Mikey, you let me down

I loved you Mikey.

Not in a gay way. Not like that. It was deeper, stronger. We had a connection, man!

Back in high school I wanted to be just like Jack Lucas. Every high school has a Jack Lucas. He is the coolest, most popular guy. He has friends from the entire ecosystem at school, from the stoners to the jocks. Even the teachers like him. He always knows exactly what to wear. People want to talk to him. But the part I liked best was THE CHICKS. Jack had chicks hanging off him everywhere he went. He had chicks waiting for him after school. Waiting for him by his locker. Waiting outside his house.

And Jack Lucas always had two or three on his arm when I met him on the street. If he caught me ogling them he would give me a sly wink that said I AM GOING TO BANG THESE CHICKS LATER AND THEY ARE GOING TO LOVE IT. I wanted to be Jack Lucas so much MY BALLS HURT.

Then in 1979 something happened that would make Jack Lucas look like, well, me. That something was MICHAEL JACKSON.

I knew Mikey had been around since he was knee high to a James Brown, but this was the NEW! IMPROVED! SEXY! adult Michael Jackson who suddenly had a hit record which bordered on perfection. Every chick I knew was mesmerized by this handsome young black rooster, and if you looked at them in the right light while they were staring at his swaying, slender, sculpted form on TV I swear you could see the SEX HORMONES wafting off their skin. Seriously.

The man was obviously sex on a stick. And when THRILLER came out three years later he DOUBLED HIS APPEAL. There was so much pheromone dripping from that beast, chicks would cream their panties just by closing their eyes and listening to P.Y.T. on their record player.

Hey, it even worked by remote control. All I had to do was go to any nightclub in my Thriller jacket and I knew that there was a 100% chance I would be pumping fur later that night. Mikey’s sex magick was that powerful. Even if there was nothing in the papers about it, just looking at him you knew he was furgling babe after babe after babe after babe in hotel rooms across the nation and around the world.

michael-jackson-black-or-white-remix
Alternative cover for Black or White

Yep, he was my new ROLE MODEL. Sorry Jack, you couldn’t measure up to Mikey’s hairy big toe in the chick magnet department.

When Mikey got sick of making the magical sandwich with a gazillion throwaway babes – hell, he was probably doing them 2 or 3 at a time – and was ready to settle down, he picked THE HOTTEST BABE EVER. In 1994 Lisa Marie Presley was drop dead gorgeous (maybe she still is, who knows?) and horny as hell. Mikey porked her (figuratively) day and night for 20 months until she couldn’t take any more, so she taps the mat and disappears into the night.

Her loss was Debbie Rowe’s gain, and even before they got married Mikey was porking her (literally) day and night until he got his man juice right up in her and made a little Mini Mikey. Not long after he’s made another kid with Debs, and before you know it he’s worn HER out too, so she too has to tap the mat and bow out too. Mikey the MACHINE!

After that comes Lord knows how many more eager participants in Mikey’s very own rock and roll hall of fame, desperate to have their pulsing hearts (and other bits) stilled by the master love tamer.

This man is a freaking marvel. Never in the history of mandom has one STAG worn out so many DOES in so short a time, he loved the female form and could Rip-‘n’-Dip chicks til the cows came home, yet still respect them completely. OR SO I THOUGHT.

Oh what joy at his trial in 2005 to find out that the man had a HUGE collection of porn. The sly old dog! Not only was he looking at THE REAL THING most of the time but he had the nous and foresight to have backup eye candy ready for when the real thing wasn’t available. That’s another reason to love you Mikey!

So recently I was telling my pal Wilson that Mikey was THE MAN and how he must have had THE best collection of porn in the world and Wilson says – AS IF IT DOESN’T MATTER – that Mikey also had gay and kiddie and hard core stuff. WHAT. THE. HELL. Gay porn? Kiddie porn? Degrading to women porn? NO WAY. Say it isn’t so!

Wilson assures me it wasn’t kiddie porn, but something called child erotica which for some unfathomable and mysterious reason is TOTALLY LEGAL. But yes Mikey he says owned gay porn and some really hard stuff. JESUS, I think to myself. Then, BULLSHIT, I think to myself. Wilson is just messing with me because he knows that I know that Mikey was a SEX MACHINE and couldn’t ever be interested in kiddies or guys, HE WASN’T A PERVERT. Mikey loved chicks. And more chicks. And chicks for dessert.

Curse you Wilson.

No no he says, come over to my house next week and I’ll show you.

So here I am. At Wilson’s house. Waiting to look at Mikey’s PORN.

There’s a loud KNOCK at the door. Wilson says “Here it is!”. There’s a guy at the door. He looks like a young Jimmy Buffett. But rounder. He’s carrying a BIG box.

“Cal, (that’s me), this is Rich. He runs a vintage porn site and he’s going to help us make sense of all this stuff,” Wilson says.

“Hey Rich. Vintage porn site, huh? Cool!” That’s me talking. “What’s in the box? Mikey’s porn?”

Rich just LAUGHS, and asks us to help him get the other two boxes out of his car. WHAT? There are three freakin’ HUGE boxes full of Mikey’s porn? WHAT A STUD!!

Now we are in Wilson’s den. Wilson is totally ANAL. I’m NOT joking. I am saying it because he says he is going to record our meeting. “It’ll make things easier when later we are trying to get our heads around all this. “OK” I say, not arguing with Wilson because I don’t want to hear any more chit chat, I want to see this PORN.

Transcript follows. Notes have been added in brackets ( ) for clarity. 

Wilson: Well Rich, there’s certainly a lot of, um, adult material here. These are all from that list I gave you?

Rich: There certainly is. And this isn’t all of it. A lot of the stuff on the list I just couldn’t even attempt to source because the descriptions were lacking.

Wilson: Such as?

Rich: A lot of them were just listed as pages torn out of magazines, or centerfolds, which even though they showed which magazine they originated from, they didn’t show which particular edition of the magazine or the date…

Wilson: Right.

Rich: …and there were a couple of, um, G-Spot articles, that I couldn’t ascertain where they were from…

Wilson: Uh-huh

Rich: …and another, Penthouse November 1991, there wasn’t even a page 159/160.

Cal: WAIT! Is an article on the G-Spot porn? Or even erotica?

Wilson: Maybe it’s classified information.

ALL: *Laughter*

Rich: Well I’m not sure how to classify it. Should we even include it?

Wilson: Well I guess it could be erotica? Depends on what it looks like. What else couldn’t you get for us Rich?

Rich: Ah, let’s see. Oh yeah, a magazine Just 18, Volume 4, Issue No. 10. There is two editions of Just 18, one in the US and one in the UK but neither had this volume or issue number. Not that I could find anyway. I had, or was able to obtain, copies of nearly everything else though.

Wilson: OK. So what are we going to look at first?

Rich: I thought we would start with the centerfolds and pages separated from their magazines. As I mentioned, I don’t have a lot of those because they were poorly described in the list you gave me.

Wilson: Yeah, um, that’s the way they were described in the court documents.

Rich: Right. Nothing we can do about that. There were 5 items described as photo of female image, haven’t got those.

Cal: When am I going to see some PORN guys?

Wilson: *Laughter* Patience grasshopper.

Cal: I’ll go and get us some beers.

Cal leaves room.

Rich: And there’s 20 centerfolds I couldn’t trace because there was no date in the description – 12 from Playboy, 6 from Penthouse, 1 from Club International, 1 from Hustler. Plus 4 pages ripped from magazines I couldn’t trace either. Once again, not enough info…

Wilson: Yep.

Rich: ..those were 3 pages from Penthouse and one from an unknown magazine, all with no date.

Wilson: That’s the one listed as Unknown magazine in the list I sent you.

Rich: Right. The two centerfolds I do have is Roberta from Hustler June 1993 edition…

Cal re-enters room.

Cal: WOW. She’s gorgeous No wonder Mikey kept that one.

Rich: *laughter* She’s fine alright. And Melissa from Hustler August 1992.

Cal: It’s getting hot in here!

All: *laughter*

Wilson: So I suggest we make piles to sort these. Are these centerfolds erotica or pornography.

Rich: Erotica.

Cal: Definitely erotica.

Wilson: Yeah I wouldn’t call these pornography.

Rich: Next I’ve got 3 issues of Playboy, February 1993, May 1994 and December 1994. Plus Playboy Special Editions 2003 (Girlfriends)

Cal: Pretty mild.

Rich: Yep, mild. February 1993, Stephanie Seymour on the cover. She’s beautiful, isn’t she?

Wilson: Uh-huh.

Cal: Nice.

Rich: May 1994, the stunning Elle McPherson photographed by Herb Ritts. Classy. And December 1994, Bo Derek. Remember her?

Wilson: Yep. 10.

Cal: What? 10?

Wilson: It’s a movie, dufus. She was in it.

Cal: (Holding up magazine) How old is she? I can’t even see one wrinkle.

Rich: She’s nearly 40 in this photo shoot. She was still stunning though. Playboy was always the classiest of the popular men’s mags. Good articles…

Wilson: You could genuinely read it for the articles!

Rich: Right. Good writers and editors. They also had good production standards, even the paper it was printed on had a special feel. The Girlfriends edition is nice. I like that one.

Wilson: Erotica pile?

Heads nod in agreement.

Rich: Next, 5 Penthouse. One didn’t have a date indicated, so I don’t have that one. But I have the other 4 – August 1991, March 1992, May 1992, as well as The Girls of Penthouse from August 1993.

Cal: (flipping through magazines) Nice. VERY nice.

Wilson: Penthouse has always been kind of Pepsi to Playboy’s Coke.

Rich: Correct. Always coming second, and sometimes had a kind of off taste.

All: *laughter*

Rich: Bob Guccione copied Playboy, but wanted to get a bit of an edge so he made Penthouse a little raunchier.

Cal: Is the chick on the cover of this one crosseyed?

PENT199203
Jamie Dion Cover

Rich: That’s Jami Dion. Yes her eyes were a little wonky.

Cal: And this one. Um, May 1992. Has it got Ivana Trump naked?

Rich: No, she’s just on the cover because they did an interview with her for that edition.

Cal: Damn shame. I would have liked to see what she looked like without clothes! How about this one. August 1991. What? Penis Sizes of the Stars? What kind of story is that?

Wilson: Maybe Michael Jackson bought it to see if he was listed.

All: *laughter*

Rich: As I said, Penthouse was always pushing that little bit harder.

Wilson: No pun intended.

All: *laughter*

Wilson: But definitely erotica.

Rich: Yep, still erotica.

Cal: Erotica.

Rich: OK. This is a Hustler from May 1992. MJ only had the cover of this one Wilson?

Wilson: Just the cover, yeah.

Cal: Check out those tits! HOT!

Rich: Zara. Right. Nice. MJ must have liked her.

Cal: Of course he did! He loved the babes.

Rich: Did he? Right. Next there’s a copy of Oui Magazine, March 1998. This one is definitely not erotica.

Wilson: Pass it over? Oh right. Kinky little nympho has a thing for baby oil and anal sex. Cocksucking blonde takes a mouthful of hot’n’sticky jizz!! Lezzie licking brunettes slurp pina coladas & pink pussy! I see what you mean.

Rich: Oui wasn’t always like that, it was actually first brought to America by Hugh Hefner to compete with Penthouse, but it ended up that Oui only cannibalized sales from Playboy, so they sold it in 1981. By 1998 Oui had started to go downmarket.

Wilson: This is downmarket. A big difference between this and the Playboy & Penthouse magazines we looked at before.

Rich: Oui were losing sales and that’s how they reacted – becoming sleazier. Didn’t help. Their last edition was in 2008 and they stopped publishing.

Cal: (looking in magazine) Is this Jenna Jamieson?

Rich: Yes I think in that edition they did a profile of her and featured a photoshoot from when she first started out.

Cal: This is great stuff!

Wilson: Thanks Cal, give it to me. I’ll start a new pile – Porn.

Rich: OK. Next is 5 Hustler magazines.

Wilson: Larry Flynt’s mag?

Rich: Right. 3, once again have no date. But I have the other 2 which are August 1992 and April 1998. Hustler fit between Penthouse and Oui. At that time they had some good writing actually. Plus some extra raunch you didn’t get with Penthouse.

Cal: This Naomi centerfold is gorgeous. I’d ram her. I bet Mikey would ram her.

Wilson: Riiiight.

Cal: He would!

Wilson: OK. Moving on…

Rich: Porn or erotica?

Wilson: I say erotica.

Cal: Yep. No fucking that I can see. Erotica.

Wilson: Next?

Rich: Celebrity Skin. There was no date on the one on the list, but I brought a random one for us to look at. Basically it’s just paparazzi shots of star’s cleavages, asses, topless shots on the beach, old raunchy or nude pics they’ve done, that kind of thing. Pretty trashy.

Wilson: I’m surprised Michael Jackson kept something like this. He hated paparazzi and hated invasions of privacy. He was always saying how bad the tabloids were and saying nobody should buy them, yet he owned a copy of Celebrity Skin.

Rich: I agree, that’s weird. And hypocritical.

Cal: I don’t even know who these people are.

OVER50V05N09
Over 50 Magazine

Wilson: Never mind Cal. Erotica?

Rich: Agree. How about this one? Over 50 magazine Volume 5, #9, 1996.

Cal: WHOA! Grannys??

Rich: There was only one magazine like that.

Wilson: Don’t worry Cal. I’m guessing novelty value only. Do you think Michael Jackson would be interested in Leigh, 75 Year Old Granny in a Girdle!

Cal: No. I guess not.

Rich: Or 53 year old Bambi.  He was only 38 at the time?

Wilson: Maybe Mommy issues?

All: *laughter*

Wilson: Should I make a new pile? Mommy Issues?

All: *laughter*

Rich: No. Erotica I think.

Wilson: OK. Erotica.

Rich: Wait, there’s a couple more weird ones. Plumpers. May 1996.

Cal: WHAT THE… she’s HUGE!

Wilson: Maybe he bought that when he was married to Debbie Rowe?

All: *laughter*

Rich: Cheap shot Wilson. But funny as shit.

Wilson: Michael couldn’t have been serious.

Cal: NO WAY! Mikey was strictly into BABES ONLY!

Wilson: Uh-huh. OK….

Rich: Still more to go Cal. This one erotica?

Rich: Yep.

Cal: (under his breath) Fatotica.

Rich: OK, a couple of issues of Gallery. Very tame as you can see.

Wilson: Erotica?

Rich: Oh yes.

Wilson: Shall we look at that Close Up magazine?

Rich: Ah yes, by Swank. Swank put out a lot of soft core porn magazines in the 90s featuring fetishes, girl on girl, oral, things like that. This one is just basically photos of people having sex – as the title suggests – close up. Porn.

Wilson: On the porn pile it goes.

Rich: Oh, what do we have here… the other outlier! 44 Plus, June 1996.

44 Plus Magazine
44 Plus Magazine

Cal: Dive Inside Toni’s Timeworn Twatski. Jesus. (thumbing through magazine) Some of these grannys are OK. I’d do one or two.

Wilson: If they’d have you Cal.

All: *laughter*

Rich: Is it erotica or porn Cal?

Cal: Oldotica.

All: *laughter*

Rich: Hey don’t knock it. The older ladies really know their stuff.

Cal: Like the 75 year old granny from before? I suppose she could take her teeth out and give you good head.

All: *laughter*

Rich: Don’t knock it til you’ve tried it!

Wilson: Really? You…

Rich: Not 75, no.

Cal: Moving on….

Rich: Right. Right. Juggs. June 1996.

Cal: PHWOAR!

Wilson: Does this kind of stuff really sell?

Rich: Oh yeah. In 1996, when this issue was published, they sold around 150,000 copies a month.

Wilson: Wow.

Cal: I’d buy it.

Rich: In fact, before Juggs became really popular it used to be entirely produced by gay men, who would purposely use the ugliest models they could just to mock the manly man readership.

Wilson: Ha! Sneaky!

Ri; Oh yeah. Those guys got ditched and that’s why circulation increased. Erotica?

Wilson: Yep. Cal give it to me, I’ll put it on the erotica pile.

Cal: Can I look at it a bit longer?

Wilson: You are like a baby with candy. Tell me, what do you think of the material you’ve seen so far?

Cal: Hey, this has all been great! Told ya Mikey was a ladies man!

Rich: There’s still more to go Cal. Things are going to take a darker turn. Next, Naughty Neighbors, December 2002. Cute girl in the bathtub on the cover.

Cal: This isn’t a dark turn. Look at this chick! Steamy.

Wilson: They are all amateurs in this magazine, right?

Cal: They all look like the girl next door!

Naughty Neighbors
Naughty Neighbors

Rich: Not as simple as that. Yes, some are amateur shots that husbands or boyfriends have taken, but that’s pretty rare. It’s a nightmare for publishers to get quality shots taken by drunken or stoned couples with substandard equipment. So what many publishers of these types of magazines do is organize their own photo shoots, keep them a little raw, and then pretend they are amateur. It’s also a handy outlet for the not so pretty girls who want to get into the industry. You know, to start them off.

Wilson: Surprising. Isn’t that a little deceitful?

Rich: Isn’t all porn deceitful?

Wilson: You have a point. What do you think of porn in general?

Rich: It’s there to serve a purpose. I make money from it so if I moralize I’ll sound like a hypocrite, but being involved in the industry I can say that not all these women are there of their own free will, and yes, there is a lot of stuff that is degrading to women.

Wilson: What about Michael Jackson, a self styled humanitarian, owning pornography?

Rich: I won’t say too much, but after looking at some of the stuff still to come out of these boxes nobody would say MJ cared about women.

Wilson: I’m worried now.

Rich: We’ll talk about it when we get to it. You’ll see what I mean.

Cal: Have you guys finished gum flapping? Can we look at more porn now?

All: *laughter*

Rich: Sure. Club International, March 1998.

Wilson: Wait. Naughty Neighbors. Erotica?

Rich: Yeah.

Cal: Yeah. Here, you can have Juggs back too.

Rich: Club International. This is a UK magazine. Club without the International is the US version.

Cal: Anal. Spunk in her Mouth. Nurses. I like it.

Rich: Don’t get excited. Club International features no sex. Have a look.

Cal: (leafs through) Hey, you’re right!

Rich: They just those phrases on the cover to get you to buy the magazine. More deceit.

All: *laughter*

Wilson: Erotica?

Rich: Yup. OK, next is Hawk Magazine. 3 issues – November 2002, January 2003, and February 2003.

Wilson: These is the first of many teen girl materials we are going to look at, right?

Rich: Right, there’s quite a bit of this stuff.

Cal: Mikey must have loved looking at fresh young gash.

Wilson: Um, yeah Cal. So Rich, these girls are all over 18?

Rich: Yes, they are quite strict about that.

Wilson: The problem I have is that they get the youngest looking ones, put braces on their teeth and put their hair in pigtails to make them look 14 or 15.

Rich: No, you’re right. It’s catering to a market. Sadly lots of guys want to see younger and younger looking girls. But as long as the girls are over 18 and their ID is in order the publishers don’t care. The teen porn industry is a mess. They use a girl for six months then spit her out, even I’ll admit it’s exploitation. Actually Quincy Jones’s daughter was so disgusted by it she did a documentary exposing the abuses in the industry, it’s called Hot Girls Wanted.

Wilson: Rashida Jones?

Rich: Yes, from Parks and Recreation. The NBC show.

Wilson: She was a close friend of Michael Jackson, she wouldn’t be very happy if she knew he had owned this kind of stuff.

Cal: I always liked looking at these mags. Now I feel like a CREEP!

Rich: Just don’t buy them any more. If everyone boycotted them, then the problem would disappear.

Barely Legal
Barely Legal

Wilson: But lots of guys are creepy and would keep buying these magazines even if they knew young teens were being exploited.

Rich: It might even increase sales. I don’t even want to think about THAT.

Wilson: I don’t get guys who want to look at underdeveloped women. It’s just… weird and strange and if it doesn’t cross a line then it gets damn close.

Rich: Well, Hawk isn’t the worst of them. Those girls do at least look 18. Hawk features nude teen girls 18 and over, nothing too raucous.

Wilson: I’m not even going to look at these now. I just have a weird feeling.

Cal: Not sure I want to either.

Wilson: There’s no sex in these Rich?

Rich: No, not at all.

Wilson: We’ll just put them on the erotica pile.

Rich: There were 3 copies of Live Young Girls on the list. One no date so I don’t have that one, the other 2 are June 2003 and September 2003.

Cal: Whoa! They look so young.

Wilson: Don’t show me.

All: *laughter*

Cal: They can go on the erotica pile.

Wilson: I’m just disturbed by these magazines which suggest underage sex. It’s very uncomfortable for me, as a man who respects women. I’m having difficulty with this. I know they aren’t underage girls, but perception is everything, right?

Rich: Oh, agreed. Let’s just get through these quickly. (pulling magazines from box) They are all pretty similar. There were 4 copies of Finally Legal on the list. One I don’t have as there was no date, one from February 2003, one from July 2003, and this gem is Finally Legal Freshman Class Orgy, August 2002.

Cal: Look at the ones on the cover of this Orgy one. They look about 15! Actually Wilson, I’m feeling uncomfortable too when I think of Mikey owning this stuff. That’s not the Mikey I know, checking out underage looking chicks.

Check out  Was Child Pornography found in Michael Jackson's home?

Wilson: I’ve got a suggestion, because I can see a pattern. Can we make a new pile, Teenage?

Rich: I think I know where this is going. Yep, good idea.

Cal: Put those Hawks and Live Young Girls on there.

Wilson: OK. Next?

Phone rings.

Wilson: Sorry guys, have to take this.

Wilson: (into phone) How are you Brett?… That’s OK, we are still on the hetero mags… How long?… OK see you then buddy… hangs up.

Wilson: That was a friend of mine. He and another friend are coming to help us with some of the other stuff later.

Rich: Yeah, some of this stuff still in the boxes I have no idea about, not my thing *chuckles*

Cal: Um, what are we talking about?

Wilson: Never mind Cal. You’ll see when we get to it. Rich?

Tight Magazine
Tight Magazine

Rich: More teen stuff. Uh, a copy of Girlfriends. No date so I don’t have it. Barely Legal and Girls of Barely Legal. 4 of those. Just Legal (The Premiere Issue). Purely 18, October and December 2002 editions. Tight, November 2002.

Cal: I can’t look at these any more. Mikey, what were you thinking? You were a 45 year old man looking at these young, YOUNG chicks. I don’t get it.

Wilson: He was 45 then? Jesus, the creep factor just moved up a notch. These can all go on the Teen pile, right Rich?

Rich: Yep. And even more teen stuff. 4 Barely Legal DVD covers which were on the list. I’ve got those DVDs here. Fuck Me I’m Legal, Fresh Picked Pink, Dirty Teens Come Clean, and Hot! Wet! Tight! Pink!

Wilson: Ugh. Looking at the covers, these girls look REALLY young too. These have all got the DVD’s in them, but according to the list, in Michael Jackson’s collection the DVDs were missing from Fresh Picked Pink and Dirty Teens Come Clean.

Cal: But he would have still watched them, right?

Wilson: Absolutely. The DVDs probably got misplaced.

Cal: Otherwise he wouldn’t have the covers. Makes sense.

Rich: They can go on the Teen pile too.

Cal: Yep.

Rich: OK. Next I’ve got a few hard core items. First is an ad, believe it or not. Al Goldstein’s 100 Best Adult Videos. Al died a couple of years ago, and his obit said, hang on, I’ve got it on a Post-It note in here somewhere… yes, here it is (reads from Post-It note) “a cartoonishly vituperative amalgam of borscht belt comic, free-range social critic and sex-obsessed loser who seemed to embody a moment in New York City’s cultural history: the sleaze and decay of Times Square in the 1960s and ’70s.”. Classic. He started Screw magazine in 1968 and made millions out of porn, but by 2003 he was broke. He couldn’t keep up with the guys who were exploiting the talent even worse that he was.

Wilson: Well this is a page from a magazine and shows lots of hard core images from various porno movies. I think we need a new pile. Hard Core?

Cal: Hard core.

Rich: Hard core, yep.

Wilson: Next?

Rich: Stiff Dick For Lynn. Pretty standard mid 90’s porn mag. Stapled pages, glossy color printing. A man and a woman – oral, anal, vaginal sex. This was put out by Visions of Fantasy, who published hundreds of different porn mags through the 80s and 90s. Everything from interracial, to bondage, fetish, lesbian, she-male, rough trade. Oral. Anal. 3 ways. You name it, if there was a buck to be made out of it, and it was legal, they would publish it. Visions of Fantasy magazines are still in demand, I can always sell VOF mags for 30, 40, 50 bucks each depending on condition.

Cal: Not bad. This one is hard core.

Wilson: Yep.

Rich: A few more VOF mags, Sex, Studs & Big Tits, Sam Jose’s Black Starlet, and A Hard Rock Affair. Sam Jose’s Black Starlet is an interracial mag, lots of sucking and fucking in every hole. Same with Sex, Studs & Big Tits. A Hard Rock Affair, published in 1993 – have a look, tell me what you think.

Wilson: (leafing through magazine) Shit. This looks like rape. That woman looks in pain. Real pain. (holds up magazine) Are they bruises?

Cal: They look like bruises to me.

Wilson: Ew. What they are doing with that guitar and drumsticks. That’s just sick.

Rich: “Rough trade” they called it. Nowadays it’s called fantasy rape porn. I don’t handle this kind of stuff, I had to get that through a buddy of mine.

Cal: Mikey owned this? I feel sick.

Wilson: You seem rather subdued Cal?

Cal: Yeah. I didn’t expect this. I was told he only had heaps of Playboy and Penthouse magazines. Not rape stuff. The teen stuff I could have forgiven. Maybe. OK probably not after what you and Rich told me, and the fact that Mikey was 45 fucking years old. But hey, this stuff was locked away, right?

Wilson: No. Some of it was, but most of it was found in his office/museum, in the video arcade area, and in his bedroom. This particular magazine was found in a briefcase in his room, which was open.

Rich: I read somewhere that briefcase was locked and some kids forced it open?

Wilson: No, that’s what Michael Jackson’s lawyer said, nobody ever testified to that.

Cal: Jesus. I didn’t know. But wait, Mikey was only friends with kids because he never had a childhood.

Wilson: How does that work, Cal?

Cal: Well he had to work when he was a kid so he never had time to play, and when he grew up he had kids as friends because he was a big kid at heart.

Wilson: So he had the mind of a 10 or 11 year old and was totally innocent and naive.

Cal: Yeah!

Wilson: And when he spent time around kids he was very childish and played games, had food and water fights, played pranks, that kind of thing.

Cal: Yeah that’s it.

Wilson: And then when there were no kids around he had adult relationships with women, consumed hard core porn and thought like an adult.

Cal: Uh, yeah?

Wilson: So he was bipolar, or had multiple personalities?

Cal: I don’t know. No. You are confusing me.

Wilson: Let’s come back to this later.

Rich: I didn’t know about the briefcase either. I’m OK with nearly all kinds of porn but not where kids can get their hands on it. It’s just not right. Kids shouldn’t have access to that kind of stuff. Wasn’t MJ supposed to be like Peter Pan or something and his place was all innocent?

Wilson: Do you think all this looks innocent Rich?

Rich: I guess not.

Wilson: A lot of people say that most men own porn and that Michael Jackson was no different, but most men do not have young children in and out of their bedroom constantly, even sleeping in there. The men also don’t say that it’s “all innocent” when they know they have hard core porn like this VOF mag, or even soft core porn or erotica like you’ve shown us tonight, lying around that’s easy for kids to access.

Cal: I know, right? My Dad had a few porn magazines in a locked box hidden out of reach behind everything else on the top shelf of his wardrobe. I never even knew it was there until I helped him move when I was in my mid 20s, and I asked him what was in the box. Even then he didn’t actually tell me, he just winked, and I knew.

Rich: Same with my Dad. I never even knew he had any porn until he showed me one of his magazines when I was 18. Giving me a Playboy magazine was his version of “sex education”. I already knew everything by then anyway!

All: *laughter*

Wilson: My Dad too. I only found his porn by accident because I was looking for something else. It was very well hidden. Next time I went to look it was gone. He must have realized someone disturbed it *chuckle*

Rich: I think most guys keep their porn stash really well hidden or locked up if they know kids are around. Even anything involving naked people. They want kids to be kids.

Wilson: Of course they do. It’s just common sense. Especially if it’s other people’s kids.

Rich: God yes. Anyway, just a few more items and I’m done. Another mag. Double Dicking Caroline. As you can see, it’s a story about Caroline, who likes a dick in each hole, and there are two gentlemen more than willing to oblige. Lots of anal sex. Oh, and oral too. Once again, pretty standard mid 90’s fare.

Cal: I don’t think I would have ever seen something like this before.

Wilson: I haven’t, and I don’t need to. Onto the hard core pile it goes.

Rich: Last but not least, two more DVDs.

Cal: More teen stuff?

Rich: No, we are way past that. First one is Sloppy Dogs Present: Fuck Me I’m A Bad Girl.

Wilson: Nasty.

Rich: Actually I couldn’t find a copy of this one to show you, it seems to be pretty rare, but if it’s like the other Sloppy Dogs vids I’ve seen then it’s a few hours of relentless hard core porn.

Wilson: Right. So, totally demeaning to women.

Cal: Mikey had this one too?

Wilson: Yeah, found in the same briefcase as most of the erotica and teen stuff.

Cal: Damn. I never watched videos like that because I knew Mikey wouldn’t watch something like that, where women are treated like dirty sluts. Have I been wrong about him?

Rich: You think that one would be bad. This last item is one of the most disgusting, vile, porn DVDs I’ve ever seen. That’s saying a lot, because I have seen some pretty heavy stuff. This next DVD put every objectionable thing they could find into one package. For anybody that owns this, I question their humanity.

Cal: Is it really that bad?

Rich: I only have the cover, and one short clip on this thumb drive. Here Wilson, while you cue it up on your computer we’ll have a look at the cover.

Knock at front door

Cal: (panicked) Is that your wife Wilson?

Wilson: *laughter* No Cal, she’s taken the kids to visit her mother this weekend, remember?

Cal: Oh yeah!

Wilson: (moving towards door) That will be Brett and Alex. They are going to talk us through the so called “art books” Michael Jackson owned.

Wilson lets new guests in and makes introductions.

Rich: OK here’s the cover to Michael Ryan’s Believe it or Not.

Brett: WHAT THE HELL IS THAT!

Alex: Aaarrrgh!

Wilson: Sorry guys. Rich has been showing us the porn that Michael Jackson owned.

Brett: What is that?

Rich: It’s a DVD cover. It’s a DVD MJ owned, and it was found…

Wilson: …in his bedroom, not locked away…

Rich:.. in his bedroom. This is as hard core and disgusting as you get.

Brett: That’s disgusting.

Cal: (reading cover) Unbelievable Anal. Tales of Taboo. Chicks with Dicks. Human Horse Cocks. Brown Showers.

Alex: Brown showers?

Rich: It’s what you expect.

All: Eeeewww!

Cal: Biggest Black. Deformed Dicks. Youngest Stars. Greatest Gushes. Yuk. Smallest Pussies. Insane Objects. Biggest Balls. Horniest Women. Vagi-Penis Girls. Vagi-Penis Girls? Aren’t they the same as chicks with dicks?

Rich: No. Vagi-Penis girls are hermaphrodites.

Cal: Oh, OK. Vagi-Penis Girls. And finally, Rear End Wrecking. Rear End Wrecking?

Rich: Don’t ask. Use your imagination.

Brett: I’ve heard of it. It’s gross. It involves… oh never mind. I can’t talk about it. If you saw it you would feel sick.

Cal: And they all come with pictures (holds up DVD cover)

All: YUK!

Rich: Just press play on that video clip you cued up Wilson. This is from the DVD.

Video plays.

Alex: What is…

Brett: What’s that coming out of her…

Cal: OH MY GOD! That woman has got an eel coming out of her ass!

Wilson: Jesus. That’s disgusting.

Cal: Turn it off! For the love of God, turn it off Wilson!

Wilson: No argument from me. Oh my God that was horrible.

Alex: And MJ owned this video?

Wilson: (passes A Hard Rock Affair over) Yes. Add this to the fantasy rape mag MJ had, and you can see he wasn’t a humanitarian at all. A humanitarian would throw this DVD and this magazine in the trash as soon as he saw them, not treasure them and store them in his briefcase.

Cal: I think you are right Wilson. I’m starting to realize Mikey really disrespected women. This is bad.

Wilson: I already knew it was bad, but this is much worse than I thought. There are just some things you can’t unsee. This stuff you’ve shown us Rich, some of it made me feel sick.

Rich: Well technically it wasn’t my stuff that disturbed you. I only showed you what MJ once owned.

Wilson: Yes of course, it’s Michael Jackson’s porn that is disturbing. Thanks for bringing all this stuff for us to look at Rich.

Rich: No problem. You’ve changed my mind about MJ. Awful. Some of this stuff is… not normal. Especially for someone who pretended he was the type of person who would despise these kinds of things.

Wilson: You’re not kidding.

Alex: So all this stuff, MJ was looking at it?

Wilson: Ah, that’s an interesting point. He owned it all, obviously, as it was found at his place. The cops tested all the magazines that were found for fingerprints. They found 706 indentifiable prints. Ones that were clear enough to identify. You would think that Michael Jackson’s fingerprints would be all over this stuff, right?

Alex: Right.

Brett: Right.

Wilson: No.

Brett: No?

Wilson: They only found his prints on 9 magazines. Barely Legal Magazine August 2003. Barely Legal, July 2003. Just Legal Magazine Premiere Issue. Penthouse Magazine. A Hard Rock Affair. Playboy Special Edition – Girlfriends 2003. Finally Legal February 2003. Girls of Barely Legal. Club International March 1998.

Cal: Are you positive?

Wilson: OK, to be fair, they only counted fingerprints that they were 100% sure were Michael Jackson’s, so yes, I’m positive. However, they found roughly the same number of prints from the 2 Arviso boys. Not on the same items that Jackson’s fingerprints were found on, but on magazines that were also from the same briefcase. Now tell me, they should have found Michaels fingerprints on far more items, the Playboys and Penthouses for instance? He’d had them for years, fingerprints last for a decade or two on glossy magazines kept closed, yet the police didn’t find any Jackson prints on any of the rest of the materials. Only other people’s.

Alex: The rest of the prints belonged to…?

Wilson: The police couldn’t check, but as most of the porn mags were found in his bedroom where he frequently had boys sleep over – well, you figure it out.

Brett: That’s a massive red flag.

Cal: Let me see if I can get this straight. Mikey had all this stuff, but they only found a few of his fingerprints, so that means he wasn’t even looking at this stuff?

Wilson: You’ve got it. Apart from the material I just mentioned, which included that “rough trade” mag, Michael didn’t look at this stuff. I think that porn and erotica was there for boys to “discover”, and I think I’m right going by the other 670 or so fingerprints they found on this stuff.

Alex: Why didn’t they check to see whose fingerprints those other 670 were?

Wilson: They were already facing a massive task just analyzing the 700 or so that were there. Just think – 3 people they needed to match these fingerprints to…

Alex: …who were?

Wilson: Right. Michael Jackson, and the two Arviso boys who accused him.

Alex: Uh-huh.

Wilson: …with 10 fingerprints each, so that made over 21,000 matches they had to go through. That’s huge. No wonder they didn’t have the time or resources to do more. Plus they would have needed good cause to get fingerprint samples from anybody else.

Rich: I’m pissed off at MJ right now. This has been such a stomach churning experience finding all this stuff out.

Cal: I feel sick too.

Wilson: I do as well, and we still have a bit more to look at. Are we OK? Brett and Alex, why don’t you go through these so called art books for us?

Alex: No problem *chuckles*

Brett: OK. Well just to introduce myself, I used to run a gay bookstore in F * * * * o which isn’t operating any more. Now I’m in charge of LGBT at G * * * * s Bookstore, so I can tell you about the homoerotic stuff on this list.

Cal: LGBT?

Wilson: Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Transgender.

Cal: OK.

Alex: And I’m a librarian, I’m currently working at the library at C * * * * * l University, so I can tell you about everything else. Wilson, just pass us those one at a time. The ones you have.

Wilson: Sure thing. Let’s see… how about we start with Scenes d’Interieur by Alexandre Dupouy?

Alex: This is a very erotic book. Very nicely photographed, very nicely printed. It could be argued that this is an art book, but it isn’t. It’s masquerading as such.

Brett: Oh I agree Alex. Two women in period costume play acting around a Georgian type mansion. The clothes usually end up on the floor, and they end up doing whatever it is that lesbians do.

Cal: This isn’t porn though.

Brett: No, but it is just the type of material that perverts can leave lying around – it’s art, remember! – “innocently” to create a sexual atmosphere.

Cal: I don’t understand.

Brett: Well it creates a starting point for a discussion about sex. The book lies in wait, the target innocently picks it up and starts looking through it and without realizing it they are being desensitized to nudity, sex etcetera.

Cal: Oh I get it. Right.

Brett: Don’t forget that Alexandre Dupouy is a huge collector of porn and erotica himself. He has a massive collection.

Alex: He was the person approached by Monsieur X who offered him that huge collection of erotic photographs from the 1920s and 30s?

Wilson: What’s that about?

Brett: Google it later. Very interesting.

Wilson: So this one is erotica?

Alex: Yes!

Wilson: Camp Cove by Rod McRae.

Brett: I loved this book. Some stunning photos of very nice looking guys on beaches, rocky outcrops and even photoshopped into weird landscapes.

Wilson: Art?

Brett: Well Rod McRae is an artist, but this is definitely homoerotic. Look at this guy! (pointing to page in book). This is eye candy for anyone with gay tendencies. These guys are gorgeous. Rod really captures their beauty and strength.

California Dreamtime
California Dreamtime

Alex: It reminded me of that book California Dreamtime by Danny Denfield. Remember that Brett?

Brett: Denny Denfield. His secret nudes book. Yeah, actually it does. Rod specializes in photos of nude men so of course the results will be stunning.

Wilson: OK. Homoerotica. How about this book by Starr Ockenga?

Alex: Dressup Playacts and Fantasies of Childhood. That’s art. Starr Ockenga is a photographer. Not very well known. This book is relatively old, published in 1978.

Brett: I know it’s supposed to be art, but look at this photo of a naked boy sitting on the bed with his legs apart.

Wilson: About 12 or 13 I’m guessing.

Brett: Actually, quite a few nude and half kids in here.

Alex: Probably not a wise choice for a man who said he “loved children”.

Brett: No *laughs*. But not illegal to own.

Alex: Don’t smirk when you say that Brett.

All: *laughter*

Brett: Is there an Unwise pile? *chuckle*

The Art of Dave Nestler – Wicked Intentions
The Art of Dave Nestler – Wicked Intentions

Wilson: We’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and put it in the art pile. OK. The Dave Nestler book?

Alex: (reading spine) The Art of Dave Nestler – Wicked Intentions. Drawings of naked, semi naked and fully clothed women. I would say erotic art.

Brett: Dave loves drawing women.

Wilson: The police suggested this kind of book could be used by Michael Jackson to groom young boys.

Alex: Well I think it’s art. Not very good art, but art nonetheless.

Brett: I agree with the police. As I said before, this kind of stuff creates a starting point for a discussion about sex.

Alex: Yeah, maybe. I’m not convinced.

Brett: OK then, we’ll say art for this one.

Wilson: Uh. The Gynoids.

Cal: Genetically Manipulated.

Rich: This one looks interesting.

Alex: Hajime Sorayama is really well known for his precise drawings of women and robots. They are mostly erotic, but they aren’t real.

Brett: The detail he puts into them is amazing.

Cal: What’s a gynoid?

Alex: Basically a fembot, or female robot. That’s what the drawings in this book are about.

Brett: He did an album cover for Aerosmith once. Just Push Play.

Aerosmith - Just Push Play
Aerosmith – Just Push Play

Cal: He did that? Wow.

Wilson: This book is art.

Rich: Not sure why some of this stuff is on the list?

Wilson: Don’t forget it was policemen who seized this stuff. They were looking for stuff that was erotica or porn, and that can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder. Knowing what I know about Michael Jackson, I would class that book we looked at before, Dressup Playacts and Fantasies of Childhood, as erotica because he owned it. I mean, a photo of a naked boy, in the same age range as the boys he slept with, on a bed with his legs apart? Flashing warning light!

Rich: Right, right. I know what you mean.

Brett: All the stuff we are going to look at could be used for grooming. Pedophiles want to lower the inhibitions of children. It’s a fact.

Wilson: That’s right. I’m glad someone here has done a bit of research into pedophiles.

Brett: To be honest, I know we get a few in the store. You only have to look at the kinds of books they buy and the ones they request. They love “art” books with naked and semi naked children.

Wilson: They’re legal.

Brett: Bingo.

Wilson: Bidgood?

Brett: That’s my department.

All: *laughter*

Brett: This book was put out by a German publisher, Taschen. There were a few of their books on this list. Taschen’s been around since the 80s, and bidgood05specialize in fetish images, queer art, historical erotica, pornography and adult magazines. This book is gorgeous. Lots of naked and semi naked men depicted in sumptuous surroundings. James Bidgood painstakingly constructed these tableaux in his tiny apartment. Just incredible. The focus is on the guys though, so I would have to say homoerotica. You only have to look at a few pages in this book.

Wilson: Something you stock?

Brett: Oh this is definitely something we would stock. Books like this are really attractive to gay guys. Such wonderful pictures of good looking men are very popular. And it’s a so-called art book *laughter*

Alex: I can see the next one. Naked as a Jaybird.

Wilson: (passes book over) Yes. Lot’s of nekkidness there!

Alex: That’s right. Another Taschen publication as you can see. This book is a homage to the magazine Jaybird, which featured nudity. Back in 1965 when Jaybird first came out, public nudity was illegal, and the only way that nude photographs could be shown was in naturist magazines or in art galleries. Jaybird really walked the line, it purported to be a naturist magazine but pushed the boundaries as far as the settings they took the photographs of naked bodies in. This book is kind of a history of the magazine.

Check out  News Pages

Wilson: So full of nudes?

Alex: Yes, but it’s vintage stuff, very tame by today’s standards.

Brett: Still, can be used for grooming.

Alex: You still on that? *chuckles*

Brett: I’m serious! I’ve read up on it. It’s very common with pedophiles.

Alex: Was Michael Jackson a pedophile though?

Wilson: You heard what I was saying to Cal before? Do you think a person with a child like mind, the excuse usually given for his interactions with children, would own all this (sweeps hand over piles of porn and erotica)?

Alex: Hmmm, I guess not. I’ll think about it.

Wilson: How about this one? Poo-Chi by Mayumi Lake.

Alex: Oh definitely erotica. Mayumi has definitely gone for titillation here with these wakinoshita shots.

Cal: The what now?

"White Dress" by Mayumi Lake.
“White Dress” by Mayumi Lake.

Alex: Wakinoshita. It’s Japanese for armpit. What Mayumi Lake did was arrange and dress up armpits, inside elbows, inside knees and what have you and make them look like intimate parts of a woman’s body then photographed them and put them in a book. They are quite clever. Look at this one.

Cal: Weird.

Wilson: Well that’s probably art verging on erotica.

Brett: Not really erotica, but it would give some people a few giggles, especially young boys.

Wilson: That’s true.

Brett: Very strange. The next one on the list is unavailable?

Wilson: I’m interested to find out about this one. Man: A Sexual Study Of Man.

Brett: By Larry Stevens. From 1970. I don’t have a copy but I’ve seen it a couple of times. It’s incredibly rare, only a few copies exist and they are in massive demand if they ever come on to the market. A real collectors item.

Wilson: So Michael Jackson didn’t own this by chance?

Brett: No way. He would have had to have sought it out, and paid a lot for it. Unless, that is, he bought it in the 1970s when it was more easily obtainable.

Wilson: And kept it all this time?

Brett: Yes.

Rich: How come the police never seized it in the earlier search?

Wilson: He either didn’t have it then, and sought it out then bought it after the time of that search, or he already owned it and he kept it somewhere else. So either way, he treasured it.

Rich: OK.

Brett: What is the book about Brett?

Brett: OK, in essence it is a primer for gay sex. How to do anal intercourse, oral sex, rimming, that kind of thing, with photographs, sketches and text. Basically, it was gay pornography masquerading as a scientific book. Obviously we don’t have a copy handy, but to give you some idea, Larry Stevens also put out another book which was similar but featured boys. Here’s a copy of the cover I printed out from Amazon. It also gives you an idea of the kind of person Larry Stevens was.boys-together

Wilson: My God, is that book even legal?

Brett: Apparently it is. That particular one on Amazon was $750.00, which illustrates how in demand legal pedophile erotica is.

Cal: You mean Mikey had a rare book, that he would have to hunt for, that taught how to do anal sex?

Brett: Correct.

Cal: And he had that book lying around in his bedroom?

Wilson: Correct.

Cal: And that book was by an author that put out this boy sex book too?

Brett: Correct again.

Cal: Jesus.

Brett: Nobody would buy, or keep, this book unless they were serious about knowing everything there is to know about gay male sex. This is not something you collect out of simple curiosity.

Wilson: Are you getting the idea yet Cal?

Cal: What about all the women that Mikey had?

Wilson: Women?

Cal: Yeah, women. A while ago, when I asked a girl at work whether she believed that Mikey did anything with kids, she showed me a website that had all the women that Mikey had been with. There were heaps! Like on stage, kissing them. And like with his arm around them and things like that. Plus he was married twice.

Wilson: Cal, that site and sites like it are put together by fans simply for the reason that they WANT Michael Jackson to be a raging heterosexual. They publish photographs of his public persona – what he wanted people to think. In his private life he was with boys most of the time. That was documented in the court trial.

Rich: Well come to think of it, what happened in 2005? He was on trial for child molestation, you would imagine even a handful of women would come forward and say they had been with him to cement his hetero credentials.

Cal: Hey you’re right Rich. I don’t remember any women coming forward.

Wilson: Exactly. And how many homoerotic books do we have so far Brett?

Brett: 3 so far, including this Sexual Study of Man one.

Wilson: These 2 as well?

Detail
Detail from Before the Hand of Man

Brett: Ah, Before the Hand of Man- a series of naked male art shots – yes. These are gorgeous, toned guys absolutely perfect for ogling. Roy Dean was an actor who moved in to photography. This book was published in 1972, once again another example of a so-called art book designed to get around the censorship of the day.

Alex: Another hard to find book.

Brett: Correct.  The photos were taken in natural surrounds, so as to imply natural beauty.

Rich: 1972? So MJ must have have, again, sought out a rare book or he’d kept it for years and years?

Brett: He did indeed, Rich. This other one is not so rare – Bob and Rod. It celebrates the relationship between gay body building couple Bob Paris and Rod Jackson and is full of nude shots of them. They were fine specimens of manhood. It shows them kissing, cuddling and hanging out.

Alex: Tom Bianchi specializes in photographing gay guys?

In Defense of Beauty by Tom Bianchi
In Defense of Beauty by Tom Bianchi

Brett: Technically, naked males. I don’t know if they are all gay *chuckle* He has produced 21 books which cover the gay male experience. Personally, I own In Defense of Beauty. Such a beautiful book.

Wilson: So that’s 5 homoerotic books so far.

Brett: What’s that one you have there? Oh I recognize that one. Taormina, by Wilhelm von Gloeden. He was a photographer who specialized in nudes on his adopted Sicilian island of Taormina, hence the name of his book. He moved there in 1876 and started photographing young boys who had just passed puberty. von Gloeden was a hebephile, and enjoyed not only photographing the young men but bedding them as well. This stuff is still popular with gays.

Wilson: Homoerotia?

Brett: Indubitably.

All: *laughter*

Wilson: OK. Chop Suey Club?

Brett: Same. Bruce Weber “discovered” Peter Johnston and kind of became obsessed with him. Here, I copied this comment when I was researching this book. (reads aloud from note) “Think about it: A 50-something man finds a pretty 15 year old boy. He convinces the boy’s parents to let the boy live with him. He takes photos of the boy in various states of undress, including nudes. He brings his friends over to help dress the boy up in homoerotic costumes. If the man wasn’t Bruce Weber, he’d probably be doing 15 years to life for child molestation. But since Weber is an ‘artist’ he’s making money off of it.”

Rich: Probably true.

Brett: Yeah, it disturbed me.

Cal: Me too. That is homoerotica for sure.

Wilson: Yep. OK Alex, here’s one for you. The Christy Report.

Alex: A massive book, over 600 pages. Produced by Kim Christy, who is a pornographer herself, this is an attempt to discuss the history of porn in the 20th century. Surprise, surprise, another Taschen book. Probably Michael Jackson’s favorite publisher *chuckle*

All: *laughter*

Rich: I’ve never heard of that book before. Looks interesting. Check this out, they have contact sheets from old porn shoots in there with the original markings on the photos they were going to use!

Alex: It’s pretty extensive, and it’s jam packed with stills from porn movies, the contact sheets as Rich mentioned, and excerpts from porn magazines.

Cal: At least it’s not homoerotica.

Brett: Unless you only look at the dicks.

All: *laughter*

Wilson: Robert Maxwell, Photographs?

Alex: That old lech. *chuckle*

Wilson: Lots of flesh in there but c’mon, it’s Robert Maxwell. Arty erotica.

Wilson: OK. Benefit of the doubt. That’s about all really. There are just a few more books to look at. This one is called Underworld, by Kelly Klein.

Underworld, Kelly Klein
Underworld, Kelly Klein

Alex: Kelly has been involved in the fashion industry for a long time. This book is fashion shots of people wearing underwear, some of the models are semi naked of course. Really nice shots, very arty, but this photo of the guy wearing the ripped singlet? (holds up book) Even I am feeling slightly aroused looking at that, so we’ll class this as erotica.

Wilson: OK. Room to Play?

Alex: This one is weird. Photos of adults with children’s heads photoshopped in. Very strange. I don’t know much about the photographer, Simen Johan. This one would be art.

Wilson: Art. OK. Next one is Drew and Jimmy.

Brett: Apart from the fact that this would be attractive to someone who has a keen interest in young boys, it’s not erotic or anything. Good photography.

Alex: Yes not bad.

Wilson: Art. How about Cronos by Pere Formiguera.

Alex: At first glance, not very disturbing. Mainly photos of people showing how they age.

cronos05Brett: I found it a little disturbing, some of the poses by the children.

Alex: Yes, not really necessary.

Brett: Not really something that someone who viewed children innocently would enjoy.

Wilson: I agree. Plus it could be used for grooming? Desensitizing kids to nudity, that it’s OK for kids to be nude?

Brett: Definitely.

Wilson: Erotica pile?

Brett: As I implied before, erotica is in the eye of the beholder. Didn’t you say before Michael Jackson’s private life was filled with children?

Wilson: Yes.

Brett: Then you would have to admit this book would be suspect in his hands.

redflagWilson: Oh I agree totally. It’s Cal you have to convince.

Brett: Cal, how would you feel if your neighbor had kids around all the time, acted childlike, but had a book of naked kids lying around?

Cal: That would be a HUGE red flag for me.

Rich: I think it would be for everyone. I think because it’s MJ, everyone has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to things like this. We just don’t want to believe it.

Wilson: I agree. Most people don’t want it to be true because his music makes them feel good. It’s not rational, it’s emotional.

Cal: I think that describes me.

Wilson: Yes I think that describes you Cal. Brett, can you tell us about the whole bunch of naturist magazines that were found?

Brett: Sure. As was mentioned before when we were looking at the book Naked as a Jaybird, we were talking about one of the few legal ways to view nude photographs was to buy these naturist magazines. The publishers were very careful not to depict anything overtly sexual, though obviously the naked bodies were on display for someone’s enjoyment *chuckle*.

All: *laughter*

Brett: So as straight porn slowly became accepted, naturist magazines were still the go to material for gays to ogle naked men’s bodies without all that nasty heterosexual stuff interfering. Obviously with the overturning of the censorship of gay porn, there is only one market that will still use these mags to check out their chosen naked bodies without fear of prosecution, or in fact ostracism from anyone who happens by chance to see their erotica collection – they are just harmless naturist magazines, right? – and that is pedophiles.

Cal: But don’t pedophiles want to see child porn?

Wilson: Possibly some do, but the majority of pedophiles see the danger in the illegality of child porn. They just don’t want to risk getting caught with that stuff. The same as straight people didn’t want to be caught with porn in the 40s and 50s.

Brett: That’s right. And many pedophiles also find child porn degrading to children, just like some people with healthy sex lives see straight porn as degrading to women. Actually, now would be a good time to discuss that other stuff you told me about?

Wilson: Yes actually. Guys, there were a few items that were found in Michael Jackson’s bedroom in 1993 when police did a search. Two books and two suspect photos. Can you tell us about the books Brett?

Brett: Sure. Both books were edited by Ronald C Nelson and Georges St. Martin. When I had my bookshop I had many requests for these books by, shall I say, questionable types of men. The first guy who asked, I managed to acquire them for him. What I saw really disturbed me. I never got them in for anyone ever again. These are books which mainly feature naked boys.

BWBBWilson: Yes, that’s what I gathered from reading some court transcripts. One is called The Boy: A Photographic Essay, the other is Boys Will Be Boys.

Brett: Correct. I researched these for you, but as I said I have seen them before. Boys Will Be Boys would have been, I guess, at least 50% fully naked photos of boys, quite a lot more had boys just in underwear, shorts, swimming trunks, things like that. Or obscured by trees and vegetation. One photo was of a boy basking by a lake wearing speedo type swim trunks and he had an obvious erection. Another photo was of two boys rock climbing taken from below. One boy was lifting his leg showing everything.

Alex: Boys rock climbing naked?

Brett: Right? Go figure. Another photo was a boy looking for something in his tent, only he was totally naked and all you could see was the soles of his feet and his buttocks sticking out of the tent flap. Then there was one of a boy on a rope swing. He had an erection too.

Wilson: I wonder what kind of person that kind of stuff would appeal to? I’m being sarcastic by the way.

Brett: Of course *chuckles*. When I researched these books I found out most of the photos were taken by Hajo Ortil and Karel Egermeier, and those guys were pedophiles themselves. They submitted tons of photos of naked boys, not as explicit as the ones I’ve described, to naturist magazines too.

Wilson: Naturist magazines. Surprise, surprise! The other one?

TBAPEBrett: Right. The Boy: A Photographic Essay. From memory this book wasn’t as explicit as the other one, but still plenty of naked boys. There was a couple of really suggestive ones I remember, one was three boys, two were licking ice creams that were suspiciously penis shaped, another was a boy eating a banana in an unsavoury way.

Cal: What the hell?

Brett: And the editors I mentioned before? Just pen names for, let me just check my notes… a couple of pedophiles, Ronald Drew and Martin Swithinbank. They put out a couple more books like this.

Cal: Didn’t fans send him this stuff?

Wilson: That’s what Michael Jackson’s lawyer said, that was never proven in court. Anyway, if someone sent him books like this he would burned them immediately if he loved children like he said. They are so obviously exploitative and titillating. Supposedly he wasn’t interested in erect boy penises but that he kept these books and didn’t trash them right away is quite telling.

Cal: Yeah, of course he would burn them! He wouldn’t have kept them.

Wilson: The same as he kept two photos – one a photo of a naked boy, the other a shot of a boy with his pants half pulled down.

Cal: WHAT?? How come this stuff isn’t illegal?

Wilson: Well for a start they couldn’t figure out exactly who the subjects in the photos were. These were actual original photos, mind you. The police believed the fully naked one was Johnathan Spence, another boy Jackson befriended.

Brett: And at that time, photos of naked children were not illegal unless the children were engaging in sexual explicit activity?

Wilson: That’s right, and that’s why Michael Jackson was never charged with owning child pornography.

Cal: So, it would be kind of on the line these days?

Wilson: Yep.

Cal: Let’s change the subject.

Wilson: OK, slightly. Here’s something you may find interesting. Have you heard of fluorescing?

Cal: No.

Wilson: It’s where forensics use an Alternative Light Source, a kind of blue light like you see in discos but different, to see if there is semen present on the surface of an object.

Cal: They can do that?

Wilson: Oh yes. So the police used the ALS, on settings of white light UV 300-400 CSS, to check for semen on all the porn and erotic magazines that Michael Jackson owned, and guess which were the only magazines that had traces of semen on them?

Rich: I can see where this is going.

All: *laughter*

Cal: The teen magazines?

Wilson: No Cal. It was actually a few of the naturist magazines.

Cal: No!

Wilson: Yes! Eden Quarterly, Issue 7. Eden Quarterly, Issue 8. Sunshine and Health, June 1937. Sunshine and Health, September 1937. Sunshine and Health, November 1937. Sunshine and Health, February 1938. Sunshine and Health, March 1938. All these vintage naturist mags had spooge AND photos of naked boys inside.

Cal: Seriously? Ew.

Rich: So all that straight porn MJ owned, yet there was only cum on those naturist magazines.

Wilson: Yes. And the Naughty Neighbor magazine.

Rich: Sounds like a ricochet to me.

All: *laughter*

Wilson: Actually that Naughty Neighbors was found in the office/museum area. So could have been lots of people. OK, two more things from the list. Photos from the Why photo shoot.

Alex: Why photo shoot?

Why3T01Wilson: Why is the name of an album put out by 3T, which is a group composed of 3 of Michael Jackson’s nephews. They had a photo shoot to produce a cover photo for the album. Most of them were seriously under dressed in all the photos, but this one is probably the most disturbing.

Rich: An uncle? With his nephew? I can see the nephew’s pubes! Jesus that’s creepy.

Brett: Creepy. They look just a little too comfortable together.

Cal: You mean…?

Brett: Don’t even think about it.

Wilson: Yeah, it’s pretty disturbing. They also found a photo of two boys, one a young teenager named Greg and the other a pre-teen adolescent named Kendall. I think that would have been Kendall Cunningham, the young boy from the Ghosts video. The young teen was wearing a white bathrobe, and Kendall was naked from the waist up. The photo didn’t show anything below the waist.

Brett: Creepy.

Wilson: Especially since the background was described as “Hollywood themed, with movie cameras, searchlights and stars”, which was in the background of other photos, featuring boys, tendered as evidence at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial.

Rich: I agree, that is creepy.

Wilson: Well, that’s it. We’ve seen it all now. Cal?

Cal: Oh my God, I might have to change my mind about Mikey. Why didn’t I see this before?

Wilson: Don’t worry, lot’s of people are ignorant about this stuff, or they’ve seen a different spin put on things. But it’s quite obvious Michael Jackson wasn’t interested in straight porn. He only had it there for boys to look at.

Alex: But his fingerprints were on the straight porn?

Wilson: Yeah, well, let’s look at that. Between 1991 and 1996, there were 12 magazines – around 2 a year. Then nothing until 1998, when there were 3. Nothing 1999 to 2001. And these were all traditional straight porn – Penthouse, Playboy, Oui that kind of thing. Then there was one each of these “traditional” in 2002 and 2003. Hardly a voracious collector of monthly porn magazines, right?

Alex: No, not much.

Wilson: Then suddenly, in 2002, his collection explodes. But this time, it’s not the traditional magazines he’s bought, or the porn magazines like the Visions of Fantasy one’s here (picks up Sam and Jose’s Black Starlet), but an entirely new genre, one that Michael Jackson has never shown an interest in before, the teen stuff. Suddenly, in 2002 and 2003, there’s 10 teen magazines a year. There’s teen DVDs. It’s like an avalanche.

Rich: In my experience people don’t suddenly change their taste like that. The normally plod along year after year buying very similar stuff, not going outside of a particular range.

Wilson: Right. So I don’t think Michael was buying this stuff for himself. I think he bought it to target boys, and his fingerprints were on it because he was looking at it together with young boys he had visiting his private quarters, not because he was interested in it.

Brett: That’s a fair assumption.

Wilson: So, Cal. Have we convinced you?

Cal: Let me think about it. I don’t want it to be true, all this stuff about Mikey!

Transcript ends.

Now I’m driving home in my car. I’m SO DAMN CONFUSED.

All this time I was thinking that Mikey was a ladies man, a true gentleman who loved and respected women.

I’m stressed, I need me some Billie Jean which ALWAYS calms me down.

My Thriller CD is in and I press play, and that pumping bass line starts. I’m sitting in my favorite chair ready to CALM DOWN, but the song is playing and I’m still ON EDGE. All I can see in my mind is those poor women being exploited, those teen girls who are being used, the image of Mikey tugging over those nudist mags, Mikey’s books with those photos of boys with erections, AND A WOMAN WITH AN EEL COMING OUT OF HER BUTT.

I can’t listen to this music anymore. I turn it off. I take Thriller out of the player, and put it with the rest of Mikey’s CDs off my pile. I bundle them up and head out to the trash. I look at them for a moment, contemplating all the joy I’ve received over the years from Mikey’s music. Then I think about how HE MADE A FOOL OUT OF ME.

I open the trash can and then throw them in.

Mikey, you let me down.

 

 


Wilson used the following resources to prepare for his Mikey Porn Party…

The full list of porn and erotica found in Michael Jackson’s home

Sheriff’s Department Continuation Sheets

Minute Order 04/19/05

Minute Order 03/23/05

Testimony of fingerprint expert Robert Spinner 1

Testimony of fingerprint expert Robert Spinner 2

Testimony of fingerprint expert Robert Spinner 3

Items Found in 1993 – Pedophile Books and Naked Photos

MJFacts note: Many thanks to Cal for bringing this to us, we appreciate how hard this was for you.

  • What a strange comment. Haven’t you read the home page?

    The focus here is on the information. All sources are given so that skeptical readers can research the information themselves to ensure the veracity of what is written.

    This site is not about the ego of the writers. It’s about the information.

    Remember that MJ defenders are lazy. The usual fan modus operandi is to attempt to launch ad hominem attacks on authors rather than challenge the facts. That won’t happen on this site. Jackson defenders are forced to argue just on what is presented, which is why they hate this site so much.

    This site is staying just the way it is.

    • carlos

      I think that you should post the video segment of the interview given by MJ along with Lisa Marie Presley. at one point he is asked the specific question about a book.He denies it,he says” not a book that he has opened.teh he goes on and says he gets a lot of books from fans in the mail that he does not get to open. but those books where found on a briefcase in his bedroom,so it was something he definately was intereste din wanted to keep even if he got it from a fan wich I highly doubt. that video alone shows MJ was a liar.

  • Another post on the subject of finding out who contributes to this blog? Strange. It doesn’t matter. You can either take the information, or leave it. Up to you.

    • nofan

      I thought the first post hadn’t gone through, so I rewrote it. I’m new to this. If my posts were strange, your replies were even stranger (and arrogant), given that I was overall complimenting you on your blog, just wanted to know more. Not all of the articles are just “presenting information”, but discussing and interpreting it – especially the one above. Wasn’t it said even somewhere on this site that the problem with molestation cases is often that the jury wants to see smoking-gun type evidence, when a lot of the evidence presented here is of the circumstantial and psychological (profiling) kind.

      So don’t go all “just look at the facts” on me, circumstances matter, and transparency makes sites like these more credible.

      • OK. Still have no idea why anybody would care who the writers are. MJ Facts is just a little corner of the Internet with very little, if any, influence on the world at large.

        • nofan

          Well, you don’t know that. Your site has convinced me that MJ was most likely guilty, and probably has convinced lots of other folk too. Fingers crossed that Wade Robson and James Safechuck get some justice at least, but what interests me especially is the wider picture of how people in power often get away with sexual abuse, and how we can prevent that in the future, for example by educating parents and kids about acquaintance molestation patterns, or by educating potential jury members about circumstantial evidence. Even if your site prevents just a few cases of abuse from happening in the future, or to stop abuse in the early stages, you will have achieved some change. Individually, we can all only have very little influence on the world at large, but together we can make a difference!

  • ShawntayUStay

    Illuminating and sickening! Even when I was a fan I never liked knowing the details of his porn collection, and I’ve seen a list of the stuff he had on a fan site that spends most of the time trying to convince the public that Jackson was a ladykiller, but I didn’t want to go further into it so I can’t imagine what it was like for Cal to look at this stuff as a fan, but someone had to lie on the sword for the sake of education!

    What strikes me is the possession of such degrading material. It’s my opinion that porn is degrading in general, but one can respect a nicely done nude centerfold a la Playboy because that doesn’t necessarily lead to misogyny; in fact you can admire the woman for her beauty. But the rape porn (A Rock Hard Affair) and the unabashedly revolting “Believe It or Not” DVD, with women being forced to eat excrement/blood(?), is beyond the bounds of normal sexual interests. And to think that female MJ fans are somehow proud that Jackson was looking at this…clearly they must have no idea what was really inside!

    Also, the fingerprint evidence; all of those fingerprints and Jackson’s was only on a few? Gives credence to the idea that, once again, Jackson wasn’t the consumer of this material but merely the conduit, and using it for grooming purposes. Plus, three of his accusers (James, Wade, and Gavin) said he showed them porn, MJ never had any believable relationships with women, and he spoke about them in unflattering ways (add to that the degrading porn). So how does all of this stuff support an interest in women?

    Fans always talk about the lack of an “abundance” of male homoerotic materials to dispel any thought that MJ wasn’t heterosexual. But looking deeper, I’d say it is not about the quantity but about the quality of material. All of his homoerotic materials are high-end art books, rare or expensive or both. It’s as if he’d chosen material that did not seek to denigrate the (male) subject! For example, I’ve seen the book “Bob and Rod” by Tom Bianchi, and it is a beautiful tribute to the love between America’s first well-known openly gay couple. The pictures are tender and romantic and human…unlike the heterosexual porn. And according to Wade, MJ showed him materials featuring nude men. So perhaps MJ used these “art books” to groom and acclimate his “special friends” to the nude male form, alongside his own interest in these books. Not only that, the juxtaposition of the sick hetero porn and the artsy, male homoerotic materials likely strengthened his negative opinion of females, and I can imagine that he used it to dissuade his boys’ interest in women (like he did with James and the “no-makeup” photos of Sheryl Crow).

    Even compare the quality of his books featuring nude boys and children, to the hetero porn. Same kind of thing going on there as well.

    • Melissa

      Interesting. Never saw it in this way. Makes sense.

  • Pea

    The information about Wade Robson being shown images of naked men was contained in the Requests for Admissions forwarded to the Estate lawyers as a part of Robson’s team’s discovery requests.

    You can read about it in the documents in this post: http://www.mjfacts.com/new-documents-new-victims/

  • Pea

    I think an important thing to remember about Jacko’s porn collection — whether we believe it was for himself or for boys (I think the latter) — is that it evidences an acute interest in sex.

    Proof of Wade Robson’s brainwashing showed itself on the stand in 2005 when he was shown some of Jacko’s porn. He claimed he wouldn’t be worried about a man owning “girly magazines” sharing his bed with a young boy, though when shown the gay sexuality primer “Man: A Sexual Study of Man”, he admitted that he wouldn’t want a boy sleeping with a man who owned that book. But the former is just as ridiculous a notion. For instance, assuming that the man’s interest is in women, a very massive “heterosexual” porn collection evidences a high libido, and there have been dozens of cases of otherwise adult-oriented men spending hours looking at pornography only to end up molesting/raping children (of either sex) to relieve the tension, so to speak, because the children happened to be what’s on hand.

    Therefore, even if Jacko was interested in women, as supposedly demonstrated by his porn collection according to fans, it still is absurd to believe he couldn’t have molested any of the boys sharing his bed on a consistent basis, in the room where all that porn was stored, for the aforementioned reason.

    So, I was never convinced by the “Lots of hetero porn = He was innocent of boy molestation” argument. It doesn’t jibe with reality. Fans should be ashamed of such ridiculous theories. Back to the drawing board, pedo supporters!

  • PsychicJane

    MJfacts.com you let ME down. I thought this was a serious site….not any more…needless sensationalist bs

    • This “sensationalism” was Jackson’s collection of porn and erotica, accurately described. Only a fan would be upset with that. Good luck with your search!

    • ShawntayUStay

      I don’t think this post was “sensationalist bullshit”. I think the writer, Cal, has a right to tell his Michael Jackson experience in his own way. Besides, there are multiple ways to present evidence; not everything has to be written like a legal document or expository essay. I’ve never seen most of Jackson’s porn, save a few art books, so it was good to hear the truth about what he had, and I think that came across well in the post. Most fan sites just give a list and stupidly gloat about how MJ must have been a stud because of all the porn, but some of this crap is downright degrading and twisted; nothing you’d want your husband, boyfriend, son, or brother looking at!

      • Pea

        It’s fairly specious to label Jacko a “stud” because of porn; in fact, it’s downright absurd. It tends to be the case that men who consume what would be a large amount of porn in Jacko’s case (again assuming the porn was for him and not for boys) aren’t “getting any”, so to speak.

        In other words, porn is a surrogate.

        What would be stronger evidence of Jacko’s alleged sexual prowess would be… um… women. But, of course, he never had them around, though the argument by Jacko’s admirers is that we should take that fact for granted and defer to “paper women”, lol. It’s just a stupid notion.

        If Michael Jackson, though hideously deformed as time progressed but still oddly appealing to millions of female fans (their concept of taste notwithstanding), wanted a woman he would’ve got one and easily. If he’d had one, we would’ve saw her, like we saw Lisa Marie Presley & Debbie Rowe. Period. (But if Jacko wanted boys, they always seemed to show up and his bed, even if it made him look like a pedophile lacking impulse control.)

        I’m not going to believe in “paper women”, who creepily became younger and younger. I’m not going to believe in out-of-context “love letters” that sound more like manipulation to procure a womb than romance. What I believe in is tangible evidence:
        – more splooge — er, “fluorescing stains” — on naturist magazines that are frequently utilized by pedophiles than on the porn;
        – a limited amount of Jacko’s fingerprints on the porn items, though lots of unidentified fingerprints found throughout the collection — recall, Jesus Salas, Jacko’s maids throughout the years, & security guards at Neverland have testified to the FACT boys were mainly in his room… the room of a supposedly innocent manchild that was actually filled with smut;
        – evidence of two foreign male semen stains, along with Jacko’s, on Jacko’s mattress, in addition to a third male semen stain found on sheets & underwear kept with his own cocaine-blood-semen underwear;
        – possession of books & homemade photographs of naked young boys, the same ages of his boy-bedmates, exposing their genitals.

        That’s the hard, direct evidence.

        So, given the facts above, and the facts that (a) homosexual pedophiles use heterosexual pornography to groom straight boy victims and (b) three of Jacko’s alleged victims claimed he showed them pornography, the idea that Jacko’s porn collection ONLY evidences a sexual interest in women is not only not satisfying (given their conspicuous absence in his life) but also not the only conclusion.

        In other words, back to the drawing board, pedo supporters! 🙂

      • When we heard about Cal’s story, we knew it would be great to post it on MJ Facts. It’s far better that it’s in Cal’s own words, and a documentation of his experience, rather than it being filtered through someone else’s perception of it.

        If people don’t like it there isn’t much we can do. That several hundred people have read this story in just a couple of days would indicate that there is an interest in exactly what kind of porn Jackson owned and what it was really like, as opposed to the meaningless lists on fan sites that don’t take into account who was looking at most of it (and that it wasn’t Jackson), and the items that Jackson was most interested in.

    • Pea

      We all know what you wanted, Jane: with each new post on MJ Facts, you arrive seeking to bum documents off the admins, much like your typical freeloader bums cigarettes or car rides. No one’s going to give you a handout. You got to read to get information, as well, and this guest post by Cal was very informative. And it myth-busted, too.

  • Taker

    “He (Gavin’s brother) identified a picture of a particular Barely Legal magazine that he said Jackson showed the boys, when Mesereau pointed out that the magazine had not been published until August 2003—five months after the Arvizos had left Neverland. Fingerprints of Gavin and Michael were found on a particular magazine, but it was only analyzed for fingerprints after the 2004 grand jury proceeding when Gavin handled the magazine without gloves.”

    Wikipedia

    • ShawntayUStay

      LOL, Wikipedia articles on Michael Jackson are not legitimate sources because they are one sided and written and edited solely by fans. Subjective analysis is okay on a blog but not in an encyclopedia. It’s dishonest. I was fooled, originally, thinking that MJ was innocent because I wanted a “summary” of the cases and read the article on 1993. Do not just rely on Wikipedia… for MJ and just about everything else.

      • Andreas Moss

        Yes, I am a bit bummed reading the Wikipedia articles too. Someone should do something about some of those..

        Its sometimes like they try to balance everything with things from two sides, but even then its often very distorted and biased information.

        Like the Evan Chandler article. His whole biography is only about Carrie Fisher claiming he tried to get her to get more dentist appointments than needed, how she didn’t like him, and how she didn’t believe the charges against Michael Jackson. Nice “biography”. Some fan obviously added that to make it seem like he was only after money, to back up the idea of extortion.

        We have to remember that this is the public information the usual folks have access to.

        • ShawntayUStay

          Carrie Fisher is a celebrity worshipper and besties with Dr Arnold Klein, so I take everything with a grain of salt. Besides, she is looking at everything retrospectively, after MJ’s death, so there is likely a tendency to paint him in a positive light. Also since she is very close to Klein, his opinions about 1993 are probably influencing what was in the book. Remember, Klein hid MJ’s medical records in his car to keep them from investigators in 1993, who were looking for information regarding MJ’s alleged vitilgo. (What’s funny, had Klein just turned over the records, MJ may not have had to do the strip search! Karma is a bitch LOL).

          Fisher never claimed having any misgivings about Evan Chandler back when it mattered, so again, her ugly words should be taken lightly.

          • Andreas Moss

            Probably so, Shawntay. I just find it troublesome, that of all things that could be on his wikipedia-article, on “career”, some story about Carrie Fisher takes up most a the space, like her opinion is of grand importance? Perhaps I’ll try to some edits on it eventually.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Good luck. It’s pretty impossible to edit those articles, the fans have a vice like hold on them. They’re very protective of the content.

          • Melissa

            Talking about Klein, is funny how Carrie were quick to write in her blog about the nonsense about MJ kids being in facts Klein’s. Right after this story hit the tabloids.

        • Melissa

          This and the story that Jordie admitted he lied (in private, of course). Even sanemjfan, one of the VindicateMJ bloggers, admits this story can make fans lack credibility. Because this can´t be confirmed.

          • Andreas Moss

            Thats somewhat to her credibility, I’d say. But it was such an obvious hoax, yes. Most of that stuff popped up after MJ died, as people would have liked Jordy to come out and “admit” it was all a lie, so they actually hoaxed it… (you know, since he lied anyway, that would be fair right? #Fanlogic). Some people still seems to believe its true though, and think he did come forward and say it was a lie.

            There’s also a quite popular video on youtube called “Jordan Chandler Admits He Lied About Michael Jackson” or something, with over 120.000 views, but when you view it, its more about trying to paint a picture of him as a liar, not that he ever confessed himself. Which shows the heights of the dishonesty of some of the fans. Fine, if you want to prove he lied, but why make a dishonest title?

            Tom Meserau did claim he had witnesses who claimed Jordy had told them it wasn’t true that MJ molested him, and if Jordan had testified in ’05, they would testify against him. Since Jordan fled the country, so we’ll never know who Tom referred to. But I also think some of the somewhat saner fans cling to that too.

      • Melissa

        Don’t trust wikipedia articles. Every fanbase has its own dreams about their idol.

    • Kat

      The Wikipedia articles on both of Jackson’s child abuse cases are extremely one-sided and biased. They’re written to show him as being innocent and a victim of families of vultures that just wanted his money. They’re full of old and discredited statements such as that Dave Chandler was jealous of Jackson’s relationship with his son, that Blanca Francia was fired and stole from him, that the 1993 settlement was partly paid by the insurance company, that the child erotica books were seizes from a library of thousands (where is this mythical huge library of rare books that MJ supposedly had? I never knew he was an avid reader and that he collected rare books!), that all of the prosecution witnesses had no credibility, that the media portrayed him as guilty before the verdict was announced… I actually would like to edit the articles myself, because so much of what’s written is not objective.

      From what I’ve learned, the prosecution showed a Barely Legal magazine, because there had been Barely Legal magazines found in MJs home. They never meant the specific magazine which was presented. Some nutty Jackson fan named Richard Wagener saw Tom Sneddon let Gavin touch a magazine with his bare fingers, and started this claim that Sneddon had falsified evidence during the trial. The fans gladly latched on to it. They still believe it to this day. They also believe that Sneddon lied when he said that Jordie’s description of Jackson’s genitalia was accurate, and that he falsified an inscription in one of Michael’s naked boy books to make it seem like he had handled the book and often looked at it, while it actually was some gift from a fan that had never been opened.

      • ShawntayUStay

        Well said, Kat! But you cannot edit those Michael Jackson articles because fans will convert them right back to the previous version! It’s as if there’s 24/7 policing by fanatics of the edit history page; one time I checked and it stated that around 40+ people were watching the articles for revisions. And there is no reasoning with them, either.

        A long time ago I had tried to edit the Lisa Marie Presley article to insert the fact that she was engaged before she met and subsequently married Nicholas Cage. Because there is this idea that she and MJ “spent 4 years together” before she remarried while he was still married to Brood Mare…er…Debbie Rowe. I added a People magazine article as a reference. But the crazies reverted it back; why, I have no clue. But I believe its current version had that info but that just shows you that the fans are very sensitive about what MJ narrative is put out to the public.

        Ironically, even with all the BS information contained, those articles had, at one time, been designated especially well-crafted and reliable…go figure.

        • Kat

          The article on 1993 allegations still has a ‘good article’ mark. I’m guessing Wikipedia’s standards for ‘good’ must not be very high.

          There was this one more thing I noticed. That on sites like Radar Online and similar negative comments about Jackson, those that come from people who believe him to be guilty of the molestation allegations, are removed or shown to be awaiting approval. Do you happen to know anything about this? Are his supporters flagging these comments? Or is someone working for those sites removing them? What is going on? It’s very puzzling. :/

          • ShawntayUStay

            “Good mark”? Are they serious? LOL…But I only trust Wikipedia information for non-controversial topics, like science and medicine, because you can’t be an idiot if you want to write about diverticulosis (but I see even that article has a “needs verification” banner! Get it together, Wikipedia). Anything else, take with a grain of salt.

            About Radar Online, I don’t comment on that site anymore because it’s filled to the brim with fanatics and other unsavory media-consumers, but I’ve been told that critical comments are “disappearing”. It could be that fans are indeed flagging comments: amongst some of the “alpha-fans”, there is certainly a hatred for Radar Online because they believe that Wade and James are feeding documents, news, etc to them to make Jackson look bad so that the Estate will settle…or something to that effect. The alpha-fans thus direct their underlings to stop patronizing ROL because the clicks generate revenue.

            I can tell you that the fans (and even Tom Mesereau) are giving Radar Online waaay too much credit, and don’t realize they are a bottom-feeding, online tabloid that recycles stupid stories and only barely does any real substantive research/writing. All the docs they share anyone can get at the courthouse in Los Angeles; they have no special connection to Wade or James. In fact, I don’t think Wade or James even ever wanted media attention, which would explain why neither one of them have went on a press junket about the case.

            Alan Duke had been the “Jacko guy” at ROL for the past couple of stories about the current probate cases, and he always seemed to me to be MJ sympathetic, so that could be a factor (Recently, Jen Hutton Heger has been writing the last few stories, and she said on Twitter that she believed Tom Sneddon did “witch hunt” MJ, so who knows). Perhaps ROL and other sites just know that the majority of people who are interested in MJ stories are fans — people who like him — so its best to cater to their feelings. For example, CNN, through Alan Duke (surprise, surprise!!), catered to the fans during the AEG trial, making it seem as if the judge and jury really believed Jackson was unfairly pressured and died as a result, and the family had that elusive “snowball’s chance in Hell” to get a verdict in their favor. That perception couldn’t be more wrong, as we now know. So it probably a mix of the two: fan censorship and media pandering.

          • …amongst some of the “alpha-fans”, there is certainly a hatred for Radar Online because they believe that Wade and James are feeding documents, news, etc to them to make Jackson look bad so that the Estate will settle…or something to that effect.

            Incredibly, it’s not just Radar Online they have accused of that.

            They also believe that this humble website, as well as a Facebook page in support of Wade Robson and other victims of child abuse, are part of this conspiracy as well.

            Fans believe that MJ Facts has direct access to either Wade Robson or his legal team, and believe that we have been given secret legal documents that nobody else has access to – when in actual fact we’ve done what anyone can do, something far more mundane, and that is to buy them online or get someone who lives in Los Angeles (thank you to ex-fan Shelly!) to walk in to the Stanley Mosk courthouse and purchase them over the counter.

            It’s flattering that alpha fans see MJ Facts as strong and powerful, able to set the agenda and be opinion shapers, somehow having an influence on the mighty machine of the multi-hundred-million dollar Estate of Michael Jackson (or even media conglomerates, or the public at large). It warms our heart to know that they believe we have so much power lol.

            Oh, and a big HELLO to our stalker reading this(yes, you know who you are!).

            Even though their IP is banned from this site, we are told that her Twitter featured an excerpt from one of the comments that was posted here. Nice to know they go out of their way to read our humble little blog. It makes us feel important! 🙂

          • Pea

            Ah, yes, our purring “Tige”-ress, lol. Hey, girl! 😉

            I know how she’s doing it if she’s blocked. She’s just checking your Disqus discussion page for MJ Facts, or using a proxy. She really can’t help herself. A big “Hello stalker!”, indeed.

            I saw that she mined my comment under the Mez article. But it’s happened before. The babushka at VMJ stole one of my “gems” for her long-winded screed about Macaulay Culkin, and tried to insinuate that I — a young woman in her twenties — was a boy-lover, or something like that, simply because I pointed out that Mac’s silence & “loyalty” to Jacko are the types of behavior lauded by narcissistic BLs who don’t want to go to prison.

            I think a lot of the stalker’s situational discomfort is caused by the fact that she — along with many other Jacko’s Wackos — seem to believe that we are puppeteering ‘special friends’ into accusing Jacko of abuse (she has a particularly wild conspiracy theory about Mez’s fake Neverland wedding, James Safechuck, and DSSL). So, she doesn’t want any of us to know anyone’s name, even though names are public info and all it takes is a little intuition to figure out who is who.

            Incredibly — and I had a great laugh at this one! — she claimed Jacko’s Wackos have “never” tried to find out names of victims or those associated with them. LMAO. Yet, her own website links to the Anton Jackson Blogspot website, the admins of which were responsible for spreading Gavin Arvizo’s identity around in his new school. Her co-admin also had a hard-on for tracking Gavin as well: he tried to get people to call the church where Gavin was getting married and report that Gavin had “bore false witness” against Jacko.

            He also tried to rally people to harass Chantal Robson’s dance studio simply because she supports her brother Wade.

            Oh — and let’s not forget the myriad of Jordie Chandler stalkers, one of which also supposedly found and then called Jonathan Spence’s mother.

            Obviously, our “Tige”-ress has a plank in her eye. Simply noting that Jonathan Spence’s wife worked on a documentary about sex abuse in Hollywood and giving her name is hardly harassment. But I guess she needs something else to shadow-box against.

            (The picture below was gathered using the same technique she uses to stalk the MJ Facts Twitter page: log out and look. :))

          • Andreas Moss

            Wow, I never even heard of this person and she has me blocked, and put most of us on an open blacklist she encourages all MJ fans to block from twitter.

            To me thats kind of like saying “Don’t argue with them! Instead, quickly, put your head in the sand!”

            I hope that works out for her.

          • Pea

            “Tige” enjoys being a victim, Andreas, first of all. Second, you’re absolutely right: like the Wacko cult high-priestess that she is, “Tige” wants to make sure they lose none of the underlings, so to speak, to calm, rational discussion about Jacko’s behavior with Jacko’s critics, so she’s “putting it out there” that certain people should be blocked.

            She even blocked my account, which is strange because I don’t even Tweet very often, and definitely not to fans — I have no interest in talking with fans. I just use it to every once in a while share research & interesting Jacko-related info with one of the MJ Facts admins running the website’s Twitter page! I’m flattered she thinks of me as a threat, and you should, too. It’ll be especially exciting when she manufactures a narrative that you’re trying to put viruses on her computer (that’s what she’d said about Desiree of DSSL, lol). 😉

          • Kat

            Tige’s real name is Lynette, right? I’ve heard about her before. She apparently writes her own vindicate Michael blog. I’ve read that she got DSSL blog shut down, and that she and the person writing it – Desiree – have had beef for a long time. I haven’t read DSSL blog, but I hope that she will be back, because shutting it down is a huge assault on her rights.

            These people seem to think that everyone’s a boy-lover! They’re everywhere! Don’t they ever imagine that maybe Michael Jackson could have been one too, given that he wasn’t interested in women and had sleepovers with pre-pubescent boys instead, and has been accused of child molestation during and after his lifetime?

            What bothers me is that there seems to be this battle going on between pro-Jackson and anti-Jackson blogs, people, writers, and so on. It’s only normal that people have different opinions, but these people take it too far. It shouldn’t be a personal fight – us against them – but they turn it into exactly that.

          • Pea

            Yes, “Tige” is Lynette, and I wouldn’t call what she does “writing” — it’s an insult to the craft.

            I’m curious: where did you hear that Lynette got DSSL shut down?

            I happen to know Desiree personally — she wrote the “Jimmy Safechuck Story” MJ Facts article — and she is, in fact, returning. Her website is being re-vamped, so it’s still currently under construction. I can tell you, too, that there was never a “beef” between Lynette and Desiree. Instead, Lynette was obsessed with Desiree for a long time, and manufactured narratives that Desiree was doing things to her, lol.

            I consider that a weird form of erotomania. As I said, Lynette seems to believe that Desiree wrote about James Safechuck not being married at Neverland back in Nov 2011 not because that was what the evidence suggested, but because Desiree somehow “knew” Lynette always idolized Tom Mesereau and wanted to make him out to be a “liar” just to “hurt” Lynette (is that crazy, or what?). Now, because James stated that Jacko did a faux marriage ceremony with him as a boy, Lynette uses that as “proof” that DSSL is behind Safechuck’s allegations, lol.

            I was also told that Lynette figured out the new URL for DSSL and requested access to the private, under-construction site: Desiree showed me the email from her host saying that “Lynande51” wanted permissions. This is an incredibly strange move on Lynette’s part, considering Lynette claimed Desiree was stalking her! Who tries to be where their alleged stalker is? Doesn’t make sense.

            This is why most people regard “Tige” as a cuckoo bird, and Desiree told me that she’s slightly fearful of that woman — Desiree’s been harassed, stalked, & vilified many times for her Jacko opinions, simply because her conclusions and research are widely accepted as fact and have been adopted by Jacko-realists. Fans see her as a threat to their House of Cards, lol.

            So, yes, she’ll be back — and I know the stalker cannot wait, she’s probably going to be the first visitor! 🙂

            Interestingly, bull-goose fans like babushka at Vindicate MJ accused Desiree, too, of being a middle-aged boy-lover because it didn’t make sense that a young black woman would go against Jacko. Yes, these people — when they can’t confront the facts of Jacko’s behavior — claim that Jacko is being taken down by a pedophile cabal. That narrative has never been very convincing.

            It doesn’t have to be personal but because fans are a part of a cult, it always is. http://www.mjfacts.com/inside-cult-michael-jackson/

          • Kat

            I read it on the Supporters of Wade Robson Facebook page a few days ago when I was checking for updates on Wade. Someone had written that Lynette and Desiree hated each other for years and it ended with Desiree ceasing to write her blog. But I’m glad to find out it’s not true. There is also a message on their page that notifies about ‘a very obsessive f’loon from Twitter who constantly makes screen shots, investigates people, and displays many signs of paranoia,’ followed by a link to Tige234’s Twitter account. Apparently, this Tige Lynette person also stalks their page, along with MJ Facts and DSSL.

            But seriously, she sounds maniacal. Even crazier than your average MJ vindicator. Can’t Desiree do something about her? If someone is making you feel intimidated on the internet, you shouldn’t just leave it like that. Cyberstalking, harassment, identity theft, and online threats are all offenses. Maybe Desiree can report Lynette to the authorities, and they can track her through her IP address? I get that you can only report serious things like death threats or a severe infringement of privacy, but this wacky Lynette sounds like she’s in that territory already.

            The idea that MJ realists are all pedophiles has to be the most nonsensical thing the fans have come up with. It’s like hello, the fans are the ones justifying the actions of a man who thought it was OK for a suspected boy-lover to continue inviting children to their bed. The realists are not doing anything remotely like that.

          • Kat, that lady is very strange. She is on block on our Twitter account, and she is also blocked from viewing this blog by her IP (due to her posting objectionable comments approving of man/boy sleepovers), yet we know from fans who object to her stalking that she still posts information gleaned from both sources on her Twitter and blog. So in effect she is using proxies to view this site and our Twitter.

            Personally I find such behavior bizarre, we don’t want anything to do with her, her friends or her acceptance of non-transparent adult/child relationships, or her condoning of child erotica in the hands of a man who shared his bed with boys of a particular age, yet here she is accusing us of harassment and stalking while in fact it’s her stalking us lol.

            You can see some of her comments and our replies on this page http://www.mjfacts.com/links/ (she is #2 of MJV2)

          • ShawntayUStay

            So much unnecessary drama from this Lynette person. Maybe she has delusional disorder, I don’t know, but to think that you all running MJ Facts, or Mike Par of WRS Facebook, are engaged in stalking behavior is crazy! There are countless MJ vindication websites, and, at the moment, only two sites critical of Michael Jackson/supporting his alleged victims. How is that even a threat? I read the DSSL blog back when it was active and it was great information. But even as good as it was, it was one tiny resource in a vast internet space.

            I think she is fearful of what will be revealed which is why she impulsively stalks critics. She may be on the precipice of seeing the truth…lol, nah. But her co admin David doesn’t stalk critics, and instead focuses his stalking on “big fish” like the Gavin and family, Chantal Robson et al…not insignificant “guppies” like him, just with different opinions.

            But, to play Devil’s advocate, there have been so called “realists”, like some on the Topix forum, that do sometimes engage in personal attacks on people that disagree with them, like fans, and even other MJ critics…So she may be correct on that point. Why can’t we all just get along? It’s just about Michael Jackson, and his story is fascinating, sad, and instructive. Let’s not bring drama and negativity where none should exist!

          • Shawntay, you are correct. It’s not some war, it’s just a discussion about a pop entertainer named Michael Jackson.

            What difference would it really make to true fans of his music if he were a confirmed pedophile? Do they care that Lewis Carroll (author of Alice in Wonderland) had a collection of photos of naked prepubescent girls (just as Jackson had a collection of naked photos of prepubescent boys)?

            I’m not defending pedophilia here, but just making the point that if fans truly loved him and his music, his paraphilias wouldn’t be an issue? Would they be bothered if instead his interests lay in acrotomophilia or frotteurism (although he may have enjoyed those lol), would any of his paraphilias have affected the quality of his music?

            Only if they accept pedophile statements that it was his love for boys that was his creative force, and I’m positive that no traditional fan would accept that contention.

            My point is that it’s better to let the truth be known about Michael Jackson, rather than the lies the fans promulgate and disseminate – which in the long run dehumanize him.

            So, why are fans fighting Realists? Only to make themselves feel better about supporting the man. Far better they do what fans like Joe Vogel do, support the music and the talent (not suggesting I find Jackson talented), not his misdeeds.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Interesting take. However, to give the fans credit, I do think many of them do “truly love” MJ…as much as you can love another person that you’ve never met. I believe they honestly feel in their heart deeply positive feelings about him. Maybe it is strange to many people, and likely sad and pathetic (LOL) but they do care for him. But no one, including the looniest of fans, can legitimately accept a paraphilia as terrible as pedophilia. It’s just too much — the harming of children!

            Michael Jackson seemed to be a very sick and sad individual and I guess, furthering your point, if they act on their feelings of “true love” for MJ, they would at least not deny his very human psychological problems. It’s sort of a “tug-of-war” going on as I see it: on one hand they deny his obvious paraphilic disorder (pedophilia) because they cannot stomach their beloved Michael being that way. But on the other hand, we’ve all seen fans try to excuse his obvious pedophilic obsessions for, and behaviors with, young boys, and act as if they are completely normal, natural, or harmless.

            So I guess the real war is in the minds of people that still want to like him. But how does one — for lack of a better term — accept Jackson’s “problem” if one doesn’t know him personally? I think that’s a part of their problem, too. They aren’t in the position of a Bill Bray or Frank Dileo or his mother Katherine, people in my opinion who because of their intimate proximity to Michael, loved/cared for him despite, I believe, knowing what he was (and covering it up). For fans, the “unknown” causes them to lash out inappropriately.

          • OK yes, I’m being a bit tongue in cheek as to whether fans would go so far as to accept his pedophilia, but there there is a huge bloc of fans who are extremely reluctant to accept his darker side (such as nasty porn videos) simply for the fact that if he had any hint of darkness then somehow he would become some evil ogre who was capable of molestation.

            Jackson is in danger of becoming something the uberfans are supposedly fighting against – simply a caricature, someone who is gooey and sugary and sunbeams. We know he wasn’t, and although he tried to push that persona, his true human side has inevitably leaked out. Yet fans want to deny him his humanity.

            So my point is, Realists are the ones being honest, so why fight it? Let the cards fall as they may, if it turns out Jackson truly was a molester (according to fan standards of evidence) then so be it. No need to fight in the face of indisputable truth. Just give up and move on.

          • Melissa

            MJ fans will invent any excuse…I remember reading a board about whether he was innocent or not and a fan said that even if MJ had had child porn this didn’t mean he had molested them…ugh but the simple fact he had these things is bad enough!

          • Kat

            I think that the problem lies exactly there – the fans are unable or unwilling to separate the artist Michael Jackson from the person Michael Jackson. Hardly any one of them can say that yes, he had a few good tunes, but his personal life was disagreeable. Anyone who does that is not a *true* MJ fan. Any *true* MJ fan must also justify his trainwrack of a life and try to find ‘proof’ that he never touched little boys.

            I’ve skimmed through some of the vindication websites, and barely any of the posts even focus on his music and dancing. Instead, they have posts that read – proof that Michael Jackson only had two plastic surgeries, proof that Michael was into women, proof that Michael’s kids are really his, and so on. I have to agree with previously points brought by ShawntayUStay and others – that these people simply love feeling special, and they get that special feeling from trying to prove to the world that everything that’s common knowledge about Michael Jackson (the surgeries, the skin bleaching, the sleepovers with boys) isn’t actually true. Another aspect is that their own sense of self-worth is closely intertwined with MJ, and so they desperately try to prove that he was a great humanitarian, he was proud to be black, he loved children innocently and always did what he could to help them, because they want to be a fan of a person who was all those things. I’m guessing it’s part of the whole Celebrity Worship Syndrome… In the end, it’s a sad, sick, and dangerous phenomenon.

            The good thing is that I really don’t believe that they are able to convince any non-fan that their delusions are true. The way I see it – the vindication sites are sort of like all that Illuminati crap. People who believe that Illuminati is real write websites about this supposed huge conspiracy and make videos about it, but they don’t convince any rationally thinking person that any of it is real. And, even though they have a presence on the internet, in real life their impact is minimal.

          • Melissa

            I believe if the fans are so desperate to try to “prove” what you listed (and they force really things, like comparing MJ as a kid and his kids in the same position, for example. Or use as proof him being into woman simple pics with female friends or actresses) is because they feel something is wrong. If they’re so right that all he said was true and he’s innocent, why the desperate attempts to prove it?
            The Celebrity Worship Syndrome unfortunately is common with all almost stars.

          • carlos

            I think I sit in the middle.The fans worship Saint Michael. but then you got some haters writing in websites like this that go to the point of denying his musical talents and/or humanitarian efforts.
            Im a hardcore fan,and I sued to be in denial,I wasnt a worshiper but yes I gave the guy the benefit of doubt cause I loved his music and I loved the persona he portrayed to the public. The jury said not guilty and I believed it.i didnt ha much inof at the time.The post mortem alegations made me look further on things and today Im 99%sure he did abuse kids.
            But I want everybody to know that Mj didnt have this fake person and another one being real. He didnt build Neverland so he could abuse kids like some people here suggest. And the humanitarian thing wasnt an orquestated thing. I do believe he had serius mental problems and multiple personalities. The same man that bleaches his skin and does everything to look caucasic had tons of books of afro culture and activism.He really enjoyed playing like a kid,you can see he does.and he really cared about people,you cant do something like that for decades if you dont like it. He had a messed up sexuality,a big conflict with his religious upbringing and who knows what else. im not looking for excuses he did what he did but its not that the childish Michael or the humanitarian where fake personas.It was part of him,one side,the proud afroamerican was another side of him,so was his wanna be Lady diana persona and perverted porn collector. He was a workaholic perfectionist and at the same time he was a child making jokes.I really think he was a messed up individual.It came to a point where he believe his own lies,told different people different sides of himself and it came to a point where he wasnt even sure who he was.He built that Michael Jackson persona,the heterosexual superstar that was a big lie,he lied to his family too about it and that feminine side showed in his aestethic decisions and body language more and more.The more he denied being gay the more it showed.He wasnt hiding it in his looks.He probably tried so ahrd to like girls until the 2000s where you can clearly see he accepted his sexuality.There were many Michael jacksons and all of them were real.

          • carlos

            HOnestly Im a fan in denial converted realist thanks to MJ facts my own research over the years and my common sense. But the recurrent comments by MJfacts admin about the lack of talent of Mr Jackson takes off credibility over this site. It makes it look as if you have a personal problem with Michael Jackson to the point of denying his talent,something that the whole world has seen and praised for 50 years. By doing it you make people wonder if you are biased and desperately want to see MJ as guilty of child abuse for personal reasons simply because you just dont like the guy…
            So I think in the benefit of this site and the goal of exposing the truth about Mr Jacksons child abuse behavior you should keep your opinioin about his musical talents to yourself or express them anywhere else,youtube for example.
            I think you’ve done a great job researching and exposing valuable info and is sad that a lot of people wont take you serius because of comments like this one.Specially when you are talking about a child prodigy that changed the industry of entertainment forever and is one of the best selling artists of all time.and thats another MJfact…

  • Judge Beckloff is taking the normal time to consider a motion such as this. Where he confused everyone was his comment that he would have a decision “in a few days”.

    Just need to sit and wait. There will be no cameras in the courtroom at this stage, and he has already denied access for the separate civil trial.

  • Pea

    It’s P-E-A, not P-E-E. What a puerile name jab from someone who, in fact, wanted the documents from the post about Wade Robson. You’re cute.

  • Dani Golightly

    I just want to say I’m glad that I finally have some answers. My mindset had always been that I would not make a definitive opinion about Michael Jackson until I had enough information. Up until now I’ve been too lazy to read much more past the Wikipedia page, which leaves a lot to be desired, until I found this page. With the amount of evidence against him it’s hard to wrap by mind around the denial of some people. Even some of the greatest artists and heroes through history had very dark sides. People are complex. Ghandi was a racist and enjoyed the company of underage girls, John Lennon was very abusive toward women (in his own words). Then we have Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Bill Cosby… Talented people can be terrifying behind closed doors. It’s a shame, on one hand you want to just enjoy what they created, but on the other, it’s soiled by what you know. I imagine it’s hard for a lot of people to reconcile with. Regardless, the evidence is damning. I feel for the victims, they should have had their justice. If he were just an average joe, he’d have died in prison. I can’t help but wonder if he did anything to his sons. With all that being said, I have a very hard time not blaming the parents to a degree. I don’t care how rich and famous someone is, you do not let your child have that much alone time with an adult. It just feels like they were prostituting their kids. How could you not see huge red flags when a grown man wants to spend so much time with your kid and lavishes money on them?

    • No Google

      I totally agree. I’ve been a fan all my life. But for years I knew something wasn’t right. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. One victim would be easy to brush off but multiple? And they all have similar stories? It’s really hard to digest. As you said, some of the most talented people in the world have demons. For many years I didn’t want to believe that someone I admired my entire life was a pedophile. This site has really compacted so much evidence that it’s hard to stay in denial.

  • Quanna Velma

    Michael was a sick bastard that die the death that’s not even fit for a dog. He deserved to be alive and have to face the horrible consequences for his actions. Instead he was acquitted because of stupid and blind fans as well as paying off the judge and he never was made to pay for what he did. I used to be an MJ fan when I was little but once the allegations cam out when I was 14 I couldn’t stand him since then. I hated him down to the day he died. When I heard of the news of his death I was glad that he would no longer be alive to torture and sexually abuse kids again. I heard he was a real nasty mean, selfish, and cruel man. Pompous jerk. He died the way he lived…..I don’t feel sorry for him.

  • Pingback: Proof that Michael Jackson was gay / homosexual (adult men) – michaeljacksonandtheboys()

  • SINNOMBRE

    No sé que pensar. LO que no entiendo es como varios jóvenes declararon a su favor y lo que no entiendo es porque Evan Chandler se conformó con dinero y no pidió justicia.Confesaré algo: abusaron de mi cuando tenía entre 4 y 5 años, recibí manoseos y sexo oral por parte de un tío, a veces como infante crees que eso es normal, después a mis 11 años tuve otro tocamiento por parte de otro familiar, nunca confesé en su momento pero a partir de los 18 años me atreví a hablar y créeme es algo que no se olvida y que nunca a partir de esa edad hubiera hablado en favor de los que abusaron de mi y eso que fueron de mi familia.Entonces no entiendo porque si Michael abusó de ellos porque hablaron en su favor y ya eran mayores de edad cuando lo hicieron, tampoco entiendo porque Wade demanda su herencia yo nunca demanadaria la herencia de los hijos de mi abusador, me da asco el hecho de pensarlo.

    Google Translate (can someone provide a better translation?)

    I do not know what to think. I do not understand is how several young men declared their favor and do not understand is that Evan Chandler settled for money and did not ask justicia.Confesaré something: they abused me when I was between 4 and 5 years old, I received fondling and oral sex an uncle, sometimes as an infant you think that’s normal, after my 11 years I had another touching by another family, never confessed at the time but after 18 years I dared to speak and believe me is something that do not forget and never from that age had spoken in favor of those who abused me and that was my familia.Entonces not understand because if Michael abused them because they spoke in their favor and were already adults when they did, not understand why Wade claims his inheritance never demanadaria the inheritance of the children of my abuser, disgusts me the thought of it.

    • I’m sorry you went through that, you show great strength speaking about it.

      In reply to your comments, all I know is that different victims have different reactions to abuse.

  • Hi Sinnombre

    I was hoping to find a Spanish(?) speaker who could translate your comments properly, but without luck.

    All I have is Google Translate, so I will use that for now.

  • It has exactly the same title, and there is no other DVD with that title.