’m trying to be as appropriate as possible, and I can understand if you can’t post this, BUT I asked one of my guy friends and he said he’s never heard of porn magazines ordered that far in advance.

          • Neely

            Simple answer, he was an idiot. Now, where did I put my halo?

          • Michele

            Neely, your funny. That’s a big mystery, I wish I knew what the truth is.

          • Michele

            Wait, there was traces of cocaine found in his underwear? That’s a first, but I’ve never actually looked at the list of evidence as of right now.

          • Pea

            Correct. Although there was disagreement between the sides, there was no contesting of a finding of cocaine on Jacko’s size 30 Calvin Klein underwear, located in the same laundry bag as a mystery male’s pair of semen-stained underwear. The Prosecution made two cuttings of the underwear, one with blood and one without, and sent them to forensics for testing; the results were that both cuttings had cocaine (as well as Demerol and antihistamine meds).

            The Defense argued the cocaine was merely on the underwear (origin unknown) because there were no cocaine metabolites; the Prosecution claimed it was secreted in Jacko’s urine and blood, and that was the only explanation for its presence. Of course, if Jacko had stuck himself with Demerol, which was excreted in his blood that stained the underwear, the wound could have already formed a non-bleeding scab by the time he used cocaine. In that way, he still could have used it, verifying the finding.

            I’m not sure of the truth. I only mentioned it as a speculative example of “case tightening”, given that Star mysteriously claimed to have seen white powder at Neverland (that allegation completely disappeared).

            At any rate, it was not allowed in….

            A few documents on the issue (in chronological order):

            https://www.scribd.com/document/17148107/Mj-Police-Report-Toxicology (pages 20 and 21 show the toxicology results on the underwear, dated to November 2004)

            http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805notmotexc14.pdf (Defense motion to exclude irrelevant evidence; Item #14 is the cocaine underwear)

            http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/013105pltmotrd14itms.pdf (Prosecution reply, see especially attached exhibit)

            http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/020805repomoefievid.pdf (Final Defense motion)

          • Michele

            I gotta run, I will respond to the other things you wrote, but quick question. Did they test the DNA of the semen? I must be getting old, I read the thousands of pages worth of the trial, but I don’t remember that.

          • Pea

            They tested the semen insofar as determining the sample found was not Michael Jackson’s. It was neither Arvizo boys’, and they lacked the probable cause to obtain DNA samples from anyone else to determine the mystery ejaculator’s identity.

            None of the semen evidence — and there were a total of 3 unknown semen samples (not including Jacko’s) found — was allowed into the trial. It simply wasn’t relevant.

          • Michele
          • Pea

            That’s from Vindicate MJ, it looks like…. The summation is suspect, such as claiming he could have never did cocaine, but the quotations in red are correct.

            I would suggest you look at the documents I linked for you. It’s straight from the horses’ mouths — and then you get to decide for yourself.

          • Michele

            I did a quick search, but I will look at the links you sent me. Those are the legit documents, so it’s much more reliable. Thanks so much.

          • Pea

            You’re welcome. 🙂

          • Michele

            Grrrr…….my ADHD is getting to me. Is it possible I’m overlooking things? I looked on the link you sent me, but it seems to me it’s more of court motions. Does actual evidence exist that is available to the public? (Besides all the porn) Such as, all the police interviews, the recipts from Janet’s shopping, Brazil tickets purchased etc. please let me know when you get a free moment :).

          • Pea

            Most of the trial evidence is discussed within the transcripts and the court documents. The police interviews are not available to the public, unfortunately.

            There is a Defense document that has scans of at least some of the receipts during the Calabasas trip, but I would have to search for it — it’s been a while! :p Unless someone else here can help…?

            I know reading motions and transcripts can be a drag, but since you’ve selected this doozy of trial, you’ll have to look through them with a close eye to find all the goodies and connect all the dots. Do you really only have 2 weeks left? That’s not much time. 🙂

          • Michele

            I was able to find the 261 page motion Bingo!!!! Don’t worry Pea, my paper is due in two weeks, so once it’s turned in, you won’t have to deal with me asking 100 questions anymore.
            Thanks for all your help.

          • Neely

            Hey Michele, would you mind posting the link?? I see time is counting down quickly for your deadline, so if you don’t have time, I completely understand! Hope your paper is progressing well. Do you need witnesses that you researched your ass off?? I’d be one for you! :o)

          • Michele

            Hi Neely 🙂 Of course I have time. College is all about pulling all nighters. Haha. I’m not sure you will be excited as I was, but I think you will find some interesting stuff. I took a screenshot of the motion, which has the date it filed next to it. The website is at the top. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a81e3b12a015265307c873c277b36f5ae8952ac8f8dd1a38ba6051bf7de78a3b.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9d7e6f4f093d5b8995430e36c58975b039c98e3a906b6cf2b0ac1b817640a2c7.png

          • Michele

            I forgot to mention, I was up until 4am reading it. I couldn’t put my damn phone down. You sure could be a witness 🙂

          • Pea

            Yes, please share the link to that document, if it indeed has the receipts scanned. Like Neely, I’d also like to see it again.

          • Michele

            Sorry, I hope I didn’t confuse anyone-this document does not have evidence such as receipts of the purchases from the Arvizo’s.

            Very informative document. I think you will find lots of interesting stuff.

            It is from the website you mentioned…….

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9d7e6f4f093d5b8995430e36c58975b039c98e3a906b6cf2b0ac1b817640a2c7.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a81e3b12a015265307c873c277b36f5ae8952ac8f8dd1a38ba6051bf7de78a3b.png

          • Pea

            No problem — that document with the scanned receipts is somewhere in that massive pile; it does exist. 🙂

            That motion you’ve linked (or screenshotted) has the conversation between Detective Paul Zelis and Dr. Stan Katz, and therefore represents one of the first iterations of the Arvizo story. It is important to note the iterations, as they have changed…. Also, the evidence of Gavin Arvizo’s urine test not having been done because of a lack of a blood test, not because of an insufficient sample. Recall that that was one of the conspiracy “acts” — spilling Gavin’s urine to hide evidence of alcohol use — that the Prosecution claimed had occurred. It appears the family is good, in my opinion, at twisting things to make them appear sinister.

            Thanks for the link (per se). I hadn’t seen that one in a while. 🙂

          • Michele

            I literally just read the testimony of the woman, ( can’t recall her name at this moment) from Kaiser Perm. identical to what you said. There was 90ml of urine in the container, whereas as a patient only needs 10ml of urine to complete the test. I also noticed in the grand jury testimonies, their were some inconsistencies. Even though they were small details, it still says a lot about this “story” that occurred. Janet said MJ gave Gavin his jacket in the hotel room, but Gavin said MJ gave it to him on the plane. It could be the other way around-it’s 0100 hrs here. Tired.

          • Michael Jeffrey

            When I read your conversations, a general question came to my mind. Andreas, you seem to believe that he molested a lot of children while Pea believes that MJ molested a small number of his special friends (correct me, if I am wrong). That is interesting, because that’s what I have been wondering about a lot in the past. It’s kind of difficult to decide, I guess. On one hand, MJ clearly had to make sure that no one would expose him as a child molester and therefore probably victimized as few boys as possible. Furthermore, Jackson probably didn’t even have time to groom let’s say 100 boys throughout his life and make them all stay silent. That seems impossible to me. On the other hand, there are many cases that are kind of difficult to decide. What do you two think of Eddie & Dominic Jr Cascio for instance? Frank rarely was alone with Jackson (without Eddie) when he was young. Dominic Jr was often seen at Jackson’s side at age 10 when Frank & Eddie were 16 & 14. Jackson always drew his attention to younger boys when the others hit puberty. But then again, does it seem realistic to you guys that he molested all three of them? And what about Sean Lennon, close friend between 8 and 15 (slept over often and watched porn together with Jackson and a friend at 10) who published this anti-Jackson song and that video which indicated molestation? Macaulay Culkin never toured with him and at the time Jackson was deeply involved in grooming and molesting Brett Barnes. Moreover, Culkin seems honest to me when he is defending Jackson. I think I would like to hear your views on Eddie & Dominic and Macaulay and Sean, because I just don’t know…

          • Michele

            I had a little time to check out your blog today. I’ll have to check out some of the articles. I know your addressing this to Andreas, but if I may say something, without making anyone mad enough to tell me to F off. I read Frank’s book, and there were plenty of times MJ and Frank were together long enough for MJ to molest him. MJ is quite possibly guilty in some cases, but for God’s sake, suggesting MJ molested all three of them is beyond absurdity. Sorry, just my opinion.

          • Michael Jeffrey

            Yes that’s true. I was just referring to the sleepovers that usually included Eddie. I don’t think it’s absurd to consider that possibility.

          • Michele

            Anything is possible, you are correct:)

          • Michael Jeffrey

            Thanks, Michele. If you read Frank’s book, you probably know that he stated that both kids (he and Eddie) spent hundreds of nights sleeping in Jackson’s bed. When he invited them to tour with him in late 1993 (in Israel), he invited both boys as well. There was no need for Jackson to do that. Jackson usually invited his victim & the mother and the siblings, but they would go elsewhere. In this case, Jackson was always seen with both of them, rarely alone with Frank. I think the common belief is that he molested both, Frank and Eddie.

            Not many people assume that he molested Dominic Jr though, that’s correct. It’s just a bit suspicious that Dominic was always seen with with his mother and sister during the Dangerous tour, and then when Frank & Eddie were teens, he joined Jackson on the History tour quite a lot. Dominic was 10 then & that was kind of the age most of Jackson’s victims were when they were firstly sexually abused. Pictures speak for themselves:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b803fad0cb63efcd221b3542d3c7b50b439c1283493d0088a1821baf75ef2456.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bd38db308ff7bfa65a77a1e7dd4873ab3c296eba3e6e83b1a56f52da86420a3e.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c8f3163e47e2bd611d599e2a7c05864086c0f84e410ea5faee5b686189989e81.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/00b2c4a9028596517013b24fdf6d184ccf3c9fc62a8a1e0e2d8fc5c4c24ddb5c.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1630cce82094479b24267db9d362b8f3d94265fe29739e251e2bf95836a6d509.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4a1b7dacaf8115b82b268e2f170b4aa43980b1fb9e2fcab9d2f9a6717fb22129.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/34ce9684956007b6c7ebeee16a24d6827f4994db32f6efb9815596b49d8328f1.jpg
            Alright, so make of that what you want. I just don’t get why he would start to hang with Jackson a lot when his brothers were teens & not long before. Dominic Jr also slept with Jackson which was proven by Nicole Cascio, who was writing in a letter that Frank, Eddie and Dominic are all his babies or something like that & are allowed to sleep with him etc (receive special treatment). I wonder why she would include Dominic there, if it was just Eddie & Frank.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/123b1a260bfb7ac0f9e31bae26632b626e08baf6a66827858bb533b16e85c3ab.png
            I am not saying that he molested Dominic Jr, as he picked up young Omer Bhatti (who was 11, not 12 in 1996 as I found out and yep, that was kinda hard work), so about Dominic’s age in October, 1996. My point is just that it is far from unlikely / absurd that Dominic was victimized.

          • Michele

            Hi Michael Jeffrey,
            If I remember correctly, it was on the history tour, Frank was hired by MJ, as some type of assistant? I looked at the photos. Geez. Well, the first photo, I don’t really see anything wrong with that. I’m assuming they are in a big crowd and want to make sure they all want to stay together? I guess that would be the same as myself holding hands with my best friends kids while we’re in a big crowd. Since MJ, was very close with the family, I didn’t see anything wrong with it. But, I could be missing something haha. Well, oh my gosh, you are right, the pictures speak for themselves. WTF is up with the second picture? I agree that is completely inappropriate. Do you have any idea what they were trying to accomplish? Like a modeling photo or something? Same thing with the last photo. Where did you get the letter from? Since MJ was so close to there family, I’m not so sure he would do something like that, considering their father would not take that very well. Or their mother, but a father finding out his children were molested, especially by a close friend, wouldn’t be good for MJ. All in all, I honestly can’t say for certain, but I just don’t see MJ molesting any of them when they were children. But, that’s my take. I do really want to know how you found that letter.
            Michele

          • Michael Jeffrey

            I wasn’t trying to say that these photos indicate molestation.I just wanted to show that Dominic Jr started to hang around them suddenly. Believe me, you won’t find a 1993 photo, in which Dominic Jr is spending time with Frank & Eddie and Jackson.
            I found the letter by Nicole Cascio here on MJ Facts. It’s fine if you don’t believe that they were molested. It’s all opinion after all.
            If we are talking about pictures that hint at Jackson molesting his child friends, there are a few…
            You can see quite a lot of them here:
            https://mjandboys.wordpress.com/2016/05/03/michael-jackson-jonathan-spence-1983-1989/
            Could also be very interesting for you:
            https://mjandboys.wordpress.com/2017/11/11/michael-jackson-owned-a-shirtless-picture-of-young-kendall-cunningham/
            And if we are talking about unusual closeness, this could be a good read for you, as well:
            https://mjandboys.wordpress.com/2016/04/23/michael-jackson-and-omer-bhatti-1996-2009/
            If you like, we can discuss your conclusions here.

          • Michele

            Oh, I apologize, I thought you were asking my opinion if I had an instinct they were molested.

            In regards to Jonathan Spence. Well, I will say, he looks unhappy in most of those pictures. The unusual closeness of the ones-MJ’s hand on his thigh, JS sitting on MJ’s lap, and the one where they are at dinner are not appropriate. I’m not exactly sure why MJ wasn’t arrested immediately when the naked picture of JS was found. WTF. I can’t say this for certain, but if nothing did happen between them, JS was in his mid teens. Teenagers are all about their friends. He might have wanted to spend more time with people his age, when they stopped hanging out. That is my opinion though.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8a41e48f9e84b9a8937445f3b11e9f6a341241ee139273ed267e9a351a560289.png

            In regards to what Ms. Blanca said, back when she was working for MJ, I don’t believe everything she claimed happened. In the 2005 case, I know she didn’t testify about JS, but she did about her son. I am going to assume she was employed with MJ when the events of both JS and her son occurred. So, I am taking what she said with a grain of salt-JS underwear on the floor and him wanting to rub himself up against MJ. Also, while she was working there, she was caught tampering with her time card,(to make it appear she was working extra hours) had a fake social security number,(MJ’s employee helped her obtain a real one) and she sold a story to Hard Copy for $20,000. The story she sold, was false information. I attached a picture of where she testified she felt hurt Diane Dimond lied to her. I am just throwing that out there.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/956487552341671933287b4d0b0a07ddf8712ae27737d8456ee207b75d249c48.png
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1636ac8d32ee88c335d8cc6c38bfa1e9cbe81f2345db8d63d4c3fbdc4f6700e3.png I went on and on about Blanca Francia worked there,(sorry about that) because based on what she had done, it might be a little harder to believe her. (for me anyways)

            Again, everything I mentioned is from my perception. I will say, it could have happened with MJ and JS.

            What do you think about my rant haha.

          • Michael Jeffrey

            Very interesting, Michele. You are talking to someone who went through the same as a child. I have a very different perspective on this, though. I believe accusers when the accused one behaves like a typical pedophile. It’s very surprising to me that survivors react that differently. I never feel comfortable doubting a child when it claims sex abuse, you seem to be the opposite. Extra careful about believing these guys in the MJ case. Can I ask why?
            I understand your view on Blanca Francia, but honestly she plays a little, if not a non-existing role in me believing that Jonathan Spence was molested.
            There was a nude photograph found of that child, he slept in a bed with an unrelated man & they have photographs that look like couple poses…
            Remember your own childhood, let’s say 7th grade like Jonathan probably was in 1985. Think about the boys in your classroom for a moment. Which one of these pubescent straight boys would have liked to sit on an unrelated adult man’s lap? In my classrom, you would have been the gay boy forever.
            But the important question is which man wants a pubescent boy on his lap? I would feel more than disgusted by this as the adult. You have kids on your lap who are maybe 5 at the maximum, if you aren’t a family member. Honestly, no boy at 12 or 13 would like to sit on anyone’s lap.
            You didn’t reply to this link:
            https://mjandboys.wordpress.com/2016/04/23/michael-jackson-and-omer-bhatti-1996-2009/
            How is this normal?

          • Michele

            When it comes to MJ, I am not saying I believe he never did anything. I’m sure he did. But, in regards to how how people react who have been molested, I am basing it on what I have observed in my own surroundings. One of my “friends” from high school, claimed her boyfriend raped her. When in reality, she was pissed he broke up with her for another woman. She lied, and it was proven in court she lied. I do not speak to nor will I ever again. Having said that unfortunately, people make shit up for whatever reasons. (not meaning MJ’s victims) For example, there are people on this site that will never believe Gavin was molested by MJ. And I won’t either. That’s a whole other situation, that would we could touch up on another day, if you want. Do I think it’s beyond inappropriate for a grown man to sleep with children? Yes, I do. I did say in my other post,(I believe) JS sitting on MJ’s lap posing for a picture, is not only inappropriate, it’s so weird. In regards to Omer, I can’t say one way or another something happened with him. I say that because, based on what i would perceive, someone who has been molested, wouldn’t want anything to do with the person or their family. But, maybe someone who has been abused, I would want to be around the person that molested them. Now that you say that, I would be interested in finding an article that has done extensive research–how abused victims act after that fact. But, yes, I would assume a child would be made fun of and called gay boy if they were taking inappropriate pictures with an older adult.

          • Michele

            I failed to mention-I was sexually abused when I was a child. It impacted me in a major way. So, if it seems like I’m a little hesitant to believe some of the claims, it’s not because I’m a fan in “denial”. Having said that, would it be hurtful if some of these claims didn’t actually happen? Yes, and it’s because it’s not something to make-up for any reason at all.
            But, all of these children could have been molested, and they definitely deserve healing.

          • Andreas

            Hi Michael. Its good questions. I’m wondering about those things too.

            I haven’t researched Sean Lennon too much, so I don’t feel I can add too much to that discussion, but it seems likely he may have been a victim if its true he slept with Jackson hundreds of times. I just didn’t know until recently they were that close. His musicvideo was more than hinting that Jackson was a child molester, even if the song is about him just being abondoned like Bubbles when they too old. That is known child molester behavior though — so yeah, maybe. Its still a little bit of a big conclusion to jump to just because of who he is.

            Can you imagine the media world? “Michael Jackson sexually abused John Lennon’s son!” Thats some headliner.

            Some of Sean Lennon’s post-comments to the reactions of the video has been very all over the place too. (Lennon for example claim he knew Jackson more than most people and especially the commenters and fans complaining about the video, and insisted Jackson would have seen the humor in it and wouldn’t have been offended at all. Um.)

            Oh, I definitely think Frank was a victim, and probably Eddie too.. Not sure about Aldo and Dominic Jr, but I do kind of fear Frank was feeding them to Jackson.

            Culkin. Yes. Barnes. Yes.

          • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

            You do not know ALL mothers…Do you? Are you a fan perhaps? I left you my contact info on another thread…With a blog where I explained myself until I was blue in the face regarding this very topic…I do not hate you or think unwell of you..I am as hardcore of a fan of the entertainer as they come…I understand where fans are coming from and if you contact me we can have more discussions about it..Usually I am pretty kind and gentle regarding this topic I know some people literally define their childhood and entire lives with MJ so I can be understanding….I deal with fans d on forums being one myself on a reg basis..They know my stance and think I am a huge weirdo becasue of it….I would like to chit chat with you offsite if you like…Do not take my words to heart too much….I know where you are coming from becasue I was stuck there for a short time as well…It is just sometimes so upsetting to see people blaming Possible victims…If anything fans should let sleeping dogs lie when it comes to their doubts…Let the people who believe MJ abused these boys discuss it….Attacking and doubting POSSIBLE victims is very dangerous and shameful…You will never know for sure and if you are wrong look at what you are really saying…I never was ever 100 percent sure about MJ and I never ever would defend him nor doubt the accusers just becasue there was always a chance no matter how slight that I would be blaming victims….Thinks about that for one moment please.

            Here is my contact info again..Just click about me…Contact me on FB gmail or wherever….We can have a real time chat….Look for the wade robson blog I posted, read though it his blog and the other posters…You will see my reactions to those I thought were online friends for years…I am still a paying member and still say what I like but only the more mature fans allowed me my say.

            http://historycontinues.com/forums/member.php?1818-Danileevan

          • Pea

            “Attacking and doubting POSSIBLE victims is very dangerous and shameful…You will never know for sure and if you are wrong look at what you are really saying”

            Who here is “attacking” and “doubting” victims? I moderate — I haven’t noticed any of that. There is no shame or danger in examining the details of a 13-year-old case, in which the alleged victims set up their own red flags and the accused was acquitted on all counts.

            Think of the dangerous world we’d live in if we were ruled by your aforementioned logic. How would the accused clear his or her name if everyone operated under the assumption that accusations are true until proven false? You’ve so spoiled yourself thinking only about Michael Jackson — who had no problem making himself look suspicious with the bed-sharing, hand-holding, and “special friends” — that you seem to forget that in the real world a person less rich and famous would lose everything if you had your way, including their name.

            I’m pretty sure you don’t actually mean you want to go back to Salem, 1692…. right?

          • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

            Not you that is for sure..But I have seen enough victim blaming here that I am sensitive enough to it… The Odd things going on that Janet should have done this or that..None of us know what we would do in any circumstance and I feel that acting as if we do is wrong…Also my logic is as follows…If there is any chance that MJ was guilty even when I thought he was innocent I myself would never question a possible victim at least not out in the open where they may read it. IT is possible everyone of us is wrong but it is also possible that when there is a chance that MJ was guilty you are auto victim blaming…I have myself have always refrained from that even when I held dear to MJs innocence becasue I knew there was always a possibility there were victims there..

            .If you never have seen victim blaming here I am totally confused….If my post was out of line do not publish it..It was my feeling and not directed at anything you have ever posted dear Pea…We have always gotten along..One can question but I take some issue with acting as if anyone could possibly know what it was like to be in a Janets position..I do not know what you believe nor do I care really on this point.

            Questioning is one thing…Saying that Janet was just a mother who wold not try to save her kids is something that I took as blaming.. Also calling her delusional and crap was in fact attacking, sorry if you do not see it that way…That is not just questioning that is point blank insulting to someone that I personally feel is a victim…It is not just casual banter and questions..and if that is what it is about why can I not question the same way with the same tone?..Let the poster defend themselves and talk it out with me no need for you to..And then insult..Is there? I was not swearing or throwing out insults ..I was saying it is dangerous to go down a road of calling people delusional liars…Easy peasy..If that is against the TOS here let me know..But I have seen FAR worse thrown about in my time reading here.

            .Once you call someone crazy delusional and full of lies that is no longer a discussion..IMHO…I have never taken issue with you Pea but there is no need for low blows about witch trials now is there..I have always been pretty respectful here and I do not like to argue..If my comments are not welcome please delete them I am happy this site is here but put downs are not needed nor are digs… I would not dare try the same same to you. Calling me spoiled as well was really unfair and not needed…I have never caused issue on this site as you very well know and I have always thought of you as fair minded and non insulting. Where did that come from any way?

          • Michele

            I’m assuming your talking about me when I said “Janet is delusional”. If you are, I didn’t mean to offend anyone/you. I certainly have seen some of the most hateful comments about MJ. It doesn’t bother me because I don’t care all that much. If you were referring to what I said, I could easily say none of you have been in any other persons shoes. I am only going off what I saw with my own eyeballs. After I read the transcripts, I will say it was disturbing. Because it was. I am not into bullying or anything like that, so it was out of character for me. However, something that really gets on last nerve is lying. Time and time again. This is a fact. She was prosecuted for welfare fraud, I believe she admitted she lied under oath in the JC Penny’s case etc. But I haven’t read those transcripts in a very long time so I’m not sure if that is correct.
            (I will have to as I don’t want to provide any false info on my paper)
            I am fully open to admit I have a mental illness. There is nothing more hurtful when people label someone as “crazy”. And I get it, I’m being a hypocrite as I did the same thing, and I apologize. However, I will say it
            does not give someone the right to get on the stand and snap there fingers at a jury. So disrespectful.
            Also, FYI, I’m poor and half the time can’t afford gas, I certainly would not make fun of a family or anyone for not having money.
            I came here to get some information and I need them to be facts. Just looking for resources that’s all. I will kindly leave and again, I’m sorry if I offended anyone. But thank you all for giving some resources:)

          • Neely

            Michele,
            I am in a similar place as you although I’m not writing a paper. My endeavor is more of a hobby than a passion. I’ve found that people, no matter what side of the camp, ARE passionate about their personal beliefs. I’ve seen from both ends of the spectrum, people get hateful, insulted, unreasonable, etc. That said, MJfacts is my source for reliable information/documents and knowledgeable commentary. I will visit other sites if there are documents that I haven’t found here, but I do not comment other places. For the most part, people here have let me have my doubts, questions, and opinions without judgement. I feel there are an abundance of reasons to doubt the Arvizo family. If that hits a nerve for readers, I’d say the place for them is therapy, not MJfacts. The fact that this site has largely let me voice doubts and opinions without berating my stance, is cause for me to return. That is hard to find with anything involving Michael Jackson. People are very invested. The only part I feel very passionate about is Conrad Murray, and I’m certain that’s because I’m a nurse. I don’t expect others to see it the same way I do, and I don’t push my thoughts about him onto others. I will comment if asked, but that’s it, and even then I’m reluctant because I know people generally don’t share my passion, and I know I’m difficult to convince otherwise re: Murray.

            I also want to reach out to you because you were so candid about being poor and having mental illness. I have also lived in poverty, trying to just stay afloat and not having a red cent to my name. I tell ya, a $150,000 payout from JCPenney would have felt like winning the lottery. I agree, the woman projected poverty, and convinced many people, including the welfare office. But, the facts have not changed. She was awarded a settlement and she has a criminal record for welfare fraud. Hard to turn your head from those facts. (In my poverty days, I could have made that sum of money stretch for 15 years or more). And btw, looking for facts and reliable sources surrounding Michael Jackson is like finding a needle in a haystack constructed of opinions saturated in passion. It’s difficult.

            Having said all this, I want to assure you that you haven’t offended me, and I want to encourage you in your work as a student. It is hard and being poor compounds that for sure. Despite struggles, you’re tenacious, and I commend you for that. I also very much appreciate an objective researcher whose biggest concern is the reliability of sources. If you look carefully, you can see a double standard. If it’s a source supporting Jackson, they’ll say its not a legal document and can’t be trusted. If it’s a source supporting Arvizo’s, it could come from TMZ and it’s gospel. And, vice versa. If Jackson says he’d slit his wrists if there were no more children, people think Jesus has indeed returned. The one thing I’m absolutely certain of is, weeding through all the BS to get to the facts is an arduous task. I wish you the best in your classes, and do keep your head up. One day, it will pay of handsomely. Oh, and no need to run off or apologize IMHO. It’s a public place. Although I’m not even close to an admin here, I encourage you to Come. Sit. Stay a while. 🙂

          • Michele

            Thank you so very much for your kind reply:). I have to run to class, but if you don’t mind, I would like to fully reply later. I’m not sure if we are allowed to discuss this here, but I was wondering if you could give your opinion about the Conrad Murray. My friend is an RN, and I’ve thought about it, but as of right now I’m not in nursing courses. We discuss the case and it is very professional. She firmly believes he should have been charged with murder. But, involuntary manslaughter, I felt fit the crime. You would know more than I do. I find would it very intriguing if you felt it should have been not guilty. It would make my day, if you would give your stance on it :). Trust me, after I read his book, I think he just didn’t care. At any rate, I think I went to far deep into that, when I wanted to comment on the positive things you said :). Thanks so much again 🙂

          • Neely

            You’re quite welcome.

            I don’t think there are many taboo subjects here, so I don’t feel like we’d be thrown out for discussing it. I’ve talked a bit about Murray here, and it was posted so I feel like it’s probably okay.

            First let me say the reluctance to share comes from my very strong moral convictions surrounding Murray. I know people have a difficult time identifying with that, unless they share my medical experience. I took an oath to do no harm, just like he did. I’ve seen harm in practice and it’s infuriating. I don’t have a very strong legal opinion about what he “deserved” as a result of his crimes….. and, I do consider them crimes. I don’t really know what his punishment should have been and that’s not been my area of concentration per se. I did watch the murder trial on youtube. I don’t think there’s any kind of conspiracy or intended murder. I feel like Murray got in WAY over his head and was feeling arrogant and overconfident. You can hear in the 911 recording he’s yelling in the background. He was in a panic and rightfully so. He knew he had screwed the pooch and had gone to a place where there was no return, and the world would be in revolt. Imagine the weight of that reality. My heart does feel a bit sorry for him for that reason…. it was unintended IMHO. But, that doesn’t undo it. You cannot unjump off that cliff.

            I haven’t read his book, do you recommend it?? I’ve watched some of his blah blah blah on youtube which to me seemed like a very circular monologue in which he gives lame excuses to the science of how it happened. I’ve said in the past there was really only one question. Did Conrad Murray bring propofol into that home? The answer is yes. Enough said. Without it, the death wouldn’t have occurred that day, and in that way. Who’s culpable? Conrad Murray.

            Please, understand that arguments have been posed to me that MJ was responsible for his own death, that because he was an alleged pedophile, he deserved this demise, that I only hold Murray in contempt because it was Michael Jackson the “King of Pop”…… by people who have no idea who I am or what I stand for. I am strictly speaking of Conrad Murray. Not whether Jackson was a junky, or doctor shopping, or begging and pleading, or a pedophile, or even whether this would have been the result with a different doctor. My thoughts are very narrow and focused on Conrad Murray as a physician, and his actions as such. His oath to do no harm, his disregard for human life. EVERY single human life is of equal value, and it must be in order to be a compassionate medical professional. I am not easily starstruck, and I feel like perhaps it’s because I hold this view of equal human life. Conrad Murray should have had this moral conviction as well. I have tried to put myself in his place and say well, he was starstruck, he caved under the pressure of a begging patient, he was driven by money, etc. I can’t do it. I don’t believe I’m that person. No junky ever got better by means of a caving enabler. That’s not the definition of love. That’s the definition of self soothing. It matters not if Jackson would have found someone else. Again, I’m speaking of only one person.

            Anyhow, I have a headful of things I could rant about surrounding Conrad Murray. It’s best that I stop here. I welcome any contribution you care to make regarding him. I’m interested in what you’d say about his book, although I don’t think I’ll probably ever read it. I’d listen to in on audible, but to sit down and read it, instead of accomplishing something….. I probably won’t. ;o)

          • Michele

            I will agree with you, I find these conversations/sources to be much more reliable. I started watching any and all MJ videos on YouTube. In the comment section, I couldn’t believe what I saw. Many of the comments were so inappropriate, I started to comment back. But, I found it to be a waste of time and negative energy. It made me miserable. Just not a positive coping skill, for me anyway lol. In regards to your original comment, I don’t want you to feel I want anyone to feel sorry for me. The abuse(emotional and sexual) was part of my fault as well. I am poor because I didn’t spend properly. I’m sure you could figure which mental illness I have, but I don’t want to say it on a public forum. Part of what I have involves impulsive manic type behavior. Excessive spending is one of them. It’s not as easy to just stop. But no excuse I suppose. I’m not a psychologist nor a psychiatrist, but I think MJ had manic type of behavior. I’ve heard people say he would stay up for days, spend excessively etc. I’m not saying he had a mental illness, but he clearly needed help and I wish he would have gotten it. Having a childhood like that is definitely going to affect someone. But maybe not everyone. I’m not making excuses for MJ, but it doesn’t surprise me his world became very complicated.

            In regards to Conrad Murray, thank YOU so much for your response. He didn’t say why he didn’t call 911 right away in his book, and I was hoping he would. He said there were no phones in the house that worked. What?? He had a damn cellphone in his hand calling his assistant. I did feel sorry for him at times, and I agree with you, he got way in over his head. When I heard MJ died of propofal overdose, I couldn’t believe it. Conrad Murray ordered 40 GALLONS of propofal. I don’t see how that makes any sense. Michael Jackson did not push propofal himself. Based on the trial I saw. The defense had a difficult case to defend. The book I would recommend, but it was also irritating at times. He did not care, and he blamed every single person, including the paramedics that MJ didn’t receive proper care to survive. Not one time did he say he made a mistake. It’s amazing to me how people think he shouldn’t have gone to jail and it was MJ’s fault. I can guarantee if the tables were turned and it was their family member that died, I doubt they would feel the same way. I’m sorry for my long rant. Your opinion on of Conrad Murray. From a medical standpoint, you are right on. I bet your an awesome RN.

          • Neely

            Right!! the YouTube comments are where I’d say I got most of my impressions of lover/hater behaviors (involving MJ). Those folks are hardcore. I like reading comments of almost any article or vid on any subject though. Always entertaining, and sometimes insightful.

            No, you didn’t give me the impression you were seeking sympathy. Not at all. I remember the struggles of making ends meet, working, going to school, staying afloat with grades, bills, daily responsibilities and finding time to keep a 4.0 GPA. I wasn’t all that smart with money either, and there was very little wiggle room so I needed to be more disciplined.

            I haven’t considered whether MJ had manic episodes. The first image I thought of when you said it was the clip of him holding blanket with some kind of sheer cover over him and he was trying to get him to take his bottle. His leg was shaking really fast and he was talking pretty fast too. I attributed it to some kind of stimulant he’d taken or something. But, he DID apparently like to shop. I read somewhere that the shopping h did on camera with Bashir was just for show, but, I don’t know if that’s true. He obviously did live outside his means later in his life. I remember also reading that he was disconnected from his finances and had left it in the hands of others, thereby not really knowing what was going on in much detail. I can believe that, but again, I don’t know if it’s true.

            Conrad Murray….. I feel like he didn’t call 911 right away because his patient was long dead. At that point you go, “um, should I call the coroner, or still take a stab at 911?” (Jk, there are laws that dictate which is appropriate and individual code status, which I’m sure Murray had never covered with his half dead patient) And, I’m sure full on panic could have caused him to not take steps in the proper order. I do think he was unable to focus since he was claimed by the guard to have been handing off vials and other paraphernalia and ordering him to stash them somewhere. In a video interview he came right out and said he did no wrong. Arrogant, and he knows he did so many things wrong. If he’d own that, I might feel better about him but he still staunchly defends every single mistake he made, and there were LOTS! And, he kept wanting to go back to the house….intent to conceal I’m SURE of it.
            Also, I should add that it’s not just Murray I hold in contempt. It’s every single doctor surrounding Jackson that perpetuated his addictions. They should all lose their licenses. Okay, with that, I’ll stop. :o/

            Did you happen to read the interview with Quincy Jones? I think it was just in the last day or so. He said He gave Michael crap about his surgeries, and called his skin conditions bullshit. Hmmmmm. Someone had said Michael was so horrible to deal with that Quincy had a nervous breakdown and took a hiatus. Quincy cleared up that lie in the interview. He said it was a result of working on the movie “the color purple” and everyone had gone on vacation directly after and he had to stay back and write the music. He was so worn out it perpetuated a breakdown. I was glad he spoke about that. It’s these kinds of things that people read in who knows what, and believe it, and worse yet, they spread it as truth. That is the vicious cycle surrounding info on Michael Jackson. It makes the task daunting for people who actually are in search of the truth. And the hundreds of book authors ffs…….it is exhausting.

            Btw, may I ask if your major is nursing?

          • Michele

            How many books of MJ have you read? I’ve read almost all of them. I’ve tried to read Diane Dimond’s book, but I couldn’t get past 1/3 of it. Some of the stuff she claims in her book, were um, entertaining. (But, that’s my opinion) I’ll say one thing and then I won’t talk about CM again, as I know it’s a sensitive subject. I think he panicked. But, everything you said was correct. What area of nursing do you work in? I’m sorry if I have already asked that. Currently, I am majoring in Criminal Justice, but I have thought about becoming an RN. My Mom is a RN and she’s brilliant. I’m not a psychiatrist, but I definitely think MJ suffered from some sort of mental illness. Definitely, a form of PTSD. My childhood wasn’t ideal, and I was diagnosed with PTSD a long time ago. That is another part of the reason why MJ is so intriguing to me. I don’t care what anyone says, any type of abuse will affect you if your childhood was filled with it. I believe during the Martin Bashir documentary of MJ (or should I say twisted) he was “high as a kite”. LMP said that during her interview with Oprah in 2010. Yes, the YouTube comments get out of control at times. Your funny, when you said they are hardcore lol.

          • Neely

            My most recent work has been preemie/infant home care but my last case is healthy now so nursing care was discontinued. And, girl I’ve almost done it all except labor/delivery. That’s the beauty of nursing. It’s very diverse. Hospital medical floor was the most educational and fulfilling. D.O.N. of an ALF was the biggest challenge and I’ll never do that again.

            I have a hard time sitting, so reading isn’t something I often get accomplished unfortunately. I do enjoy it but the internal nagging to be productive overrides. If a book comes out on audible I will jump on it so I can be moving around while I’m “reading”. Not all that many Jackson books are available on audible sadly. If I had to guess, I’d say I’ve read between 15-20. I listen to podcasts also which give interesting perspectives sometimes. I did read the majority of the 2005 trial transcripts. It was wintertime and such is the case now…..and I’ve returned to my ol’ trusted standby, mjfacts. When spring hits, I might be gone from all things Michael Jackson again.

            Murray isn’t what I’d say is a sensitive subject for me and I don’t really mind talking about it. I know my limitations however, and my thoughts are not very flexible. I don’t want to go into a battle with anyone and I don’t think I can be swayed with that subject specifically, so I just don’t go there generally unless I’m asked. no worries at all.

            PS- if I were you I’d stick with criminal justice. :o)

          • Michele

            Awww, you got to work with babies. So lucky :). Oh no, do you think I would make a bad nurse, or do think I would be more into, Criminal Justice? No one will ever be able to sway my opinion of Murray either. I think we have similar views on it. I just didn’t think this site really would want to get into that. But, it is mainly to talk child molestation on MJ’s part. (I suppose) The only case I would say that is to be believed, is Jordan Chandler’s. I read the lawsuit and the interview from Dr. Gardner(I think his name was). It was disturbing to say the least. The only difference I saw between the two documents is in the lawsuit, JC said MJ licked semen off his stomach(um,ewwww) and in the interview with the psychologist, JC never mentioned anything about semen being licked off of him. I thought it was a major HIPPA violation for any records like that to ever be released? I’m not sure why I brought that to your attention haha, but I remember someone on this site told me to read it. I hope your doing well :). Oh and if you don’t mind me asking are you from Australia? I think I saw on one of your posts you used the word, “bloody”. I thought it was bloody awesome 🙂

          • Neely

            No of course I don’t think you’d be a bad nurse!! I shouldn’t have said that, you should do what your heart tells you to do. I’m just burnt out, that’s all. The medical field has changed so much since I started, and it gets worse all the time, and it’s happening quickly. You seem to be a critical thinker though and that will help you in either field I think.

            I dont remember reading the interview with Chandler and the doctor. I wonder if that’s linked here. I’ll have to look around for that. I’ve only read parts of other items from him, and I’m gonna be honest I can’t even remember for sure what it was. I do remember thinking it was very compelling and if there was one case to make me really scratch my head, it was that one. I recently read some of Wade’s court docs and it seemed like he failed to produce a lot of stuff and did it repeatedly. I don’t understand that unless producing it would implicate him in some way. If you’re going to sue someone, wouldn’t you be forthcoming with every single scrap of evidence you could find? if he’s hiding something, it gives me some doubt about him. If I were going after someone for “negligence” (molestation), I’d be unrelenting. But, I’ve also

            I’m so I’m not sure why I brought that to your attention haha, but I remember someone on this site told me to read it. I hope your doing well :). Oh and if you don’t mind me asking are you from Australia? I think I saw on one of your posts you used the word, “bloody”. I thought it was bloody awesome

          • Michele

            I have heard the medical field has become very exhausting. And no, your fine about what you said :). I am from the east coast of the USA. Yay, your from the USA. I agree with what you said about Wade-going on National TV, when I watched it, I couldn’t believe it. Why he go on National T.V is beyond me. Your very intelligent, so I will take your word about the court docs, and not even bother to read them. After I saw his appearance on TV, it was very clear what he wants-money. He lied under oath in the 2005 case, and all of a sudden he “understands” what happened to him. I could be very wrong, but I find it odd he would sue the estate, after MJ died. I know it’s not right to undermine a potential victim, but I just find it very hard to believe his story. But, I could be wrong. But, I figured this site allows to voice our opinions, without judgement. The JC transcript with his psychologist is on here under JC folders.

          • Neely

            East coast…..im so jealous. The seafood, yummmm!!

            Yeah, with Wade, it’s difficult. It’s so hard to read testimonies like these of alleged accounts in detail, and not attach yourself emotionally. In fact, I think most people have a hard time “crossing over” to the place where they can entertain the idea that it COULD be made up. Please understand I’m not pointing any fingers at anyone here, but just society in general. And, I get it. These things are difficult to read. I don’t feel it’s just to crucify a man who could be innocent either. I’d hate to minimize what could be true molestation, and likewise, I’d hate to crucify an innocent man. There are things I don’t understand about Wade’s refusal to supply evidence, and about shame preventing his admission even as an adult, only to land on TV announcing it to the world. Of course, these things raise questions and they SHOULD. After reading that court document, the doubt in my mind has deepened.

            I’ve been reading the Chandler interview with the psych doctor. Wow, it’s hard to punch any holes in his case for sure. I am literally grasping at any little telling sign that he could have been coerced or was given a script so to speak. It’s not easy, haha. There are two things I’m clinging to, albeit by a very thin thread. Here goes….
            1). With all the suggestion and even proof that it’s so so hard to get young men/male children to admit to this kind of abuse, there are times in his interview where he jumps the gun a little. He offers things before they were asked of him. Maybe a little too eager to “put it out there”. If you compare that to even Gavin’s police interview vid, he never once offered anything before it was asked and his reluctance was palpable. Understand, I still don’t believe Gavin, but it was the most readily available account for comparisons sake at the moment.
            2) some memory inconsistencies. I know, memory is a tough thing to pin down, and theories of memory and timeline recall vary relative to kids. Widely. I understand it’s a stretch…..but, my intention is to find holes. Innocent until proven guilty right? My personal goal is to find proof Jackson is guilty and you cannot do that unless you question the accuser. So, I’m questioning the accuser….feebly. :o)

          • Andreas

            He offers things before they were asked of him. Maybe a little too eager to “put it out there”. If you compare that to even Gavin’s police interview vid, he never once offered anything before it was asked and his reluctance was palpable.

            That could be explained by the fact that this interview was not the first Jordy did.

            Dr. Mathis Abrams interviewed Jordy on August 17th, 1993.
            He was the first Jordy ever opened up to (except his father), and also the one who told the authorities. The transcripts to that interview has never been available.

            The interview available on this site was with Dr. Richard Gardner interviewed Jordy on Oct. 6th, 1993. Jordy had already talked to social workers, lawyers, the police and other people at this point. (They all believed his story)

            The Jordy Chandler interview was actually what initially punched me to go “Holy S… wow, Jackson was a child molester..” back in the day. That and seeing ex-manager of Jackson Bob Jones talk about Jordy staying with Jackson in that suite.

          • Michele

            Hi Neely, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. The east coast is nice, but I hate the damn weather. I was young when the 1993 incident happened with JC, so I never looked into it. I just always assumed it was quite possible it happened. But, as I’ve been reading the testimonies for my paper, I saw that during cross with Larry Feldman, MJ’s camp actually filed a suit against the chandlers for extortion. I’ll have to find the screen shot of Larry’s testimony, but again, not saying MJ didn’t do it. I also came across Dr. Katz’s testimony, and he stated when children file a false testimony of child molestation, it sounds scripted. JC, interview with Dr. Gardner, sounded consistent, but I did see and agree with you, he seemed to jump into answers. Also, (I’ll have to look up his name) when this person testified, he claimed he saw MJ and JC outside and MJ started kissing him and eventually started to give him oral sex. I don’t remember in JC interview him saying anything of that nature happening outside in Neverland. I would have to go back and verify it all, but I felt bad it took me so long to get back to you. But, your points with JC seemed spot on. I hope your well 🙂 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eab2ce20bb2c31e8da55d553a4495191505e32d20f07b48f49757e5328f732b3.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6b808206fdf6fb61d1b31a2906a91e0f3a5d27e5c311b3461110963853240138.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d467dcfde53364b92478984c29efc54f08f5f5fab82f207a8ce8b587fd812948.png

          • Neely

            Thank you, yes I’m very well and I hope you are too.
            No worries about delayed response. Life is calling!

            I haven’t gotten all the way through Jordan’s interview, but up to this point, he hasn’t mentioned oral sex outside at neverland. I can’t even imagine that a child molester couldn’t find a discreet place to perform illegal sex acts in a spread of 2700 acres, without getting caught.

            It’s been quite some time since I read Arvizo case transcripts,but seems like the handful of people who were heavily relied on by prosecution, went to shit on the stand. Debbie Rowe, Bob Jones, and others. Since they mostly crumbled, I’m not sure if they should still be counted as credible prosecution witnesses, or not. People seem to hang onto the stories they were SUPPOSED to tell on the stand, never mind the story they ended up telling. The words they spoke under oath tend to cancel out any previous conjecture, rumors, inflated stories, etc.

            Anyhow, gotta run!

          • Michele

            Debbie Rowe was brilliant for the defense. Everyone thought she was going to be horrible for the defense. She had nothing but nice things to say about MJ. As far as the others, I have a lot of reading to do.

          • Michele

            I think I put in double screenshots, but getting into the Arvizo case a little bit, during Larry Feldman’s testimony, he said the Arvizos went to a lawyer before going to Dr. Katz(he noticed child protective services). Who goes to lawyers before going to the cops for a suspected molestation? I’m sorry I hate to be judgmental, but who does that????

          • Andreas

            Hi Michele. If you read the testimonies you’ll see nobody ever said the Arvizos went to lawyers because of molestation allegations.

            Janet Arvizo went to civil lawyer Bill Dickerman to stop further screenings of Bashirs documentary. (Gavin was teased and she wasn’t contacted by Bashir to allow him to be on it) A second function was because Jackson had stolen all their belongings and put it in a storage. They naturally wanted it back. Bill Dickerman contacted Larry Feldman because the scope of what was revealed was getting too overwhelming for him. Bill Dickerman was a small time lawyer working for himself. This was too big for him. He knew Larry Feldman personally, and knew he had dealt with Jackson before in the 90s, and Feldman had a huge law firm, so he gave the case over to Larry Feldman.

            How did the molestation charges come about? Larry Feldman was suspicious about Gavin, simply because he said he saw similarities between him and Jordy. So he sent him to Dr. Katz who found him to be a likely victim, and then the police got involved.

            Important to note the mother was not instrumental in this process at all, and when she got to know Gavin was molested she never hinted at wanting money for it according to any of the lawyers.

          • Michele

            Yes, they did go to Mr. Dickerman to get their stuff back. Rightfully so, they had their birth certificates and passports!!!! I would have been pissed. Janet was asking the social worker(that’s we what call them in my state), over and over again what she could do about not having consent her children being on TV. I understand that, especially under those circumstances. I would have been pissed about that to!!!! The one and only thing I ask, is for you to PLEASE understand I would never and I will not try to brainwash you into thinking I’m right. But, do you at least agree Janet’s testimony was a little off. She could have been giving simple answers such as, “yes” or “no”. I feel like it was kind of digging herself into a hole adding to much information and dancing around the questions. Again, that’s just my opinion.

          • Neely

            Right. I understand those questions. I think I would do it differently too. As a mandated reporter (and I understand I wasn’t the mother) it never occurred to me to call an attorney. My position is very different, but I feel like if I had been the mother, I’d want the law involved immediately. I’d be out for blood.

          • Michele

            Hey Neely. I’m almost done my paper and I’m working on the 1108 evidence that was entered into the trial. Jordy didn’t testify, nether his father or Uncle. But, I can talk mention the 1993 case. When I read back over the interview with the psychologist, I noticed Jordy mentioned the first time he had ever masturbated-was done by MJ. This seems quite odd, as he was 13 at the time. Jordy is the only case I believe, but I would imagine a 13 year-old would know more about his sexuality. Also, the men who,(I took a screen shot) testified in the 2005 trial, said they saw MJ and Jordy come out the swimming area with bath robes on. Jordy never mentioned in his interview that they went swimming and MJ gave him a “piggyback” afterwards. It could be true, as the interview was mostly the basics. At any rate, since we were discussing it, I thought I would get your input. I’m sleep deprived, so God only knows what facts I could have missed. (Also, Jordy said he had fears of cross-examination. Odd)
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c28b089dc4ad0d0c377a705db6ab266278795c015a73c1aa7913e692c2cf1a96.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/36b1356fc03703d903e663642035ab560204a2c8bad93320d344bceabe37e8ef.png

          • Neely

            Well, I think nervousness would be common under the circumstances…to be cross examined. I don’t know if there’s anything to “fear” if you’re telling the truth. Maybe that’s something to consider.

            The security guards testimony it seemed like was sort of shattered on cross but I can’t remember for sure. I can go back and read it again but I might not get to it before your deadline. :/. I’d also try to remember if they had an axe to grind. Were either of them a member of the small group who tried to sue Jackson for unlawful termination, or something to that effect? And right, Jordy didn’t describe that detailed event, but he didn’t give a lot of details about every single event either. I’d think if it happened so frequently he’d not be inclined to remember every detail of every event. I don’t feel right chastising him for not giving details of that specific occasion. Seems like splitting hairs a bit to me.

            I had the same thoughts about angelic Gavin when he pretended to not know a thing about his own sexuality, despite people testifying to catching he and Star in the act. I’d say the same for Jordy. I call BS. Young boys find their penises when their like 18 months old, lol. And, it seems the infatuation starts then and never ends. I don’t believe he’d never self gratified.

          • Michele

            Well, I don’t want you to think I was disregarding Jordy’s feelings or implying he was lying. I didn’t really understand where Dr. Gardner was going with whole, “what do you fear” question. I think it was a little to broad. I don’t believe Gavin or Star at all. It’s odd they said the same lines Jordy did. Gavin says,”he(MJ) masturbated me”. I agree with you, Gavin and Star didn’t know what mastubation was. BS. You don’t have to go through the testimony, but it was nice to get a second opinion:)

          • Neely

            I have doubts about Jordan, yet I do hate to even admit that in case he really is a victim. With $20 million on the table, it’s hard to think someone wouldnt pull just about anything out of their ass though. I don’t think you were disregarding Jordan’s feelings at all. And, if you did, so be it. It’s entirely your right. When someone makes a claim such as this, they better get their seatbelt on, especially if it’s untrue. And, especially if a check is what they’re seeking instead of justice. That’s a huge red flag which carries plenty of implications in my opinion. I’m aware these are fan favorite statements. Regardless of that, I’d be ignorant to pretend $20 million couldn’t be a huge motivator. Still though, I remain on the fence. And again, I’d hate to say it’s untrue in case it is.

          • peter

            Sorry honey it is what it is..a drug addict is a drug addict.ive had them in my family and I wont look for excuses even if its my brother.The Jacksons knew so well MJ lifestyle cause Grace Rwamba the nannie had direct line to katerine. Mj fans make it sound as if Murray sneaked in to the room through the window with gallons of propofol and IVed MJ until he died.And MJ had no idea what propofol was,didnt ask or beg for it,didnt pay for it…and you want to make it seem as if Murray was hired to treat a cold right? C’mon we are all fans and grown folks here.I understand that a nurse or a doc can find his behavior unacceptable.I find it too.But in response to your question if my brother has been asking doctors to give him anestesics out of a medical setting for decades and then one night the doc goes out of the room to talk to his girl and my brother dies for an overdose of propofol…trust me that Im not going to kill the doctor. Im just going to accept this was gonna happen sooner or later cause “my brothers” behavior was selfdestructive ilegal sad and unacceptable. of course the doc has his legal responsability but Im just sooo tired of the world sugarcoating or ignoring Mjs responsability on his own death. I may sound like I think Murray is inocent but thats not the case at all.He has his part.BUt MJ played the victim so well all his life that people is not able to realize he basicallypainted his own coffin.People blame Murray,or AEG,BashirGavin…just anybody but the man who hired a doctor with only one thing in mindhave him adminestering him anestesic and every ind of opiaces at home. so Prince bought the stuff from a street horse and it was fentanyl patches…MJ bought it from a doctor and it was IV anestesics.But its basically the same thing isolated drug addict celebs who self destroyed.

          • Michele

            Well, first and foremost please don’t call me, “honey”. Secondly, I don’t like to label people as “drug addicts”. Including anyone you know and/or family members. I think a more appropriate way to describe addiction is not,”drug addicts” Someone who has trouble abusing drugs, comes with a bad label, and I don’t think thars fair. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Conrad Murray and Michael Jackson’s friendship was a disaster waiting to happen. It so happens, MJ has an addiction to whatever it is, and then we have CM, who is willing to prescribe them. CM was writing scripts for benzos to MJ. Benzos are highly addictive. Your sick and tired of MJ’s fans, “blaming Bashir, AEG, Gavin”. Well, I’m sick and tired of people putting MJ’s fans into one category. Not all of them blame anybody. I have witnessed people who are not MJ’s fan say CM was negligible and did not give two shits about MJ. MJ did not “nail his own coffin”. He did play a role in not getting the appropriate help he needed. The defense in CM’s trial claimed your same viewpoint. It was absurd and ridiculous to think that is even remotely possible. I’m assuming since you think, “MJ nailed his own coffin” your smarter than the numerous doctor’s who testified for the prosecution that CM was beyond careless. Do I think CM intentionally killed MJ? No, I don’t. That doesn’t make sense. You are entitled to your own opinion, and myself included. That doesn’t mean I’m right and your wrong, or vice versa.

          • peter

            There is many os us who believe Robson Safechuck and Chandler but not the arvizos.The main reasons I dont believe them is after 93 case MJ was an easy target…I highly question MJ would abuse a kid and be so stupid to appear holding hads telling the world they sleep together.like ive said before you can call MJ everything you want but he was definately smart and manpulative.He would bever do something like that unless he was 100%sure the kid would not talk.If Im not wrong they calim the abuse took place after the documentary aired..doesnt make sense at all cause right after it aired the whole world was questioning his behavior and Gavin being called everything at school.Do you think those are the perfect escenario for MJ to abuse the kid? Non sense.The arvizos want us to believe the kid spent months with MJ,in neverland and traveling to Miami and he didnt do anything and chose to do it after the doc aired?please…That trial should have nevernhappened.The trial made MJ look like the vicitm of stortion.His phisical weakness and th arvizos history of lies made most of us believe that.To b ehonest in 93 I had doubts..and after the arvizo trial I leaned more towards the innocent.Im sure a lot of people felt that way.oh Poor Michael..hes an easy target..Instead the real victims should have stepped forward.But they were still recieving money or referalls to coregraph?.Only when the cash cow died theyve decided to make the move.And unfortunately is too late.They were well into adulthood,not teenagers.Yes we support victims but those with some credibility and the arvizos lack much of it.Even though robson is also questionable after defending him in the trial he has a long story with MJ that cant be ignored.With that said I wish the best to Gavin cause whatever happened he has to deal with that mother(no comments) and the hate from MJ fans.Of that is avictim his mother and MJ fans.I cant say he is a MJ victim.Lets be honest Mj ad a good side too,he helped finantially s many people and children he was not involed with sexually.And my guess is Gavin was one of them.You can also see how imperative and sure MJ is denying the allegations of Gavin compared to 93.He also didnt abuse Macaulykulkin thats why he brought it up in the documentary and thats why he went to testify.Since he was the most famous of the kids and one he didnt abuse he was happy to bring it up.

          • Neely

            You mentioned Jackson was more “imperative and sure of himself” 2003 as opposed to 1993. It’s interesting you say that because I’ve been intrigued by body language lately, and what is termed “micro expressions”. I watch video footage of the various ppl involved and see if I can detect these micro expressions. It’s seems telling in some cases. And, another thing I’ve been looking for is emotion in their statements, and do they match the words they’re speaking. I just thought it was coincidental you brought up his asseredness in 2003 vs 1993. Now I’m going to have to watch those public statements and see if I can see what you mean.

          • Andreas

            Fun idea, Neely.

            Here’s his statement in 1993 with regards to the Chandler case:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=855qMXaFl-E

            Here’s his statement in 2005 with regards to the Arvizo case:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLpABElGXb8

            For further comparison he was also interviewed by Diane Sawyer in 1993(with LMP) and in 2005 on 60 Minutes with Ed Bradley.

        • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

          And what of all the other allegations and pay offs? Were they all just out for money and fame..?? Were these families all users of MJ, innocent dove like MJ? Clean and wholesome MJ. salt of the earth MJ?

          You sure take one or two small facts embellish and run with it..Typical for most who know very little about MJs entire life. Let me guess you have been a fan since 2000?

        • Michele

          Agreed. It’s actually pretty sad the crap they lied about on the stand. Janet’s testimony was disturbing. I don’t think I’ve ever come across someone as that delusional.

    • Pea

      I, too, would like to know more about that article; perhaps it’s still at the supermarket? They had a brief “slide show” about it on their website but it was rather thin: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/michael-jackson-child-molester-scandal/

      It seemed believable when he said that Jacko looked at the nudist materials during a “phase” — all of the nudist mags found in his home were probably purchased during that c. 1999 (or earlier?)-2003 period, which is helpful to know. However, not all of the videos he was allegedly interested in seemed so bad, for instance, a video about a haunted house, an Italian festival, and then “Men’s Night” at a club. But the different titles definitely lends credibility.

      As far as what he may know, I doubt it is a lot, unless Frank Cascio told him something. His admission there is pretty tame as far as revelations go….

      • Michele

        I have never purchased National Enquirer. I’ve seen it at the Supermarkets, (I browse through them in line) about every celebrity on the cover of these magazines has some ridiculous story. I vaguely remember, but it had a story about the Vegas massacre in October, that claims they had “proof” of everything that happened that the public didn’t know about. I’m sure the FBI would be on that so called “evidence/proof” was legit. Do you believe that story? I was curious to see the invoice they had of the purchases, but I didn’t see it, unless I overlooked it.

        I do find Michael Jackson very eccentric and possibly a child molester, but at this
        time, I lean towards innocent. I came to this site to find every piece of evidence that claims he is or isn’t. I picked this subject for my research paper st school.

      • Michele

        Hi Pea, one of my comments was detected as spam. Is it fixable or was it not an appropriate post?

        • Pea

          I rescued it. Thanks for the alert.

          • Michele

            Thanks so much

          • Michele

            Hi Pea :). I wanted to get anyone’s opinion about one of the cases on this site. It would be in the transcripts. Is there a way to put the portion of the transcripts in an attachment? Versus myself having to put the page number and line number? I have an iPhone and I can attach the screenshots, but I thought it would be easier the way you did it. (When we were talking about the fingerprints). Sorry, I hope I am making some kind of sense.

          • Pea

            You can just visit the 2005 Transcripts page and find the transcript you want (they are all in PDF form): https://www.mjfacts.com/2005-michael-jackson-molestation-trial-transcripts/

            I simply gave a link to the individual transcript document, being sure to cite the PDF page in question. Very easy. 😉

          • Michele

            Hi Pea. I looked around the site and I couldn’t find where Jason Francia and his mother, Blanca, were discussed. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Blanca supposed to testify in Wade’s trial? I’m pretty sure I will get some hate for this, but I’m not saying MJ didn’t do anything. This is where creditably comes into play. Blanca testified in MJ’s 2005 trial, on cross it revealed the following:

            She stole items from MJ, such as a watch.

            She tried to change her time cards to make it look like she was working longer-more money on her paycheck

            It was revealed she had a phony social security card(which she did finally obtain legal residency)

            She got 20,000 for doing a Hard Copy interview-with Diane Dimond. (In the attachment it reveals in her testimony, she did not like the fact Diane Dimond went ahead and put her story elsewhere)

            She went into another employees purse

            She is the one who claims she saw Wade and MJ in the shower. (Which I’m not disputing whether or not she was lying.)

            I’m sure how that would work if Wade’s case went to trial. If the Jurors knew that information, (the items I pointed out above) I would imagine they would have a hard time believing anything she would say.

            Jason Francia, on cross with TM, changed his story a lot,claimed his mother had no idea about the molestation, and admitted the detectives were very “pushy” when trying to get him to admit if anything happened.

            Again, this goes back to credibility-the Arvizo family had a hard time with their case because lack of credibility. (And because they weren’t to be believed AT ALL)

            I want to reiterate again, I’m not saying MJ didn’t “moleste” those children, but I think this site should include everything pertaining to each case. The good and the bad portions. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/92609f5e03b9ff350a843bfb30f980aff5f255104006f41dd427d5e9e9abee10.png

          • Pea

            I see. At this stage in my Jacko trajectory, there are not a lot of “anti-Jacko” witnesses I still totally trust — but I do believe Blanca Francia. Yes, she was going to testify at Wade Robson’s trial (which isn’t going to happen). I believe Blanca Francia because, in spite of the alleged credibility problems you raise, her story is consistent. Mesereau didn’t do a very good job at “breaking” her, in my opinion. Those alleged “credibility problems” are not especially germane to her story about Wade and other boys. She was not fired by Jacko, so sharing what she saw cannot be labeled as retaliation.

            For the record, Jacko and Bill Bray assisted with her obtaining legal status, and it is pretty much par for the course that an illegal alien will have fake documentation. It’s not right, but it is irrelevant.

            So, yes, I believe Blanca. She was a nobody to Michael Jackson, and I think he had little problem with his El Salvadorean chambermaid picking up boys’ undies and seeing him holding hands with them. Outside of the Wade incident, Blanca’s words really only ever convicted Jacko for being weird….

            As for Jason Francia, I’m not sure he was fondled, though; his testimony was pretty horrible. He was needlessly combative with the Defense, but not clever about it in the slightest. It was clear he’d been coached by the Prosecution to be as difficult and as evasive as possible, and, if my memory is not failing me, he seemed to double check with one of them that he was “doing OK”.

            It’s been argued that the testicle-tickling was so tame (compared to Jordie Chandler, for instance) that it must be true. The cops never acted on the claim — it was too mild — but I think he might’ve been coerced, unintentionally, to remember his encounters with Jacko as molestation. I simply don’t know. Jacko paid him $2.4 million, so, if nothing happened, Jacko probably was not sure if he didn’t do it….

          • Michele

            See, I’m very naive. So I’m oblivious to certain things that happen. For example, I would have never guessed a prosecutor, would coach a witness what to say. I agree with you, Jason’s testimony was all over the place. After I read over Blanca’s testimony she was consistent with the shower incident. TM didn’t do a very good job on his cross. I think he did well with Jason’s though. I looked on the internet, and I couldn’t find the transcript/Hard Copy video on YouTube. Do you think it exists anywhere?

          • Pea

            I am at the opposite end of the spectrum; I’m fairly cynical. I’ve seen enough cases of American prosecutorial hijinks that nothing really surprises me. Court cases are about storytelling, not truth. It was very evident to me that Jason Francia was, if not coached, helpfully instructed to be difficult. I believe that this was due to the fact that he was roughly questioned about Michael Jackson in 1993-94, and they feared Mez would squeeze it out of such a dim individual like Jason.

            That he was interrogated pushily doesn’t mean what he admitted to was necessarily false, but it probably wouldn’t look great to a jury if the only reason Jason “knew” he was molested was because of police “assistance”.

            I suspect that is what happened, and that is what I meant by “coached”. He was just a disappointing witness.

            As for Blanca’s Hard Copy interview, I’ve never seen it or read a complete transcript of it. However, Diane Dimond has snippets of the chat in her book.

          • Michele

            I was surprised by the depositions. I didn’t think police officers said those kinds of things.

            It’s interesting how stories can vary from person to person. Prime example, I just got done reading June Chandler’s testimony(very STRONG witness for the prosecution) and she said Jordie and MJ had the flu in Monaco. Bob Jones also said they had the flu. In Jordie’s interview with the psychologist, he said he had a cold. In one of your articles, regarding “fist”, I think it was disputed by someone here that they didn’t have the flu(as fist claimed in his YouTube video)

            I was just pointing out, the silliest little detail,(having a cold versus the flu) can cause some confusion.

          • Michele

            Hi Pea,
            If you don’t mind me asking-do you live in the USA? I only say that because I have been making a lot of comments, mostly early in the early morning hours.

            Also, sorry I have been commenting nonstop. I’ve always wanted to investigate things, and it’s awesome. I promise I will stop soon.

          • Pea

            Yes, I’m American. I live in the Southwest, particularly in a city that is awake at night. 😉

            About the comments, I try to check the queue every couple hours, so don’t worry about commenting a lot. It’s fine. 🙂

  • Terri

    All I have to say about the whole trumped up mess is money makes idiots do lots of things. These people see what somebody else who has worked hard for 45 years has been able to afford and they want a chunk of it. I hope they all have to pay big for the low-down crap they tried to pull on MJ. He was innocent…he NEVER molested kids. MJ was too good for his own good and there were hoards of low-down people waiting to take advantage of him. His only weakness was taking too many people at face value.

    • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

      How are you so sure that he NEVER abused these children? It would be like me saying HE for an absolute FACT did abuse them…See neither position works unless you were in the room.

      It is clear you are a starry eyed hyper fan that would dare even say that “MJ was just TOO GOOD” SMH…

      His only weakness was clearly kids and sleeping with them alone….As well as a penchant to be drugged out of his mind..He also had a weakness for lying constantly with NO shame. Another weakness he had was for spending money on needless things until the highest paid musician EVER spent himself into the poor house.

      Whenever I hear fans or haters claim to be 100 percent sure no doubts whatsoever it sounds shallow and suspect to my ears.

      • Michele

        What is your take? Do you lean towards he was innocent or guilty? I am intrigued to know. (If you don’t mind sharing). I’ve done enough research, including this site and I lean towards innocent.

        • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

          I am as diehard as an 80s MJ fan as the come..I love everything he did until the end of the the 80s and still do.after the 8s0 he was out of my thoughts til 2014 when I found he he died. I was able to see just what people meant when they claimed he was legend in his prime..I watche him and he was breathtaking as the estate let out older products I had never seen . a perfect pop start sexy and he had it all fame fortune power and he glowed within, he was totally mesmerizing….But the facts remain I cannot lie the truth staring me in the face Jordy did not fake that evaul…MJ never paid off 2 children for silence unless he was guilty as they come..He never had interest in women..Also I am 40 years old so I was alive during all the hype and mania around him. IT was exciting and wonderful for a very short time

          .Now before I get waxing poetic and type out a long thread what you can do is visit this site..These people most were my friends and fellow fans that lacked the blinders about MJ they were real about his addictions his mistreatment of people his asshole ways if you will..once I read wades blog which I posted there, I had been convinced long before MJ was guilty yet I was still of fan of of his 80s output, but it never seemed real to be it always was happening out there wade showed me that MJ destroyed families within and was a brilliant manipulator and liear Read the excuses they use although some were not hostile many were….It is a long thread where I am attacked and trashed by people I thought were friends and honest about MJs shortcomings I was taken a back..BUt I state clearly in many long posts why I have found him guilty for years…If you are in for a long read take a look.

          .I am sorry to point you there but there are over 200 posts and I explained myself very clearly and do not have the energy at the moment to explain the way I would like to..You are free to tell me what you think on MJFacts if you care to read this thread…There are others where I discuss MJS dark sides as well…I am a hardcore fan of his70-80 music but I find MJ lacking in many things that make people human like character and anything really that redeems him I never thought he was my idol and always thought his life offstage was odd and creepy..I am a rabid fan with NO blinders..He was guilty no question. Fans starting question my sanity and pedo actions just becasue they cannot understand that some of us can LOVE MJ but despise his actions..MJ at a min as a human being not as a a performer was digesting

          As an entertainer amazing captivating and one of the best. Again I am really sorry to point you there..I was also a lot nicer on that forum than I usually would be becasue again I thought these people and I respected each other for years and that they were MJ realist..I did not expect them to agree but not to try to use my mental health against me as an argument very few had anything really to back up their claims except for LIEs and money hunger evil doers which I am sorry 7 accusers now it is getting old to use a lost child hood excuse…If you want to read more of my darker thoughts it is all there…My name there Is Danileevan. YOu do not have to join just read as a guest…I can link to other post that have the same theme.

          http://historycontinues.com/forums/showthread.php?3819-Wade-Robson-Blog-Feedback-anyone

  • Michele Potter

    As someone who has been sexually abused, I find it hurtful that people are rooting for Wade to win a civil suit. What satisfication are you all going to get out of that? What does it change? These supposed victims are seeking money. Do you have any idea the damage it does when you have been sexually abused? If I had to chose between millions of dollars or reverse the damage of what happened? I would reverse the damage. I would never accept Wades civil complaint. I am not in any of the plaintiffs shoes so I can’t judge their postion. However, I hope they have had some healing if the molestion had occurred. That is all.

    I keep an open mind. I have done a lot of research in regards to MJ. I can fully understand people are angry that it is their belief he was a pedofile. Don’t you think it would be more productive to raise awareness for sexual abuse victims? This website seems to be a way to smear MJ’s name. If you have all the evidence in the world that proves he’s a pedofile, then what is your plan of action?

    I’m not saying any of this in a mean way, I’m asking what is the sole purpose of trying to “root” on these people who claim they were molested?

  • Michele

    I watched the 60 minutes episode with Liz Hayes and Conrad Murray. I read Conrad Murray’s book, and he didn’t feel Michael Jackson was a child molester. I will have to look for the page in which he says that. (If anyone is interested) In the above section in regards to Conrad Murray, his pauses and changing his stories, lead to me read his book. I had a feeling he would go into that.

    I did post about Conrad Murray in another post, and it is my apology this site does not want and or need to discus his trial.

  • peter

    Let me just add that EACH AND EVERY fan that is throwing Conrad Murray under a bus in the internet..lets say they would have given literraly anything MJ could have asked in his sweet voice to satisfy him.And that includes drugs and sex. Only cause guess what if you please him MJ calls you back.And if not you are out of “Neverland” and back to real life where you are just another fan among millions with no chance to meet or talk to your idol ever again…So people talking like that about Murray fail to realize MJ power.We are talking about the biggest music legend ever lived,the most iconic artist or our timea bblack super hero…people in your entourage put you ina pedestal just by showing a picture with him. I think its about time to be real about this and not hypocrite.Murray’s behavior is not based on him being a serial killeror him being a bad dr per se.And its not only based on the money he was paid. Murray has said himself that many times he had finance Mjs medical treatment and /or shopping sprees or food.And I do beleive it! So has many other people done,from hollywood celebs to iddle east Prince’s.All that happened in a very special circumstances where Murray was blinded by the money,the friendship,that had developed and the celebrity status. The whole music indutry was working with MJ for free..for decades,thats the way it is.Thats how powerful he was.He could have anybody doing anything,It wa sunfortunate he was that selfdestructive but the truth is it wasnt just about money and it wasnt Murray didnt have a special interest in killing Michael Jackson.I dont desire his life to my worst enemy.He agreed to Mjs nonsense.Mj was so detached from reality for decades in his own world that he saw no worng in what he was dingno risk. He persuaded Murray and it was what it was.I dlike to see any of those fans spending a night with MJ,after months of tellin you his deepest secrets and telling you I love you hundred times.Id like to see them saying NO and leaving the house

    • Michele

      I did not say that Conrad Murray was a killler nor a bad doctor. I said he was negligent. Doctor after doctor got up on that stand, and they all said the same thing. None of them said they would have taken the position for ANY amount of money, as it wasn’t safe whatsoever. No one is “throwing him under the bus” He was guilty
      of involuntary manslaughter. A jury convicted him beyond a reasonable doubt. Conrad Murray is a grown a** man, he could have said no to MJ, as countless other physicians did.

  • Pea

    Blanca did not talk about Jonathan Spence at the trial. She talked about him in 1993, and not by name — his name is usually deduced by writers and researchers familiar with Michael Jackson’s timeline of “special friends”. That information in your screenshot came from Victor Gutierrez’s book “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” and the Prosecution’s “Prior Bad Acts” document submitted December 2004: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/121004pltmotadmprior.pdf

    You can see all the 2005 trial documents here (http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/ctdocs.php ). Be sure to select “All” before clicking “Search”.

    • Michele

      Sorry Pea,
      One more question. Do you have any idea why Jason Francia said he has never discussed the molestation with his Mom? I thought that was odd, and I’m sure it’s something easy, I overlooked.

      • Pea

        Was that something Jason Francia said on the stand? Forgive me, but it has been about 3-4 years since I’ve actually read his testimony. 🙂

        If that was something he said on the stand, then I can see why that would look strange. They got money for his claims, so you’d think she’d learn about it at some point. But it is common for victims of abuse to keep those secrets; Jason, if he was fondled, simply went that route. As an alternative, I’d suggest that he was again instructed by the Prosecution to say that. Usually in court cases, witnesses are forbidden from talking to each other so as to not make it seem like there has been any sketchy collusion going on.

        But those are just my opinions.

        • Michele

          Yes, he did say that. I didn’t exactly understand how his Mom wouldn’t have known he got 2.4 million dollars. Your right, I do have my work cut out for me. I have to research and find ways not to ask stupid freaking questions. Going through June’s testimony, I didn’t know MJ counter sued for extortion?

  • PollyMax2010

    People…. MICHAEL JACKSON was NOT a child molester. LIES have been told about MJ for so many years. WAKE UP. It was all for the MONEY..

    I’m sad there is a website that exits like this….

    Wake UP

    • Pea

      Please stop spamming the moderation queue with requests for people to “Wake Up”. It is very tedious having to delete the same thing over and over.

      If this website bothers you, you are free to read elsewhere. There are probably 50+ pro-Jacko places for you to frequent. Why cause yourself any undue stress?

      And, for the record, neither you nor any of us were in the room with Jacko and his boys. Therefore, your doubtless and as of yet unsupported assertions of his innocence are totally meaningless. If you’d like to provide some reasoning to why this website is wrong about Michael Jackson, please do; otherwise, you will be banned like any other spammer.

  • Neely

    And Bob Jones caved on the stand. Of course in the interview on some TV show, he didn’t come out and say anything straightforwardly. He just wanted to lead people along by innuendo. And I guess there are people who will take that bait. I tend to question a person who does that. This way, he can deny having said anything at all, on record. But he was certainly leading.

    • Michele

      I read his testimony the other day. When you read it, do you remember when he was on the stand and he denied saying he wanted to put in the book, “I saw MJ licking JC head” or was it Gavin? I’ll have to go over it again, as I briefly looked over it. I got the impression he wasn’t trying to throw MJ under the bus. If he flat out said, “Yes I definitely saw MJ licking his head” that would have looked really bad for MJ.

      • Neely

        im sorry, I can’t remember which kid it was. It’s been a long time since I read his testimony.

        I want to say he was also one of the jilted guys who tried to sue Jackson for whatever (sorry, can’t remember again) and lost.

  • Andreas

    Check out the testimonies of Robert Spinner, Lisa Susan Roote Henman and Dr. Antonio Cantu.

    It was also in different newssources:
    https://www.today.com/popculture/prosecutors-identify-jackson-fingerprints-wbna7294911

    Bob Jones I’ve seen referred to as a PR-Manager many times, but publicist is probably right too.

    “Aesthetic argument”. Well, if you’re more focused on how Janet Arvizo acted (a bit eccentric) and you think that settles anything in terms of her credibility for everything she says… rather than checking up what she said was actually true or not then you’re doing that.

    If she for example says the family was being sent against their will to Brazil, and the police actually finds documents at Jackson’s people’s office confirming they were going to send the family to Brazil, would the fact that she for example snapped at the jury once and so on make hard evidence invalid?

    • Michele

      I look at the whole picture. I haven’t got that far, checking whether or not her testimony matches the evidence. In my opinion I think it’s important to always observe everything. Although I’m only able to read the testimonies, sometimes I’ll notice answers changing. The paper is due in two weeks. This is a lot of work. I should have picked a different case haha.

    • Pea

      Labeling it merely “aesthetics” is a bit disingenuous. Her bizarre, overly-dramatic demeanor is objectively relevant because it underscores the alternative explanations that she twisted “factual” things and made them sinister. Which, of course, is what I think.

      For instance, your Brazil trip example: she made it seem as if they were going to be kidnapped, exiled, and then marooned; tickets to Brazil and passports held, however, are not “smoking guns” of her claims, as they can just as easily be evidence of a legitimate trip. According to Azja Pryor, Janet was excited about the vacation to Brazil and, if memory has not failed me, the kids didn’t want to go to Brazil because they were having too much fun at Neverland. Both strongly indicate a voluntary vacation. Saying her claims were backed up by “hard evidence” is kind of a stretch.

      Let’s not soon forget that her extended yarn about the rebuttal tape being totally scripted was completely invalidated by Gavin himself….

      For the record, I don’t think the hot air balloon blunder is especially important. I didn’t see it as evidence of some insane freak. I simply believe she ripped that nonsense from the Bashir interview, in which Jacko talked about waking up at dawn to ride a hot air balloon with Mac Culkin. She then realized how absurd it sounded on the stand — when phrased so poignantly by Mez and after it incited jeering — that she backtracked.

      I do think Janet Arvizo was a nutjob, insofar as having schizo-affective disorder, but she was no idiot.

      • Andreas Moss

        OK, first off Pea, aestethic arguments aren’t necessarily fallacious arguments.

        You indeed base a lot of your arguments of Gavin’s molestation claims on Gavin and Star’s character and behavior, and same with Janet’s character when it comes to her claims of conspiracy. Thats fine I guess, but I don’t really know how to debate that.

        Your impression of them is different than mine, and its quite complicated to talk about people like that. I also don’t want to be pigeonholed into defending them as saints on every level or anything, because I actually don’t have to do that in order to believe their claims.

        I’ll try to answer some of your points.

        your Brazil trip example: she made it seem as if they were going to be kidnapped, exiled, and then marooned; tickets to Brazil and passports held, however, are not “smoking guns” of her claims, as they can just as easily be evidence of a legitimate trip.

        Well, there’s at least two ways to go about this. There’s many indicators they were sent to Brazil against their will, but instead of going into that… lets try to look at the defense version of this, and the co-conspirators version of it. A lot more entertaining too. As I said to Michele in an earlier post its one thing to poke holes in the conspiracy story and demand more proof of it, okay, but for ME to be convinced the Arvizos were lying you’d have to explain what actually happened. If they lied, and I’ll be open to the possibility, what actually did happen?

        In Frank Cascio’s book his explanation on the Brazil trip is, well, pretty interesting.

        For almost every person he writes about in the book he’s very very generous, always taking the extra line to compliment them for the important role they’ve played in his life, and so on. He’ll brownnose almost anyone it seems. Except for one person: Janet Arvizo. His writing makes it clear he ABSOLUTELY hates her, and its a bit unclear why even… at least on such a strong level. At one point he said he tells Michael she’s fucked in the head and he can’t stand her. Frank’s contempt towards her is clear, but his reasons not exactly as clear. Either way, whatever the reason is he doesn’t shy away from explaining he really really dislikes her. Okay, still with me Pea? (That Frank really didn’t like Janet?)

        Another thing Frank Cascio said, and Dieter Wiesner said the exact same in his book; Oh, the idea of the family being imprisoned at Neverland is completely ridiculous on its face! Nobody were trapping them there at all. In fact the total opposite happened.. in fact, everybody wanted them to LEAVE, oh, the damn family just wouldn’t go! Tom Mesereau also had similiar statements at points in the trial.

        Now, finally lets take a look at what Frank Cascio explains the Brazil trip to be. He calls it a «vacation» for the family. For some reason they wanted to gift them a vacation now. Why? He doesn’t say. Does it make sense based on what he says otherwise? In my humble opinion no.

        It gets weirder. Much weirder. He actually says he was going to go along on the trip even and looking forward to lying on the beach in Brazil. With who? Oh, right… the Arvizos? (WTF) Yes, Frank Cascio openly claims on one hand he hated the family and especially Janet, and wanted them to leave Neverland…. but, ummmm… now Frank says he was also going on vacation with them?

        He also says the Brazil trip eventually didn’t happen because as he said Janet didn’t want to go after all, so therefore he couldn’t go either.. damn, as he expressed in his book, he was looking forward to lying on the beach and drinks, relax and look at girls or whatever! Too bad! He really wanted to go! Right, so if the concept of him going on vacation with someone he hated wasn’t already laughable why on earth couldn’t he still go just because Janet didn’t want to go anymore? This is the most surreal thing I have heard in my whole life. Was Janet his trusted vacation partner now all of a sudden too? The idea that Frank Casvio couldn’t go on a vacation lying on the beach without Janet Arvizo on his side is completely absurd.

        Back in reality the tickets the police found of course didn’t have Frank Cascio’s name on there. If it indeed was a legimitate trip, and there is an alternative explanation to what the nature of the trip was then Frank is at least not giving a truthful answer to what it actually was. Thats not a good sign in my opinion.

        For the record, I don’t think the hot air balloon blunder is especially important. I didn’t see it as evidence of some insane freak. I simply believe she ripped that nonsense from the Bashir interview, in which Jacko talked about waking up at dawn to ride a hot air balloon with Mac Culkin. She then realized how absurd it sounded on the stand — when phrased so poignantly by Mez and after it incited jeering — that she backtracked.

        Yes, thats actually a plausible explanation where she got it from. I still haven’t found where she originally said this though. To me it seemed like Mesereau must have referred to something she said in deposition or possibly at Grand Jury, and brought it up against her at the trial. Janet didn’t really backtrack, I think she still said it was one of the ways Jackson could have taken the kids away from her.

        If the hot air balloon story important to anything is questionable yes, but interestingly, I bought Dieter Wiesner’s book about Michael Jackson, because he was one of the unindicted co-conspirators. I was curious what Dieter would say about the 2005 case and what happened according to him. I may be exaggerating this a little, I probably am, so take it with a pinch of salt… but in my view he actually reduced the WHOLE conspiracy claim of Janet to the crazy looney hot air balloon anecdote. He wasn’t too eager to talk about it much. A bit disappointing.

        Dieter did give a very interesting description of being with Michael Jackson in a luxery suite in a hotel at the exact moment when he got the message that the police had charged him. According to Dieter, who was in the room at the tome, Jackson would lose control and start trashing the hotel room completely in tears and anger. Jackson’s mother Kathrine Jackson, who was also in the room, reacted by falling on her knees and started crying uncontrollably, folding her hands together and praying out loudly. Quite a vivid image.

        • Michele

          Hi Andreas,
          I just typed this whole page about the conspiracy charges. The page reloaded and I lost it all. (I think i uploaded to many transcripts) But I first would like you to educate me about what a “aestethic” argument is. I looked it up, but I’m not sure which context your referring to. I also wanted to apologize, as it’s not my intention to cause arguments on this site. I have had been commenting a lot, and asking questions. Since Pea ( I hope you don’t mind me putting your name out there) mentioned Aja and her relationship with Janet, I think that brought solid evidence that Janet was never held against her will.

          In Aja’s testimony, TM asked her if Janet ever mentioned she was held against her will, forced to go to Brazil, not allowed to leave Neverland etc.

          On direct examination, TM asked about the Brazil trip. Aja said Janet was excited and even asked Aja if she wanted to go. Aja told her she would. After the interview with the social workers, Aja took the kids back to Neverland and Janet went and got birth certificates and other important documents for the trip (if I remember correctly). She did say she didn’t like the Germans as they were mean to her. She felt like they were keeping her from MJ.

          Again, I’m not saying I’m correct, but I didn’t get the vibe Aja had any reason to lie. My intention was to type up a paper about the conspiracy theory and show it to you (add as a picture) to get your feedback. Im excited to see if I can be the person to have a slight doubt about the conspiracy theory.

          • Andreas

            Hi Michele,

            Yes, I’d still be interested in hearing your overall view of the conspiracy. Too bad it was lost. No need to be sorry for anything, although I’m not sure what you’re sorry about.. 🙂

            Yes, I’m well aware of Azya Prior.

            First off I think its important to note both Azya Prior and Chris Tucker were in a pretty complicated situation when it came to the allegations because they were both very good friends of both Michael Jackson and the Arvizo family. To me it seems like none of them wanted to go to court against either party. I know Tucker tried his best to not to talk to neither the police nor Jackson’s defense for a long time. Eventually they both came on as defense witnesses. Sneddon noted in court Tucker hadn’t been replying to their constant attempts of contacting him. Tucker insisted he had never heard anything, which I personally find suspect. I think he simply didn’t want to go against his friend Michael Jackson, and I think just talking to the police might have felt as a betrayal to him.

            In a sense I do believe Azya didn’t really want to contribute to Jackson’s downfall either, and that might have affected her testimony ever so slightly, but that said, I still believe she was mostly honest in the testimony. Especially since she has been far more vocal against the family after the trial. When Michael Jackson died in 2009 she wrote a very angry open letter to the family to come forward and admit they lied (You can find this letter online, there’s also a video on youtube she did in context with this..)

            Okay, so to your argument.
            Did Janet tell Azya Prior she wanted to go Brazil? Possibly, in the very beginning when she still believed Jackson’s people that there were killers after the family. Thats what the family was told constanly as a manipulation. Janet may have thought that was for the best at that point.

            Later Azya admits Janet changed her mind.

            Q. And she mentioned Brazil in that conversation?

            A. Yes.
            
Q. Did she say she wasn’t going?
            
A. She said she didn’t want to go.
            Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did Janet tell you why she no longer wanted to go to Brazil?

            A. Because there were a lot of unknowns. Her children had been out of school for one month. She didn’t know when they were going back to school. She didn’t know exactly where she was staying in Brazil.


            There’s a lot more I could say, but in short I think Azya simply didn’t have a lot of information to go by. She did also confirm Janet’s story and her conflict with the two germans and alleged co-conspirators. Many things in her testimony was in my opinion in favor of the Arvizos, although its usually treated as evidence against them.

            One of the social workers, I think Karen Walker, also a defense witness, said she met Janet at the later part of the timeperiod and Janet called Brazil a “dump” and didn’t want to go there. Many other witnesses said similar things.

            Im excited to see if I can be the person to have a slight doubt about the conspiracy theory.

            Oh. Sorry to disappoint. No, I don’t buy that Janet wanted to move to Brazil. :/ I think the truth was closer in that it was a complete nightmare for her.

            Please forgive me for using the term “aestethic argument”. My intention was not to throw out fancy terms to confuse anyone. What I meant was that it seemed like you focused a lot on how Janet Arvizo acted in court. A lot of people do though. Perhaps its not totally irrelevant, even Ron Zonen admitted she was not really a presentable witness. Still, I think its fair to say that if you want to be 100% fair you still listen to her story and judge it on its own merits. Thats what I originally tried to do at least, and I found her story to be true.

            If you want to you can read what I’ve written about the conspiracy I can send some stuff to you and you can consider if it makes sense to you? Perhaps you’ll see better where I come from at least. If not, thats fine too.

            Anyway, the actual nature of the Brazil trip needs a better explanation if you want to say the family was lying. If you want to give me doubts about their story that would be a great place to start.

          • Michele

            I can respond more later to your reply. How would you send me info? I’m new to disqus and I’m to lazy to figure out if there is a way to send it through there haha. Do you have a source that confirms Chris Tucker didn’t want to testify?

          • Michele

            Hi Andreas,
            I’ve come to the conspiracy portion of my paper. I have a few possible theory’s in my mind, but in one of them, I would present to you a small piece of info-you might have to consider. When you looked through the court documents,(or any documents regarding this case) did you ever come across any that talked about Janet’s diagnosis of a mental illness? If so, did it ever cross your mind-her actions could have been influenced by some symptoms of that said mental illness?

            It was not even confirmed she had this particular diagnosis, but since it was speculated, it could be a contributing factor to her claim of a conspiracy. Although, this is my opinion, it doesn’t mean I’m right. If you would be willing to look further than your beliefs, I’ll post the court document from the case that explains it. I figured I would ask before I even bothered, as maybe you wouldn’t even bother looking at it. Let me know what you think.

          • Pea

            I know the document to which you’re referring (and I’m sure Andreas also is aware of it). The Prosecution sought to restrict any questioning of whether Janet Arvizo was taking or failed to take any psychiatric medications during the time of her alleged imprisonment at Neverland. If she’d been on meds, she may have not left her guest unit bedroom because they caused drowsiness or sleepiness, not because she was being kept there; had she been off them, according to the Defense, it is reasonable to speculate that she was in a psychiatric state such that the strange claims she made, such as Jacko licking Gavin’s head repeatedly with a “long white tongue”, were psychotic breaks.

            In J. Randy Taraborrelli’s book “The Magic and the Madness”, he mentions she was interviewed by a psychiatrist from J.C. Penney’s who found her to be “schizophrenic”, “delusional”, and that she’d been prescribed the anti-anxiety/anti-depressant Zoloft. However, Taraborrelli goes on to say that Janet’s law firm’s therapist confirmed depression but not delusions: http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-04/09mm/09mm649.html

            As far as Janet’s mental state goes, I think it is beyond doubt that she had a mental illness of some kind, at least depression and anxiety, which can occasionally lead to psychotic episodes. Her claim of head-licking was completely false — Jacko having a “long white tongue” doesn’t sound remotely human! Assuming Janet wasn’t outright lying or dreaming, I believe on that initial flight from Miami, she had a “break” from reality given the relative stress of the situation. No one saw head-licking on that relatively packed plane but she and her dutiful son Star.

            Chris Tucker characterized Janet on the trip to Miami as acting very bizarrely, so she may have been primed for a delusional moment.

            I’m no doctor, of course, but I read. The combination of documented depression med use, as well as others claiming Janet appeared whacko or bipolar (e.g., Larry Feldman, Louise Palanker, Chris Tucker) or “schizophrenic” (David Arvizo also claimed she sometimes heard voices or sounds no one else heard) suggests she probably had schizo-affective disorder….

          • Michele

            You are right, I’m sure most people have read it, and it was insulting to think otherwise. I’m not a doctor either and I think your probably right about her diagnosis. (hearing voices) I always sensed something was off, but since I have a passion for people with mental illness, after reading that, I felt horrible for ever saying anything bad about her. I was thinking the defense was aiming for she wasn’t taking her medication, which means her symptoms would return, and she could experience delusions, paranoia etc. Which would coincide with no conspiracy existed, and she was imagining things. But, again, I could be way out of the ball park.

            I have bipolar disorder, and I’m not afraid to admit that. I just hope not everyone thinks all of us act out like that.

          • Pea

            I don’t really understand what you mean… why do you feel like you’ve said anything bad about Janet Arvizo? Just because she’s afflicted with a mental illness, as seems to be self-evident from multiple witnesses and courtroom observers, that does not set her into a special, untouchable class. She can still be scrutinized.

            As far as the Defense’s argument goes, I think that they were suggesting she was delusional, as well as paranoid. I don’t think they’re far off the mark, although I am sure that Jacko’s people probably were pushy in some respects. But, like I said, she was primed from the beginning to act crazy given all of the media attention surrounding the Bashir documentary.

            I will add that I don’t believe all mentally ill people are sociopaths. It also deserves mentioning that while she was certainly “nutty”, I don’t think she was an idiot. She was very obviously slick and opportunistic.

          • Andreas

            Hi Pea,

            Just to clarify Janet’s claim she didn’t say she was initially kept inside her guest unit. At least the first period from 7th of February and due her (alleged) first and second escape from Neverland she just kept in the guest unit by her own choice. I got the impression she could in theory wander around freely inside Neverland just like Davellin and her two sons could, she just didn’t want to.

            She was out a couple of times too. Ed Bradley for example was there to do an interview with Jackson and claimed he saw both her an Gavin. However she couldn’t leave the ranch. So the family was still imprisoned in that sense.

            Its true however that after the Calabasas trip from 2th of Mars to 10th of Mars she claimed there were people outside her door keeping her in inside the guest unit. Things were getting more at extreme at this point.

          • Pea

            I’m not sure what you’re clarifying exactly? Did I say something incorrect? ;p

            Do you believe she really saw Jacko licking Gavin’s head with a “long white tongue”?

            By the way, I was reading Maureen Orth’s “C.S.I. Neverland” article from 2005, and she had a very quick-&-dirty sum up of the Prosecution’s conspiracy case: “…the Bashir documentary had so “rocked” Jackson’s world that it resulted in a conspiracy to control the accuser’s family and coerce them into speaking favorably of Jackson before they were packed off permanently to Brazil.”

            Does that sound accurate to your position as well?

          • Andreas

            Hi Michele,

            Yes, Janet Arvizo’s mental health (or just personality) is an interesting topic. Its relevant to those of us who believes her too. I’m actually not sure what document you’re referring to. If there exists psychological reports from the JC Penney case online I’d be very interested. If its one of the documents about her from the 2005 trial signed by Jacksons lawyers I’ve probably read it already.

            I guess for the sake of conversation I’d be more curious what kind of mental illness she could have that is relevant in connection the 2005 case? What connection are you proposing?

            Are you saying she was delusional and imagined stuff that wasn’t happening? What for example did she imagine then?

            And are you proposing this as a possible alternative to that she was “orchestrating” a scheme against Michael Jackson?

            I think her unpredictable personality certainly scared the living daylight out of Jackson’s people, although I don’t think thats the whole answer to why they were treating her the way they did.

            Although, this is my opinion, it doesn’t mean I’m right. If you would be willing to look further than your beliefs,

            Haha. I doubt a lot of people staunchly claim they aren’t willing to look further than their own beliefs. 🙂

            I think we’re all highly vulnerable to confirmation bias though.

          • Michele

            I can respond within the next day or two, but I doubt there is an actual report online from a doctor that gave a formal diagnosis. (as that would be a major HIPPA violation)

            Did you have a chance to finish your piece of the conspiracy in this case? I would love to read it.

          • Michele

            Andreas,
            I think I got a little to excited. Haha. I went over the prosecution’s witnesses testimonies. I’m only going to do my portion on the defense. Your actually kinda lucky you get to do the prosecution. Interesting stuff 🙂

          • Michele

            Hi Andreas,
            How are you? I am assuming your still interested in the conspiracy portion of the 2005 trial. Here’s the thing-the class is not allowed to post projects/research papers etc. on social media. Therefore, I was thinking the best way to do this-I will post a picture of the transcript, i feel is relevant. If there is anything you want to clarify, you can check on the transcript. I will post some examples, and you let me know if this is a way to do it. It might take a while for me to do it, but it will be worth it to get your insight.
            Page 37
            Defense calls
            David Legrand (Attorney) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0072fb3aa344268aae5b44917668efe3bcf3ba4f48f772c3c9bef8d3ec6643ab.png

            Page 53
            Ronald Konilzer wanted David Legrand help with new lawyers to assist with cash management, bookkeeping, creative development etc https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d7c504b770be37a6a300c245e1e38330b86abe34234425030be09aaeef185374.png

            Page 111 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1c97736007fcb9da636137da94ae28c7c3c5372e5d18c3f11c1863266d25ebc5.png
            Mr. LeGrand started to become suspicious of Mr. Kontizer and Mr. Weizner. (Trying to become power of attorney for MJ, with malicious intents)

            Prosecutor Mr. Auchincloss
            Page 353(my phone wouldn’t get the damn pic. )
            Mr. LeGrand testified the lawsuit MJ and the Arvizo’s had against Martin Bashir and Granda. I actually agree with Janet Arvizo on this one, I didn’t think it was right she didn’t obtain consent for her children to be on TV. Hence, the lawsuit.

            At any rate, I’m so tired and I think it would be a better idea for me just to type a paper for each relevant witness that can prove the conspiracy was false. (the paper would not have anything to do with how we’re going about this.

            Okay, sorry if there is any confusion. It’s 5am in the morning. Haha.

          • Andreas

            HI Michele,

            Thanks for posting things David LaGrand said. I’m a little bit confused if you’re claiming this is an indication that the conspiracy was false, or if you’re just posting stuff you found interesting for other reasons? (If the former you have to spell it out for me I’m afraid..!)

            Yes, both Dieter Wiesner and Ronald Konitzer were hired by Jackson for creative projects especially abroad and in Europe. They wanted to help resurrect Jackson’s career and had many projects in line. They had a 10 year plan. It all crashed due to the 2005 trial though.

            I think one of Dieter’s most notable projects was the release of Michael Jackson’s Mystery Drink and Magazine:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV8IVQxrOu8

            I don’t think the drink became a huge success or marketed properly. Some kind of problems must have ensued. I think the drink was supposed to taste a bit peach-like. Thats the rumour on the street anyway.

            I think its pretty clear Tom Mesereau must have found something problematic with how the Arvizos were treated, because he didn’t want to use any of the co-conspirators as witnesses… and because his strategy seemed to separate Jackson from the actions of Wiesner, Konitzer, Cascio, Schaffel and Amen. Its very clear Mesereau does this in the LaGrand testimony but also in the Debbie Rowe testimony where he almost encouages Debbie to say Wiesner and Konitzer were vultures trying to trick money from Jackson.

            In this case though I think Dieter and Ronald couldn’t have had a better argument back since they actually had a video statement by Jackson saying he had already given them power to do so. The three worked very close together.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf2vOaBzDrk

            Dieter remained close to Jackson after the trial too, and is still good friends of the family and especially Jackson’s mother Kathrine, who even wrote the preface of Dieter’s book about Jackson..

            I suspect the mysterious large amounts of money LaGrand was seeing being transfered around was not done behind Jackson’s back not. Whatever it was he probably knew about it, and no, I actually have no clue what it was for, I’m very curious, but I fear its a good reason it was hidden.

          • Michele

            Mr. Jackson did agree to the power of attorney. David LeGrand was concerned about Mr. Konitzer and Mr. Wiesner as the power of attorney for MJ. (not part of the conspiracy)

            I have never read Dieter’s book, but I don’t see any good reason they would transfer money without MJ knowing. I will have to look into his book.

            I’m regards to the conspiracy, (I know you know this) the Arvizo’s claimed to be “held against thier”, Mr. LeGrand clearly states he was not aware of anything of that nature. He is one of several witness’s that testified in that regard. Somewhere in his testimony,(i don’t feel like looking this up again) he wasn’t aware of any scripted lines the Arvizo’s had to say, in order to “remain safe from the threats”. You can take however you like, but he was the first person I wanted read into.

            All the other s**t I posted, I was just throwing some random nonsense out there.

          • Michele

            Unless this information is tabloid garbage, it doesn’t sound like MJ and Weisner were close at all after the trial. If that article is true, Dieter filed a lawsuit against MJ in 2007, and the Jackson Estate tried to block it. I took a screen shot of the articles, to see
            If you know they are true or not. My phone acts silly sometimes, so your going to have to type in the article name as I wasn’t able to post the link. (I know your aware of this) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6dbfe5eab60a9e7ed96a234c929aebb0156ea093414c0e414c2dcb6ca4fa3451.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6dbfe5eab60a9e7ed96a234c929aebb0156ea093414c0e414c2dcb6ca4fa3451.png

          • Pea

            Why are you unable to post direct links? No one else has that problem…?

          • Andreas

            No, seems like you might be right about the germans not being close to Jackson after the trial, Michele. That lawsuit I wasn’t aware of. I don’t know anymore.

            I guess I just figured Dieter was close to him because Dieter still acts like he’s Jacksons manager. You can see videos of him on his website where he talks about Jackson, the room is filled with Jackson memorabilia and awards .. and he wrote a Michael Jackson book, and has been close to Kathrine since Jacksons death. As I mentioned Kathrine Jackson wrote the preface to Dieter’s book about him.

      • Michele

        Hi Pea,
        It was not my intention to cause any arguments or disagreements between members of this site. If you feel I am disrupting anything please let me know. Everything you said about Aja’s testimony is solid enough for me to believe it. I don’t think Aja had any bad intentions on the stand. As I mentioned to Andrea’s, I don’t want to cause any conflicts.

  • Pea

    Thank you for giving that clarification. 🙂 I certainly didn’t intend for the two issues (Star’s alleged confusion/sloppy police work and the location of any fingerprints) to be conflated.

  • Pea

    While you’re asking others to convince you a that the conspiracy — already adjudicated as not provable beyond a reasonable doubt — is false, why have you been unable (or unwilling?) to answer questions about why the trial was lost?

    At present, you’re the only one here who believes the family hook-line-and-sinker; you also seize upon every opportunity to not only discuss that case but spar and even proselytize about it. You’ve correctly observed, too, that everyone who has written affirmatively about Jacko’s pedophilia has not engaged in any apologetics with regard to the Arvizos. Therefore, you’re very obviously the only one of your kind.

    But if you say that you have no duty to “convince” others, in spite of your very vocal apologetics and even when there are others here looking to be convinced or at least wanting to understand the bases of your perspective (myself included), why are you looking to have someone convince you? Shouldn’t that be a two-way street?

    Why can’t we “skeptics” hear your analyses without having to buy your currently-unfinished book? It doesn’t seem fair to me. While I don’t think you’re being devious, per se, it does come across, to me, that you’re seeking out opposite perspectives for the sole purpose of strengthening your own, which you won’t reveal, for the sake of that book (or for whatever other reasons).

    If that is improper suspicion, my bad; I’m just being honest. But, Andreas — really — we’ve been discussing this case on and off since 2015. I don’t understand the asymmetrical information flow… or why you won’t answer questions when the onus really is on you (and any other Arvizo believer) to disprove the salience of the trial verdict.

    (As a note, I can facilitate email address exchanges between Disqus users, if that’s what you want to do. I can see every commenter’s email from my Admin dashboard.)

    • Andreas

      Right… Fair enough Pea.

      I think I still have your e-mail since you sent me the Victor Gutierrez book back in the day. I will send you my «theory» (I don’t know what else to call it) about the conspiracy from my book. Just give me a week or something so I can finish some stuff.

      I haven’t been unwilling to let other people read it. Dani was actually sent a draft last week and reported back having read it a couple of days ago. I was going to send it to Michael Jeffrey (from the MJandBoys website) too. I’m just a lazy guy in some respects and haven’t been working like a dog on this book. Just casually here and there. Working on longer texts without a deadline can be very tedious and I never saw the urgency to finish it quickly. I actually don’t know if I’m doing something that has public interest or if its a complete waste of time, and that is just assuming I’m even right about my perception.

      When I say I have no duty to convince anyone it doesn’t mean I’m not willing to discuss or share my views, no, my actions would not fool anyone, it just means I respect people’s autonomy to believe what makes sense to them. Like I can tell you what I think about the 2005 case, but I can’t expect you to agree with me. Thats on you. Not my responsibility. Besides, and I’m not trying to be offensive by saying this but sometimes it seems like you «skeptics» have already decided what you want to believe. If you ever had doubts about your views I never noticed at least. I also actually realize this is a pretty complicated and weird case. Even when you close your eyes to all of the defense flood of critique, and purely listen to the prosecution’s narrative its a beyond bizarre story, but as I still seem to argue, true.

      • Pea

        I’m not offended by anything you’ve said, Andreas. It should be clarified, though, that being “skeptical” does not mean one is impervious. I think I speak for others here when I say that, and I’d like to assume the same for you: though you have your convictions, they aren’t so strongly held as to be unchangeable. I don’t know if that is true but that is just my personal thing. At any rate, I’m interested in what you think happened and why you think it, and if it is anchored to something outside of just the family’s and the Prosecution’s words (because, as presented in the way they were, they failed in court).

        Most people who think Jacko was a pedophile choose to believe he was wrongfully acquitted. Their logic is: he was a pedophile and pedophiles molest and if a kid says a pedophile molested them, it must be true, regardless, full stop. That is not really enough, and I give you kudos for attempting, I think, to go beyond that aforementioned lazy-ass thinking.

        But, yes, I would like to read your conspiracy theory — or, more accurately, what/why/how you feel you were able to “prove” what the Prosecution, with its few million dollars spent, could not. I’m intensely curious about it. Everyone assumed that that was the part of the case that should’ve been left well enough alone, and, indeed, the original indictment was totally conspiracy-free. No charges or overt acts were listed until April 2004, in spite of all of the alleged conspiratorial acts intentionally used as fodder by the cops to obtain the dozens of search warrants. A little strange. Ron Zonen said, post-trial, that they put Janet up on the stand because they knew the Defense would use her. In other words, they didn’t want the Defense to shape the Janet Narrative, so they did so themselves; but for their fears, she wouldn’t have testified and they wouldn’t have proffered any conspiracy.

        But you insist there’s more evidence to support a conspiracy over the molestation? Even though most observers thought the former was BS and the latter was more credible? Interesting…. Of course, that doesn’t seem to bode well for the molestation, does it?

        By the way, you asked what one thinks happened if it wasn’t a conspiracy to hold them against their will. Firstly, I don’t deny they were “contained”, so to speak; the question is whether it was sinister, abusive, criminal, or, as the Prosecution subtly suggested by only charging Jacko with conspiracy to child abduct, falsely imprison, and extort, for the purposes of molestation. I find Frank Cascio’s comment from My Friend Michael to be plausible: “We had kept [the family] comfortable and entertained while waiting for the media surrounding the Bashir video to die down.”

        I suspect they were fearful of Janet, given her personality, being goaded on by the press to say negative things about Jacko for payment, hence why they wanted to get the “insurance policy” of having the family participate in the rebuttal documentary. But as the old saying goes, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions,” and their actions led the family to Dickerman, who knew Larry Feldman…. and allegations were still made.

        Anyway, you have my email address. 🙂

        • Andreas

          Thanks for your interesting thoughts on the conspiracy, Pea.

          I’m interested in what you think happened and why you think it, and if it is anchored to something outside of just the family’s and the Prosecution’s words.

          Oh yes. Its anchored in a lot outside words.

          If you can find any major flaws in my ‘theory’ that proves Janet was lying after all I wouldn’t mind it too much actually, because for one then I wouldn’t have to write this damn book anymore! 🙂

          I’ll send it to you next Sunday, and not immediately, since I would like to finish the last part of it. I’m sure you’ll have a lot to say about it then, so I hope its fine I keep this post short.

  • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

    Hey there,
    I know this post is old but I did want to ask..Is there a reason that fans so are deeply concerned with Jackson being gay even going beyond the idea he could have been a pedo? I can see some people thinking that if they prove he loved women and women only that somehow without even trying proves he never could touch a boy sexually..Now of course all of us normal folk on here are well aware sexually active(with women) married men with children abuse both sexes of kids at a high rate, so fan logic in this case holds no water whatsoever.

    Yet if these fans are not aware of what they are doing (trying to disprove that MJ liked boys by trumping up his womanizing ways) do you have any idea if they are not trying to defend against him being a pedo what is with these fans so obsessed with him being straight?

    I have run into a few fans that seem to have the largest homophobic streak in them and they are not even the slighest bit shamed to say it…I have asked them if they think they are doing MJ a favor by insisting he was hetero and that in turn will throw off the trail of people searching for things about him being a Pedo Many do not even have the ability to put that together in their minds…I only see them so disgusted and watch them lash out if someone if questions MJs sexuality beyond being a normal hotblooded woman lover.

    I guess what I am trying to point out even though many of these fans are well over 40 their thought process on how to defend MJ from being a pedo by trying to place his sexuality as normal with woman is too complex a process for their minds to grasp.. I have talked to a few dozen like this..As I said of age folks.

    Do you think it is just that MJ has tons of fans that hate gay people or are these women so crazed with their fantasy that they can easily forget MJ may have touched boys but they MUST MUST jump on anyone that says he may have been gay or bi? Seems altogether out there weird to me. CUrious as to what you think drives them

    • Michael Jeffrey

      Very interesting question. Well, the only thing I noticed is that many Jackson fans are very religious. This is quite uncommon in other fan bases. Most big stars criticized religion (even John Lennon and other 60s/70s singers), Jackson was known to be very religious and spoke about Christianity quite often. I am sure that this attracted all of those crazy kind of people. Also, Jackson has fans literally wordwide. In homophobic areas such as the arabic world and Africa or places like Russia where western music isn’t played that often usually. Jackson himself never spoke in favor of homosexuality what probably every artist of his generation has done, at least since the 90s. It’s impressing how he always avoided talking about his opinion on those people. He often felt very insulted if a newspaper assumed that he was gay. How often did he phrase it like :” They wrote negative stuff about me, for example they made up that I am gay” . So, fans probably feel hurt if you assume that, because Jackson felt insulted and came across as rather homophobic. Last but not least, the big majority of those fans are women who are highly attracted to Jackson and can’t stand the thought that he wouldn’t want to have sex with them. We had/have many great gay or bisexual musicians such as Elton John, Freddie Mercury, David Bowie (bisexual), George Michael, Sam Smith, Boy George and others. Some argue that the best music of the 20st century was mainly produced by gay and bisexual men. None of them had a problem with their fans accepting it, tells you a lot about what kind of people Jackson’s fans are.

  • Michele

    I had to look into this matter, and I had to accept what is more than likely the scenario here. In order for Gavin and the rest of the Arvizo’s to potentially get a settlement, MJ would HAVE to be convicted. Then, the Arvizo’s can file a civil suit, and it’s almost a “slam dunk” for the them to win the suit. (And I mean possibly millions of dollars)

    I would have absolutely no reason to make this up. If you do a little investigating, you MIGHT find I am correct.

    And for the record, I agree with you, it’s absolutely utterly disgraceful, someone would think Evan Chandler would kill himself pertaining to what happened with MJ. No one knows why, and it’s very unfortunate.